#to me he just reads very. can be violent if necessary and definitely has chaotic energy from being a feral forest gremlin | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

margridarnauds · 3 years

Text

So, You Wanna Study Irish Mythology?

One of the questions I get hit with a lot is “If I’m getting into Irish Mythology, what sources do you recommend?” It’s a sad, sad truth about the field that a lot of really valuable info is kept locked away in books and journals that the lay person wouldn’t know about (and then we wonder why information about the field is so bad.) So, I decided to compile a list of sources that I’ve personally used and found helpful in my time. It’s not a complete bibliography because, frankly, that would take up a TREMENDOUS amount of space and you’d be scrolling forever to find what you wanted, and I don’t AGREE with every single thing they say, and it’s by no means exhaustive (keep in mind: scholars from all over the field use mythological texts to study things as diverse as law, geography, tribal names, material culture, etc. and here I’m mainly focusing on sources that are JUST mythological-focused) but they’re a good starting point to forming your own opinions. The journal articles are, tragically, generally kept confined to academia, but....perhaps....if you were to ask around, someone might be able to provide you with a copy. As a whole, Celticists tend to be quite generous when it comes to sharing articles.

List subject to change, check back as time goes on to see if I’ve added anything. Also, as always, feel free to either drop me an ask or a pm if you’re curious about digging further into a given text/figure. I can’t act as a consultant on a religious question; I’m a very firm atheist with all the spirituality of a dull spoon, except with the existence of ghosts. My interest in the Tuatha Dé is purely scholarly; all that I can say is what I know about these topics from the perspective of the medieval sources, but I can definitely do my best on that one front, and I won’t reject anyone who has a different interest in the Tuatha Dé from contacting me.

This list only deals with the Mythological Cycle, not the other strands of the literary tradition that is generally if not uncontroversially referred to as “Irish Mythology”. For Fenian Cycle traditions, a similar bibliography has been compiled by Dr. Natasha Sumner of Harvard, here.

Editions/Translations of Texts (many of these are available at UCC’s CELT archive or on Irish Sagas Online):

Tochmarc Étaíne, Osborn Bergin and Richard Best

Cath Maige Tuired, Elizabeth Gray (If you can and you’re serious about the field, I highly recommend getting the actual Irish Text Society Edition, which includes a wonderful index of every time a given figure shows up in other sources. An absolute must for a mythographer.)

Lebor Gabála Érenn, J.R.S Macalister, 5 vols. (The entirety of this is available on archive.org. Personally...while the rest of it is obviously important and worthy of study, if you’re interested in just the mythological stuff, I recommend Volume IV, which includes both the Fir Bolg and the Tuatha Dé. Unless you really, really want to read five volumes of medieval Irish pseudohistory, the last volume of which was finished posthumously.) i ii iii iv v

The Metrical Dinshenchas, Edward Gwynn. (5 vols.) (These are difficult, with many scholars outright ignoring them except when absolutely necessary. These are in a later form of Irish, which means that, while some of the contents in them could very well be Pre-Christian in nature, they very much do reflect a later medieval world. Some of them are just as much about contemporary politics as they are about mythology, and many of them also bring in content from the Ulster Cycle and the Fenian Cycle. My personal favorites to look up are Tailtiu, Carn Hui Néit, Duirgen, and Carmun, though there are MANY others.) i ii iii iv v

“The First Battle of Moytura”, John Fraser (Note: It’s a VERY late text, with the question of the Fir Bolg/Tuatha Dé battle and how far the tradition really goes back being one that’s very important to keep in mind. It’s a personal favorite of mine. But it’s very late.)

Baile in Scáil, Kevin Murray (Thurneyson also did an older edition that’s more readily accessible, hence why I linked it here, but Murray is the most recent and up to date.)

“How the Dagda got his magic staff”, Osborn Bergin

Oidheadh Chloinne Tuireann, Richard Duffy (This is an Early Modern Irish text, so it was written down comparatively late. That doesn’t mean that there’s NO mythological content here, it’s a personal favorite of mine, but it means that it very much reflects the cultural context of around....the 15th-17th century or thereabouts. It’s very chaotic, very violent, and the heroic figures are....not....heroic.)

Scél Tuáin Meic Chairill, John Carey

Echtra Nerai, it’s available in a fairly recent translation by John Carey in Celtic Heroic Age (pub. 2003) , listed below, though Kuno Meyer also did an edition/translation for it that I’ve linked to here.

Books:

Proinsias Mac Cana, Celtic Mythology (Personally, I’d recommend this one first - It’s designed for someone who isn’t a specialist and, while a lot of what he’s saying has been disputed back and forth, it’s still a handy primer and will get you into the myths.)

John Koch and John Carey, The Celtic Heroic Age (Once you have an idea of what you’re looking at, I recommend this one, since it’s a sourcebook. A TON of material from across the Celtic world, featuring classical sources, medieval Irish sources, and Welsh, all of it in one place.)

Mark Williams, Ireland’s Immortals (I personally recommend you read this one after you read CHA, giving you a bit of context for what Williams is saying here.)

O’Rahilly, Early Irish History and Mythology (note: A lot of what he says here is no longer considered recent in the field, but his knowledge of his own sources is, frankly, without any other peer. Use with a grain of salt)

John Carey, The Mythological Cycle of Medieval Irish Literature

Kim McCone, Pagan Past, Christian Present

Koch, Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia

Articles:

John Carey, “Myth and Mythography in ‘Cath Magh Tuired’”

John Carey, “Donn, Amairgen, Ith and the Prehistory of Irish Pseudohistory”

Proinsias Mac Cana, “Aspects of the theme of King and Goddess in Irish Literature”

Máire Herbert, “Goddess and king: the sacred marriage in early Ireland.”

Gregory Toner, “Macha and the invention of myth”

Elizabeth A. Gray, “Cath Maige Tuired: myth and structure“

Thomas Charles-Edwards, “Tochmarc Étaíne: a literal interpretation”

Tómas O’Cathasaigh, “Cath Maige Tuired as Exemplary Myth”

Joseph Nagy, “Close encounters of the traditional kind in medieval Irish literature”

Mark Scowcroft, “Leabhar Gabhála. Part I: the growth of the text”

Mark Scowcroft, “Leabhar Gabhála. Part II: the growth of the tradition”

Joseph Nagy, “‘Talking myth’ in medieval Irish literature.”

John Carey, “The Location of the Otherworld in Irish Tradition”

Máire Bhreathnach, “The sovereignty goddess as goddess of death?“

John Carey, “Notes on the Irish war-goddess.”

Veronica Philipps, “Exile and authority in Lebor gabála Érenn”

Kevin Murray, “Sources of Irish mythology. The significance of the dinnṡenchas”

#gaelpol #celtic studies #irish mythology #celtic mythology #the mythological cycle #gaelic polytheism #celtic reconstructionism #long post

3K notes · View notes

basementdwellercreaturefeature · 4 years

Text

Current DA2 Thoughts

Per usual, I have thoughts.

TL;DR Anders fucked up but that doesn’t make him irredeemable.

Jennifer Brandes Hepler said, “Personally, my view of it is that Anders wants to blow up the Chantry AND wants to die for it -- that way he gets the revolution he/Justice believes is necessary, but still gives justice to those who died in the Chantry.”

