this weeks warmup theme was genderbender apparently

not to be mean but kinda cuz why are d4xtons so delusional? and i love paxton but devi and paxton would never be the type to wait for each other or keep up with a distance relationship. paxton wasn’t willing to do that on s2 (ben was btw). they are not even close enough friends to keep up with one another in the same place. with ben that’s believable cuz they have a foundation that has never been shown w paxton. ben and devi can be close friends while in other relationships. ben and devi only talk when they are together because outside of that there’s not common ground. devi not knowing paxton was going to work at school as a coach just meant they didn’t communicate at all the whole summer break. she wouldn’t care abt paxton if he wasn’t back in school. he is meant to be just her high school dream and i think this will be touched upon on season 4.

and now they’re saying ben and devi being all about sex now but that’s been d4xton’s whole foundation since the show started? devi went after paxton because he was hot and wanted to have sex w him. it remained the same until season 2. on season 3 devi realized she wasn’t ready. and wouldn’t be fair for both devi and paxton to be with people that are in the same life stages as them? growing up with them?

the way some dxtons are acting because devi didn’t own her first time to paxton so idk why they are self inserting on devi. she was not comfortable having sex w paxton but did when ben. that’s her choice.

paxton is great just not w devi.

okay I really like this ask and there's a lot to talk about here.

1.) I totally agree Paxton and Devi are not close at all- they didn't even talk AT ALL (or barely at all) after they broke up TWO YEARS AGO when they dated for TWO MONTHS. In an actual high school timeline, they would never speak to each other again. If Paxton didn't work at her school, they never would've spoken, and you're totally right, they weren't even close enough for Devi to know he was working at Sherman Oaks! Also... can we just comment on the fact that the writers MADE Paxton drop out of college (I am like 90% sure) and act as a swimming coach at his former high school just to revive Devi and Paxton's relationship? Like, I'm sorry, but that is so extreme and a testament to how distant they are. Meanwhile, Ben and Devi just naturally wind up speaking to each other again because they gravitate towards each other and share common interests (extracurricular activities, classes, etc.) I feel like also aside from the short period of time they didn't speak after the cheating, they've always been in each other's lives. Daxton doesn't have that history.

2.) I haven't heard them saying that Ben and Devi are all about sex, but that's genuinely so weird. The reason the sex is such a big deal and why Ben getting with Margo after sleeping with Devi is so hurtful is because it was such a personal decision for Devi and she only did it with Ben because she's emotionally connected to him and felt comfortable enough to do it. I don't necessarily agree the Daxton relationship was all about sex for Devi, although it started off that way, I think it's more about Devi's pressure to conform to societal coming of age standards and the idealized lifestyle of an (American, because let's be real that's a huge part of it) teenager, while Paxton sees Devi as a representation of the person he wants to be (bolder, smarter, more exciting).

3.) I totally agree and I love that you said it's not fair to EITHER of them. Honestly the main reason I am annoyed with Daxton is not only because it's a huge character regression moment for Devi, but also for Paxton! Like he really was doing so well with his life and moving on... only to go backwards which is maybe what going back to his high school to assistant coach represents I am not sure.

4.) YES this is my main complaints about Daxton, it seems so much more focused on Paxton then how they are as a couple. The self-insertion is too real, it drives me crazy. If any of these people were anything like Devi, they would never date a Paxton.

IM PUTTING IN MY TWO CENTS HERE because I think the entire conversation about why people choose certain potions and routes within non-linear choice based game,s, or any game that provides some level of illusion of choice. I remember talking about this extensively in my Psychology class for Game Design, and though of course theres a multitude of reasoning, I think what peoples idea of fantasy or even coping is largely at play. I know one of your thoughts on playing questionable or morally challenging characters is because you already conform to a societal expectation to "be nice" or an upstanding citizen, and Honestly thats super understandable! Im not here to analyze anyone, but a good chunk of other people I talk to have some sort of revenge fantasy and I dont mean that in a bad way! Rebellion to rules that plague reality and the ability to let lose, or just an interest in consequences for your playthrough that dont actually affect you is another reasoning, albeit the rarer of the two options. On the otherhand, as someone who loves to make The Most Morally Good Characters, and is also a big baby when it comes to being mean in most video games, My "revenge fantasy" IS being nice, because we are all forced to tiptoe around the same sociteal expectations but even those on the other side dont have much power in helping people on a larger scale that video games allow! To be The Hero that helps as many people as possible, that has to power to fundamentally change the world for the better, that is a unrealistic reward of its own. And I know you also mentioned briefly how you see it as limiting, and I think to some people this might ring true of them allowing themselves to cave and actually enjoy the "morally questionable" decision making, however I think for the other half its not limiting? Its Highly Rewarding. Theres also something to mention in how Linear people are themselves, its much more common to hear about people replaying one exact route despite there being 100000s choices vs those who do every route imaginable, so the more likely someone is to lean one side esp in their initial playthrough, the less likely they are to want to go the other way. I HOPE THIS DOESNT COME OFF AS LIKE...A REBUTTAL, Its not! I think this is a genuinely facinating phenomenon that ive had to think and write about in school, theres so many layers to it Id love to discuss and love to HEAR discusssed so youre so smart for actually starting that poll bc Ive been enjoying searching through the replies of it

hfdsgfsdg Javi your enthusiasm is a TREASURE it most definitely does not come off like a rebuttal. And I think your points are really cogent and in line with what I've kinda been angling at, which is that they're two sides of the same coin of "indulging in a fantasy." And it probably makes me a bit of a hypocrite that I'm like "I just don't get why other people can't see the appeal of Doing Bad Things as an escapist fantasy!" even though I would also say with my whole chest that being the big damn hero who saves everyone and changes the world for the better holds absolutely zero appeal to me LOL It is truly just a matter of taste.

It's probably beyond the scope of a tumblr poll but I feel like an interesting follow-up re: people not choosing to behave badly in games, would be to ask people why. Like there's the obvious "it's usually not written as well/doesn't let you have the full game experience" reason which is valid, but of the remainder I wonder how many people would honestly say it's just not fun to be mean, and how many would admit that it makes them uncomfortable because they still feel the need to conform to societal standards even in their fantasy world. (I feel like this reads as me passing a judgment on either stance and I'm not! Just thinking out loud. In text.)

also lmao

Oh man I forgot to touch upon this in my initial ask BUT tldr; yes I think games that present themselves as choice based and yet lean heavily towards one morality (usually the good Guys) and dont give second thoughts to the other side, defeats the purpose of allowing players to play how they want. I think this is actually why the only game I like being morally questionable in is fnv, bc both "choices" actually present interesting outcomes. Theres also something to say how in games the good side rewards more which I think is stupid.

You are SOOOO CORRECT I think whenever I'm like "I think I just need to spend like 60 hours or so being completely feral" FNV is the first place I go.

i'm not a scientist so idk what Actual Science there is behind this concept to back up my feelings, but i highly doubt we'll have an actual time loop plot / Serious Time Travel in s5. i just don't see how it would make sense in the lore they've established thus far.

time stopped in the upside down and it didn't affect the rightside up, so what good would will manipulating time again do? the rightside up kept aging and everything has already happened. if whatever happened in the upside down timeline could affect the rightside up, we would've already seen it happen, no?

vecna is associated with clocks, yes, but is he as obsessed with time itself as some people think him to be? when you consider his statements as a whole, it seems that his problem lies mostly in society's imposition on natural structures; or, the rat race and the checklist we're all expected to tick off as we go throughout life; aka, forced conformity. his beef is with societal pressures and how they alienate those who don't wish to abide by society's arbitrary rules.

he wants out of the rat race. he wants to feel in control of his life. he wants to be freed of the constraints of time and the milestones society expects you to have achieved by whatever age. he wants to be allowed to be different, as he naturally is, and not punished, shamed, or alienated for it; or, as he later is, used / weaponized for it.

that's why he talks so much about purity and how humanity spoils things. that's why he targets those who are "other". that's why he wants to burn everything down and "reshape the world into something beautiful".

he literally says these things. overall, his entire shtick is that he opposes conformity and believes his otherness is what makes him superior. as such, he wants to tear society down and rebuild it. this world cast him out and so he wants to reshape it into one where he has a place that isn't beneath someone's boot.

he taunts his victims with a grandfather clock, because he first manifested his powers by stopping one of its hands. it's also an unsettling psychological warfare tactic: he's telling his victims that their time is running out and he's coming for them; they can't stop it, because time waits for no one.

he talks at length about destroying what already is to build something new. the only two people that he wanted, and potentially still wants as could be the case with the latter, by his side in these endeavors were eleven and will--two characters that are inherently different from their peers and whose plots in this show have almost always centered around their otherness. eleven was the one super-powered girl who has had to fight monsters and save them time and time again, often at the expense of learning what it means to be a person and what it means to be herself. will had traumatic experiences inflicted upon him by vecna, but even before that we are made aware that will was treated differently due to his sexuality. they are the only two that vecna has ever identified with and deemed worthy of living in his new world.

