#CW: children mention | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

elia-nymmeros · 2 months

Text

Cersei and her vision of ruling

I waited, and so can he. I waited half my life. She had played the dutiful daughter, the blushing bride, the pliant wife. She had suffered Robert's drunken groping, Jaime's jealousy, Renly's mockery, Varys with his titters, Stannis endlessly grinding his teeth. She had contended with Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, and her vile, treacherous, murderous dwarf brother, all the while promising herself that one day it would be her turn. If Margaery Tyrell thinks to cheat me of my hour in the sun, she had bloody well think again.

I love thinking about Cersei and her inefficient and ultimately doomed attempt at ruling because, beyond her faults and terrible traits as a person, she simply does not offer any valuable incentive towards anyone who wishes to follow her, as opposite to other contestants (something that I think 100% comes from Tywin), and any attempt at ruling would've failed sooner or later.

Edit: added some quotes to show some examples and tweak some stuff!

From AGoT all the way through her PoVs in AFfC, one of Cersei's main characteristics both in her personal approach to other people and in the way she tackles ruling is that she believes she's entitled to power and she's entitled to be treated as superior both as a Lannister and as the queen regent of Westeros. She routinely dismiss and berates people with lesser social power and status, she despises people who try to 'take liberties' and who don't treat her as an untouchable regent, and she's willing to hurt, torture and kill anyone who she considers a threat to her claim to rule. I personally think it's understandable that she's paranoid about traitors and people who have double intentions about her and Tommen —especially considering that in AFfC she literally just saw her son die in her arms by poison— but her problem is that she's a bad judge of character, she's been flawed in how she interprets other people's actions since AGoT, and she's incapable of adequately judging who is on her side and who is a bad option for an ally (see for example her thinking that Kevan was a traitor when he made good criticism about her as a ruler).

"The next Hand will know his place, she promised herself. It would have to be Ser Kevan. Her uncle was tireless, prudent, unfailingly obedient. She could rely on him, as her father had. The hand does not argue with the head. She had a realm to rule, but she would need new men to help her rule it. Pycelle was a doddering lickspittle, Jaime had lost his courage with his sword hand, and Mace Tyrell and his cronies Redwyne and Rowan could not be trusted. For all she knew they might have had a part in this. Lord Tyrell had to know that he would never rule the Seven Kingdoms so long as Tywin Lannister lived." AFfC, Cersei I

For me, a very hard truth about Cersei is that she absolutely suffered physical and sexual abuse from Robert, and she did not deserve neither this nor her perpetual objectification by pretty much every men in her life, but this simply does not make her entitled or eligible as a ruler by default. By Westerosi laws —which are undoubtedly misogynistic and unfair to women no matter their ability to rule— her claim as a Queen regent comes by her marriage to Robert and her sons (which are supposed to be Robert's blood). Since she decided to go all girlboss about it and put the two sons who clearly did not have Robert's blood on the throne, she actively harmed their claim and her own, and she literally created a succession crisis by having the bad luck of marrying the one family with strong genes and zero chance of having blondes in their family tree.

But let's say, alright, put the clearly Lannister boys on the throne anyways, kingship is a social construction and the Baratheons didn't really have any more intrinsic claim to Westeros than the Targaryens other than military might, fuck it; the obvious question is, what am I offering my subjects so that their support is rewarded and their loyalty is secured? This is something that, in some way or another, is answered by the other pretenders in the War of the Five Kings, even if it's in a limited capacity and with very dubious intentions: Robb offers a rule from, by and to the Northern people that takes into account their wishes and reclaims, and also offers the people of the Riverlands justice and protection; Balon offers the Ironborn a new, revitalized rule over the islands and surrounding land with the Old Way which he claimed would improve the life of his people; Renly and his alliance with the Tyrells came with the prosperous wealth of the Reach and offers of food, pardons and a generous rule by a charismatic ruler mimicking Robert's long peaceful reign. Stannis, by contrast, is the one who pushes his claim solely by his rights in Targaryen dynastic succession (if the king dies with no legitimate children, the crown should go to the next eldest brother), and we see over and over throughout the saga that this isn't enough to secure his claim, that a ruler should also fulfill their rights as a protector if they wish to be followed, that he was demanding loyalty and obedience without offering something in return and that this won't give you support no matter how legal is your claim.

"If not for my Hand, I might not have come at all. Lord Seaworth is a man of humble birth, but he reminded me of my duty, when all I could think of was my rights. I had the cart before the horse, Davos said. I was trying to win the throne to save the kingdom, when I should have been trying to save the kingdom to win the throne." ASoS, Jon XI

Compared to all this, Cersei (and Joffrey by extension, because she encourages in him what she believes are good traits for a king) simply did not have anything to offer precisely because they live under the illusion —once again coming from Tywin— that they have the intrinsic right to power and ruling simply because they're Lannisters and they should be obeyed because of this. This would be a normal thing to believe in a normal, regular dynasty —for example, I doubt Aegon IV or Viserys I or Maekar I were particularly thinking about what they could offer to their subjects, they simply gained power because they were part of a royal lineage where a Targaryen man inheriting the throne was expected— but Joffrey's claim came from a break of this succession, and Robert justified his reign both by being the descendant of a Targaryen and also because he offered Westeros peace, protection, justice and mercy if you'd been in the wrong side of the war.