First, yes. People died in the Chantry explosion. Not like, 5 people. A lot of people. Not up for debate. Second, it didn’t start the revolution or the mage rebellion, it was a tragic loss of life. Also not up for debate. The following events of Inquisition confirm this, even if you don’t read any external Dragon Age content. Anders’ actions did not start a mage rebellion.

What Jennifer Brandes Hepler said here touched me though. Anders, like Solas and Loghain, and other controversial characters in the canon, walks his own Din'Anshiral and believes his death is the only atonement he can offer to the victims. With the prompting of Justice, he moves toward violence as a catalyst for his revolution. It’s an illogical move rather than a strategic move toward mages’ freedom. It really is not even discussed in DAI as a significant plot element regarding the Mage Rebellion. Frankly, Anders... it was dumb. Love you the most, but it was dumb.

So I am never going to argue that Anders was right in his final solution because I think the political climate of DAI objectively shows us that he wasn’t. Was he right regarding mages rights? Different topic, one too dense for one post. To me, his final decision doesn’t really matter when it comes him being redeemable/empathetic or not. You want to talk about the merits or issues of the Circle? The potential crimes of Kirkwall’s Chantry specifically? Fine, then whether or not he was “right” matters in the context of those discussions. However, in regards to character study and the merits of his redemption, I feel that him being right or wrong is irrelevant. Here is why.

Kirkwall is a dumpsterfire. Weakened Veil, wealth disparity, alienages, blood mages and Abominations running rampant, poor control of both the Circle AND the Templars, abuse of both, overwhelming refugee influx from the Blight, both Orsino and Meredith and their own brand of crazy, etc. What we have here is a chaotic clash of both magic and material. Basic, real world problems and fantasy RPG elements. Let’s throw fucking Anders in the mix, see what happens.

How would a mage joined with the spirit of Justice not go a little batshit being there?

And that’s just Justice standing alone. With the kinds of injustice present in Kirkwall? I mean, think about it. We aren’t even factoring in a traumatized ex-Warden whose blood may have tainted Justice (or his anger, we don’t know for sure) into Vengeance. Just Justice in itself would have been difficult. Frankly, I am amazed that he was even sane for as long as he was and able to do as much good as he did in his clinic.

Elements of Justice improved Anders, ironically. In DAA, we see a something of a fuckboy who loves his cat and runs away from responsibility and who probably likes Nickelback. In DA2, our first introduction to Anders is in his free healing clinic in an impoverished area where he is offering aide to refugees and Kirkwall’s maligned and he has definitely moved on to Nirvana. Big difference there. Would he have remained a non-violent advocate for mage freedom outside of Kirkwall’s magic influence and internal chaos? Unclear, but I find it interesting to think about. Sometimes in my personal head canon AU Hawke got him out of there and they moved to a farm with cats before it all went to shit.

JFK said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” BLM taught me that when a group is oppressed long enough, when screaming from the rooftops and offering peaceful solution for decades doesn’t work, when years go by with no change, people get mad because they’re fucking human beings. So, when some protests engaged in looting and rioting and violence (even though it was minor and the news harped on it like a bunch of assholes) it didn’t invalidate the movement. What else do we expect when we ignore their cries for justice for so long?

You shit on people for years and get surprised when it bothers them?

The question to me is not whether or not Anders was right... but is it fair to not expect this from him? In so many ways, that boy was setup to be a disaster. Childhood trauma, Circle trauma, becoming an Abomination after the taint, then the horrors of Kirkwall... Look at all these red flags we all ignored! But still, he works to improve the lives of refugees and mages in Kirkwall. Did our other companions do the same? No, they laugh off his pleas for mage freedom and dismiss him as a fanatic. What does that say about them?

It’s strange to me that there is such a cry for empathy for Solas and not for Anders. People dismiss Solas’ actions because “he hasn’t done it yet” but he is advocating for the eradication of entire races knowingly and has already been partially responsible for hundreds of deaths in Haven and at the Conclave. Solas does this without being possessed by anything. Less of the argument with Solas I have noticed is whether or not he is “right” but more so if he is worthy of redemption because of player affinity, empathy, love in some cases. There’s a desire to save the Dread Wolf from himself, despite his past and future mistakes. Because his "intentions” are good and he wants to restore Arlathan. But with Anders, him being “right” often is the most discussed... as if redemption and grace has anything to do with that. Less popular is discussing the value of intentions. It appears to be a minority that want to reach out to the fucked up apostate idiot cat man and offer atonement despite all these external factors, which I think make mercy more... amiable? At least it did to me. The dissonance here is confusing and sometimes I wonder if it comes down to player preference. Solas is pretty damn smooth. Anders? Not so much. Complete dumpsterfire.

When romanced, Anders might be given the chance to live and atone, to come to terms with himself as an Abomination. Hawke can provide a more stable atmosphere and offer grace and mercy in the moments when he curses himself for joining with Justice and the chaos that decision wrought. Whether or not that is healthy or justified is up to the player to decide. But, I have to wonder what it would do to him seeing the mage rebellion prompted entirely by something else years later and the lack of revolution his actions caused. Mages reject him and his own self-hatred may be all-consuming at this point. While I love the idea of my favorite sewer-dwelling apostate and my kick-ass Hawke growing old together, it very likely would be an agonizing journey, ripe with toxicity and painful dynamics for both of them. Frankly, I have yet to decide what my canon decision is there. Thank the Maker its a video game and I can change my mind as often as I want to.

I see a lot of myself in Anders in a way I have yet to experience with other Dragon Age characters, so I can recognize that this factors into my level of empathy. But all the same, I wanted to share my thoughts. Even as someone who loves the guy, I can see that he is a complete fuck up who may be better off dead... then he is at least free. Unsure. What are your thoughts regarding fandom empathy and objectivity towards more controversial characters? Now excuse me as I return to my Sewer Apostate Spotify playlist and cry for a good two hours looking and Handers fan art like an idiot I just feel for the guy.

#anders positive #kind of #ish #mages rights #mostly #i dont know #solas negative #but only a little #i like them both #da2 #daii #dragon age #i love the cat man #handers #hawke #lol can you imagine #the wardens response to DA2 anders #like this guy? really?#give my son a cat

30 notes · View notes

silly-nonny-fics-are-for-fandoms · 4 years

Text

Amare Dilictio

Note: This is a gift for @angiezstuff! I wanted to say thank you so very much for always making me laugh with your cute art and comics! I actually started writing one fic, but you posted new things which made me want to write more, and so I have three, including this one! Thank you so, so, so much.

Gift 1/3, this one is Jayphen.

Summary: Jay loved Stephen more than life itself. He's loved him for years, and he'd gladly protect him from anything. Maybe he was being overprotective, maybe he was insane, but he did not care. He would be there for him. Because the people who glared at them as they walked, perceived them as delinquents, well. They didn't know about the softness behind the frightening edges.

Read on Ao3 or keep on reading here!

Jay loved his boyfriend more than life itself. Stephen was absolutely wonderful, a ball of chaotic sarcastic energy that never failed to make him laugh, even if he didn't quite understand his actions. So, of course, whenever Stephen was upset, Jay took it upon himself to make sure the problem was taken care of. The purple-haired man was more of an emotional reaction than Jay, a supernova while he was a black hole. Nothing he could do could compare, that was something he was sure of.