this show has always been about embracing your otherness. right now, it seems we're dealing with a villain who has taken this to the extreme and has let his experiences turn him into a monster; aka, "evil is a relay sport when the one who's burnt turns to pass the torch". reducing his character, that is to say his ambitions and overreaching part in this grand story, to someone that wants to stop time and can be stopped by just going back and erasing everything feels... inconsiderate to the story as a whole, as well as the efforts that have been made to explore trauma and how it affects us all.

the point isn't that we can just go back and undo what went wrong and be swell again. that doesn't align with the heart of stranger things. the point is, and always has been, that you are more than the awful things that have happened to you; that you can always learn and grow from your pain; that there is a way out of the cave and it'll be worth it once you get there.

we're not going to have a time loop, because that's cheap and reductive and solves nothing. it undoes all of the growth and learning that these characters have undergone. not only that, but we know that time being manipulated in the upside down doesn't change anything on the rightside up.

this isn't strictly or literally about time and stopping it. it's about how you can't keep people in cages and expect them to turn out fine and obey for the rest of their lives without losing their humanity in the process. it's about tearing things down and making something of the wreckage. it's about being broken and building yourself back up stronger not in spite of your broken bits but because of them. it's about how sitting in your pain and letting it consume you can either turn you into the very same monsters that caused your pain in the first place or have you feeling stuck while everyone else goes on with their lives.

vecna's life was stolen from him before it ever even began. he wants complete and total control over all life, because he's never felt in control of his own life. he wants to reshape the world, because he's never been allotted a space of his own in it. he wants to break the order of things, because his kind, those that are different, have always been forced to conform or be punished for daring to be themselves in a world that tells them they're inherently wrong. he's associated with time, because he had years of his life stolen from him when he was kept prisoner in the lab, and because he's seen the way that the rat race makes monsters of men. he hates humans, because they never once treated him like he was one, too.

we can't just pick one detail and base his character or the entire show around it. you're not seeing the bigger picture when you do that.

he's looking to create a new world from the rightside up's ruins and there's only one character on this show that we've seen do that.

vecna is all about darkness, destruction, and despair.

will is all about light, life, and hope.

stop hyper-focusing on time.

Ethics vs. Morality: A Christian Perspective

Introduction

The concept of ethics and morality has been a topic of discussion for centuries, and its importance has only grown in today's ever-changing world. As Christians, it is crucial for us to understand the relationship between ethics and morality from a biblical perspective. In this article, we will explore the foundations of Christian morality and its application in contemporary ethical dilemmas. The fluid nature of ethics often clashes with the unchanging nature of Christian morality, leading to confusion and conflicts in our society. Through this article, we aim to provide a Christian perspective on this complex topic and highlight the relevance of Christian morality in a changing world. Join us as we dive into the discussion on Ethics vs. Morality: A Christian Perspective, and gain a deeper understanding of the importance of following God's standards in all areas of our lives.

Defining Ethics and Morality

Ethics and morality are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings. Ethics refers to a set of principles or values that guide a person's behavior, while morality is the standard of right and wrong based on cultural norms or personal beliefs. In today's changing world, ethics can be subjective and fluid, while Christian morality remains unchanging and rooted in biblical principles. As Christians, we are called to follow God's moral standards and align our actions with His unchanging truth. Understanding Ethics in a Changing World: The fluid nature of ethics can be seen in the ever-changing societal norms and values. As Christians, we must understand the difference between ethical relativism, which believes morality is subjective, and biblical absolutes, which are based on God's unchanging truth. Contrasting Ethics with Christian Morality: While ethics may change with time, Christian morality remains consistent and unchanging. We must look to the Bible for guidance and follow God's moral principles, rather than being swayed by societal norms. As Romans 12:2 KJV says, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind."

The Foundation of Christian Morality

The foundation of Christian morality is firmly rooted in the Bible, God's word. It provides us with a clear understanding of what is right and wrong, and guides us in making ethical decisions. As Christians, we are called to follow God's unchanging standards, as stated in Psalm 18:30 KJV, "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." Through the Bible, we can find guidance and wisdom for navigating through the complexities of modern ethical dilemmas. It serves as a moral compass, guiding us towards God's will and purpose for our lives. As 1 Peter 1:24-25 KJV reminds us, "For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." As Christians, we are called to follow God's moral principles, not only in our actions but also in our thoughts and attitudes. This foundation of Christian morality helps us to live a life that is pleasing to God and to make ethical decisions that align with His will. It is a solid rock upon which we can stand, even in a world that is constantly changing.

The Clash between Ethical Relativism and Biblical Absolutes

Ethical relativism is the idea that moral principles are subjective and vary depending on individual beliefs and cultural norms. This stands in direct contrast to the biblical absolutes outlined in the Bible. As Christians, we are called to follow God's unchanging standards, rather than conform to the ever-changing norms of society. This clash between ethical relativism and biblical absolutes has far-reaching consequences. It can lead to a lack of accountability and a disregard for the value of human life. As Isaiah 5:20 KJV warns, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil." In 2 Timothy 4:3-4 KJV, it also warns of a time when people will reject the truth and follow their own desires. As believers, it is important to stand firm on God's moral principles, even in the midst of a changing world.

The Role of Christian Morality in Ethical Decision Making

The foundation of Christian morality is rooted in the unchanging standards and principles outlined in the Bible. As Christians, we are called to align our actions and decisions with God's moral code, rather than the constantly changing standards of the world. When faced with ethical dilemmas, we can turn to God's word for guidance and direction. Christian morality provides a solid foundation for making difficult decisions and helps us navigate through the complexities of the world. By following God's moral principles, we can avoid the pitfalls of moral relativism and make choices that are pleasing to Him. As we strive to live a life that is in line with God's standards, we can have confidence and peace in our decisions, knowing that we are following His will. Ultimately, the role of Christian morality in ethical decision making is to lead us in the path of righteousness and to honor God in all that we do.

Misconceptions about Christian Morality

There are some misconceptions surrounding Christian morality that need to be addressed. Firstly, it is important to understand that following God's moral principles is not the same as legalism. Legalism is the belief that strict adherence to a set of rules is the only way to salvation. In contrast, Christian morality is about aligning our actions with God's standards out of love and obedience, not as a means to earn salvation. Additionally, the Christian perspective also emphasizes the importance of grace and forgiveness, acknowledging that we all fall short of God's standards and it is only through His grace that we can be redeemed. This is in contrast to the belief that Christians are self-righteous and judgmental. Understanding these distinctions is crucial in properly understanding Christian morality.

The Relevance of Christian Morality in a Changing World

In a constantly evolving world, it can be challenging to keep up with changing ethical standards. However, as Christians, we have a solid foundation in God's unchanging moral principles. Christian morality remains relevant in a changing world because it offers a timeless and unwavering standard for making ethical decisions. As we navigate through the complexities of modern society, it is crucial to stay grounded in God's word and seek His guidance in all aspects of our lives. This includes our ethical choices. Christian morality provides a solid framework for navigating through moral dilemmas and making decisions that align with God's standards. Furthermore, as we live out our faith in a world that may reject or question God's moral principles, it is essential to stand firm in our beliefs and be a shining light for others to follow. Our commitment to Christian morality can make a positive impact on those around us and in society as a whole. Let us remember to turn to God's word for guidance and stay rooted in Christian morality, even in a changing world.

Conclusion

In a world where ethics are constantly changing, it is crucial for Christians to have a solid understanding of the relationship between ethics and morality. As discussed in this article, while ethics may be fluid, Christian morality remains unchanging, rooted in God's unchanging standards. By establishing this biblical foundation, we are equipped to navigate through contemporary ethical dilemmas with discernment and wisdom. It is important for us to remember the clash between ethical relativism and biblical absolutes, and the danger of moral relativism in society. As Christians, we are called to follow God's moral principles rather than conforming to the ever-changing opinions of the world. Let us also not fall into the misconception of legalism, but instead embrace the grace and forgiveness that is essential in the Christian perspective of morality. By staying grounded in God's unchanging standards and seeking His guidance, we can apply Christian morality in our daily lives and make ethical decisions that honor Him. In conclusion, let us continue to seek understanding and wisdom from God's word in order to navigate through the complexities of ethics and morality in a changing world. For as Malachi 3:6 KJV reminds us, "For I am the Lord, I change not." Join the Realty Banker Network and stay ahead of the competition. Connect with us on Youtube, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. We hope to see you there.

Read the full article

Also, I get non-binary, I really do. It's just a cool new way to say gender non-conforming. Dw I also came up with plenty of fun new words when I was a kid tryna figure myself out. The criticism of non-binary, both the word and the culture, is that it ignores the realities of biological sex, especially irt to females.

