#does help with that perception that he feels like hes gotta be self sufficient | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bigskydreaming · 3 years

Note

You think when Jason first went to Bruce’s him and Dick had an interaction that went like this,

Jason: you don’t know what it like

Dick: Bitch I’m sorry which one of us went to juvie

LOL I get the joke and all but see, I do wanna be clear:

(And this is just in general rather than aimed specifically at you or this ask, anon).

I spend a lot of time talking about being anti-Trauma Olympics and that extends both ways. I don't want Dick perceived as more traumatized or having had it harder than anyone else in his family, just that his own traumas and hardships aren't erased or invalidated in favor of propping up someone else. At most, I'll talk about something like the Forever Evil situation and how he was 'more' the victim there than they were, but that's because that's a specific situational thing where both he and other characters' feelings and hurt in regards to the exact same set of circumstances are being compared, and I'm like, well if you're GONNA do that, you kinda gotta look at who was most directly impacted by events versus had feelings about what HAPPENED to the first person in the first place, just....conveniently leapfrogging over that dude's actual feelings about those exact same things.

But ultimately, although I'll spite-LOL about this sorta joke in response to other fans Doing the Most in the other direction, like.....tbh, I wouldn't be any more in favor of this kinda interaction in fics or canon.

What I WOULD love to see is rather than the kids being pitted against each other in a kinda pseudo competition, see them use traumas and parallel situations as a basis for common ground and building stronger bonds. Like, how much more powerful would it be if what we got instead was Jason finding out about Dick's past experiences with juvie in order to make Dick someone he feels DOES get certain things. I mean, Dick never DID experience various things that Jason did living on the street or earlier living with Catherine and Willis....but like I've always posited that in the early years Dick had a primal fear of fucking up and being sent back to juvie by Bruce, Dick absolutely would be able to understand the fears of a kid who was caught committing an actual crime by Bruce in their first encounter and feared what might happen if Bruce ever decided he wasn't worth giving the benefit of the doubt and ultimately would never be more than a criminal.

Part of what bums me so much about the direction most fics and headcanons take towards Dick and Jason's earlier interactions, is there's a huge chasm in experience, perspective and privilege between Bruce and BOTH his two eldest. That chasm is not nearly as vast between Dick and Jason themselves. Where they diverge in prior experiences tends to have a lot to do with specific situations and circumstances rather than axis of privilege. (Especially when you consider - and god I'm tired of this - how often people default to being like 'well Dick at least had loving parents' when ahem, HOW OFTEN has Jason made clear that he has very affectionate memories of Catherine because she was at times a very loving and attentive mother, and that's WHY her addiction and death hit him so hard, not unlike how the murder of Dick's parents hit him so hard BECAUSE they were loving and nurturing? Like, how often do people throw characters' own stories and canon away JUST to make the case that they have it harder than another one? Can we stop this? Forever preferably?)

But point is, there are tons of areas where Bruce just fundamentally didn't relate to Dick and never was going to be able to, because Bruce was never in a position of being at the mercy of various institutions. Bruce never had to worry about being thrown out by his guardian, Alfred, who technically worked for his family even as he raised Bruce. He never had to deal with peers looking down on him because of who he WAS rather than giving him shit for specific circumstances or events. He never had to worry about his parents or past being demeaned as worthless, he never had to balance trying to retain a sense of self without being subsumed into Bruce AND the Waynes' larger than life shadows, history, and perception in the eyes of the public.

However all of these and more are areas where Dick and Jason absolutely overlap and this could be greatly of benefit to each other, if it was ALLOWED to be. For Dick, Jason's arrival can be an opportunity for him to finally have someone who gets various aspects of growing up with Bruce that will just fly over other peoples' heads as being a problem or them having issues with at all. For Jason, Dick can be an opportunity for him to have an easier time understanding Bruce when these gaps in perception and experience appear, or making himself understood by Bruce, by drawing upon and learning from Dick's own experience trying to navigate those very same gaps between Bruce and himself in years prior.