They argued a lot, like any couple. Sometimes it was about silly things, and to the untrained eye, one may think that Stephen took the reins in all aspects of their relationship. While that would likely make Stephen very happy, it simply wasn't true. Jay planned date nights, he did all the cooking between the two of them for the safety of the neighborhood, and he was the one who kept him in line in public. There was a very special corner which he often had to remind Stephen that he belonged in, to the dismay of one of their housemates.

Hosuh didn't mind so much, but Gavin was a whole other story. Living with one's brother, his boyfriend, and their own boyfriend was a situation that made many people's heads spin in contemplation. Of course, he loved Hosuh, but hearing Jay and Stephen argue about who would be in the bottom corner was something Gavin did not want to listen to on most days.

So they made a chart, no arguments necessary. Day by day, their behaviors were ticked off in a few different boxes, which would decide for them. It saved Gavin's sanity.

And that made Stephen happy, though he often teased his little brother about it, which made Jay happy. As long as Stephen was kept happy, that was good. No one had to die. There was one rule when it came to that aspect, punishing those who made Stephen cry or upset, and that rule was very simple. Don't touch family or Hosuh. Everyone else was fair game.

Today, Jay was sure that Stephen was intent on driving him insane. He'd grabbed one of Jay's green hoodies and wore it with tight black ripped jeans, his hair messier than normal.

"You're so cute," Jay said with a smirk, quickly leaning over and kissing his boyfriend's cheek. Stephen took a step back, hands in the air, and an offended look on his face.

"Woah, woah, woah! I am not cute, Jay!"

"I mean, have you looked in a mirror?"

"Stephen doesn't need a mirror to know what he looks like."

Jay knew that he wasn't going to get anywhere arguing with him like this. There was absolutely no point to it. So he grabbed his orange marker, heading over to the chart on the fridge, and was about to put a tick mark on one of Stephen's boxes when his hand was grabbed by his partner.

"Oh no, you don't, Jay. Not today." Before Jay could react, Stephen had put a tick mark in the purple marker on the box in Jay's row. "I'm not bottoming today!"

"What? What did I do to get that?" Jay exclaimed, confusion crossing his face, "You're the one acting like a sub!"

"How is he acting like a sandwich?" Hosuh's voice came, still half asleep as he walked into the kitchen. The two of them laughed at him for a short moment, sighing afterward.

"Oh my god, Hosuh. Go back to bed, or go get Gavin up."

"Gavin's already gone, he has a morning run," Hosuh mumbled, turning on the kettle to make some tea for himself and Stephen, and coffee for Jay.

"Wait," Stephen said, eyes wide, "That means I can make as many dick jokes as I want! Fuck yeah!"

"For the next twenty minutes, yeah."

"You're so fucked, asshole."

"That's kind of the point of the chart, baby."

"Don't call me baby! I am not baby! Gavin is a baby!"

"Then what do you want me to call you?"

"My name! Stephen!"

"Can you not argue until after I get my tea?" Hosuh asked, staring at the couple. This wasn't an uncommon occurrence, "Or just go into the living room?"

"Shut up Hosuh! Don't tell me what to do!"

Stephen grabbed Jay by the front of his shirt, pulling him in close for a kiss. That was his normal way to end an argument, they all knew. Because Jay couldn't be mad at him when they were kissing, showing just how much he loved the man in his arms. But, the problem with such an act, was the fact that Stephen got embarrassed very, very easily.

They broke the kiss and Stephen's face was bright red.

"You're so annoying, Jesus Christ."

"No, you're the annoying one." Jay rolled his eyes, grabbing cups from the cabinet along with his coffee grinds, while Hosuh grabbed the tea, "That's why we're dating, obviously."

"I am not annoying! I am amazing, and you are lucky to date me!"

"Hell yeah, I am."

Breakfast went by faster than they expected, and the next thing they knew they had to go to school. Jay didn't get a break throughout his entire day until classes ended, while Stephen had an hour free around two before getting to go home. Jay worried about his boyfriend all the time, even though he trusted that he was going to be okay. Stephen could protect himself. He could fight. They both could.

But he wanted to protect him. He wanted to protect him so strongly that it drove him crazy. Sure, Stephen could be a pain, pretending to be upset and then blaming someone else to get him riled up, but it was all in good fun. No one ever died.

No one ever got too badly injured, to the knowledge of the public.

Stephen loved Jay. He knew that it was weird to most people, to love someone with such violent tendencies as his partner. They thought he was trapped in his relationship, instead of flourishing in it as was actually true. It wasn't uncommon to hear people he didn't even know mumbling about him behind his back.

But they didn't know Jay as he did. They had never seen him get giddy over video games, watching him design houses on the sims, and they'd definitely never seen how happy he got when Stephen ran his fingers through his hair, laying in bed as they read before falling asleep. None of them knew that Jay got up early so that he could be the one to wake up Stephen with kisses, or that he liked to rub his thumb over the back of his hand when they held hands.

They just thought he was creepy. How he never opened his eyes unless necessary, and when he did they were such drastically different colors. But he saw the autumn leaves in his eyes, the sunset's shades bleeding into beauty.

Today, it was too much.

His normal teacher for the last class of the day had been in the hospital for the past month, and her replacement absolutely detested him. She always had to explain things to him slower, embarrassing him in front of the entire class, whenever he had a question. Even if it was something simple, asking for clarification, or just explaining to her why she was wrong. They'd had tests last week and today, they were getting their grades.

A big red F stared him in the face, even though he knew he got at least ninety percent of the questions right. He looked over at the person who always sat next to him, one of the people he'd studied with, did mock tests with, and knew had the same answers as he did.

A plus. One hundred percent.

Rage boiled in him, glaring at the smirking woman at the head of the class. He knew what she was doing. The head of the department was out for the next week, something he knew because of his outstanding grades made one of his teachers suspicious, so he'd been sent to see them to talk about it. He'd been cleared of any cheating suspicions, but he'd been warned not to cause any trouble until next Monday when he could deal with it.

She'd failed him when he had no out.

He looked through his answers on the three-page test, but as the paper shifted, he saw a note fall from between the sheets.

We can discuss your grade after class, Mr. Ng.

He didn't need to meet with her to know what the reason behind this was, even though he still did. Of course, he was correct. She failed him because of his hair, his attitude, and on her first day there he'd found it prudent to call her out for an incorrect explanation only to be picked up by his boyfriend after class. Now, he knew that Jay had a reputation on campus for being weird even amongst odd people.

All invalid reasons. All grounds for getting her fired. Except he couldn't go to the head of the department, because of a stupid vacation.

Hosuh and Gavin had a date that night, so when he got home, he was alone. All alone. Normally, the thought of how stupid his grade had been would make him mad, make him want to punch something, but he found himself breathing hastily, tears streaming down his face as he openly cried.

He didn't expect Jay to get home early, walking into the living room of their flat only to see his boyfriend crying into his hands silently.

"Stephen?" He said softly, "Stephen, what happened?" He asked, rushing over to him and immediately pulling him into a tight embrace, "Who do I need to kill?"

"It's nothing," Stephen whispered, "It's stupid."

"No, it's not. You're crying. Let me help you, I love you too much to see you in so much pain."

