#i don't know how much i can tag this without being obnoxious tbh

[levil0vesyou]

Oh hey, I realised I can just ask for advice!

(Note: This is (mostly) not ebegging (nothing wrong with ebegging, just wanna be clear) even if it may sound that way in the first section. Please keep reading. It's pretty long tho, sorry. I'll put it under a cut as I am planning to pin it but please, please read it, especially if we're mutuals. Reblogs are welcome, especially within the german blogosphere, but don't feel obligated.)

So as some of you know, my flatmate has locked me out of the kitchen because I didn't have money for groceries and thus kept eating his food. This includes the electric kettle, microwave and most cutlery but I did accidentally keep a spoon that I still have now. (I have a small bottle of dish soap so yes, I can reuse it as I do still have bathroom access.)

I have since received my first unemployment payment which, due to my previous (necessary) overconsumption is mostly gone again now. I have 20€ and change (cash so paypal and my other debtors can't seize it) left for the rest of the month (new unemployment payment should arrive on the 1st) but I'm struggling to make it stretch.

I've been trying to search up advice on this but couldn't find anything useful. If you have links or anything, that'd be awesome. Here's the key points:

I live in Germany so subject to the German costs of living. Because I also can't afford public transport fare, my store choice is pretty much limited to a small-ish Rewe nearby. There's also a Mäc Geiz and a pharmacy but ofc those aren't grocery stores.

I do not have food allergies but I am a vegetarian and unless I'm literally dying, this situation will not change that.

As mentioned I have no access to a kettle, a microwave, a stove, a fridge or any of that. I do have access to my popcorn machine (many years of trusty service, real mvp) but that's it. I have access to a spoon and a sharp knife. Not a chef's knife tho. I do not have access to spices.

My mental health is still very bad, I cannot leave the house some days and I don't think I'd be able to do anything elaborate. Thus, whatever I eat has to be easily (or not at all) prepared but not easily perishable.

At this point, my standards are very low. My current main thing is eating unheated canned food but I'm prepared to eat basically anything I can stomach (excluding meat, as mentioned) in any way that is possible for me. I'm eating unseasoned chickpeas out of a jar right now. They're actually pretty good. I also (under normal circumstances) sometimes eat dry pasta for funsies so that might give you an idea.

I eat a lot. Less at the moment but still above average. I need plenty of carbs or I will still be hungry after. Essentially, pretend I'm feeding two people here.

I keep craving salt. I'm usually decent at telling what foods my body needs by cravings so I've been eating many crisps since I no longer have a spice cabinet. But they're 'spensive. I've also been craving eggs but I have no way to indulge since afaik boiled eggs are only sold around Easter. Also fruit juice but I can eat some vitamin gummies I still have instead, that'll probably be fine.

As stated, the budget is 20€ for 1½ weeks. I do have a bit of food already, some Zwieback, a pack of Leibniz cookies, a small jar of applesauce, a (hopefully not too spicy) can of chili sin carne, stuff like that. Also some hardtack I made months ago and just now remembered, but not a lot of it and I have no way to soak it, tho I might be able to clean an empty can.

While I'm not hoping to inflict permanent damage on my body, I am willing to take a few more risks than I usually would. That said, I can barely handle one or two short grocery trips a week so foraging isn't a good option at the moment. Also, laundry situation is difficult rn so avoiding diarrhea would be awesome 👍

While I am unemployed and legally homeless (I just haven't left yet) I have no documentation for this at the moment. I mention this because some food banks and similar require such documentation. Also, again, I have a very low travel range rn (like... 200m. 500 on a good day) but if you know like some kind of... delivery food bank?? that exists in Bavaria (dm me for the city) that would be incredible.

No, I can't get a job. I literally just tried that (again) and have reached a personal new low as a result. There were some in-between steps (like that fucking clinic) but yea, that's not an option. No, not even home office. No, not even freelance.

This one might seem entitled but. I cannot keep eating the same thing. I do have my samefoods (tho I cannot cook pasta rn for obvious reasons) but especially lately, eating the same thing for more than two or three days in a row has been low key driving me insane. Might be because I've been mostly cut off from society for months, might be because my body is sick of it, who knows. But I need variety. Same thing twice a week is fine, but more than that is pushing it. I'm very sorry.

As stated, this is not an ebegging post and I want nobody to feel any kind of obligation but if we're mutuals and you have a German bank account (or Schengen and are willing to pay the fee) and you desperately want to, you may dm me about it. But you do not have to!!! And I literally only say this because I know what it feels like to be on the other end of this. No, paypal is not an option, I'm triple digits in the red there. Water droplet on a hot stone etc.