'Gender non-conforming' directly acknowledges a presentation at odds with the expected presentation of your biological sex. It acknowledges the ingrained societal pressure to look and act a certain way, depending upon your biological sex. Gender is a social expectation, which stems from your biological sex. The word 'gender non-conforming' acknowledges that while you don't have to conform to gendered stereotypes, your biological sex is immutable and will still influence your life. Being GNC can get you some negative reactions, and how those negative reactions manifest depends again on your biological sex (i.e. GNC males often experience physical assault from random men, whereas GNC females often experience sexual assault from men they know, which is in line with general crime statistics for males and females). At every point biological sex is important in gender nonconformity. Feminism for females is important, regardless of whether you relate to female sex stereotypes or not.

What does non-binary do? Obscure all that and trash female and LGBT rights, that's what (and don't even get me started on how being 'non-binary' is not being trans and if you'd bothered to listen to actual lesbian, gay and trans people before getting this queer misogyny nightmare in full swing you'd know that actually being trans entails a visceral need to be seen and to live as the opposite sex. Watering that down to 'oh I don't FEEL female I feel HUMAN' is ironically not only sexist but also a bit transphobic. Not to mention that lesbians have been accused of not being real women since time immemorial because of, you guessed it, gender nonconformity. This whole GNC women are actually trans and men is just rebranded lesbophobia of ye old.)

So forgive me for not getting on board, but don't make the mistake I just don't get it or something. I do get it, it's just there are already better words that don't shit on women lmao

portfolio entry #7. blank check challenge

a very wealthy person gave you a blank check and told you to spend the amount you wished for to make yourself happy. what are you going to do with it? make a list of what you want to have. write as many as you want.

h     a fully paid for house for each of my direct family members and myself, in our desired country of choice.

h     complete furnishing for the houses stated above, including decor, to our tastes.

f     latest model of electronic devices for the lot of us (laptop, phone, tv, xbox, ps5, etc.)

f     items in relation to our personal hobbies and interest (paints, books, writing materials, musical instruments, etc.)

c     stylish clothing and shoes that suit our personal style and tastes.

f     fully paid tuition for any course to any institution for the ones looking to further their education, myself included.

answer the following questions: 

how would you feel as you do the blank check challenge?

neutral.

which among the items on your list do you like the most? why?

perhaps the electronic devices, since majority of my interests and quality of life depends upon them.

if ever you were given a chance in real life to have one among the list. which would you choose? why?

the houses for all of us, because being able to come home to a house that’s completely yours just hits different.

does your choice different from what you answered in question number 2? why or why not?

yes, because number two comes from a materialistic mindset whereas number three is more of a realistic one.

go back to your blank check challenge list. 

put a mark on the left side of each item with the following categories: 

b – if the item is related to your body 

c – if the item is related to clothes 

f – if the item is related or intended for your family 

h – if the item is related to home 

answer the following questions: 

a. which among the categories do you have the most in your list?

f – if the item is related or intended for your family.

b. what do you think these things tell you about yourself?

that i cater to my family the most.

make a reflection paper about the material self. 

the concept of the material self delves into the tangible aspects that contribute to our identity, emphasizing the significance of possessions and physical attributes in shaping who we are. as i reflect on this material, i am prompted to consider the intricate relationship between what we own and how it influences our sense of self. our possessions, be they clothing, gadgets, or other belongings, often serve as external expressions of our identity, reflecting personal tastes, interests, and even socioeconomic status.

exploring the material self also raises awareness of societal norms and consumer culture, which play a substantial role in shaping our perceptions of what is valuable or desirable. the constant exposure to advertisements and societal expectations can impact our preferences and, consequently, our material choices. additionally, the environmental impact of our consumer-driven society becomes apparent when considering the life cycle of products and their contribution to issues such as waste and resource depletion.

moreover, the material self extends beyond physical possessions to encompass our bodies and appearance. societal standards of beauty and the pressure to conform to certain ideals can significantly influence our self-perception. this material aspect intertwines with psychological concepts like self-esteem and body image, underscoring the multidimensional nature of the self.

in conclusion, reflecting on the material self invites contemplation on the interplay between our possessions, societal influences, and personal identity. it prompts critical examination of the values we associate with material goods and encourages a deeper understanding of how our material choices shape not only our self-perception but also the world around us.

Unveiling Your Rice Purity Understanding the Significance of the Rice Purity Test

Origins of the Rice Purity Test

The Rice Purity Test originated at Rice University in Houston, Texas, in the 1930s. Initially used as an internal tool to assess the experiences of incoming freshmen, the test has since evolved into a widespread online quiz. The questions cover a range of topics, from romantic relationships to substance use, aiming to gauge a person's exposure to various life experiences.

Understanding the Test

The Rice Purity Test consists of a series of questions, each addressing a specific aspect of an individual's life. Participants are asked to respond with "yes" or "no" based on whether they have engaged in certain activities or experiences. The questions are designed to cover a broad spectrum of behaviors, providing a comprehensive view of the participant's level of innocence or "purity."

Exploring the Questions

The questions in the Rice Purity Test are categorized into different themes, including romance, substances, lifestyle, and miscellaneous activities. Participants may encounter inquiries related to sexual experiences, alcohol consumption, academic honesty, and more. By answering honestly, individuals receive a purity score that reflects the extent of their exposure to various life situations.

Interpreting Your Purity Score

Upon completing the Rice Purity Test, participants are presented with a purity score, usually ranging from 0 to 100. The lower the score, the more diverse the individual's experiences, while a higher score suggests a more sheltered or "pure" lifestyle. It's important to note that the score is not a definitive measure of one's character, but rather an indication of the range of experiences a person has encountered.

Societal Implications

The Rice Purity Test has sparked discussions about societal expectations, perceptions of purity, and the pressures individuals face to conform to certain standards. Some argue that the test perpetuates harmful stereotypes and places undue emphasis on certain behaviors, contributing to the stigmatization of those who have diverse experiences.

Conclusion

The Rice Purity Test, while initially a tool for incoming college students, has transcended its original purpose to become a widely recognized cultural phenomenon. As individuals partake in the test, it's essential to approach the results with an understanding of its limitations and to recognize that purity is a subjective and evolving concept. Ultimately, the test prompts reflection on societal expectations and highlights the importance of embracing diversity in human experiences.

Poor Things: A Stitch in Time Saves the Patriarchy (Or Does It?)

Victorian London. Bodysnatchers. A woman pieced together from stolen flesh. Sounds like your everyday gothic horror, right? Well, buckle up, dear readers, because Yorgos Lanthimos' "Poor Things" is anything but ordinary. This film is a scalpel-sharp satire, a Frankensteinian funhouse mirror reflecting the grotesqueness of the patriarchy – with a wickedly funny bone tucked right under its stitched-together ribs.

Bella Baxter, our stitched-up protagonist, is more than just a medical marvel. She's a walking, talking, anatomically-unconventional middle finger to Victorian beauty standards and societal expectations. Reborn from the depths of the Thames by the eccentric Dr. Godwin, Bella embodies the Frankensteinian anxieties around female bodies and scientific ambition. But unlike her monster-movie predecessors, Bella refuses to be a silent victim. She's witty, fiercely independent, and armed with a wicked sense of humor that leaves a trail of spilled tea and shattered patriarchy in her wake.

The film revels in its grotesqueness, yes. Dr. Godwin's experiments are hilariously macabre, and Bella's patchwork anatomy provides ample opportunities for dark humor. A misplaced arm becomes a projectile in a drawing-room battle, and a detached breast transforms into a scandalous party trick. But the brilliance lies in how this absurdity isn't just for laughs. It's a deliberate subversion of Victorian anxieties about the female body, forcing us to confront the ridiculousness of judging a woman by the sum of her parts.

Yet, "Poor Things" isn't simply a laugh riot. Beneath the humor lies a biting satire of Victorian class and gender dynamics. Dr. Godwin, with his god complex and obsession with female flesh, becomes a caricature of patriarchal scientific ambition. Bella, on the other hand, exposes the hypocrisy and double standards woven into the fabric of Victorian society. Her stitched-together body becomes a living metaphor for the fragmented realities women face, a constant reminder of the pressures to conform and the expectations placed upon their bodies.

The film's humor shines as it dismantles these societal constructs. A brothel scene transforms into a feminist manifesto, with Bella leading a chorus of "whores" in a raucous song about reclaiming their bodies and narratives. A conversation about artificial wombs explodes the myth of "ideal" motherhood, exposing the anxieties and power dynamics underpinning the female reproductive experience.

But despite its darkly comic heart, "poor things review" doesn't shy away from the darkness. Bella's journey is one of grappling with her own fragmented existence, searching for acceptance in a world that fears and ostracizes her. She confronts mortality, loss, and the ethical quandaries surrounding scientific exploration. And ultimately, the film asks a crucial question: does the "stitching up" of Bella, the creation of the perfect woman, actually serve to reinforce the patriarchy, or does it hold the potential for something more radical?

So, does a stitch in time really save the patriarchy? Does Dr. Godwin's creation simply perpetuate the objectification of women? Or does Bella, with her stitched-together spirit and refusal to be defined by societal expectations, offer a glimpse of a different future, one where women reclaim their bodies and narratives? "Poor Things" doesn't provide easy answers, but it throws down the gauntlet, inviting us to grapple with these uncomfortable questions and laugh in the face of the grotesque.