""It is, Your Grace," Lady Merryweather agreed. "The High Septon should have come to you. And these wretched sparrows . . ." "He feeds them, coddles them, blesses them. Yet will not bless the king." The blessing was an empty ritual, she knew, but rituals and ceremonies had power in the eyes of the ignorant. Aegon the Conqueror himself had dated the start of his realm from the day the High Septon anointed him in Oldtown. "This wretched priest will obey, or learn how weak and human he still is."" AFfC, Cersei VI

A lot can be said about Robert's rule and what he did right and wrong, but I think one can admit that he was a man capable of pardoning his enemies' lives unconditionally (think Barristan, Balon, Jaime), he put down disagreements and fights without sending someone to be tortured to death, and traditional customs in Westeros were respected —Aerys' rule was contested precisely because he broke the right of nobles to have a trial. Cersei doesn't simply ignore all this, being particularly vicious, cruel and spiteful to her enemies/rivals even after she supposedly made peace with them, but nothing about her rule is about anything except her and her wishes: if there's a scarcity of food, then she hoards everything to herself; if there's danger to the city, she hides herself and withdraws her resources and fuck the rest of the population, noble or not; if someone comes from the rival side wanting to join their cause, then they're suspected traitors who sooner or later will be put to death; if someone says a criticism about her actions, whether genuine or not, then that person is a traitor who sooner or later will be put to death; everyone is her enemy and everyone wants her power for themselves and nobody can ever be trusted because nobody is as smart, capable, worthy and deserving of power as Cersei is.

"It took the rest of the flagon before the queen was finally able to coax the whole sad tale out of Lady Falyse. Once she had, she did not know whether to laugh or rage. "Single combat," she repeated. Is there no one in the Seven Kingdoms that I can rely upon? Am I the only one in Westeros with a pinch of wits? (...)" AFfC, Cersei VII

"Taena had drifted back to sleep by the time the queen returned to the bedchamber, her head spinning. Too much wine and too little sleep, she told herself. It was not every night that she was awakened twice with such desperate tidings. At least I could awaken. Robert would have been too drunk to rise, let alone rule. It would have fallen to Jon Arryn to deal with all of this. It pleased her to think that she made a better king than Robert." AFfC, Cersei VII

Since she doesn't care about feeding her subjects, protecting them from harm, enacting fair and genuine justice to those who need it, improving the physical infrastructure of the realm, honoring debts to foreign entities and previous agreements to other nobles, or at least diminishing the economic problems left by Robert's rule, then she (and once again, Joffrey and Tommen by extension) literally has nothing to offer anyone who wishes to follow her. She doesn't make even the attempt to pretend she cares about any of this by the time we get to AFfC, like Renly once did in ACoK, precisely because she has the mistaken and very dangerous belief that she's owed obedience and deference and the right to rule over an entire continent, and that people should somehow be grateful to obey her no matter how shitty and depraved and harmful she is to them and their families.

""The realm is at war. His Grace has need of every man." Cersei did not intend to squander Tommen's strength playing wet nurse to sparrows, or guarding the wrinkled cunts of a thousand sour septas. Half of them are probably praying for a good raping. "Your sparrows have clubs and axes. Let them defend themselves."" AFfC, Cersei VI

"When the door closed behind them Cersei poured herself another cup of wine. "I am surrounded by enemies and imbeciles," she said. She could not even trust to her own blood and kin, nor Jaime, who had once been her other half. He was meant to be my sword and shield, my strong right arm. Why does he insist on vexing me?" AFfC, Cersei VII

All of this is remarkable precisely when put in contrast with Dany, because both of their ambitions to the throne come from their belief that they're entitled to the throne above any other consideration, and both of them had little experience ruling before their ascent to power and are continuously doubted/criticized because of their gender, but what sets Dany apart is her willingness to learn from others and take care of the people who follow her. Despite all the troubles that ADwD have brought her, Dany has always been characterized by someone who attempts to protect others and is prepared to hear her subject's opinions and make actual efforts to improve their lives; many of us root for her precisely because she makes a genuine effort into being a good and fair ruler to her subjects even when she fails, even when she makes wrong choices, even when she falls short of her goal. One of the main problems in her journey has been the question of how can she become a legitimate ruler in the eyes of the Westerosi people, and she rightfully understood that she needed to offer something in exchange for loyalty, just like Stannis did.