And even where Dick and Jason's experiences diverge, there's still plenty they could learn from each other that they STILL couldn't have in common with Bruce. Like yeah, Jason - even with a loving relationship with Catherine factored in - didn't ever have the benefit of Dick's history being part of a huge communal family in the circus, and around people who were open and generous with their affection and all that.....and frankly, Bruce never had this either, even factoring in his own relationship with HIS parents. But its something that Dick could definitely impart wisdom in, that would be helpful to Jason in learning to be part of a larger community of superheroes overall, and how to interact with a bigger family that wasn't limited just to himself and his guardian or guardians....as well as helpful after their family grew to include more siblings.

And Jason did have a ton of experiences and perspective born of living on the streets and being entirely self-sufficient from a young age, with wisdom he could share with Dick there, who was MORE likely to get the benefits of that than Bruce even, because Dick did have experience with a closer mindset to what Jason had had at the time, and even if Dick's own experiences running from juvie or in Robin Year One were far more finite than Jason's ever were, there's enough of a foundation there for them to build a common awareness of major events in each other's past and like....thus be able to talk about them, unpack them with each other and not have to worry about being judged by someone who just fundamentally might not get it or understand where they were coming from when they made certain choices based on those mindsets.

And then back again, part of why it bugs to so often hear Dick's years growing up in the mansion talked about as wholly a good thing when there's no separating them from the years he spent as Robin, is because Dick has knowledge and awareness of the streets and crime that's predicated entirely on his years as Robin, that's still broader than Jason's in the sense that Jason's knowledge is limited just to his personal, more contained experiences, whereas Dick as Robin interacted with all sorts of crime and criminals and victims. And who better than Dick to learn from in regards to what its like to even BE a teen vigilante, because for all Bruce's experience as Batman, he debuted as an adult, he'll never be able to relate specifically to the fears and finer points of taking on people who are older, bigger, more experienced than you, when you're that young and small. But again, all of that requires like, ACKNOWLEDGING that Dick went through some SHIT when he was younger, and that doesn't have to TAKE AWAY anything from Jason's own hardships, but it has all the capacity in the world to ADD things to Jason's toolbox for dealing with his hardships.

But yeah, ultimately, like....it annoys me to see Dick's own experiences so often glossed over or romanticized in order to act like he's so oblivious to what someone like Jason's life was like, but more than that, it just bums me because its a waste of so much potential material and just.....erases the opportunity for so many stories that could explore actual new, uncharted territory rather than just retread the same old beats about how oh Dick is just oblivious to what REAL hardship is like but Jason gets it, see.

That's gonna get a yawn from me, lads.

54 notes · View notes

weather-witch · 5 years

Link

Maybe we could find common ground if you knew what we stood for.

It has been a while since I was sufficiently frustrated to sit down and write a bit by bit response to a piece of writing, but here I am baffled at how utterly misunderstood our position as gender critical feminists is. However, it is not my frustration nor my bewilderment that has me writing this tonight after sitting in Auckland traffic for over an hour. Nope. It is a pathetic skerrick of hope I have that if people who have expressed so much hate for us can be so fundamentally wrong about what we stand for then perhaps if they learnt the truth we could find just a little bit of middle ground.

Gotta love a trier, right?

The piece is What is ‘Gender Critical’ anyway? On essentialism and transphobia by Danielle Moreau — hopefully I can help her find out.

Transphobes are having a moment in Aotearoa. Attempts to pass a bill allowing transgender people to change the sex on their birth certificates without having to go through the courts have been met by vigorous opposition from a small but well-organised group of Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) or — as they would rather be called — ‘gender critical feminists’. These activists, who probably number in the dozens rather than thousands, have been joined on social media and petition websites by a large contingent of overseas allies, most notably from the UK. In the process, we have learned of the existence in that country of a trans-exclusionary subculture that has been radicalised by, of all places, the parenting forum Mumsnet.