Beyond the gore and giggles, "Poor Things" is a film that lingers. It challenges us to consider the ethical implications of scientific advancements, the absurdity of societal expectations, and the resilience of the human spirit, even when stitched together from disparate parts. It's a film that makes you laugh, squirm, think, and ultimately, question the very fabric of existence, one stitched-together layer at a time.

My Synthesis Of Vaguely Related Parts

 

      Written By:  Marshall Lawe

                                                                        PART ONE

            I wonder how many people can truthfully say they’ve never said “Today I’m starting over?” Well, I’d like to think that this day is a restart for me, but then I’ve restarted many times before. And I’ve lived chaotically – but not unlawfully. Thus, I remain on the outside of all prisons today, except of course for those symbolic ones, created for me by myself and others. And isn’t it usually true that such others as deem themselves “normal” often seek to recast all whom they consider to be in non-conformance, so that those non-conformers might then be “normal” also?

But today I’ve got what might be termed a three part story or, perhaps a three part disclosure would be a more apt title. And it comes to you established within the boundaries of talent both possessed and lacking by a (I believe at least) sadly misnamed literary wannabe. But I still have some freedoms left. The left hasn’t been able to confiscate all of them as of yet. And thus, I’ll proceed. But these are only random thoughts and realizations generated by miscellaneous events.

A few years ago, while Covid was raging, I asked someone whom I respect greatly what he thought would happen should ever the facilitators who facilitate a smooth transition of every present second into the past, become tired, wearied, or ill. And he replied “A catastrophic occurrence would then occur. Mankind would then be forced to exist in two time frames simultaneously, until such TIME as the situation could be rectified.”

“Lucky for us we have strong, capable, and intelligent leadership in the U.S. today” I replied. “And by God, they make sure we know about how great they are too! ‘Right - man, oh no, I mean left - man! And God save the queen!’”

            A few days ago, as I was walking by the airplane, I saw an assemblage gathering there. So I walked over and joined it. And as I was finding a place to stand amongst the onlookers there, I saw an elderly man stumbling his way up the plane’s entrance steps. Finally, as he reached the top of the special stairway utilized by that particular plane, he turned around, waved at the small group of us who were below him, and disappeared into the flying machine. But then suddenly a new man appeared at the top of the steps. He’d left the plane. He walked down the same steps the elderly man had just climbed, and when he reached the ground, some people who called themselves secret servicers asked him what his name was. “My name is Order” he answered. “And I’ve come to restore societal order. But remember, personal order must be your own personal goal. And it lies within your grasp only, it’s outside the reach of detractors.”

            And that particular incident then made me, as many incidents do, reflect back upon what possible reason or reasons my parents may have had to give me the first name of Marshall when my last name was Lawe. And yes, that question has troubled me over the years. And many have been the instances I’ve found myself wondering; searching amidst the very real happenings of daily life, hoping to find some sense of systematization in a world of apparent chaos. And whenever I’ve asked my parents why they named me as they did, they’ve always answered “We felt like naming you that at that time.”

            And maybe that’s why that often, in what I suppose are reflective moods, I find it necessary to admit that all sounds that bounce away from us down the hall, will hit the ending wall, and then reverberate back toward us again. And then we’ll know if we can stand amidst them. Yet, perhaps we’ll need to adjust our sunglasses, say some words which make no sense, and then disappear into either an airplane or a hedgerow, or indeed off someone’s worldwide stage. But as we leave, we’ll need to remember to say “God save the queen man.”

            But, despite whatever we’ll need to do, or whatever others have felt they needed to do, no one can deny that one day a new man appeared. And he appeared to be orderly. And he said “Yesterday, in the world as it was before most of us entered it, offspring often fought with elders. But elders often refused to desist from treading along dangerous pathways; and they often said ‘We’re not alone when it comes to making mistakes.’”

            But was, and is mankind too tolerant of past and current wrongdoing? Some say “Most likely no” others say “Definitely yes.” Oh, but those people in the hall, have they become entangled amongst various ways of life? And do they, or do they not want society to take care of all its children? And is that a dreadfully vicious circular argument? If some are required to spend too much of their own wealth for others, will others then eventually need to spend for them? That’s one of your, my, and mankind’s great dilemmas.

            But I’ve grown tired of hearing about people’s siblings seeking shelter in the streets. Maybe it’s time now to talk about the childishness being exhibited by many of the street brothers and sisters. I know it’s controversial to comment negatively while seeking out sun rays; one might get burned!

            And always remember, private defenders (meaning not lawyers, but simply those who care about themselves only) are looking out for themselves only. Nonetheless, they do understand that lawbreakers, who knew enough to break society’s laws, but yet who then couldn’t afford legal representation in their attempt to sidestep punishment, will be supplied with public defenders (meaning lawyers).

            And now the time has come for you to ask yourself if you sympathize with the killers who roam American schools, or with the gunmen who mass murder innocents on American streets and inside American buildings. And do you have compassion for those who drive their automobiles into large groups of people? And what about those who brutally knife to death people who thought they were their friends? Insert your own cynical and perhaps satirical comments now. But you won’t change the fate of those who were murdered.

And why is it that so much of American life seems to be in decline? Some people apparently don’t know to which sex they belong. And at home, and in foreign lands the borders of nations are routinely violated. Domestically foreigners cross a river and then impose themselves on a nation’s true citizenry, while internationally lands with huge wealth and territory continue to murder citizens of their much weaker neighbors – to say nothing of the destruction of property they’re also causing there. Oh, but some of us are oblivious to the plights of mankind. We can’t see beyond our sunglasses.

                               PART TWO

In Part Two of this discussion I’d like to speak to a few ongoing phenomena which have troubled me for many years. As a champion of individualism, I’m greatly concerned about the “group over self” mentality which seems to be gathering acceptance. I want each person to care about, and take care of him or herself first, before he or she supposedly tries to aid others.

And the loss of individuality constricts me. But somehow, ironically I suppose, it places me in quiet and lonely chambers. And as I exist in those chambers, I come to know the scarcity of reflective moments during which one might be able to visualize particular corridors of life down which one will need to tread before one’s final judgement is imposed.

But on such days as this, this is my goal – to find a beginning I can satisfactorily blend with a worthwhile conclusion. In other words, I need to find a synthesis in the chambers. And I need to follow only such corridors as will guide me to unopened doors behind which secret answers may lie.

But I’m not looking for more codes of restriction. I’ve been subjected to far too many of them already. And I don’t want to be bent and shaped by truth benders. Oh, and just because someone has been charged criminally for crimes many believe were perpetrated by others, doesn’t mean that person is automatically at fault for pointing out the misdeeds of others. But yet, here’s the problem: Who’s to say if the accused or the accusers are right or wrong? Who knows if elections were conducted honestly or not, and who knows if plagues were intentionally started, or began as unfortunate occurrences?

                                          PART THREE

I’m glad you told me about what befell you that summer day long ago. Now I can tell it to others. You and its driver were the only passengers in that truck that day. Suddenly the driver pulled off a modestly busy highway because he said he’d spotted something lying in the ditch. It turned out to be an old sales catalog which, in those days, were still sent to various people via the postal system. “Why in the hell would you stop for an old catalog?” you asked.

“Sometimes those things have pictures of women with not much clothes on” he told you as he re-entered the truck, and handed the “great find” to you for your perusal. But then, if somehow out of the clear blue, he launched into a somewhat philosophical discourse! “I believe that only one person ever lived without ever having committed any wrong” he said. “And only he ever really and truly cared about those whom society deems as helpless, hopeless, homeless, or destitute. And therefore, to all who have sinned I say ‘Watch first for salvation, lest you spend eternity with your nemesis Lucifer. But then also watch for the advancement of mankind. And keep all mortals free individually, because individually is how all lives must be lived.’”

And when you asked him if he didn’t find it strange that pictures of scantily clad women apparently led him to emphasize the need to avoid sin, he said “Stranger things have happened. But now let’s both shut up. I need to concentrate on my driving. Say, did I ever tell you that I dreamed once that years from now people will actually be able to talk on phones while they’re driving? I wonder if that won’t be distracting?"

On TME/A, AGAB, intersex people as a token, forcibly sorting intersex people into dyadic-adjacency, and how oppression is defined

(I am addressing all trans people who do this here, regardless of gender. This is not an issue unique to transfems by ANY means and to claim that this is what I am saying to deflect the discomfort you feel upon being made to examine your own transphobia is utterly disingenuous. I also fully expect "coolsville sucks" style cropped screenshots to make it look like I'm saying the opposite of what I am, so I encourage you to read this post if you've come from someone who only showed part of it.)