Stephen broke. He couldn't stop crying as he explained what happened, dumping all his emotions as fast as he could even if the sentences didn't make sense. He didn't notice Jay texting Hosuh and Gavin, telling them to stay out as long as possible to keep them from seeing Stephen in such a weak state. That was something reserved for him and only him. Jay picked up Stephen as the other dried his tears, not even wobbling as he brought him up the stairs to their room. They had a two-floor, two-bedroom flat, so each couple shared a bedroom to save on space. Stephen was set down on the bed, Jay pausing for a second after putting him down.

"Stay here, I'll be right back." He said, quickly leaving the room and heading over to Gavin and Hosuh's room. He knew that Hosuh had a weighted blanket for his anxiety, used to help him after a panic attack and as a form of therapy, and he would return it after calming down Stephen. Jay desperately wanted to find where that substitute teacher lived and bury her alive, but he had a boyfriend who was infinitely more important, and his sanity was more important.

The blanket was neatly folded in the corner, the soft bunny covered fabric showing on top. He knew there was a pale blue silk satin with clouds on the underside, for some form of texture reason. Not exactly Stephen's ideal, but Jay assumed it would have to do for now. He picked it up, the weight of it a bit more awkward than an actual person. He carried it back to their bedroom, seeing Stephen having curled up in the fetal position near the center of the bed. When he saw the blanket, he sniffled and chuckled softly.

"Is that Hosuh's blanket?"

"Yeah. I don't think he'll mind, and if he does, oh well." Jay shrugged, unfolding the blanket and placing it atop his boyfriend. Only then did he climb in bed with him, kissing his cheeks.

"I love you." Stephen whispered, "You know I'll kill you if you tell anyone about this, right?"

"Ha ha, I know. I love you too. Now go to sleep."

"Don't tell me what to do," Stephen grumbled, refusing to follow the order. Instead, he reached over and took Jay's hand in his own, staring up at the ceiling now. As crappy as the world outside was, as dark as it could be, they created their own twisted light to keep the rest of the world safe from the 'monsters' like themselves. Well, if they were monsters, they were the best kind.

#Jayphen #Actuallyoddplan #My writing #Fanfiction #Mild hurt/comfort #Light angst #Good boyfriends #Light swearing #Comfort #So many cuddles #I'm very bad at tagging #Gift fic

26 notes · View notes

ephemeral-afterlight · 5 years

Text

a personal analysis of deceit, deception, lying, and morality: an essay that’s literally almost 4k words for no reason other than that i like to make my sentences as obnoxiously long as possible

i just want to preface this post by saying i’ve been working on this for a little while, and then it got deleted, so i had to start all over. it is a huge weight off my shoulders finally getting this posted.

PLEASE please please take heed of the trigger warning: if you are triggered by talk of domestic violence, abuse, or alcoholism, do be wary of this post. i go somewhat into depth about my experience with abusers, and there are quick mentions of things such as strangulation, so this post is not intended to be light-hearted or funny. this post is serious, and very important to me, enough to want to post it, so please proceed with caution if you feel like you may be uncomfortable reading about these things. the rest is under the cut, so make sure to read the tags to know if this one is a skip for you! now, onto the analysis!

first off, i’d like to say that i personally don’t jibe with using “redeem” or “redemption arc” in reference to deceit, because that implies that dee has done something that needs to be redeemed, and he hasn’t. a redemption arc is used to right a wrong, if you will, and dee hasn’t done anything that can be classified as a wrong, at least nothing more than the other sides have also done (such as passive-aggressive teasing).

in my opinion, some fanders’ perception of deceit and “the dark sides” is somewhat skewed. there seems to be this overarching theme and/or agreement that they’re all bad and/or evil purely for being either 1. stuck with their purpose (that they didn’t exactly choose—it’s quite literally their job. who’s to say that dee likes lying, or remus necessarily enjoys his intrusive thoughts despite having the heavy and frequent impulses to act on them? they can’t easily control their dishonesty and impulsivity respectively, after all, but feel free to discard that notion if it’s too hypothetical for you) or 2. labeled as a “dark side”.

as for the latter, the name is purely something roman made up to further separate the two groups, but imo it’s quite easy to separate each side into a “moral group” based on their actions and behaviour at the time that is very different from the one roman (and the others by proxy, given that they go along with it’s usage) has imposed upon everyone, so that shouldn’t be used as an unchallengeable metric to determine which sides are either purely good or purely bad; everyone has their strengths and their flaws, and you could argue some more than others, but that is also subjective to one’s own perception of each side’s behaviour. pure good and pure bad just… doesn’t exist.

now, onto deceit. something i’ve noticed when briefly delving into sympathetic/unsympathetic dee discourse is that most people who say that dee is interminably bad/evil usually bring up the fact that dee lies as their main point; he lies, and lying is bad, so therefore he’s bad, which in my opinion is a woefully simplistic view of the sides and the world in general. i think a lot of fanders and people in general don’t realize that lying is not the only form of deceit, and you don’t necessarily need to lie to deceive someone. to deceive someone, by definition, is to lead them to a conclusion that is not true or not comprehensive of the truth, and that’s where it starts to get a bit muddled. by definition, deceit typically implies that the conclusion you’re leading someone to is a lie, but that’s not necessarily always the case; colloquially, deceit is much more than that, and it doesn’t just mean falsifying the truth, it also means concealment of the truth, which i don’t think is talked about near enough in these discussions. deceit’s main function isn’t necessarily to get thomas to always lie, but rather to cause someone else to draw a specific conclusion about something using any means possible. so while yes, deceit can often involve lying, the main purpose is to cause someone to draw an intended conclusion; the means to get there are not inherent, which is why reducing deceit’s purpose down to “just lying” is somewhat ignorant (i don’t mean that in a hostile way or to offend, i mean it in the basic sense of the word), and doing him a great injustice.

the discussion of whether lying is good or bad is an extremely difficult one, and a lot of arguments from either “purist” side of the spectrum are already out there, so i don’t really feel the need to go in-depth with that aspect of it. for this, i’ll just go with my own experiences and perspectives, to sort of bolster my main point about deceit and his purpose and how he should be treated, as opposed to how he’s being treated now.

now, in my experience, lying is not an inherently bad thing, nor should it be completely disregarded and viewed as something that makes you a terrible person. in fact, for me, lying has been mandatory, and something that quite literally meant the difference between potentially getting hurt or even dying. i know a lot of people haven’t had to deal with extremely volatile situations or grow up with abusive people around them, so let me explain this as clearly as possible: when you’re dealing with an abuser, in almost every instance the best thing to do is lie or be as submissive as possible to diffuse the situation and avoid being hurt. i know it doesn’t sound ideal, but especially when dealing with someone who has very manic, spastic mood changes or are severely alcoholic, making sure the situation stays de-escalated can quite literally save your life. lying to reassure the abuser and placate them is one of the safest and most efficient ways to prevent them from getting angrier or lashing out. in a lot of these cases, you also lie to stop an outburst or argument before it even starts, because once an abuser gets set off, there is little to nothing you can do to stop their chaotic rampage; they will try to destroy everything in their way, and that includes you.