What I am looking for is advice, especially from people who have dealt with severe financial issues and/or homelessness/kitchenlessness before. I've been kitchenless before but I had a fridge, microwave and somewhat reasonable money then so it didn't really prepare me. You can either comment or reblog directly or you can dm me or send me an ask. Anon is enabled.

Either way, thank you so much for taking the time to read all this! I love you, may you have a good day <3

#mine #personal #long post #i don't know how much i can tag this without being obnoxious tbh

[clotpolesonly]

tagged by @exhuastedpigeon!!! <3

rules: How much do these tropes affect your decision to click on a fic? -10 -> very dissuaded  0 - don’t care either way  +10 -> very enticed  nope -> if it’s a hard no and you’d never click on a fic with that tag or or you even have the tag blocked or you’d insta click out of the fic if it wasn’t tagged.  Bonus points for explaining the rating and whether it’s conditional.

Age gap: -2

it's not that i have a particular objection to it on a moral/ethical level or anything, it's just generally not my preferred vibe

Codependency: 5

it is not healthy and that's what makes it entertaining XD

Obsession/Possessiveness, jealousy: +2

reeeaaaally depends, tbh, both on the execution of it and on my mood. and if it's a kink or not 😅 anything goes in kink fics lmao, but if i'm looking for a romance that's being taken seriously and being portrayed as a good (at least mostly) healthy thing, then i don't have a lot of patience or tolerance for it. i like seeing it addressed and worked through sometimes, though. idk, i'm picky about this one.

Opposites (grumpy/sunshine etc): +4

stealing prev's: yes, but only if it's accurate to canon characterizations and isn't just shoving characters into trope boxes ✔

Enemies to lovers, Enemies with benefits: +10

yeeeeaaaah that's the fun stuff

Friends with benefits: +7

promises good angst uwu, but also has the potential for miscommunication tropes that i have to be in the right mood for or else they get annoying and try my patience lol

Sex to feelings: +7

as distinct from friends with benefits?? 😂 i haven't heard of this one as a separate stand-alone trope, i don't think

Fake dating/relationship: +10

so much fun, so versatile, so many ways it can go

Friends to lovers: +6

still very good, but not as good as enemies to lovers. i also just really invest in strong friendships and am often would rather they stay like that rather than evolve into romance/sex. i'm a sucker for really really good friends 🥺

Found Family: +10

FUCK YEAH

Hurt/Comfort: +10

literally 85% of my thoughts per day revolve around contrived and self-indulgent h/c scenarios, it's all i care about tbh

Love Triangle: -3

it's gotta really be done well and without obnoxious cliche shit, it's not that it can't be done effective but it's really not a promising trope

Poly, open relationships: +1

it's not something that i'll necessarily seek out on purpose, but i enjoy it well enough

Mistaken/hidden identity: +4

can be very fun if it's done well

Monsterfucking: +7

i go back and forth depending on my mood 😂 i go through phases of Fuck Yeah Smuuuuut, at which times i am all about it, and phases of Good God Sex Is So Boring What's The Point, at which times i could not give less of a fuck. but when i'm on board, the monsterfucking is definitely an incentivizing trope 👌🏻👌🏻

Pregnancy: -6

i'm with prev, pregnancy weirds me out, alkdfjgh. it weirds me out irl too, it's borderline body horror for me haha, i find it quite squicky, so i've gotta be in juuuust the right headspace to go in for reading about it specifically. like, the mere presence of it won't stop me from reading an otherwise promising story, and i'm fine to skim if it's not prominent, but i'm not gonna read a story about pregnancy, ya know? no thanks.

Second Chance: +5

if it's done really well, it's fantastic. if it's done halfheartedly, too quickly, or with a sense that the author doesn't really understand or respect why the character NEEDS a second chance (ie, what they did wrong in the first place), then it's awful lol. so. picky about it, but when it hits, it hits hard.

Slowburn: +10

i am SO DOWN for a 200k story where they only kiss in the last chapter, if it's done well akldfjkdjgf

Soulmates: -4

the aro in me tends to be rubbed the wrong way by universes that are predicated on the assumption of an Other Half or fated romantic pairing. sometimes token efforts are made to worldbuild around it (i've written that myself tbh), but the whole concept is amatonormative enough to make me lowkey uncomfortable a lot of the time. doesn't mean i won't read or even enjoy them, but sometimes i reach my quota of romancey shit and decide FUCK THIS and can't stand to read them for a while 😂 gotta purge the yucky vibes before i can accept them again

and i'm taggingggg: @adamprrishcycle @fuck-isthatovid and @luulapants cuz that's all i can think of right now ily

[iamanartichoke]

Thoughts on the trial verdict. 

Cut for tw domestic abuse, tw domestic violence, tw gaslighting, tw johnny depp & amber heard trial, tw truly offensive length, tw gratuitous gif usage, not for reblog. 