Y'know, I've seen people SAY "no tma doesn't mean AMAB and tme doesn't mean afab" but like... these same people don't think trans men and trans mascs face a unique kind of discrimination based on their masculinity and instead think they face "only transphobia", and basically don't believe any kind of discrimination against nonbinary people exists whatsoever either, UNLESS the nonbinary people are transfem or AMAB transneutral.

You can see this with "afab privilege" (because ah yes, afab people traditionally have so much societal privilege, especially when read as "really just women but clearly not cis /s).

So what does "tma/tme=/=agab" actually mean, if they don't think any afab people can experience transmisogyny?

It means "we're weaponizing our begrudging acceptance that intersex people (that we deem close enough to dyadic maleness, but we won't say that part out loud) can experience transmisogyny to claim that we're not reducing oppression down to agab, when really we're just saying 'tma means amab+some intersex people" and "tme means afab+some intersex people' and 'the tme intersex people are anyone who wasn't born with male-adjacent features and doesn't even include visibly non-dyadic intersex people who were assigned female bc of a lack of ambiguous genitalia or due to coercive surgery'."

It's all intersexism, all the way down.

So perisex trans folk (and the few intersex people on this bandwagon, you should know better), shut the fuck up about tma/e isn't about agab. Because it's just about agab+. As in agab+ using intersex people to make it seem like it's not neatly divided along agab lines for perisex trans people and even intersex people with features you deen dyadic-adjacent (I've seen you do this, and it's horrifically, disgustingly intersexist to sort us into amab and afab adjacent just like the fucking doctors that mutilate us and force us on meds and destroy our records and violently enforce dyadic conformity).

I also don't wanna hear "it's not about what's in your pants" just because you halfheartedly acknowledge bottom surgery exists. Because we all know that an afab person who is post-op bottom surgery and no-op top surgery with M on his driver's license, who let's say could be mistaken for a trans woman pre-op on hormones, is "tme" to you because they were born with a vagina, and because you've never met other trans people in your life and so foolishly think that transphobes can "always tell" when it comes to afab trans people only.

It doesn't matter if someone is at a point in their transition journey identical to a point someone going the "opposite" way, because what's between their legs and whether it was natal or surgical, to you ontologically determines the oppression they face.

You think only women face misogyny and only trans women face transmisogyny. This is because you define it NOT by materially identical forms of bigotry/discrimination, NOT categorically. But instead as "misogyny/transmisogyny is any oppression a woman/trans woman experiences, regardless of type, and no one who is not a woman can experience this" and then extrapolate this into "so no one who is not a woman can experience identical material discrimination/bigotry under a different name".

This leads to the conclusion that "if someone claims they do that is not a woman they are lying. If there's irrefutable evidence they are telling the truth, since their cuts and bruises and trauma (literal and metaphorical) fall under misogyny and misogyny is only aimed at women and can only therefore hurt women, we're the real victims here."

I know another group of people that believes only women can experience misogyny. R/fs, only they're usually of the "te" variety and not the "ti" variety like you.

Going back to not acknowledging discrimination against nonbinary people, since the usual response I see is to forget amab nonbinary people exist or forcibly label them transfem, sometimes against their will; and to say that afab nonbinary people are as good as cis women:

This is what leads in part to nonbinary people all being sorted into agab groups, and then further labeled as either "transmasc" or "transfem". In this way of thinking, all non-transitioning afab nonbinary people are just women; all transitioning afab nonbinary people are trans"mascs" and therefore spicy trans men; all amab nonbinary people regardless of transition status are transfem. It ignores amab transmasc nonbinary people, amab butch nonbinary people, and afab transfem and femme nonbinary people (who are again considered just women).

So obviously if nonbinary people either face transmisogyny or don't really face transphobia at all, according to this, then trans men and spicy trans men can be sorted into just having male privilege that is obviously always accessible at all times, because every trans man has the option and ability and desire to go completely stealth and hiding your trans identity makes you a privileged coward who hates trans people and benefits from it like a cis man, right?

That's the argument I've heard. This often stems from the idea that T immediately turns you into a hairy muscular tall strong man with no obvious tits or hips or femininely distributed body fat and is basically a miracle poison for turning people into stinky evil men. Not even an exaggeration, that's a word for word conglomeration of the arguments I've heard.

(Nevermind the transmascs and transneutrals transitioning towards androgeny and genderfuckery. Nevermind the no-op and pre-op transmascs with huge tits and hips. Never mind the fat transmascs whose fat curves their bodies in unhideable ways. Never mind those who can't or don't want to take T or for whom T works slowly, which is much more common than you think.)

Where have I heard that? Oh right, the e/i-rf groups. Again.

See, because if nonbinary people faced a unique form of oppression in this argument, it would be more obvious that so do trans men and transmascs. Because, get this, they wouldn't face transmisogyny, y'all are VERY adamant about that, but since afab people are all trans men (plain or spicy) according to you, they wouldn't really face discrimination for being nonbinary. So the type of transphobia they face, you'd have to acknowledge, is unique to trans MEN.

You'd probably still say it's lesser, just transmisogyny with the misogyny chopped off. Or you might go for the "all nonbinary people are either afab OR transfem and therefore afab people all face afab nonbinary type discrimination" and refuse to acknowledge it as unique after all.

The thing is, the rhetoric is twisted in so many circles on purpose. To maintain cognitive dissonance, to refuse to acknowledge a full section of the trans community as oppressed at all, let alone equally. To have someone to punch "up" at when we all know that if you can reach someone to connect your punch, it's not punching up. You just pretend not to hear it connecting.

Here's the thing you all need to get through your stubborn skulls. Bigotry, oppression, discrimination - it's not determined by your identity. It's determined by the bigot's perception of your identity. You know full well that a pre-everything transmasc in the closet faces misogyny*. You know full well that an intersex nonbinary person who has had a tits and full beard since they were 12 can face transmisogyny. You know full well that a butch cis woman beaten for entering a bathroom is not less of a target than a trans woman, at least if you know ANYTHING about queer history and antimasculine violence.

*That doesn't mean, imo, that a pre-everything trans woman in the closet has male privilege, because male privilege is conditional on both others' perception of your identity and your own internal sense of it. Facing transmisogyny, even internalizing it when it's not yet directed at you if you manage to avoid it (which many don't) renders male privilege just as null and void as being perceived as transmasc or even cis gay. Because those make you male "the wrong way" to bigots.

It really all comes down to making up a guy in your head to be mad at. A mythical transmasc that you superimpose on the entire community, that is skinny, perisex, white, abled, neurotypical, christian or atheist, not impoverished, perfectly passing due to the oh-so-massive effects of T even after going through estrogen puberty that even magically can make H cup boobs vanish, who chooses to pretend to be cis and never gets caught.

Why do I list those categories? Because men of color, fat men, intersex men, disabled men, neurodivergent men, jewish and muslim and hindu and other marginalized religions' men, and especially men who are not at least middle class... they don't reap the benefits of male privilege either. Very few men do. Male privilege is as intersectional as any form of oppression - because it is the absence of any of them. Doing manhood "right" is to do it in the colonialist, white supremacist, patriarchal way, and the patriarchy is predicated as much on racism, ableism, heteronormativity, amatonormativity, dyadism, and a dozen other forms of oppression as on sexism and transphobia.

What is my point, at the end of this weirdly mixed formality essay that's written like jorts under a pajama shirt under a business blazer all on top of business formal heels?

That trans people do face unique forms of oppression, each and every one, based on their perceived identity. That anyone can experience transmisogyny, anyone can experience transandrophobia, anyone can experience exorsexism. That so much of anti-transandrophobia discourse is heavily built on tokenizing intersex people to make arguments seem more palatable while being just as violently repressive to us as the rest of the world.

That oppression is defined not by who experiences it, but by who the bigot thinks they are targeting, but that the "real victim" is still the one that gets hit. You aim a gun at Lucy but it hits Jeff instead? Terrible motive, AND still murder.

That you need to examine your own internal biases, deconstruct your own understanding of sexism and its role in upholding the patriarchy, and how it doesn't easily map from cis gender roles to trans people, who according to patriarchy are ALL doing our genders "wrong".

That at the end of the day, listening to and believing other trans people about their own experiences is absolutely necessary, that you don't have to be the more oppressed than other trans people to deserve better than we all get, that stepping on our necks will only cause cis people to cruelly draw their hands back and leave you to die with us in this hole they shoved us in, that trans unity (WITH intersex solidarity) is the only way we all survive.

- your tired neighborhood intersex transneufemmasc

PS if you wanna talk shit screencap and block me. I literally don't care. I'll shut off reblogs at the slightest hint of bullshit or harassment though, whether from t/rfs or shitty transphobic trans people who should know better or from garden-variety intersexists. I'm too busy dealing with my chronic illness bullshit to have any patience for your puerile nonsense.

Proclamations of Purity given by Jesus Christ Michael at the Conclave of Sovereign Shepherds in the 21st century...