domestic violence is something i’ve had to struggle with seeing from the sidelines and up close on an endless assembly line of abusive, toxic, manipulative users all my life, and although my mother tried her best to keep me away from it, there were times where i couldn’t stay out of it. there were times i’d get into arguments with the one i consider the worst of the bunch (let’s call him j), and those arguments ranged from me hatefully antagonizing him in response to his alcoholism and terrible decisions to screaming matches in which i genuinely feared for my life. i was an idiot, and i’m lucky that he was never stupid enough to try to hurt me physically. but the common denominator in this was that once i learned to shut up and remove myself from the situation, the arguments lessened in frequency for a while. whenever i sensed that j was irritated (he was irritated when he was drunk, and he was always drunk), i would hide things. if i had to lie, i would. if i had to lead the conversation away from what he was angry about, i would. if i had to stow away in my locked bedroom until he passed out, i would. because that was all i could do. and when i didn’t do that, j got angry. and violent. near the end, in one of the worst arguments we had ever had because my mom didn’t lie well enough or misdirect his focus, he blasted loud music (to purposely spike my anxiety), pounded on my locked bedroom door where my mom and i were hiding from him until the frame cracked, and he smashed a bunch of lightbulbs in front of the doorway in a drunken attempt to keep us from leaving. he snapped, because my mom wasn’t successful in deceiving him, misdirecting him to diffuse the situation. i found out later that on the last day she ever saw him, they had yet another an argument about something. j flipped from normal to hateful and vicious like a light switch, and he tried to strangle her. my mother could have almost died because she couldn’t diffuse the situation. because she couldn’t deceive him.

i know this is a heavy example to use, and it’s hard to read for me even now, but i can’t be satisfied with myself without putting my and so many others’ reasonings for lying in this post. lying isn’t always to pull yourself up at the expense of others. sometimes it’s to save your life, and i heavily empathize with people who are unfortunate enough to have to do so. you are strong, and you will get through it, and it’s okay to do whatever you have to do to keep yourself safe. even if it means lying or fighting back.

that was long, and i know i went off on a bit of a tangent, but my point is that lying isn’t always used in selfish ways, and even when it is, it doesn’t mean those selfish intentions are always necessarily bad or wrong or immoral. self-preservation is not inherently immoral. it is a basic human instinct to keep yourself out of danger, to excel and succeed, and to live the best and safest life you can.

i personally am very neutral on where i stand with how often you employ usage of deceitful means to get what you need. while yes, i do believe that lying should not always be used in every situation/altercation nor be used to always get what you want at the expense of others, i also think that lying is an essential part of a human being’s survival, and it deeply troubles me that it has become a necessary tool to keep yourself safe in the modern age. and while i did it in a roundabout way, this brings me back to my overarching point: deceit is not inherently bad or wrong or evil for wanting thomas to deceive people to help himself, it’s just the matter of regulating him that needs to be addressed and changed. this can be made very abundantly clear with virgil and how he fits into this whole narrative.

virgil and deceit are different in what exactly they want for thomas, but i don’t think they’re different at all in terms of their intentions. while virgil wants to keep thomas alert to danger and his control of the fight or flight reflex is testament to how thomas impulsively handles those situations, with logan’s influence, that impulsive reaction is tampered down, leaving virgil as almost an alarm system. he identifies problems and possible dangers, and then suggests a way to subvert said dangers (whether those suggestions are viable options or not). deceit, on the other hand, is who comes out when thomas decides to confront that danger. he’s thomas’ filter in every sense of the word, and therefore is an important variable when thomas is met with a potentially dangerous situation that can only be resolved verbally (and whether lying is employed or not is subjective to the situation). he is also needed in less intense ways, such as not letting every single thought that pops into thomas’ head get said aloud (remus would have a fucking field day with that one), which also brings us back to keeping yourself safe from volatile people and dangerous situations. you can’t always be completely honest and transparent with them, because that can set them off, and then they can hurt you.

in less dangerous matters, such as the wedding/callback scenario, deceit truly believes that he’s doing what’s best for thomas. (i agree that the callback is the obvious choice here, but that’s a whole other essay.) while yes, it could be argued that deceit wants thomas to gain at the expense of others, i’d counter that by positing that that’s not the point of the whole dilemma. deceit believes that doing something that would hurt you just to placate others and strictly adhere to your overbearing sense of morality is a terrible, harmful choice. it was acknowledged and brought up multiple times that it’s not just that thomas doesn’t want to go to the wedding, it’s also that he would hurt himself by doing so, and deceit doesn’t want thomas to do something that would cause an “increase in depression” because it harms thomas.

yes, deceit wants thomas to lie to get out of it, but you could also bring up the point that deceit is actually being kind by doing so. he’s sticking with what he believes is the right thing to do, and suggesting a means to do it in a way that would spare mary lee and lee the potential disappointment or hurt of thomas choosing the callback instead. after all, “what you don’t know can’t hurt you.” and yes, while logan is right, knowledge is extremely important and you should always strive to remedy your own ignorance, that doesn’t mean you’re always ready for that information, or that it’s safe for you to know such things, especially when they’re deeply embedded in a highly emotional and impulsive reaction.

you can debate whether it’s better for mary lee and lee to know the real reason why thomas wouldn’t be going to the wedding or not, but it still doesn’t change the fact that going to the wedding would not only harm thomas mentally and emotionally, it could also cost him a huge opportunity to better his life and reach new heights, and they would understand that. if mary lee and lee are as good of friends as patton says they are, they would not prioritize their wants over thomas’ needs. and that, folks, is the big misconception that i feel a lot of people don’t address—it’s not just about thomas wanting to go to the callback, it’s that he needs to, to prevent a worsening mental state or bad emotional reaction. any good friend would never force someone they care about to do something that would hurt them, no matter how much you want them to do said thing. this is where patton is going severely wrong right now; like i’ve said a million times before, patton is holding thomas to an impossibly high standard of purity and perfection and selflessness, and it’s the most harmful thing to thomas right now. just as extreme selfishness isn’t good, extreme selflessness isn’t good either.

that was another tangent, but i’d like to get back to virgil. now, i do agree that virgil’s arc is different from deceit’s, but in different ways, and they’re far more similar than i think some people realize. virgil’s arc was all about being viewed as a terrifying villain, the monster in the closet, the one who weighs you down and prevents you from moving forward. he was viewed as wrong and bad purely for his purpose, and ostracized because of it. he was treated badly by the others, not listened to, and disregarded. he was misunderstood, and forced into a box, so he lashed out in fear. the only way to get them to listen to him was to be scary, to force their attention just long enough to get his point across. and when they others finally realized how much he actually did for thomas and how important he is, they learned to work with him, and virgil learned to work with them.

referencing the yerkes-dodson curve, and even to basic concepts such as yin & yang, everything has to exist in a balance, and having something too much or too little can and almost certainly will be detrimental to the thing it affects. in this case, virgil can be over the top and scary and irrational at times, but his input is sorely needed, and an important tool to keep thomas safe and alert to potential dangers around him. with the help of the others, especially logan, they can sift through any of virgil’s more extreme reactions and lay out the condensed version that has the information and perspective they need without a lot of the panicky and overbearing aspects that can come with overwhelming anxiety. they found a balance, a way to work with each other, and the result settled a certain disquiet in thomas. it bettered him as a person to accept his anxiety and listen to what it has to say rather than push it away and suppress it.