""There's much I don't understand," Davos admitted. "I have never pretended elsewise. I know the seas and rivers, the shapes of the coasts, where the rocks and shoals lie. I know hidden coves where a boat can land unseen. And I know that a king protects his people, or he is no king at all."" ASoS, Davos VI

"Why do the gods make kings and queens, if not to protect the ones who can't protect themselves?" ASoS, Daenerys III

I believe that the fact that Cersei doesn't ever comes close to this realization doesn't just steam from her natural self-centredness, propensity to cruelty and repeated trauma in the hands of the men in her life, but precisely by the vision Tywin had about himself and house Lannister. At the end of the day, Cersei mimics not only what Tywin himself believes about their house (that they're superior, wealthier, worthier and morally above everyone else, even other noble houses), but also how Tywin behaves as a political actor (making deals in bad faith and not fulfilling them, mistreating children, women and disabled peoople, using extreme violence as a form of correction and coercion, following no moral guidance or innate beliefs other than what benefits them in the short term, etc.). They're not the only ones who exhibits this behavior (Bronn, for example, is just as self-serving and violent as them), but House Lannister, and Tywin, Cersei and Joffrey in particular, are definitely some of the most powerful and influential people in Westeros thanks to their military might and economic power, which amplifies the consequences of their selfishness to... quite scary levels.

#asoiaf #a song of ice and fire #cersei lannister #valyrianscrolls #ugh sorry didnt mean to post this! i wanted to add some things quotes and other sfuff #but whatever #cw mention of rape #i wanted to talk more about tywin's fascist ideologies which are seen in his children but this is too long already #and cersei is old enough to see other points of view like jaime

74 notes · View notes

xxlovelynovaxx · 4 months

Text

Uh-huh. You realize, coming from a 26 year old, that this is just ageism, right? "I'll only take you seriously because of your age"... and you think you're in the right?

Yeah, "14 years olds act more 14 about it" because typically a group with absolutely zero societal power that is literally treated as the subhuman property of their parents and irrational mindless inconveniences that are only here to annoy "real people" will get upset when you continue to treat them as such while reminding them of the absolute privilege and societal power you hold over them.

I was 14 too. I remember the frustration at no one taking me seriously. I remember the fury that when I turned 18, 20, 25, suddenly everyone believed me about the things I'd been saying for 4, 6, 10+ years. I remember the disillusionment that happened when I realized the only thing that had changed was not some arbitrary debunked number at which the brain "develops fully", not some threshold of "maturity", but simply that I was no longer the age at which the state had a chokehold around my personhood, or in some cases the age which people think my human rights should have been delayed to.

Because it's not like adults EVER have bad opinions about something you say online, right? It's not like they don't FREQUENTLY respond to you trying to talk to them about it with stubborn and willful ignorance. It's not like the OP of this or a similar post didn't once respond to my detailed and logical essay about ageism with "lol I'm not reading all that". It's not like unreasonableness and angry nastiness at a post is utterly unlinked to the age of the person perpetrating it, and people of all ages do this in equal numbers.

Oh wait, it's exactly like that, it's just that society supports and even rewards the exact same misbehaviors in privileged people that they condemn in marginalized people.

It's just that when an adult does this, it's either that they're arbitrarily right based on their age/other privileged identity and often the marginalized status of the person arguing against them (see: OP, every argument on antisemitism where goyim are seen as the rational and reasonable and therefore right ones), the person arguing is being "immature" and "might be lying about being an adult' or "is acting like a child" (transmascs being silenced about their oppression using infantilization, the concern trolling of people who are happily 'crazy', the infantilization of disabled people and especially those who are intellectually, cognitively, or developmentally disabled), or both.

They're right. Their age has nothing to do with what they're saying. However, it has everything to do with how you're mistreating them. If they had no age in their bio, you might have taken them seriously, at least enough to believe they might listen to your viewpoint and to treat them like an equal human being.

If they had had an age above (usually 20-25), your last grasp at defense would have been to discredit them by comparing them to a 14 year old or accusing them of lying about their age, precisely because even adjacency to that identity allows you to shut down any argument they make.

Unfortunately, when you're in your 20s and 30s, everything is influenced by how fucking 20-40 you are. You forget exactly how cruel and oppressive society is to children. You forget how people magically started treating you like a person instead of a thing that existed only to "irrationally" be angry at the world around you. You forget how you were right to be angry at how they treated you.

You forget that you were legally allowed to have someone else dictate what and when you ate, how you dressed, whether you received necessary medical care, whether unnecessary medical procedures such as intersex "correctional" surgeries and treatment were forced on you at any age, when and for how long you were allowed to leave the house, and if they hit you in a well-known erogenous zone it would have been considered "discipline" as long as they called it "spanking" and not "physical and sexual abuse. You forget this and any number of other things considered abusive if a partner or roommate were to do it to even someone who had just turned 18 two seconds ago.