(Note: This is not tagged with either Johnny or Amber's names bc I don't want this post to show up in those tags, so I'm sorry if you have them blocked and this made it past your filters. You can block off-topic: johnny depp trial thoughts instead, to hide the post.

(Note: I started writing this last Wednesday, a couple of hours after the verdict, but it just ... well. I don't really know what happened here, I just had a lot of feelings, I guess. I don't even want to post it anymore, tbh, bc it's almost a week later and it's probably nonsensical and who cares, really, I doubt anyone is going to read this anyway bc it's like 10k words - but, well, I'm literally only posting it bc it's written and wtf else am I going to do with it?)

Warning: this is really fucking long.

The verdict is in, with Johnny Depp having won his uphill legal battle. I believe he won all three counts, was awarded $10 million in damages (or maybe 8, I can't remember now), and Amber was awarded $2 million in punitive damages. Case closed, literally. Justice for Johnny Depp achieved.

... But to me, it feels kind of hollow.

Don't get me wrong - I am very happy with this result. I think this is vindication for Johnny and I hope he finds peace and healing as he moves forward with his life. It's just that this trial has gotten so much bigger than all of that, and - in the last few days of closing and verdict watch, especially - I have been so disappointed in this world, in this culture. To be honest, after the travesty that has been the last several years, I didn't think I could possibly be any more cynical about our society or that I could be surprised anymore about ... I don't know, anything, really, but specifically how willfully ignorant a lot of people are. This past week has proven you can always be more cynical and more surprised.

So I can't be happy or even satisfied with the verdict without also being cognizant of not only Amber Heard's supporters crying foul but also the mainstream media framing this as a loss for women, for abuse survivors. And just being immensely - I don't know, troubled, I guess? about it. And there are quite a few reasons why, but I just need to talk about the biggest ones. Right off the bat, it troubles me how gross it is that, despite having proven his case in a fair trial (and it was absolutely fair, anyone who doesn't think so either didn't watch it or didn't understand it), the media would rather continue to peddle the narrative that Johnny is an abuser and that this is some huge step backwards for feminism than to actually admit that, hey, men can be victims too, and also women lie. Not all women; probably not even most women - but, some women. Having a vagina doesn't preclude someone from being a lying liar who lies, and this cultural narrative of "believe all women" simply bc they are women is so fucking harmful and, yeah, gross.

(Please forgive my obnoxious faux-academic formatting of the remainder of this post, bc it just got too big for me to try to maintain a consistent point [I was confusing myself], so this was for my own sake but also hopefully easier readability.)

I. What This Really Says About #MeToo (And Why It's Uncomfortable).

A lot of people are upset bc they feel (and the media is perpetuating the idea, but I'll talk about that later) that this is a huge step backward for #MeToo. This is an example of women not being believed, and we're supposed to believe all women. Now women will have a harder time being believed, men will feel vindicated in their misogyny, what's wrong with this fucking world, etc. etc. And, I mean, the fact is that this argument isn't wrong. It is a blow to #MeToo. Women will have a harder time being believed. Men do feel vindicated in their misogyny.

But that's not because of Johnny, it's because of Amber. And that's what people can't seem to wrap their heads around.

Ia. #MeToo as a Movement.

#MeToo was an idea that became a movement that was founded on giving abuse survivors a voice. It was supposed to empower people to speak up and say, this happened to me too. That's literally what it means. It was strength in numbers, several voices in unison, fighting back against a culture that blamed women for their own abuse ("Well, what were you wearing?" "Why didn't you just leave him?" etc) and made it notoriously difficult for victims to get justice, especially for sexual abuse. Rapists are rarely convicted. Women are interrogated about their behavior, as if wearing a short skirt or drinking too much or even just walking home alone at night meant they deserved to have been raped or assaulted because "Well, what did you expect?" Women weren't (aren't) believed, and it needed to change. Needs to change; it's a constant battle.

And I'm saying women, specifically, here bc it's just a fact, statistically, that women are usually the victims and men are usually the perpetrators.

Ib. Mostly Women Victims = Only Women Victims [citation needed]

But, somewhere along the line, the point of the movement became muddled. "Stop blaming women for being abused; stop siding with abusers; start taking this seriously" became "believe women when they say they're abused, no matter what," and completely excluded men as victims from the conversation.

I'm not saying all women do this, obviously, but I am saying that there are a lot of women who define feminism not as equality but as superiority. They think in absolutes - statistically, men are more often perpetrators of abuse so therefore when there's abuse, the man is always the abuser is their mindset. It comes from having such a deep resentment of the patriarchy and male privilege that it's as if these women want to hold every individual man who exists personally responsible for the oppression of women.