now, look at deceit. he’s portrayed as a scary villain, the ghost underneath the sheet. he’s the mysterious sinister force that controls the flow of information from thomas’ subconsciousness to his consciousness, and therefore holds power. he’s being treated as a bad, dark part of thomas purely for his purpose, and has been separated on the other side of the “black and white” line between morality and immorality, pushed away from the others and from thomas. they’re constantly antagonistic and hostile towards him, doubly so in virgil’s case (which is where a lot of the hypocrisy comes out that i can’t ignore, because virgil treats deceit exactly how the others sides treated him before he was accepted, and virgil obviously hated being treated like that, so why in the world does he think it’s okay to do it to deceit?), and they disregard his opinions and very valid points backed up by painstakingly thought-out arguments (that i have a feeling deceit took a lot of time strengthening so that he could convince thomas to do what he thinks is right and to show them that he’s not trying to hurt thomas, he’s trying to help him, which could be why logan was benched during svs. deceit knew that they’d listen to logan, but if he had let him take over the conversation, they wouldn’t be hearing deceit’s points and opinions, they’d be hearing logan’s, and it wouldn’t bring deceit any closer to being accepted or listened to than before) just because oooOoOooOoOO scary dark side! he’s a liar, so everything he says is wrong and invalid! oOooOoOoooO he’s so edgy and extra so we obviously shouldn’t listen to him! he’s just dramatic oooOoOooOOoOOOOOOOO /s

sound familiar? deceit and virgil’s arcs are so painfully similar, it baffles me how people insist that they’re completely different. i think the worst argument i’ve ever seen for this is that virgil is just a pure soft uwu boy and he never deserved what happened pre-aa, but deceit is terrible, awful, evil, and abusive and he deserves to get cut off and isolated from the others and told his opinions don’t matter and his valid concerns and fears are just him being edgy. that one almost made me fly off the handle in a salty rage, but i have suppressed it until now, where i can vent my points in a more logical, organized manner than just me screaming internally.

what needs to happen with deceit is nearly the exact same thing that had to happen with virgil: the other sides and thomas need to understand that he doesn’t do the things he does because he wants thomas to be this bad, horrible, immoral, extremely selfish awful person who takes what they want when they want in the express intent to harm others. he is self-preservation (albeit in a different way than virgil exists as self-preservation), and just wants thomas to always make the best decisions to keep himself healthy and safe, even if it means doing something like lying to skip a friend’s invitation to a life event. this comes right back around to virgil and how they learned to work with him; they need to work with each other, and balance everything out. they need to take into account deceit’s opinions and concerns and suggestions, and consider each one carefully between themselves, vetting ones that have been thoroughly picked apart and shown to be flawed, just like what they do with virgil and every other main side.

(apart from patton right now, but that is also a whole other essay, and i won’t derail this just to talk about that.)

this post is getting really long, so i’m gonna try to start winding to a close. generally, i know that the debate on whether lying is good or bad can be tedious, and complex, and seems almost looming at times, just because of how much you can take into account. there are so many arguments and reasonings and examples and evidence and thoughts on the morality behind lying that finding a way to satisfyingly come to a conclusion can be difficult for most, and even when you have a somewhat set belief on where you stand with its usage, certain points and expostulations can shift your view on lying very quickly. morality is also a very nebulous thing imposed upon us as a society, a set of values to believe in and adhere to, but things that are viewed as moral, immoral, or somewhere in the middle can change their standings very quickly, and can be influenced harshly by society and how we grow as people over time. things like being gay were viewed as immoral and wrong and terrible many years ago, but now, people realize it’s a very normal thing and it doesn’t make you a bad person to be different.

because like logan got cut off from saying, morality in terms of good and bad is nearly impossible to quantify given that each person imposes their own subjective rules of good or evil on actions, words, and behaviours. there is no way to objectively say that someone or something is morally good, morally evil, or morally grey without also having to also assert the fact that your view of morality is, in itself, a subjective opinion based largely around your upbringing, environment, presence/non-presence of religion, and many other factors. what you view as morally grey can be vastly different from my definition of morally grey, and that comes to light very easily when i find myself torn between agreement and disagreement when reading more in-depth analysis posts on the sides and their intentions with what they do and represent.

not every opinion here necessarily applies to everyone. i just wanted to add as much as possible from as many opinions and perspectives i could find that would help to contextualize my points and hit as many bases as possible with this one post. i thought it would be beneficial to put down the thoughts of a person from a different walk of life, so to speak, and how that greatly impacts the perception of the sides and their purposes/intentions. i know that a lot of this stuff is more in-depth and less in relation to the sides, but i think it’s really important to go into deeper discussion on these topics and themes, and relating them to the sides and what they represent is only a plus because it makes them easier to understand and sympathize with, whether you accept my interpretation of them or not.

anyway, sorry this turned into an actual essay (i can write nearly 4k in a couple hours about philosophical perspectives on the innate morality or immorality of deception, but i can’t write a single paragraph of the draft fics i’ve been working on for months? i see how it is brain), but hopefully you got to the end without getting grey hairs in the process! i’m not trying to invite the Disc Horse™ with this one, but i’m always open to discussion, and i’m in no way saying that my interpretation is a fact, because it’s just that—an interpretation—and it’s up to you to research and understand and to ask yourself those complex questions about what you believe. thanks for reading!

64 notes · View notes

neurosengarten · 7 years

Link

Laymen confuse “narcissistic style” with “narcissistic personality disorder”. Many politicians have a narcissistic style: narcissistic traits and behaviors that may amount to a narcissistic personality. They are vain, self-centered, haughty, bombastic, and infantile. Narcissistic Personality Disorder in general and “malignant narcissism” in particular are an entirely different ballgame. It’s like the difference between a social drinker and an alcoholic.

Narcissists (people with a full-fledged personality disorder) are positively dangerous: they are delusional, their thinking is clouded by grandiose fantasies, they are vindictive, contemptuous, aggressive, destructive, bullying, sadistic, and have no self-awareness. They are not curious and vehemently and sometimes violently reject any criticism, suggestion, or disagreement. They lack empathy and they exploit people, having objectified and abused them.

One more thing: it is common practice to evaluate someone’s mental health not having interviewed him or her and without administering psychological tests. Mental health evaluation (as distinct from a proper diagnosis) does not require physical access to the evaluated person. The CIA has an entire department dedicated to the psychological profiling of world leaders (read Jerrold Post’s analysis of Saddam Hussein, now available online — or the OSS psych-profile of Adolf Hitler). The FBI uses psychiatrists to construct psychological profiles of serial killers and terrorists. Scholars habitually publish “remote diagnoses” of public personalities in weighty and venerable academic journals. It is common practice!

Evaluating the mental health of a public figure requires an inordinate amount of research. Over the past 5 years, I have watched well over 600 hours of Trump in various settings and read everything he has written and was quoted as saying. I have no such in-depth acquaintance with the other candidates except Clinton.

Trump is a malignant narcissist. This view is shared by dozens of mental health professionals who went on public record with their analyses of his mental infirmity. He is dangerous, antisocial, destructive, vindictive, sadistic, and hypervigilant (paranoid and hypersensitive). He tends to cast himself as a belligerent martyr: the self-sacrificial victim of a vast conspiracy of the establishment, in a David vs. Goliath confrontational morality play.