When I had entered the garden of the concla e of hearts, I did gather my 21st century shepherd apostles around me and I taught them further, saying:

You find it difficult to receive my message because you would build the new teaching directly upon the old, but I declare unto you that you must be reborn into a new meaning and everlasting priority .. a new philosophy of purity and perseverance shall you become in this Ideal. You must start out afresh as little children and be willing to trust my teaching and believe in the one Authority of God who is the Fountainhead of Mercy.

The new gospel of the kingdom cannot be made to conform to that which is. You have wrong ideas of the Son of Man and his mission on earth. But do not make the mistake of thinking that I have come once again to set aside the law and the prophets; I have not come to destroy but to fulfill, to enlarge and illuminate and rejuvenate the normal evolutionary progression for the kingdoms of the earth.

I come not to transgress the law but rather to guide you into this transmutation of raw potentialities unto God Actuality. I write these new commandments on the tablets of your hearts and minds so that your subsequent lifetimes are motivated by urges of righteousness and rectitude.

I demand of you a righteousness that shall exceed the righteousness of those who seek to obtain the Father’s favor by almsgiving, prayer, superficial dogmas, and fasting. If you would enter the kingdom, you must have a righteousness that consists in love, mercy, and truth — the sincere desire to do the will of my Father in heaven is your dedication to unfold thine unfathomable existence and to share this one existence with Me.

I have not come to legislate thine societal governments .. but to enlighten the hearts and minds of individuals.

I have come not to reform the kingdoms of this world but rather to establish the kingdom of heaven in thine personhood. It is not the will of the Father that I should yield to the temptation to teach you rules of government, trade, or social behavior, which, while they might be good for today, would be far from suitable for the society of another age.

I am on earth solely to inaugurate and restore thine evolutionary ascendancy, to comfort the minds and cleanse the hearts and bodies, to ultimately liberate thine spirit selves as you come to abide within the Universal Adjuster, and to save the souls of all men and women who will learn of the way whilst abiding in the truth .. and working to enter gradually the progression of the ages. All humans and animals and midwayers .. every electron and elemental do I come for.

Yet .. ye shall stumble over my gospel instructions because ye are wont to interpret my message literally; ye are slow to discern the spirit of my teaching.

Again shall you remember that you are my messengers of the newly faithful gospel believers and doers; you are beholden to live your lives as I have in spirit lived mine.

You are my personal representatives upon these Isles of Planetary Illumination; yet do not err in expecting all others to live as you do in every particular way.

Ye shall remember that I have sheep not of this flock, and that I am beholden to them also, to the end that I must provide for them the Paradisaical Pattern of doing the will of God while living the life of the mortal nature.

You shall return good for evil. My messengers, representatives, and ambassadors shall not strive with women and men, yet shall they be gentle toward all, truthful and transparent and tender. Measure for measure shall not be your rule. The rulers of the civilization may have such laws, but not so in the kingdom; mercy always shall determine your judgments and love your conduct. And if these are hard sayings, you can even now turn back and walk away from Salvington and Me. If you find the requirements of apostleship too hard, you may return to the less rigorous pathway of discipleship .. for there is a difference between inquirers and aspirants .. disciples and my apostles.

Be willing, then, to take up your responsibilities and follow me. Do your good deeds in secret; when you give alms, let not the left hand know what the right hand does. And when you pray unto the Allness of thine indwelling Authority, go apart by yourselves in silence and in the quiet .. and use not vain repetitions and superficial meaningless phrases. Always remember that the Father knows what you need even before you ask him. And be not given to fasting with a sad countenance to be seen by others.

As my chosen apostles, now set apart for the service of the kingdom, lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, but by your unselfish service lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, for where your treasures are, there will your hearts be also.

The lamp of the body is the eye; if, therefore, your eye is generous and singularly simple, so shall your whole body be full of light. Yet .. if your eye is selfish and slavish and self-centered only upon your needs, then thy whole body shall be filled with darkness.

Verily I say .. If the very Light of Paradise which is Individualized in you is turned to darkness by the laziness of a disobedient mind and heart .. then, how great is that darkness!

I bid thee peace .. priority .. and the ennoblement of this divine purpose in your godly ascent.

Christ Jesus Michael of Nebadon

What ADHD Is Not (A Bite Sized Visual and Explanation)

********************************************

Hi Ladies! Here is a visual post and bite sized explanation on What ADHD is Not based on my previous post here.Feel free to check it out if you'd' like a longer read and enjoy this smaller more condense version for your viewing pleasure.

*************************************************

1.) ADHD Is Not An Excuse

I've learned that ADHD is an explanation, and we are not our diagnosis. Yes, each case is unique some have it more serevely and some less and that's okay. As long as you're doing your best and no else's best everyday to push towards the life you want that's all that matters. Regardless of where we are on the spectrum we can still accomplish the same things a neuro typical can and sometimes even better. It may take us a little bit longer or a lot bit longer due to the obstacles our symptoms can cause but it's not impossible. We just need to find and develop a system that works for our brains and our brains only! Not what he did or what she did or what they did. It's all about what to do and seeing what works for us. Then we can start to see progress in the direction we want it.

2.) ADHD Is Not Being Overly Hyperactive

This one right here! Lately I've been surrounding myself with other adults that have ADHD experiencing them and taking it in. No one was bouncing off the walls, every individual was different. I've learned the Hyper activeness of ADHD tends to "dial down" as we get older. By "dial down" I mean masking or other habits that can act as an outlet for that energy. A lot of the people I've met were outwardly calm or very outgoing, with a few that were scattered that talked non-stop or out of turn and a few like myself who are more quiet but fidgety. The hyperactiveness tones down mostly due to societal constraints and it not being okay to act "childish" or "do the most" as an adult so we're forced to conform and hide it to the best of our ability to fit in. So if you aren't overly hyperactive it's okay it doesn't make you more or less of an adhder, remember we're all different and symptoms present differently for everyone.

3.) ADHD Doesn't Mean You Don't Care

We care! Just about alot of things sometimes at the same time and we lose track it happens. As an adult it's more frowned upon to be "air headed" "a daydreamer" or just not present. Sometimes our inattention or lack focus can present itself as us not caring about the things going on in our lives, our friends, partners, work, intimate relationship and that's not the truth. Having ADHD impairs our focus and ability to be present. It's a hard thing to deal with it and we do care it's kinda like our bandwidth isn't large enough to pay attention. The brain is constantly craving dopamine and instant rewards and alot of the time the regular everyday responsibilities in life just doesn't cut it. Especially if it's mundane and repetitive, i.e) basic everyday chores, bill management, work responsibilities, home management, etc. While this is true referring back to #1 it's inexcusable just because we have ADHD doesn't mean we are exempt from doing what we have to do to live. We still have responsibilities so it's our job to make sure we create a system to be able to stay on top of these things. It won't be perfect. We'll make mistakes but done (close to it as you can) is better than perfect. Whether you create it yourself, with a coach, medically as long as you're doing what works for you that's all that matters.

What are some things you learned about adhd that's not what you expected or what you've been told? I'd love to hear more from you guys <3

I think the fat phobic thing is a reach. I know that JKR is not the most popular person in the world right now, but Harry Potter did not teach kids that being different in appearance means that there is sth wrong with you. Neville is described as being clumsy, chubby and nerdy and is one of the best characters in the series -with beautiful story about growing into yourself and that bravery can be expressed in very different ways. And what about Hagrid! He very much does not conform to societal norms when it comes to looks, he’s being ridiculed because of it by his peers, and yet he’s also one of the best influences in Harry’s life. Luna is described as a very odd looking individual and she’s one of Harry’s best friends. And thing about Weasley’s. I personally thing that JKR description of what growing up poor looks like was very good. I mean we see that this family is being met with scorn, people comment on hand me down clothes, old books, number of kids! This is very spot on. And JKR shows them as loving, giving, industrious people. That’s a very good lesson to kids. And in regards to Dursley’s. Sure, Dudley, Vernon and Marge are overweight. But it’s not that that makes them awful human beings. Does being fat makes Dudley an outcast? No, he has his gang of similar assholes. The trauma of his upbringing is a different story, and stems from inability to reprimand a child and setting a clear set of rules as well as neglecting to teach him compassion and love. You know, bad people come in all shapes and sizes. And HP has it’s problems, sure. But it’s also a children book written in the 90s and doesn’t have to combat every societal issue 🤷🏻‍♀️

ok so I think one of the places this is going wrong is misconstruing how fatphobia might function in literature: it doesn't just have to be 'this person is bad BECAUSE they're fat,' it can also be the fact that there are multiple characters whose appearances seem to be intrinsically tied to their badness—all but, if we're counting Neville, one character—and their size is used as a) the butt of a joke where they could otherwise just be critiqued for being bad people or b) a vehicle to humiliate and/or dehumanize them. need I remind that Marge is literally ballooned? as her comeuppance?