First of all, thank you. Our campaign to halt the BDMRR Bill and sex self-identification was hard work and I appreciate that you could see how well organised it was. However, the persistent myth that we are two ‘TERFs’ in a trenchcoat is as ever totally inaccurate. Likewise, the conspiracy theory of an army of Mumsnet poms wielding cups of tea and scary opinions is laughable. We are in contact with gender critical feminists in the UK though…and Canada…the United States, Australia, France, South Korea, Portugal, Argentina, Nigeria, and more. There is an international community of gender critical feminists because we are all fighting a lot of the same battles. We support each other; commiserate, celebrate, and share resources. We are just like any other community.

It may be a good time, then, to examine what being ‘gender critical’ actually means.

At first blush, the phrase ‘gender critical feminist’ is essentially meaningless: all feminism is ‘gender critical’ by definition. The TERF label is at least partially descriptive, since exponents of this ideology are certainly trans-exclusionary, but it may be too generous to suggest that they are either radical or feminists. Feminism is a big tent, but it is hard to welcome into it a group so dedicated to returning us to the values of the Victorians.

Feminism is at its roots (that’s where the name Radical Feminism comes from by the way) gender critical. Past iterations of feminism were entirely gender critical, but there is little that can be said to be gender critical about third wave feminism. This is why gender critical feminists reject it. We prefer the radical analysis of our foremothers. Radical does not mean wild or extreme it simply refers to “relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something”. It is about stripping everything back and analysing the nature of female oppression. For gender critical or radical feminists our “central tenet is that women as a biological class are globally oppressed by men as a biological class.”

What makes TERF ideology reactionary rather than radical is its dedication to binary gender essentialism. The concept of gender essentialism is practically timeless, and reaction to it is key to understanding why feminist theory exists in the first place. Gender essentialism is the idea that there is an innate, immutable ‘womanness’ or ‘manness’ which expresses itself in what we consider ‘femininity’ or ‘masculinity’. It posits, for example, that women as a group are naturally more caring and empathetic and men as a group are more aggressive and clever, and — crucially — that these gendered qualities exist inherently, without societal influence. Another key aspect of essentialism is that it is often, but not always, tied to bodies and ‘biology’. So, because a lot of women give birth, gender essentialism associates childcare with women because they are biologically ‘destined’ for it.

I’ll ignore the incorrect use of the word radical for the rest of this piece and move on to the extraordinary claim that we are dedicated to “gender essentialism.” Not only are gender critical feminists not gender essentialists, we are actually the complete opposite. In our CRITIQUE of gender we are more accurately described as gender ABOLITIONISTS. There is nothing immutable about gender. It is not innate. Rather, based on thousands of years of socialisation, survival, hierarchy, and oppression, gender is the set of stereotypes and roles that we as societies have imposed on the sexes. A more accurate moniker for gender critical feminists would be “sex essentialist”. That is because we believe that it is our biological sex and our biological sex alone that makes us women. It is not the gender stereotypes that we are socialised to associate with womanhood. It is not the “empathy” or outward expressions of femininity like how we dress or style our hair. Our POTENTIAL to become pregnant is a core part of our femaleness and it is central to a lot of the experiences women have in common. I say ‘potential’ because not all women want to or are able to get pregnant. However, it is society’s perception of us as potential ‘breeders’ that brings with it some of our most acute oppressions around bodily autonomy and biological functions.

I am going to take my refutation of the assertion that gender critical feminists are “gender essentialists” a step further. I contend that it is in fact proponents of gender identity ideology who are gender essentialist. After all, it is they who think gender is so innate that someone can be born in the wrong body. They conceptualise gender as a kind of soul that exists as separate from the biology of the person. Is it not terribly gender essentialist to suggest that a man who feels an innate sense of ‘womanness’ because he is (perhaps) empathetic, nurturing, gentle, sensitive, and presents femininely, must actually be a woman? Because no man could possibly possess those characteristics and present in that way? Rather than embrace the feminine man or the masculine women, gender identity ideology would have them switch place to ‘match’ their gender identity to the ‘appropriate’ sex.

Destined for it?