Clinton strikes me as somewhat psychopathic: she is a pathological liar, a rank manipulator, a confabulator, and is exploitative and dysempathic. But, she is far less likely to implode and self-destruct than Trump. While she is far from an optimal choice for any public office, she is no way near as ominous as Trump.

Trump is so unfit to be President that I am not sure where to start. But here are a few issues that are likely to raise their collective ugly heads even in the first weeks of a Trump presidency:

Trump regards himself as omniscient, an authority on anything and everything, from aesthetics to ethics. He, therefore, lacks intellectual curiosity and regards outside advice as both superfluous and injurious (because it implies that he is less than perfect). He is likely to surround himself with timid yesmen and sycophantic acolytes and generate an impregnable echo chamber rather than a council of wise men and women.

Trump’s grasp of nuanced reality, weak as it already is, is likely to deteriorate further to the point of paranoid psychosis. Faced with opposition, however tenuous, he is likely to react by scapegoating and by inciting street or state violence against targeted groups. Trump is the state, so his enemies (anyone who as much as voices doubt or disagrees with him) is, by definition, an enemy of the state.

Owing to his self-perceived innate superiority, Trump regards himself as above and transcending laws made by lesser mortals. Laws are meant to trap and ensnare giants like him, to drag him down to the pedestrian level of mediocrity. He plays by the rules only when and if they accord with his predilections and self-interest.

Like all narcissists, Trump believes that he is universally loved, adored, and admired. He attributes this ostensible (and utterly delusional) blanket approbation to his effusive charm and irresistibility. He is firmly convinced that he can motivate people to transgress against their own moral convictions and to break the law, if necessary, just by the sheer force of his monumental personality. Trump idealizes and then rapidly devalues people, collectives, and institutions. Trump is in sempiternal flux: he is inconstant in his judgements, opinions, views, and fleeting attachments.

Trump is intellectually lazy, so he is a firm adherent of shortcuts and of “fake it till you make it”. It is a dangerous approach that led him to botch numerous business deals and inflict untold damage and suffering on thousands of people.

Trump is authoritarian in the worst sense of the word. In his disordered, chaotic mind, he is infallible (incapable of erring), omnipotent (can achieve anything if he just sets his mind to it), and omniscient (needs to learn nothing as he is the fount of all true, intuitive knowledge). This precludes any proper team work, orderly governance, institutional capacity, flow of authority and responsibility, and just plain structure. Trump is an artist, led by inconsistent and intermittent inspiration, not by reliable, old-fashioned perspiration. He is not a self-made man, but a self-conjured caricature of a self-made man. Trump is guided by his alleged inner divine wisdom. He is a malevolent guru and cult leader, not a politician or a statesman.

Ironically, Trump’s much trumpeted grandiosity is fragile because it is based on delusional and fantastic assumptions of perfection and intellectual brilliance which are hard to defend. Hence Trump’s relentless and compulsive pursuit of affirmation and adulation. He needs to be constantly idolized just to feel half human. Criticism and disagreement, however minor and well-intentioned, are perceived as unmitigated threats to the precarious house of cards that is Trump’s personality. Consequently, Trump is sadistically vindictive, aiming not just to counter such countervailing opinions regarding his Godlike status, but to deter and intimidate future critics.

Finally, aiming to disavow his own fragility and the indisputable fact that his public persona is nothing but a fabrication, Trump ostentatiously and volubly abhors and berates the weak, the meek, “losers”, “haters” (of which is a prime example), the disabled, women, minorities, and anyone else who might remind him by their very existence of how far from perfect and brilliant he is. The public Trump is about hatred, resentment, rage, envy, and other negative emotions because he is mercilessly driven by these very demons internally. Trump’s quotidien existence is a Kafkaesque trial in which he stands accused of being a mere, average, not-too-bright, mortal and is constantly found wanting and guilty as charged. His entire life is a desperate, last ditch attempt to prove wrong the prosecution in this never-ending courtroom drama.

Trump. Another example of the classic totalitarian dictator.

#trump #drumpf #tronald dump #narcissism #kim yong trump

8 notes · View notes

d-and-s-are-bord-blog · 4 years

Text

Why I Decided to Start Kink Shaming Myself

via WordPress ift.tt/2urbHFq

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

I have been a masochist for as long as I can remember. As young as six years old, watching a CBBC drama with a fey, bookish protagonist being tormented by older boys, I would feel an excitement I can only explain as the beginning of desire. More of a Walter the Softie myself, I was nonetheless drawn to the chaotic, masculine energy of Dennis the Menace.

Later, my sexual awakening occurred at the precise moment I began to be bullied for being gay. I was bullied, like most people, by the popular boys—the most handsome and arrogant and swaggering. The first people I desired were the same ones who treated me with contempt or violence: It doesn’t seem too much of a reach to suggest that violence and desire became conflated. I have been a masochist my whole life—but now, for the first time, I no longer want to be.

Last year, I was seeing a man called Thomas. Almost immediately, he fell into the habit of giving instructions and I fell into the habit of obeying them—apologizing and asking his permission. It was all very ribald and light-hearted, until one night I finished work late and he invited me over to his apartment. When I arrived, he made a Greek salad and I hugged him from behind, kissing his neck as he chopped up the cucumbers. Afterward, he sat down on the sofa, while I lay with my head in his lap, looking up at him, and told him how much I had enjoyed everything he’d done to me the last time we met. He looked down on me with a smirk and, without saying anything, slapped me hard on the ear. It hurt, badly, and my ear began to ring, but to tell him off felt like a breach of contract—so I said nothing. After all, I’d previously told him that he could do anything. Moments later, he hit me again in the same place and my ear rang even louder. Against waves of pain, I tried to smile as he ran his hands through my hair and tugged on a patch of gray.

“You have so much gray hair,” he said. “You’re old.” Still frozen in a smile, at that moment I began to feel humiliated in a way that wasn’t enjoyable. I was furious. I wanted to show him that my submission had always been conditional and could be snatched away at any moment. Who the fuck did he think he was talking to? I stood up, shoved my feet into my shoes without bothering to slide them in properly, and hobbled toward the door.

When I reached it, he said “wait…” and when I turned around he was holding out my bag. He looked confused, maybe even slightly hurt. I snatched it from him.

“Where are you going?”

I said, “I’m not into this,” slammed the door and left.

Sally Rooney’s novel Normal People features a similar scene: Marianne, one of the main characters, is tied up in the apartment of a man with whom she’s involved in a sadomasochistic relationship. When she experiences a sudden wave of disgust, both for the situation and for him, she demands he untie her and storms out of his apartment. As she leaves, she wonders, “Is the world such an evil place, that love should be indistinguishable from the basest and most abusive forms of violence?” I had read the novel only two weeks earlier and find it hard to believe I wasn’t, in a sense, ripping it off. The scene marks a turning point in Marianne’s character arc, signaling a rejection of self-abasement. That night, listening to Cardi B on the bus ride home, I thought I’d made an equally powerful act of renunciation, that I would never see Thomas or allow myself to be treated that way again. This proved short-lived: The next day, I texted him to apologize for my behavior and asked if he wanted to go to the movies.

Thomas remembers the incident differently and insists that I asked him to hit me. It’s not my recollection, but I’m not ruling it out: I was drunk, he was sober, and it would hardly be out of character. I’m not sure it matters either way because my intention isn’t to depict him as an abuser. Whether or not I asked him to, he hit me because I’d told him it was the kind of thing I liked. The last time we met I’d consented to it explicitly, so how was he to judge when that consent expired? It must be disconcerting when someone tells you “you can do anything to me” and then storms out your door the minute you exercise the power they’ve given you.