You forget that while it was technically illegal for your parents to starve you, to beat you, to emotionally abuse you by gaslighting or daily verbal abuse or manipulation, to torture you, to sexually abuse you, to hurt you to the point of you developing PTSD and or dissociative disorders, that there is very little recourse for actually enforcing it. You forget that you just have to hope that a different adult believes you, and in order for them to do that you usually have to fit a stereotype of a good victim and that your parents usually already have to be not in good standing with your community.

You forget how many cases of actual textbook abuse CPS does nothing about for "lack of proof" despite a supposed societal narrative of "believe victims".* You forget that they prioritize reunification even in cases of actual physical abuse, often with the abuser themself. You forget that you were a member of the only class that can have the police called on them like dogcatchers to drag them back kicking and screaming to their abusers, with no recourse or means of escape provided, because the state depends on and serves the institution of the "nuclear family". You forget that historically police served to return escaped property to their owners, and still do so today.

(*Believe victims if they have any measure of societal power that causes consequences for not believing them. Believe victims as long as you will be judged by most people for not believing them. Believe victims only if you can be held accountable for not doing so.)

As a disabled person and therefore a vulnerable adult, I had the unique position of being treated as a child until I escaped at age 23. It was all the same arguments - that it was "for my own good", that I was "incapable of making those decisions for myself" (or apparently, finding someone I did trust to make them for me, because I was "unreliable enough" I couldn't even do that), and so on.

This only made me realize that, despite the fact that none of that was true, it wouldn't be okay even if it was. It's not okay for disabled adults who DO need significantly more help caring for themselves than I do and who are profoundly cognitively or intellectually disabled to have their autonomy infringed on and their consent violated.

So why, then, is it okay to do to a child, regardless of their actual ability to take care of themselves or "make rational decisions"? Why is it okay to treat a child this way? Why is it okay to regard someone as fundamentally subhuman until an arbitrary cutoff?

Why is it okay to assume complete and total irrationality and unreasonableness on the part of an entire class of people just because as a subjugated and oppressed class they are still on rare occasion irrational or unreasonable? Isn't that bog-standard bigotry?

Why is it okay to justify their oppression by them being sometimes unable to fully stand on their own two feet, without help or community, under the weight of the oppressive system itself that serves to reinforce that? Why claim the purposeful elimination of tools and obscuration of helpful skills and knowledge under the guise of "protecting them" shows that they are incapable of surviving without those violences in a system that you claim is not, in fact, openly hostile to them?

And yes, this does all matter in the context of petty online discourse, because it is these systems that serve to reinforce and be reinforced by this casual ageism.

It is reaffirming the ideas which uphold these systems - that children are incapable of being rational people with reasonable emotional responses to mistreatment, who have to be told at every point what is in fact fair and how they must react to not face active bigotry for their immutable identity. It is conditioning children to beg for scraps of respect so that they learn assimilation early and go on to perpetuate childism when they themselves become adults.

It's petty and cruel, and it's destroying my faith in humanity to see marginalized people I otherwise respect sharing this. Y'all of all people should know better. Y'all of all people should be able to see how it maps to multiple of the various types of oppression and even intersectional oppression and then goes further.

Y'all of all people should be able to remember how being a child was your primary identity and primary form of marginalization, because you could legally be allowed to be abused for your other marginalized identities and most people in fact supported your family doing so, or at least felt that even if it was wrong it was still "their right" to do so.

Maybe you were privileged enough to have a supportive family, but I know for a FACT most of you weren't.

Kids are considered uniquely incapable of having any identity that is not immediately apparent - of knowing they are chronically ill or queer or plural or neurodivergent. They are considered incapable of having valuable and complex thoughts about politics or religion. They are not listened to or considered experts on the specific intersectional discrimination they face for immediately apparent identities, such as being children of color or visibly disabled. Adults within those groups are considered the experts on forms of discrimination they'll even admit they no longer experience, but that children continue to.

This is not just queerphobia or ableism or racism or any other number of forms of bigotry. This is specifically childism intersecting those forms of bigotry. It is not just not okay because of their queer or disabled or racial or other identity. It is not okay because children are fucking people, and yeah, deserve to be treated as equals and not be condescended to even in the actual rare cases where their reasoning is not completely rationally sound - just as is the case for disabled people, I might add.

If you can see how one is ableism but not how the other is bigoted childism, if you can't see the parallels between two cases where

-most individuals in a class are fully rational and intellectually capable people purposely being mislabeled as not so in order to justify their subjugation

-which is fundamentally reliant on the societal acceptance of mistreatment of those who may not be fully rational or intellectually capable (which is deeply ableist/childist, oppressive, and wrong),

-and where those who actually aren't fully rational or are intellectually incapable face no reprieve both in being weaponized against members of their own class with relative privilege AND in fighting their own mistreatment, which unlike in the case of those who might be able to convince others of their capability is considered always justified on the basis of their incapability, while not actually being okay on ANY basis,

then I can't help you.