Feminism’s first wave, popularly associated with the suffragists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, bought into gender essentialism in a big way. This wasn’t entirely their fault, for several reasons. They were heavily influenced by the dichotomous Victorian concept of ‘separate spheres’ for men and women — men in the world, women in the home — even if they tried to reject it in some limited ways. ‘HOUSEKEEPERS need the ballot to regulate the sanitary conditions under which they and their families must live… MOTHERS need the ballot to regulate the moral conditions under which their children must be brought up’, said the New York Woman Suffrage Association in 1915. The suffrage movement was more broadly linked to things like the temperance movement, and the temperance movement used essentialist ideas about women and their caring, empathetic natures in order to influence politics and get alcohol banned. (Alcohol was a huge issue for women mainly because they had so few other legal rights, and so drunk husbands could beat and rape them with no real recourse. We know now, unfortunately, that alcohol is not the thing doing the raping and beating.)

I have nothing to dispute here, but I will just point out that the history of the construction of public toilet facilities specifically for women is a fascinating part of the opening up of the public sphere to the female sex class.

Another reason for the first wave’s reliance on essentialism is that reliable contraception had yet to be invented. If you are not familiar with feminist theory, the cause and effect may seem quite tenuous here, but it is difficult for anyone to conceive of non-gendered, unfettered humanity if you are forced into a brood mare situation from young adulthood. As a result of these factors, among others, the first wave had painted itself into a theoretical corner with its essentialism. Buying into dichotomist ideas about gender used by patriarchy since time immemorial meant accepting hard limits. It meant accepting inferiority and never being able to achieve true equity.

I don’t agree that first wave feminists “relied” on gender essentialism. The realities of their sex (as you point out with reference to the lack of contraception) and the gender roles they enacted were simply all they knew. They weren’t using gender essentialism. It was the framework in which they existed and in fighting for a place in political life they were only beginning to peel the layers off their oppression.

With few exceptions, the second wave of feminist theory questioned and rejected gender essentialism. One of the important aspects of why the second wave was different from the first wave of feminist theory is that by this stage reliable contraception had being invented, accepted, and come into wide use. People were, for the first time, able to divorce their existence from sexual reproduction. Linda Cisler, in 1969: ‘different reproductive roles are the basic dichotomy in humankind, and have been used to rationalize all the other, ascribed differences between men and women and to justify all the oppression women have suffered.’ Feminists argued that social influence was the primary reason we assumed women were such-a-way and men were such-a-way; that men had written nearly all the history and psychology to that date; that patriarchy created hegemonic propaganda based on binary essentialist ideas. Second-wave writers were exhilarated by the newfound theoretical power to refute their inferiority, and you can feel it emanating from their engaged, emphatic, often uproarious writings.

In this paragraph, you see the beginnings of the gender critical movement. We as a movement identify far more with second wave feminism than with the convoluted nonsense that has followed. Cisler’s quote neatly encapsulates our true position on sex and gender. This is gender critical theory.

The second wave did, of course, get many things wrong. It tried to use its new powers of analysis to make ‘womanness’ many different things, theorising that women were a ‘class’, or ignoring voices that dealt with racism. Many of its ideas weren’t nuanced. Being associated with their bodies for their whole lives, and exploited within those bodies, gave some feminists from this era problematic ideas about sex and sexuality. There was also a subculture of hippy mysticism that associated the female reproductive organs with purity or power.

It is bizarre and, I cynically think, intentional that this idea of gender critical feminists as only white keeps getting rolled out. Believe it or not, when founder of race critical theory, Kimberlé Crenshaw, coined the term ‘intersectionality’, she used it to analyse the intersections of sex, race, and class, and this analysis is a core part of gender critical theory. This piece by Dr Holly Lawford-Smith explains really well what intersectionality really is and what it isn’t. We understand the ways race and class make us different while analysing how as a female class our lived experiences are unique from our male counterparts.

Call me a hippy, but I love celebrating the wonder of the female body. The world we live in is a jumble of phallic one-up-manship. The male is everywhere; our architecture, art, cultures, everything! Phalluses everywhere! I love that second wave feminists decided to do a bit of collective self love. As females we are pitted against our own body from day dot and I fail to see what is wrong with celebrating its power. To be honest, it is a bit of fun too. Having shared iconography that represents shared realities is a wonderful part of bonding as a community of any kind.