I know a number of gay men and women who sleep with men who have had similar experiences. In order to consider how the dynamics of rough sex might differ in a heterosexual setting, along with the commonalities, I spoke with Sarah, a feminist academic based in Glasgow who has been vocally critical of the normalization of violent sex.

I suggest to Sarah that, by engaging in rough sex, gay men and straight women might be fetishizing their own oppression, be that homophobia or misogyny. “I would agree,” she says. “I think the key factor is the fetishizing of male domination. But with heterosexual rough sex [where men are dom tops], that’s not at all subversive. By degrading women, men are just playing a hyper-realized version of the position they actually occupy.”

I ask Sarah what she makes of the fact that so many people actively consent to and enjoy violent sex. “It’s hard to make sweeping judgments on this, and I don’t want to shame anyone for internalizing an oppression. We need to be wary of moralistic sex negativity—the issue is not that it’s bad because it’s distasteful, but that it’s bad because it’s harmful. There can be tons of factors that influence why people consent. It’s not always an autonomous decision. You can be coerced at a societal level.” I think this is true. Understandably, most of the discourse around harm in relation to sex centers around consent. This is necessary but insufficient: After all, it’s possible to enthusiastically consent to something that harms you.

What is the nature of the harm violent sex might pose? “It can perpetuate cycles of abuse and warp your perspective about what’s acceptable from a partner,” Sarah says. “It can lead you to think, If I let them do this to me in bed, it’s hypocritical of me to be pissed off at them if they do it elsewhere. If sex only existed in a vacuum in some utopian world, this would be fine, but it doesn’t and never will. The minute you sexually degrade or objectify a woman, that memory is always there.”

Although I’m a man and the power relations are different, this chimes with my own experiences. When you create a dynamic of violence and subjugation, it’s hard to seal that off in the bedroom. Eventually, it seeps out. Someone ordering you to suck them off might be fun. What’s less fun is them telling you to go to the store to buy cigarettes because it’s raining and they can’t be bothered to going outside.

When Thomas entered into a relationship with someone else, we made the terrible, inexplicable decision to continue seeing each other as friends. One night in the pub, he claimed the private school he’d attended had “an anti-conservative ethos,” and I started ranting about how stupid that was, talking loudly enough for the people around us to hear. The whole time, as I waved my arms and shouted about inherited privilege, feeling myself to be on blistering form, there was the sense that I was only doing this to get a reaction. I was goading him and he understood this. I wanted him to grab me by the throat and tell me to shut the fuck up. Had he done this, I would have gone quiet. I would have said sorry. I would have conceded that, yes, his private school did actually sound pretty radical. At one point, he asked me to change the subject and I said, ‘What are you gonna do?” He raised his hand then dropped it and said “nothing.” There’s an old joke that goes: “Hit me,” said the masochist, “No,” said the sadist.

Eventually, he delivered the definitive rejection I thought I’d wanted and I found myself drinking alone, wondering what was wrong with me. Did I make myself impossible to respect by being too submissive? Did he think I was damaged? It occurred to me that slapping and insulting someone from the first time you sleep together might make it hard to develop feelings of affection. I felt like he wanted to dominate me but disdained me for allowing him to do so: Maybe because I enjoyed it too much?

Throughout the months following, sexual masochism bled into the emotional kind. I was drawn to coldness; men who left me on read for days at a time, men who made me apologize for myself. There was the guy who, when I gently made fun of him, told me he “didn’t like to be intellectually challenged.” There was the man who told me he’d probably given me gonorrhoea, then ignored me for a week before getting back in touch with an enthusiastic message about the new man he’d met and an invitation to join his book club (I declined). I wasn’t attracted to these men despite the awful way they treated me, but because of their aloofness, rather than being a flaw, was central to their appeal. Kindness or enthusiasm, on the other hand, I considered to be “begging it”—nothing was less erotic than being treated with basic human courtesy.

I had been in an abusive relationship before, prior to this period, and it goes without saying that it wasn’t sexy or fun. For all the drama, for all the violence and threats, it was tedious. The last thing I wanted was to replicate that experience, but still I found myself romanticizing unhealthy power dynamics, usually while listening to Lana del Rey. Red flags were my biggest fetish. Given my history, this was insane. I would have run head-first into an abusive relationship with any of the men I dated last year—the only thing that saved me was the fact that none of them wanted to.

As well as feeling that rough sex was harming me, I worried that I was causing harm. The direction of power in sex is rarely linear. You can be submissive and still be bossy: sentences beginning “make me…” are still instructions. In Normal People, Marianne says, “You’re hardly a submissive if you only submit to things you want to do.” By this metric, I’m hardly a submissive. The sex I enjoy often amounts to: “Force me to do the things I already find most gratifying.” There’s nothing wrong with this, but it’s important to recognize that submissives can be, in their own way, just as domineering. Leopold Sacher-Masoch (the author of Venus in Furs, from whom masochism derives its name) would pressure his wife into sleeping with other men so he could experience the pleasurable humiliation of being cuckolded. Who’s really being degraded there?

In the case of two gay men, if the sexual dynamic is based around “I am weak and you are strong,” often expressed as “I am feminine and you are masculine,” then both partners are playing to the same insecurities—they’re just coming at it from different angles. I worried that, by validating the masculinity of someone dominating me, I was stoking their internalized homophobia. It seems plausible to suggest that making someone feel, temporarily, like a “real man” might perpetuate the anxiety that they’re not.

For all these reasons, I have made the decision to stop having this kind of sex, even if only for a while. It was damaging my relationships, making me feel worse about myself, and, perhaps, in the end, harming other people too. I want to transcend the idea that sexual compatibility is the most important thing. One friend assures me that “desire is surprisingly malleable” and, if I was skeptical at first, I’m beginning to understand how this could be true. I’ve dated a couple of men since who weren’t at all domineering or violent. It’s been a pleasant surprise to discover that sex can still be exciting without being degrading, although at times it’s taken effort not to find it boring.

At the end of Normal People, rather than rejecting her instincts toward masochism, Marianne finds a healthier context in which to express them. Her boyfriend dominates her lovingly and with respect, understanding “it wasn’t necessary to hurt her: he could let her submit willingly, without violence.” Maybe such an accommodation is the best I can hope for.

Follow James Greig on Twitter.

The post Why I Decided to Start Kink Shaming Myself appeared first on .

Posted by richmeganews on 2019-03-22 20:16:26

Tagged: , Breaking , News

The post Why I Decided to Start Kink Shaming Myself appeared first on Good Info.

1 note · View note

richmeganews · 5 years

Text

Why I Decided to Start Kink Shaming Myself

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

When I reached it, he said “wait…” and when I turned around he was holding out my bag. He looked confused, maybe even slightly hurt. I snatched it from him.

“Where are you going?”

I said, “I’m not into this,” slammed the door and left.

Follow James Greig on Twitter.

The post Why I Decided to Start Kink Shaming Myself appeared first on .

from WordPress http://www.richmeganews.com/why-i-decided-to-start-kink-shaming-myself/

#Breaking News

1 note · View note