To be clear, the reason it is ableist and/or childist to label someone as intellectually incapable when they are not is not at all because actually being so would be in any way bad. It's because it relies on the deep, insidious ableism/childism against those who are considered intellectually capable to function. It is essentially a separate facet of that same ableism/childism, and one specifically functions because of the other facet of ableism/childism that says that all members of said class are incapable and therefore need to be mistreated in the same way as those who actually are.

"No one deserves to be treated this way," is fundamentally how this oppression should be addressed, period. Understanding how it functions differently for different people, and how easily the most vulnerable members of an oppressed class could have their liberation tossed aside in order to pursue assimilation for the less vulnerable is still important, though. Understanding that your own oppression relies on the total subjugation of part of your community on the basis of an ontological trait that they have and you do not is actually paramount in recognizing both your own relative privilege and how to effectively fight the oppression you all face.

Or to put it simply, it's important to recognize that if you're being oppressed because someone is claiming you're something you're not, that that oppression isn't okay toward the people who are that thing.

Anyway, adults who talk about childism, adultism (I apologize that I struggle to remember the difference between the two, much like I struggle with the difference between ableism and disableism), and youth liberation also hold privilege. As I mentioned above, the most that someone can use to discredit me here is to say that I'm immature or they think I'm secretly a child.

Even the people who really don't want to examine their own privilege and complicity in their hierarchical relationship with children are more likely to listen to me, and if they don't they'll make fools of themselves with such lines as "I refuse to read anything longer than a twitter post to educate myself on complex systems of oppression".

I'll keep trying to stand up for children anyway. Not just because I actually remember what it's like to be 14, but because I have a responsibility to do so as an adult. I'll uplift the voices of the children who quite honestly are way better at explaining this and have a far better understanding of both the direct experience and the sociological theory behind it than I ever will be.

Also note: I didn't anywhere in this post point out how people who are 17 and some months are functionally indistinguishable from those who have just turned 18, or how variations in "development" might cause some who are 15 or 16 to be very similar to others who are 18, or so on.

Quite frankly, I don't think that matters. I do think 14 year olds deserve to be treated with respect just as much as 17.99 year olds, and I also think often 17.99 year olds face much of the exact same mistreatment and oppression (especially systemically) as 14 year olds. The exceptions where legal emancipation can help those over 16 are both rare enough and require trading being controlled for being unsupported. Therefore I think that while a more nuanced conversation about this could take place within the communities actually affected by this, I think it's neither appropriate nor helpful here.

I'd also like to remind people that predators are often successful at grooming children because they pretend to treat them with respect and take them seriously. The answer to this should not be "oh, anyone who respects children is a groomer", but rather, "hey, maybe if everyone treated children with respect and took them seriously, actual predators would have one less avenue through which to target and harm children".

As a CSA victim myself, I will NEVER stop doing anything and everything I can to prevent more children from becoming victims. I only care about what's effective, not what feels good in pseudo-proxy revenge fantasies against imagined perpetrators while very real ones continue to go unnoticed and unchallenged by society.

I take children seriously because it's the right thing to do, but also specifically to fight CSA. I also remind anyone who needs it that they do NOT know they can trust me or anyone else on that sole basis. While I want to be a safe adult, doing so in a society where children have no recourse against mistreatment fundamentally requires them protecting themselves by not trusting me just because I recognize the power I have over them and the ways in which they are abused.

(This is another example of how the fearmongering mindset over generational friendships, particularly between minors and adults, is just as harmful as the pushback against comprehensive sex education and coming from the same puritan and christofascist roots. Knowing that something is sexual abuse just allows victims to voice what they're experiencing. Having safe adults who respect them allows children to recognize the manipulative behaviors and other red flags of unsafe adults.)

Anyway, all the original post is saying is "I don't like when members of an oppressed class stubbornly refuse to compromise on being treated as equal people with valuable thoughts and rational responses to mistreatment, and in fact insist on being listened to when I say things that are cruel, unfair, and untrue."

(When did use of "unfair" become a synonym for "whiny snowflakes children who just can't see that life is inherently unfair" in leftist spaces that purportedly fight against systemic injustice, anyway? When did it become something "immature" in the fight against identity-based violence that is inherently not fair?)

So I guess, act more 14 about it. I'll continue acting more disabled and queer about ableism and queermisia, so I fail to see what's bad about that. But imagine thinking that interacting with someone on the basis of their age is useless and thinking you're in the right for it. Truly showing their entire ass.

#childism #adultism #youth liberation #cw csa mention #csa mention #it's sometimes shocking to me that people are so much more ignorant about child liberation than even like. mad liberation and stuff #but it makes sense bc children are fundamentally THE most oppressed class on the planet #also yes I'm using USamerican ages here bc that is what I have perspective on #I welcome people from countries where personhood is granted at different ages to weigh in #also I use children here but I'm not sure if I should say 'minors' or something else instead esp when primarily discussing teens so like #lmk if I need to change that #undescribed #needs ID

83 notes · View notes

outofangband · 16 days

Note

3 for Aerin and 9 for Morwen

From this headcanon ask game here! Still accepting them

Thank you anon I love them🦔

9. Are they observant

We know canonically Morwen is very observant! she was the only one to notice a discrepancy in the number of guards Thingol had sent, leading to Niënor’s discovery.