However, although feminists with uteruses or vaginas wanted to know more about them — because that knowledge had been systematically hidden or controlled by ‘men of science’ — they rejected being defined by their bodies. Binary gender essentialism was, in sum, not the primary theoretical view of second-wave feminists. In fact, second-wave theory laid much of the groundwork for our current, welcome conception of a society-wide removal of a restrictive gender binary. Karen Sacks wrote in 1970: ‘For women to merely fight men would be to miss the point. The point is to change the social order …. Perhaps for the first time in human history we are faced with the possibility of a pan-human, non-exploitative society.’ By 1986 Judith Butler had taken the ideas of Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex to their logical conclusion: ‘it is no longer possible to attribute the values or social functions of women to biological necessity … it becomes unclear whether being a given sex has any necessary consequence for becoming a given gender.’

Women still don’t know enough about our bodies. Research and funding for male bodies and medicine far outstrips that for females. Simply compare the money and care that has gone into developing erectile dysfunction medication to the relative void of information on the debilitating condition endometriosis which affects approximately 10% of women. The true form of the clitoris and all its glory were not known until shamefully recently either. We have every right to be obsessed with learning about our bodies; there is so much yet to learn.

Judith Butler has a lot to answer for. Her post-modern, deconstructive anarchism is at the heart of the worst parts of gender identity ideology. Please tell me you aren’t going to quote Foucault. However, that particular quote is one of her more benign. She is right that as women we should not be valued primarily on our biological ability to bear life. Our lives need not be dictated by breeding, however, that does not erase our bodies. It does not erase the fact that society still treats us in certain ways because of their perception of our ability to become pregnant. We are still oppressed in many ways because we belong to the sex class of female.

TERFs ultimately tie rights to body parts. Their approach seems to be that, because women were originally oppressed to some extent because of their bodies, their rights should be forever tied to qualities within those bodies, when in fact the precise opposite is true. Their reactionary ideology, with its obsession with binary gender essentialism, is actively harmful to all genders. TERFs aren’t even calling back to the second wave — they’re calling back to the first wave. Their ideas are over one hundred years old, and they aren’t good ones.

This is a bizarre conclusion to draw. But I’m glad I got to the end without having to read a Michel Foucault quote so, thank you. I have a question for you, Danielle. A genuine one.

If not because of our bodies, our sex, why were and are women oppressed?

It is our bodies which have always differentiated us from men. It is the fact, as you say, that before contraception we spent our lives pregnant and in the home. It is our bodies and our potential to become mothers that sees us valued less in the workforce (as well as gendered sex stereotypes). It is because we are female that we are overwhelmingly the victims of sexual violence, but rarely the perpetrators. It is because we are female that in some parts of the world little girls have their genitals mutilated, are married off to men, and deprived of education. I am terribly and genuinely confused as to what you think sexism, female oppression, and male violence are, if not based around our respective realities as members of our sex classes. What is feminism for if not to liberate the female sex class?

This does not mean that any of this oppression is our destiny. However, we simply must know what we are fighting for and against if we are to effect change. Sex is WHY we are oppressed. Gender is HOW we are oppressed.

I really hope you read some of this at least. I’m not telling you how to think, I’m telling you how we think. You have seriously misunderstood our position on things that seem to form the basis for why you hate us. It is your choice if you wish to still paint a picture of us as the antithesis of decency, but I wanted to make sure you’re at least hating us for positions we actually hold.

My Twitter DMs are always open for respectful, confidential conversation. I welcome questions and hope that maybe some of you who are afraid to be seen engaging in taboo subjects with blacklisted people will feel comfortable to reach out privately.

We need to talk to avoid further misunderstandings.