(IMHO Hagrid is a different story altogether because he's literally a giant and functions as a hyperemotional, often fumbling, caregiver. it's not an offensive portrayal but i don't think it's really the naysaying plus sized representation you might think it is. Like I'm not super impressed by the giant character not conforming to human societal norms, because he's repeatedly mentioned to be not human.

also: "He very much does not conform to societal norms when it comes to looks, he’s being ridiculed because of it by his peers, and yet he’s also one of the best influences in Harry’s life." is this supposed to be a good thing? are we supposed to be glad that he's being ridiculed for his looks and still a good person? is that really an authentically good portrayal of someone who doesn't conform to social norms, as opposed to just a person allowed to live in peace?)

I'm also confused about what, wrt Neville, negates the fact that JKR's portrayal of the many characters is fatphobic. like, yeah! I'll take the L and concede that I suppose not every character in HP who's chubby or plus-sized is a caricature of fatphobic stereotypes. does that automatically preclude JKR from leaning into and relying upon fatphobia to write certain characters? no it doesn't. here we see that tokenizing one character as a means of negating the treatment of other characters who share one singular attribute doesn't really work as a defense of a literary phenomenon

and to address some other things: first of all, Luna dresses oddly and talks like a sprite. the way she Doesn't Conform To Standards is not at all comparable to Dudley or Vernon or even Cornelius Fudge or Umbridge. second, yes, Dudley is supposed to be the product of a spoiling household—but he's also written as grubby, infantilized, over-indulging, and a number of other negative stereotypes about plus size people. his appearance is the butt of the joke in a way that another spoiled character from a different children's book, Veruca Salt, never deals with. it isn't necessary and it's lazy.

I uh. never mentioned poverty or her portrayals of class politics? yes, sure, maybe she did a good job of portraying what it's like to grow up in a poor household. and she didn't make the poor people evil. I've talked about this before, and I don't really feel the need to congratulate her for that here. like hoorah JKR you didn't demonize poor people in your supposed critique of systemic inequality. a win for the girlies!

"You know, bad people come in all shapes and sizes." the book's villain is a bald snake man i get it

here are some articles written by people with much more expertise than me on the subject, in case you were in want of sources:

https://www.themarysue.com/j-k-rowlings-fatphobia-needs-to-be-acknowledged/

https://www.insider.com/how-i-introduce-harry-potter-to-my-kids-as-fat-millennial-2021

(a good thread from twitter) https://twitter.com/artists_ali/status/1417503461940375557?lang=en

also ffs you can not combat 'every societal issue' (one societal issue) while also not directly contributing to that societal issue? like, there's a middle ground between being an activist for body positivity and being fatphobic? it's called not pointedly making fat characters evil and then continuously mentioning their sizes as an accessory to this evil?

IDK. this whole ask rubbed me the wrong way and I get that I'm not exactly being saintly in my response to you but if you're going to come to my blog and patronize me about the ways that JKR is Not Actually As Bad as we think she is, I'm going to feel comfortable matching that energy.

like, I write fanfiction for this series—I don't categorically hate every part of it and spend my days picking it apart. but there are phenomena and motifs within the HP canon that are worth deconstructing because they can normalize both internalized and interpersonal cruelty, and when those come up, I have no trouble discussing them.

so. have a good one, go with god, eat your wheaties

I know next to nothing abt utena but I. I kinda am extremely curious abt the utena vs mcu comparative analysis? if you feel like sharing lmao absolutely no worries if not

I love all of you because I will post obviously bait and someone will always indulge me in asking about it. NO I don’t want to unprompted just start rambling about my opinions, YES I will share them though. I will make this as short as possible because I can talk about Utena all day. I will add a disclaimer that I don’t super like the MCU so I’m very sorry to any MCU fans, Winter Soldier was good. Slight, vague spoilers for Utena ahead. 

TL;DR: MCU is constantly selling feminism in the form of palatable #bossbabes and Strong Female Characters, while Utena’s form of feminism is a more systematic and nuanced interview of how the patriarchy limits, exploits, and controls women. It posits that a woman CANNOT be a #bossbabe while she’s within that system, and only by leaving it can she find independence and identity. MCU is sponsored by the Air Force.

So for the uninitiated, Utena is a magical girl anime that I’ve been jokingly calling Evangelion: For Her. It deconstructs magical girl anime and fairy tales, and critically examines Japanese society, the patriarchy, heteronormative culture, and IN MY OPINION boarding schools. It deals with themes of trauma, toxic relationships, toxic masculinity, gender non-conformity, queerness, abuse, maturity, coming of age, gender roles, memory, and narrative. 

I’ve joked recently that Tumblr would find Utena problematic if it actually talked about the show beyond the killer aesthetic and sword lesbians. Every female character in it is obsessed with men. Most of them are in abusive, or at least toxic, relationships. It has several gender nonconforming, queer women, who view gender nonconformity as adopting the role of a man in society and thereby idealizing/controlling/abusing women, as men do. Every character is a hugely complicated person who hurts others. Men control women and women are either subservient and controlled by men, or they use their position of assumed subservience to manipulate men, or they attempt to regain power by taking the role of men. 

On the flip side. Utena demonstrates how every character is turned into this through the rigid and restrictive nature of (it’s Japanese, so Japanese, although it’s broadly applicable) society. Women who do not fit into these pre-set molds are punished and ostracized. Young boys are groomed by older men in order to fit these abusive molds, and otherwise well meaning men hurt women because they are not taught how to interact with women in healthy ways. The show is basically about how society takes the genuine need for love, intimacy, and human connection among children and beats them into societally accepted molds that keep power in the hands of powerful men. The patriarchy is ultimately a tool of powerful men that abuses and controls both men and women. Ever hear of no ethical consumption under capitalism? Try no ethical love under the patriarchy! 

So, no, Utena doesn’t really have a lot of ‘strong female characters’. But that’s really kind of the point - how can a woman be strong in this system? When a woman tries to gain strength, does she just try to imitate masculine values that we’re brainwashed into perceiving as strength? Is masculinity healthy? Can Utena really be gnc, or will a gnc woman never be accepted as a man by a society that profits off the victimization of women?

I’m not asking the MCU to analyze all of this, because they’re blockbuster movies and I don’t want or need them to get #deep. However, superhero movies will never look at the systematic and societal structures that build heroes and villains so long as the nature of superheroes inherently hinges upon the ‘Great Man’ system (basically an obsession with heroes and salvation through singular men instead of communities and movements). The MCU Spider-Man movies were so frustrating about this: it goes through the effort of saying that capitalism and injustice created the Vulture, but all that does is make a sympathetic villain - it never goes so far as to say that Peter is being fed into this system (by Tony Stark) like meat into a meat grinder that continues to prioritize the special over the collective. I don’t even need to get into Far From Home. The MCU constantly acknowledges these injustices (the way it acknowledges that the Air Force in Captain Marvel is sexist and racist) but it twists around that acknowledgement into assertion that superheroes and good guys CAN exist in this unjust system, and that they can utilize the power of this unjust system in order to provide salvation. Utena has Japanese Buddhist roots over this Christian ideal of the saviour/messiah: it encourages saving ourselves, and says that we cannot be saved by others, only aided and guided in that journey. 

Captain Marvel cannot be a ‘feminist’ film, no matter how much it celebrates Carol for embracing her individuality and autonomy in a discriminatory system, so long as Carol remains within that system. In contrast, the only way that Utena was able to live in gay happiness with Anthy was by rejecting the patriarchy, structure, and society completely. Carol is a shining, premier, ‘ideal’ example of a woman in the Air Force - tough and independent yet obedient and responsible to her system. Utena is also masc and gnc, but it actually explores how performing that masculinity isn’t a repudiation of the system, it’s just striving to attain status as the oppressor instead of the oppressed (absolutely crucial note that Utena doesn’t strive to be a man, she strives for masculinity). The #girlbosses in Black Panther are characterized by their complete and total loyalty and lack of ambition to authoritarian male figures and autocratic systems (Black Panther is really good and I like it a lot, this isn’t a criticism). Judi in Utena is also completely obedient and loyal to the male-dominated structure of the Student Council, but it’s shown as preventing her from accepting her lesbianism and pursing her desires. Black Widow, #girlboss extraordinaire, is devalued as a woman through her infertility and this is completely played straight and uncritically in a move that’s stunningly 1970s. Nanami in Utena (metaphorically) is confronted with her perceived lack of suitability for maternal life - and how the reason why she’s desperate for this is because it’s the promised unconditional love she never received. This isn’t even getting into the men - Tony Stark using tools of war to end war, which is an oxymoron. Peter Parker’s divorce from his working class roots into mindless imitation of authoritarian paternal figures and him literally being handed the cutsey drone strikes. Women in the MCU are ‘cool’, women in Utena are complex, flawed, and nuanced. 

We know the MCU isn’t woke. I don’t want it to be woke. But it keeps on pretending to try and it’s frustrating me. It continually just gets enough there to make me think about it and give the shiny sheen of that feminism while refusing to engage meaningfully with what they’re doing. I’d rather they didn’t try at all, because they consistently raise the question (hey it’s fucked up that the working class is getting screwed over and the Vulture’s doing what he’s doing for a reason!) and then refuse to answer it authentically or genuinely (but he’s evil so we don’t gotta touch that). I’m not gonna use the word pandering, but...that #girlboss shot in Endgame, come on...