In my mind, Morwen is a distinctly sharp person in every way. Sharp tongued and sharp sensed. She has a keen eye and ear and quickly spots things that are out of place. Of course, post Nírnaeth her awareness of her surroundings takes on an almost frantic note. She knows of the men in the woods and is acutely aware of the sounds of hooves, of leaves crushed underfoot, of the difference between drunken shouting between comrades becoming too bold and the threatening approach…

3. Are they afraid of heights

went on a little ramble for this, I’m sorry!

Aerin is not afraid of heights! She spent her childhood upon horses, when she was still young enough that the ground seemed a dizzying, deadly fall. She climbed trees with her cousins, she scrambled up the rocks upon the falls along the streams. She was fearless.

Five years after the arrival of the incomers, five years after her wedding, Aerin climbs one of the alder trees in her favorite clearing. It had been damaged greatly by the recent storms. It will not survive the next one. The bark crumbles beneath her fingers and palms and her skin on her arms tears open when she nearly slips. She sits there in the dying rain, watching the rapids of Nen Lalaith, trembling from the cold but numb to her fear.

When she returns, late enough that she knows she will pay for it later, one of the more sympathetic older women, Rhea, touches the scrapes and bruises and asks her, gently, discretely, why Brodda had found cause to punish her this time. Aerin looks down at the leaves stuck upon her skin. She laughs in the silence. She cannot breathe.

(Note: rhea mention!! Thank you to @nelyoslegalteam and @maglors-anion-gap for supporting me in my development of her!!)

#the silmarillion #the children of húrin #Morwen #Aerin #musing and meta #occupation of hithlum #and they saw her no more #my tag for the Morwen scene mentioned #Rhea #cw abuse

14 notes · View notes

runs-red · 3 months

Text

So you all know you can talk about how you're uncomfortable with that kind of drawing and writing about fictional minors without having to compare it to the real and serious abuse of real children? That real cp has real living victims and that it's not something you should be comparing to the pixels? That you make victims feel like shit when you feel like saying it's even in the same fucking realm of awful?

#I'm not triggered you are.#I'm so glad you think some guy beating it to that anime girl is the same as that guy who did heinous shit to dozens of real children!#/sarc #proship #proshipping #cw child abuse mention #cw child abuse #cw sa #fuck antishippers #fuck antis

18 notes · View notes

ozzieinspacetime · 4 months

Text

Thinking about the INSANE moral grey area of the thg victors at the minute,, these scared, small children killed 23 (or 47) other equally scared, small children in order to make it out alive. Every year afterwards the wound that is the games gets ripped open and they have to go about closing it up all over again. They can never escape the blood of the other scared little kids on their hands. They are being punished by the Capitol, made to watch other kids do what they did, for something the Capitol made them do in the first place. If they want the kids to die because they don't want them suffering the way a victor does for the rest of their lives, then they're uncaring & complicit in the tributes death. If they get the kids out, they're signing the tribute up for a life of misery. No winning. No moral high ground. Just a train ride that never stops.

#actually shocking that only 16 victors were dead/missing by the 3rd quarter quell. thats an insane amount of trauma to cope with #parcel day is probably the best example of how the games play on victors morals even when its over #because the entire district gets fed. for a whole year. of COURSE you'd want to give that to the people back home #but it means putting this kid up for literally anything Snow wants. You are complicit in their trauma from then on. you let them live #but if you dont mentor them then your district suffers and you're two more kids deep into this grave you keep digging for yourself #and NONE of it is the mentors fault btw im not saying that because there's no way to mantain a moral highground in this situation #but. jesus christ. its an impossible game because no matter what parents loose their children and someone looses their freedom #sickening. suzanne collins you have a brillant mind #thg #the hunger games #cw: death mention #<- multiple times #this isn't even starting on beetee/wiress and their inventions or the careers that live but if i talk abt them I'll never stop. alas

20 notes · View notes

wild-at-mind · 2 months

Text

I honestly thought I didn't really have much chest dysphoria (small chested) but it's been several days since I put binding tape on as I had been careless removing it and scabbed the skin, and it feels terrible. I have a day's break every week or so which is just about doable but not this. Good thing my skin is better