#ani o'brien #gender critical #radical feminism #radfem #gendercritical

10 notes · View notes

slaivetanaka · 7 years

Text

slaive character chart (it long)

Character Chart Character’s full name: Slaive Tanaka Reason or meaning of name: uh when i was 13 i made him and he was born into slavery so he just rolled with it when he broke out the storys dumb i gotta redo it lmao// or change his name Character’s nickname: Kitten Reason for nickname: bc hes a catboy what do you want from me.... Birth date: January 13th Physical appearance Age: 20 How old do they appear: 20 Weight: variable, current story hes a shape shifter so it depends on his mood but hes like never skinny. id say 140 pounds ish? at least. hes usually got a lil chub Height: 5 feet Body build: pear shaped, nice hips, thighs n booty Shape of face: quite round with it getting more pointed towards his chin but not by much Eye color: his right eye is always colored but his left eye is a slightly dark red Glasses or contacts: he wears glasses to be cute sometimes lol Skin tone: pale, like almost grossly pale Distinguishing marks: a mole under his left eye, stretch marks on the back of his thighs and his butt and his hips, and patchy scars on the back of his neck Predominant features: he has really sultry and soft lips so he has a nice smile. his skin is also super soft and squishy Hair color: black Type of hair: silky and only slightly thick. not very textured but he mooses the back to make it spike slightly like sasuke hair Hairstyle: bangs cover his right eye, behind where his ears would be is mused to be fluffier and slightly spiked Voice: very very sweet, but not childish or naiive sounding. feminine, relatively normal, maybe a little high pitched. intonation is slightly motherly, cracks when he gets nervous/excited Overall attractiveness: hes hot lets face it. hes pretty attractive! Physical disabilities: i mean hes a clumsy ditz but nothing like a disability besides his right eye going slowly blind being behind his hair Usual fashion of dress: at home - off the shoulder shirts/dresses, never wears pants at home. out n about casual - flowy dresses, stockings, cute socks, bibs (those are like the shorts overalls). out n about tryin too hard - he wears lolita sometimes lmao so like sweet lolita with lots of accessories and hair clips and ribbons