Utena meaningfully treats the women as women who Live In A Society, and how that fucks them up, and how the only way they can be free is if they realize there’s no wizard behind the curtain, recognize the injustices, and repudiate the game. MCU says that a woman can be liberated and strong if she achieves specialness and strength within the system - if she ‘wins’ the game. But women don’t win this game. That’s the point of the game. Because when women win, men perceive themselves as losing, and that’s unacceptable. Captain Marvel and the MCU is a consolation prize for what women are consistently denied: complex and flawed characterizations. 

I’m normally uninterested by #feminism but Utena gets it. Thanks for the ask! 

A Cycle of Seals: Writing Excerpt (Princess of Impotence)

After three months of continual debate on whether or not to post this excerpt, my friends convinced me to submit it on-stream tonight. While it imperfectly handles heavy topics I myself am still working through, I hope you see the heart and healing process behind it - and, most importantly, behind Eirys.

You may remember these three from my recent Character Description Challenge! I can never get enough of writing their dynamic, even as their in-canon scenes continue to dwindle through editing. Whomp.

___

Project: A Cycle of Seals Timeline: Pre-Book One Canonical? No Context:

The House of Salvation has long isolated society’s sick. The Godewine twins - Royan and Eirys - visit every dawn and tend to the condemned. While Royan attracts the masses with the supernatural power of his Timekeeper’s Seal, the powerless Eirys attends to one individual: Oeden Sincairn, locked away even from the other infirm. 

Content Warnings: Illness, Isolation, Mentions of Ableism

___

The Yoreword warns of a wickedness more contagious than any sickness, one bestowed upon the lowest amongst them. Eirys has never - paragons forgive her blasphemy - believed that. Illness did not demean one’s internal divinity. Not when the skin-deep sainthood of her fellow nobles could nauseate an angel. Even still, sacrilege guides her away from those surrounding her blessed sibling to instead seek solace with the kingdom’s most corrupted citizen.

With the crowd thoroughly enthralled by Royan’s abilities, Eirys slips outside their thinning scope of notice and down the western hall. While the main chamber had been filled to overflowing with the infirm, naught but a begrudging servant files through the passage here. Those who notice her appearance regard her with the civil disinterest paid to one of their own. Or had they purposely dismissed their princess? Nonsense, she thinks (but does not believe).

Would such insolence not make sense? She is no Shepherd. She bears no Seal. She does not sway the hearts of nobles like Isolde, does not command the arms of soldiers like Sigrid, does not awe the minds of scholars like Ciaran. She is but another stumbling block to the damned’s salvation, a scourge to kiss their scars.

Why must power inhabit those who refuse to wield it well? That question had no answer, or at least not one the spirits deign to supply.

Yet, despite her inherent impotence, one resident still awaits her entrance.

Eirys shuffles down the corridor, around the corner, and up to a room quartered off from the rest. With a knock for courtesy, she slips in without awaiting permission.

Inside, the chamber holds little else other than Oeden, perched at the edge of a bed as unkempt as he. He is dressed, thankfully - not that a medic cares much for modesty - with a tunic hanging loosely off his wiry form. The tension that inhabits his shoulders evacuates whilst registering his visitor’s identity.

You’re safe, she thinks, willing the assurance to reach him. Safe, but not saved.

A flicker of mischief lifts his lips, too weak to raise the bags beneath his eyes. “Abandoning your brother, are we?”

Eirys huffs, indignant fists finding her hips. Even Oeden thought only of Royan! “I do hope that’s not a disappointment.”

He does not answer, and so Eirys sets to work. Oeden needs attention - medically, at least - every day before sunrise, lest their superiors deny him access to the sanctuary. If coming here every morning means her friend can escape isolation? Well, it made her wartime training worthwhile. Her bag unpacked, the bedside table stands littered with supplies of every shape and size: needles and knives and salves that would unnerve even hardened warriors.

Oeden refuses to flinch.

“You should have seen them,” Eirys says as she rifles through her satchel for a binding beneath the draughts. “All those patients, pawing at his Seal like it might peel off if they rub it right. They were two fools short of a parade!”

Oeden cannot see it, can see little else beside this room, and instead snorts from imagination alone. “With Royan there, they only need one more.”

She swats him with the wad of bandages in hand but cannot hold back her laughter. How tragic that such wit must stay locked away. “At least someone pays him any mind.”

“Ironic, isn’t it? His only admirers come from ones the rest of the world admonishes.” The laugh that follows lacks all humor.

There is a sickness in Norire. One that spares the poor and spoils the pure. One whose unholy hand reaches across the nation, fingers of infirmity digging into every manse and mansion. Even her own. Eirys knows this, intrinsically. Hates it, irrefutably. But, like every other illness, she cannot cure it. Not anymore than she might will away the wickedness of kings who condone quarantining the chronic, the heresy of priests enslaving the impoverished, the sinfulness of princesses submitting to these societal normalities.

Instead, she sits down. Shuts up. Prays behind sealed lips to an imprisoned god for forgiveness, for change.

Oeden never minds the silence. His proclaimed disdain for company disproved itself with every unspoken show of appreciation. This time, it crumbled beneath a subtle repositioning atop the bed: an invitation for intimacy.

Eirys accepts his summons, scooting closer, the equipment her plus one. A once-over of his body shows no sign of his condition having spread, but she can tell little with the glove that disguises his limb. Her hand hovers above, but does not touch. “May I…?”

Oeden nods. Neither required consent – thus why she elicits it. No one asked Oeden permission to burden him with this power, any more than they had asked Eirys to deprive her of it. He deserves this small dignity.

With measured tenderness, Eirys peels back the fabric encasing his left arm. Each inch of cloth stripped away reveals the crystalline protrusions carving through calloused skin in misshapen patches. Flesh split in bloodied fissures, ore corroding the body into its personal deposit. No worse than before, she thinks. The thought does little to placate her concerns because that does not make it better than before either.

Oeden evades her gaze. Witnessing her displeasure would surely confirm a deep-whispered suspicion: that he was, even to her, grotesque. She knows that he spies her reaction when he thinks her attention lies elsewhere, awaits a well-deserved grimace or an artificial grin. Instead, Eirys freezes her face in cold indifference. It comes naturally, she realizes - her family has done the same on the throne for one hundred years, after all, for far less noble a purpose.

She pulls a rag from the pouch at her hip and dips it into one of the pungent balms scattered about the bed top. The whiff of peppermint briefly assaults her before the musty scent of Salvation overpowers it. “Ready?” she asks. His nodded ascent initiates the delicate process of cleaning the crystal. Eirys traces the edges of fractured skin with her cloth as if she painted a masterpiece - with precision, and with respect to the canvas.

Oeden winces with each misplaced press of fabric. He never complains, but none could deny the pain he endures on the nightly. The momentary sting ebbs away at the gritted teeth and tensing posture until relief resumes its rightful mantle upon him. Eirys has never seen such strength from someone so weary. Weary, she realizes, and lonely.

He needs tending to. In his body, yes, but even more so in his soul.

“It’s not, you know,” Oeden says suddenly. He still refuses to meet her eyes, but he picks up on her confusion nonetheless, for he continues, “a disappointment, I mean. That you’re here.”

Had he dwelt on her greeting this whole time?

Eirys slips her free hand into Oeden’s, clasping it with desperate compassion. You deserve deliverance, but I can only give you decency. “I’d sure hope not,” she teases, “but we both know you’d prefer my brother’s company.”

“Royan would have only worsened this,” Oeden reminds her. The Seal of Progression could do little to cease the spread of crystal. It could only comfort those who conformed to its whims - and Oeden had never been one to obey. “Besides, who knows what I would have seen, had anyone else done this…”

Ah, yes. The visions.

Eirys understands next to nothing of them, despite her supposed spirituality, but she does not doubt their existence any more than she doubts that their god remains trapped in some undiscovered vault. One touch of crystallized skin could send Oeden into an unconscious stupor. Foreseeing an unfortunate future from unprompted contact became an all-too-common occurrence.

“And with me?” Eirys entangles their fingers, drawing his hands up. “What do you see?”

Oeden’s breath hitches as she scales the goosebumps raising across his arm, but he does not deny her. His left hand rises to meet her, ore-crusted finger brushing against a freckled forehead. A breath. A moment. A hope.

“…Nothing.”

Oeden exhales like oxygen had always evaded him. His head slumps against hers. “Thank the Seals you’re safe, Eir.”

You’re safe for me, is what he means. She hopes he knows he’s safe with her, too.

They sit there, undone and unsure, in each other’s presence until time unwinds itself around them and Eirys realizes: the military, the clergy, the royalty - none of them need her. None of them need to. Oeden does. And a flustered, wistful part of herself believes she needs him too.

She always loathed her own powerlessness, but this powerlessness to resist him? She could live with that. She might even love it.