#cw dysporia #it's like the feel of them #i've been hung up recently about how i didn't used to mind them/wanted them bigger even because i wanted attention from men #but back then i was not at all present in my own body so that probably helped in a fucked up way #i think i worry too much that i will somehow give the impression that i had rapid onset gender dysphoria or something #because in truth if you heal enough to become present in your body again and then start getting dysphoria it may seem pretty rapid #but i think what is implied in the (bullshit) concept rapid onset gd is that it there is risk it will go away again just as quickly #and that doesn't seem to be happening #i know rapid onset gd is by design a transphobic disinformation tactic #but i can't help but think that dysphoria that comes on rapidly and persists #and dysphoria that develops slowly and persists #are not very different at all.#but who am i kidding if you are a young person it seems like the only way to avoid a 'diagnosis' of rapid onset gd #is if you mention your dysporia early and often to your parents or guardians #that's literally it because adults don't believe children and teens have inner lives they might not know about

9 notes · View notes

nailgunstigmata · 11 months

Text

idk if they will but if they make even one throwaway line about dennis‘ eating disorder in the chuck e cheese ep i will tear out all my eyelashes….idk his relationship to food and specifically fast food is sooo interesting to me and i could literally just look up at the ceiling and ramble about it for hours and like. one tiny line. just one throwaway joke. if he says the words carbs or grease or fat i will scream so loud it punctures the eardrums of everyone in the vicinity. i keep having horrifying visions of seeing everyone casually eating pizza at some point in the ep except for dennis and its not brought up but just something i have to go crazy over. idk

#cw ed #cw ed mention #idk ive just been thinking sooo much about it like???????#ed getting worse as u age because its the one certain thing about ur body u can control…..godddddd #yeah sorry the chuck e cheese robot fucking fic has me thinking about his ed. yeah sorry #im not projecting here ok i know my good friend dennis reynolds would HATE family restaurants #like loud noise screaming children children in general and no safe foods everywhere?? sorry but i know his ass is cooked #and it might be something they touch on in the ep but idc. deep in my soul i know he would hate it there #dennis the kind of guy to go yeah i have already eaten

39 notes · View notes

troythecatfish · 3 months

Text

Recently I just found out that "Pedophile Hunters" exists and their job is to hunt down and bring pedophiles to the authorities. I just want to let y'all know about these relatively unknown heroes. I am truly grateful that these kind of people still exist because of them I feel safer and more secure. ( pedophile NOT referring to LGBTQIA people )

10 notes · View notes

kailali · 1 year

Note

With your Forget Fic just imagine darling feeling ill a few weeks later. And Toge is the second to last one to connect the dots. Like it takes Maki or Panda asking if it is possible for her to be pregnant for him to go Oh! Shit! It is Possibly. And shes like no not possible. And he's just metaphorically chewing on his nails trying to figure out his next move.

Content & Trigger Warnings: noncon, pregnancy, mentions of harming a person/their pregnancy, allusion to abortion, allusion to miscarriage.

Oh. My. GOSH!

I love this!!! Everybody suspects - literally everybody, and imagine Maki and Nobara talking her into taking a test with them there for support - "just in case" - so there's no way for Toge to interfere before they all know she really is pregnant, even though she swears it's not possible.

Sure, he could try to interfere after, to make it all go away and seem like an accident, or something just naturally went wrong, but...

He can't help but love her even more, the way she's leaning on him more for support, the way she immediately changes all her habits, because, sure, she didn't ask for this, but until she decides how she's going to handle it, she's going to take extra good care of herself and the tiny life blossoming inside of her.

Toge knows that if she gives birth to the baby, there will be no way for him to hide what he's done - but could he really ever do anything to sabotage something that is half him, half her?

Nonny, you're seriously a genius! (I've been having the worst day but this made it so much brighter!)

Would you mind if I used your idea to possibly continue Forget?

#asks.anon #inumaki toge #yandere!inumaki #yandere!toge #noncon tw #abortion tw #miscarriage tw #kids cw #children cw #babies cw #baby cw #pregnancy cw #mention of potential harm ?#I've been wanting to add to Forget...#and this is giving me so many good ideas!#yan!Toge my beloved #jjk

54 notes · View notes

crumbleclub · 11 months

Text

unreliable narrator.

a short one-shot from William Afton's perspective–sort of a character study– canon to blips. notable warnings for physical and emotional abuse and neglect, s//h, and sui// behavior.

William Afton did not want his son to die.

When his favourite child– Elizabeth, of course– had died, he had not enjoyed the feeling. William was far from an emotional man, so he was surprised by how absurdly difficult balancing his work and his science became over the following weeks. Sure, he wasn't blubbering on about it for ages like Henry had been after his daughter's death– which was cute, at first, but became rather grating after the first month or so– but he did feel as if something was missing. It disconcerted him.

No matter. It was an oversight; one of the few mistakes William had made in his life. It was not going to happen again.

William Afton did not want his son to die.

Of all his children, William understood Evan the least. The boy was... strange. Sensitive. He had been alright as a baby– quiet, but adventurous– but, as he got older, the child's temperament had changed. He cried and cried over every little thing, and– while it was annoying, yes– William found it to, more notably, be confusing. He hadn't thought much of it at first– his first boy had gone through a similar phase– but the fact that he hadn't outgrown it by the time he was entering his school years was baffling.