Favorite outfit: off the shoulder sweater dress with noooo pants and cute thigh highs Jewelry or accessories: he wears a red fleece collar with a gold tag with an S on it Personality Good personality traits: Kind, Generous, Perceptive, Motherly, Loyal, Determined, Studious. Bad personality traits: Overly generous, Naiive, Stubborn, Ditzy, Overzealous, Blunt Mood character is most often in: Peppy! Sense of humor: jyushimatsu makes him laugh... and things like shitty tumblr memes... Character’s greatest joy in life: his dead mom :) Character’s greatest fear: losing his little brother Why? why?????? uh because thats his lil baby brother hes 8 years younger than him he loves him What single event would most throw this character’s life into complete turmoil? uh losing his brother lmao hes all he lives for Character is most at ease when: he’s in the bath with hot cocoa and candles lit Most ill at ease when: he’s forced into new situations with no warning Enraged when: someone harasses someone else or his baby brother is hurt Depressed or sad when: he thinks about his mom or on just bad days Priorities: taking care of his brother and gaining enough money to live without worry Life philosophy: Do unto others as you want done unto you If granted one wish, it would be: To be filthy stinkin’ rich Why? He would want his mom back, but knows she passed because she was sick, so he wants to focus on keeping his brother and himself safe and well taken care of Character’s soft spot: his broooother, animals Is this soft spot obvious to others? oh yeah aaaabsolutely Greatest strength: his determination, physical strength, and flexibility Greatest vulnerability or weakness: being deceived, pretty people, kids (he cant be mean to ppl hes attracted to or that remind him of his brother lol) Biggest regret: not spending more time with his mom Minor regret: not knowing what to do about his brother was being bullied Biggest accomplishment: getting an apartment for his brother and himself Minor accomplishment: getting hired at a maid cafe lmao Past failures they would be embarrassed to have people know about: when he was little he couldnt understand why his bits were different from his moms and he cried about it, when he failed baking, when he went to a garden and tried to feed the ducks and was surrounded by them and had to be rescued by a group of strangers Why? uh bc its embarrassing lmao Character’s darkest secret: shhh thats private its a secret Does anyone else know? nope not a soul Goals Drives and motivations: mainly his brother Immediate goals: keeping he and his brother fed Long term goals: moving up in an art industry and becoming famous How the character plans to accomplish these goals: he has a few friends who are in college courses for art so he talks to them about it a lot to improve himself How other characters will be affected: he and his brother will be better off! Past Hometown: super countryside japan Type of childhood: difficult but happy Pets: none but he wants tons of pets First memory: smelling his moms pancakes early in the morning Most important childhood memory: learning to make those pancakes with his mom Why: he eats em all the time and it reminds him of her Childhood hero: his mommmmm Dream job: being an artist Education: none Religion: none Finances: self sufficient farm life lol Present Current location: outskirts of kyoto city Currently living with: his brother Pets: none Religion: none Occupation: maid cafe worker/chef Finances: uh i dont know what this means hha Family Mother: Karen Relationship with her: he loves her so much Father: none Relationship with him: none Siblings: Karin Relationship with them: he adores him, he was adopted and named after his mom Spouse: none :c Relationship with them: none Children: none Relationship with them: none Other important family members: Grandpa, Karen’s mom, who was like his dad but too old to do much. Favorites Color: Red Least favorite color: None, but if he had to choose then green Music: J-pop, happy music, kikuo Food: mom’s pancakes, hearty soups and pastas, chocolate Literature: ehhh none Form of entertainment: drawing Expressions: Never give up, Do unto others as you want done unto you Mode of transportation: Biking Most prized possession: His collar Habits Hobbies: Drawing, singing, cooking/baking, biking around town Plays a musical instrument? Flute, piano, violin Plays a sport? nope How he/she would spend a rainy day: Huddled under a kotatsu with Karin drinking warm drinks Spending habits: junk food and clothes Smokes: No Drinks: Rarely Other drugs: No What do they do too much of? eat.. junk,... food.... What do they do too little of? socialize Extremely skilled at: baking Extremely unskilled at: sports Nervous tics: biting his lips, his ears lowering, tail twitching, shaking his leg Usual body posture: slouched and tired at home, but straight and hands together in public, arms are relaxed around friends tho but he stands very straight Mannerisms: playing with the bangs on the left side of his head, rubbing his arm with the other hand, blinking a bit too often, rocking on his feet or when he sits Peculiarities: uhhh i have no idea Traits Optimist or pessimist? Optimist Introvert or extrovert? Introvert Daredevil or cautious? Cautious Logical or emotional? Emotional Disorderly and messy or methodical and neat? Methodical and neat Prefers working or relaxing? relaxing Confident or unsure of themself? Unsure Animal lover? ABSOLUTELY Self-perception How he/she feels about himself/herself: “Needs to be better, better, better” One word the character would use to describe self: “Cute!” One paragraph description of how the character would describe self: PARAGRAPH UGH “About me? Well, I’m pretty hard working, and I like to think I’m nice! But you can always be nicer, yknow? I’m happy to meet new people and try new things but only when I have help doing so, haha. I work at a maid cafe with a lot of cute, sweet girls, they’re really nice! Oh, but I’m supposed to describe myself, um... I like sweets? I’m very flexible! And I love spending time with my brother! Nice to meet you!”

What does the character consider their best personality trait? “Perceptiveness!” What does the character consider their worst personality trait? “Stubbornness...” What does the character consider their best physical characteristic? “My thighs or my lips!” What does the character consider their worst physical characteristic? “My stretch marks, they make my skin feel uneven...” How does the character think others perceive them: “A weirdo probably~” What would the character most like to change about himself/herself: “I want to be stronger!” Relationships with others Opinion of other people in general: Anxious but optimistic Does the character hide their true opinions and emotions from others? Not if they’re friends, but if they’re coworkers or strangers he might Person character most hates: his birth parents Best friend(s): Karin! Love interest(s): n/a Person character goes to for advice: :’) he prays Person character feels responsible for or takes care of: Karin!! Person character feels shy or awkward around: anyone he finds attractive Person character openly admires: Karin~ Person character secretly admires: n/a Most important person in character’s life before story starts: uh his mom After story starts: Karin

HOLY SHIT THAT TOOK FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#JESUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!#SLAIVE SPEAKS #SLAIVE REF #REF #OC REF #FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0 notes