Even so, William had treated him rather well. There was food available to him in the fridge, he was given clothes that fit, toys to play with, and high-quality medical care. Evan had been born with a cleft lip and palate– which William had paid a handsome sum to repair– and he'd required tube feeding as a baby. His mother had been wrought with the aftereffects of a turbulent pregnancy at the time, so the boy's care had fallen to William.

Caring for any infant was both tedious and fairly unsanitary, and this one had come with extra responsibilities. Still, William had done a good job. If he had grown up in William's childhood home, he...

Well, no matter.

As Evan got older and grew more daring in his exploration, the boy's father had gone out of his way to keep him safe. Nothing like what had happened to Elizabeth would ever happen again, because William would find a way to always be watching him.

The bear had been perfect. A radio, a camera. William would always know what the boy was doing, so there was no risk of him running his mouth, and there would be no repeat of Elizabeth's fate. Evan would be safe.

William had sacrificed quite a lot for children he didn't love. Elizabeth was likeable, at least, but the others...

Meh.

William Afton did not want his son to die.

The scene had been bloody. William could smell it as one of the panicked party hosts led him out to the dining area. His composure was intact, but the speed with which his legs carried him to the site was uncharacteristic.

The boy was pulled down. He lay limp in his father's arms; lifeless, but breathing.

Michael had done it, apparently. William was only a little surprised. It wasn't as if William hadn't encouraged the behavior. He wanted to see how far it would go, whether the boy had any potential, but Michael had always been just a bit too concerned with the wellbeing of living creatures for William's taste. His incessant fussing over the wounded mutt in their driveway had spoiled William's opportunity for a perfect kill. The behavior was swiftly corrected, of course, but William couldn't do those things at home anymore. Michael had ruined it.

Light bullying aside, doing any serious harm to William's things was off-limits. Michael should have known that.

William Afton did not want his son to die.

Six days. Evan had fought for six days, and William had been by his side in the hospital the entire time. He'd even taken off work.

William had been there when he died. It was a peaceful occasion, unlike any of the deaths William had seen before.

He was holding his son's hand when the breathing stopped, eyes fixed on the tight gauze fastened over a broken skull and swollen cheeks.

It would be fine. William could fix this.

William Afton did not want his son to die.

Michael couldn't be left alone anymore.

It wasn't something William had expected. Evan's death had carried the glimmering hope that Michael may have taken after his father– a delightful treat, because nobody was ever like William– but the man felt his hopes being quashed with each moment he spent with his remaining child. In response to the event, Michael had become... irrational.

William hoped it was temporary, because his patience was wearing thin. The last time he'd been left unattended, William had come home to a fairly lackluster attempt at hiding the arm Michael had made striped and bloody, the sound of something metal clattering into the sink.

It was a curious behavior that William didn't really understand, but– after a few cycles of observation, and one occasion of the boy losing control and going a bit too far– it was one that he had decided was bad.

Michael had been disobedient with the new rule. He'd also gotten more creative; more impulsive. William had to start child-locking car doors. It would cast a very unflattering light on William were all of his offspring to die in such a short span of time– and he was conscious of that– but there was something else.

William Afton did not want his son to die.

The boy quaked where he lay curled up on the couch, lip quivering and eyes on the telly. William watched from the other end of the sofa, exhaustion starting to seep into the look of dull interest that marked his features. This had been going on for too long.

Twice. Twice, today, Michael had broken the rule. William was tired from a long day of work, but he wasn't confident that, were he to go to bed before the boy fell asleep, Michael would remain relatively intact by morning. So, William sat with him.

Hours later, though, he was still awake.

William spied the clock on the wall. Four in the morning. This was getting ridiculous.

Sighing, William leaned over and tugged the boy towards him, pulling him by the back of his collar as if it were scruff on a cat.

Startled, the boy flinched, almost trying to wriggle away before deciding better of it and falling eerily still. He stared up at his father in frightened askance, voice faltering as he hesitated in questioning the action.

"Father, what...?"

William situated the child in his arms, feeling a twinge of annoyance at the inconvenience. Michael was nearly fourteen; he shouldn't need such coddling.

He positioned the boy's ear over his heart, allowing him to hear the steadiness of his father's breathing and heartbeat. This maneuver had always helped Michael fall asleep when he was a baby, and it was going to help now.

"Pipe down." William shifted, as miffed by his own actions as he was annoyed with the request for an explanation. William was as unused to this sort of thing as his son was, and he was making himself uncomfortable. "You need to go to sleep. I don't want to have to miss work because of you."

Still shaking, the boy quieted. William leaned his head back and closed his eyes, a silent request for sleep to consume them both.

In the quiet of early morning, the simplest of sentiments was the only one that rang true.

William Afton did not want his son to die.

34 notes · View notes