(Note - I'm kind of uncomfortable painting this entire subset of women with the "terf/radfem" brush, bc I don't believe most of them are, so I'm referring to them as UberFeminists, bc it's my post and I do what I want.)

I don't necessarily think that every woman who thinks this way is automatically a radfem/terf, but rather, I think that a lot of women have this anti-men mindset by default, even if they never follow it into actively-radfem ideology. They may not even realize they have this mindset - until something like this trial comes along and here they are, either siding with Amber or, if they accept she's lying, are still quick to point out how Johnny is "just as bad" bc despite his being the victim, they still want to blame him for something due to his maleness. So they attack his addictions, or his foul language, or his age. (None of which are things to be proud of, but none of which make him an abuser, either.)

My point is, a movement like #MeToo, which is meant to be empowering, can very quickly become toxic when it attracts UberFeminists and they claim it for themselves and treat the movement like a safe space for only their voices. When men who are also victims try to speak up and say, me too, there's this overwhelming response of no. Get the fuck out of our safe space. Let women have this. You're not a victim like we are victims, we can't overpower you. And even if you are a victim, your maleness still gives you privilege. This movement is not for you. Society already gives you a voice, stop trying to speak over ours. It's like the equivalent of building a clubhouse and slapping a big old NO BOYS ALLOWED sign over the doorway.

And that's the heart of the issue, this is what leads us back to where we are now with Johnny and Amber. That NO BOYS ALLOWED sign was a self-inflicted blow to #MeToo; it changed the narrative from "believe survivors" to "believe women" and effectively contributed to the toxic masculinity in this society that says men aren't "real men" if they show emotion, or don't adhere to traditionally masculine gender roles. In addition to men can't be emotional, men must be tough, men must be domineering, etc, denying male victims a voice adds men must own their privilege, regardless of their abuse; real men aren't victims, even if she hits and slaps him, she's not actually a threat, it's not really abuse to the clusterfuck that is toxic masculinity.

"You didn't get punched, you got hit ... I did not fucking deck you, I was fucking hitting you. You're fine. I did not hurt you ... I'm not sitting here bitching about it. You're a fucking baby" (Amber Heard).

Ic. #MeToo Made Its Own Bed Here.

Again, to clarify, I'm not trying to demean #MeToo, either as a concept or as a catalyst for change. I know many women support it without also supporting the toxic masculinity, and it has helped a lot of women with their trauma, even if it's just made them feel less alone. But this is why I feel like people are uncomfortable with criticizing the movement - bc it feels like criticizing the people whom it has helped, and that's not what I'm trying to do.

I think that the movement, however, disintegrated into something inherently harmful, and in doing so, began undermining its own credibility. UberFeminists adopting it and subsequently establishing a narrative of "believe all women, no questions asked" and excluding men from the movement set the stage for Amber - and for women abusers in general - to weaponize it and use it to accuse her ex-husband of abuse while never expecting to actually have to prove it. "I'm a woman, that's my proof" has been the one consistent thread throughout all of her accusations for the last six or eight years. The public, at large, was asked to take her at her word that Johnny was an abuser and the public, so inundated with "believe all women" was like, *nods* seems legit. Johnny's word meant absolutely nothing. Just like she knew it wouldn't.

"Tell the world, Johnny, tell them, Johnny Depp — I, Johnny Depp, a man, I’m a victim too of domestic violence” and see how many people believe or side with you" (Amber Heard).

Well, he did tell the world, and he brought the receipts, and when Amber got on the stand and said, "I'm a woman, that's my proof," the court said, "Okay but what else have you got," and Amber was like, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ , and the court judged accordingly.* The result? #MeToo's "believe all women" narrative collapsed, and the same type of people who fucked it up in the first place responded by blaming Johnny for its implosion. It's not his fault he was abused, and it's not his fault that what should have remained a movement giving all victims a voice was co-opted by women who came along with their NO BOYS ALLOWED sign and drowned out the very voices - those of victims - they claimed to want to empower.

(*I am massively oversimplifying the trial so much here it's not even funny.)

"It is imperative that people stop viewing this trial through the lens of the #MeToo movement and the supposed reversal of its progress. As Gaby Hinsliff says, “a justice system [is] founded on the principle of believing the evidence, even where that sometimes leads in uncomfortable directions ... All women really ask of men – and, arguably, vice versa – is the chance to be heard without prejudice.” Heard was. The jury gave up six weeks of their lives to painstakingly go through the evidence in detail. It indicated that Heard was not telling the truth. This should not create a challenge for the #MeToo movement, if it cares about the truth, and not condoning the egregious defamation of an innocent person, who happens to be a man." (Source.)

A sidenote that I agree with but am not going to go into (bc this is long enough already) was posted by this article:

"Never mind the fact that Heard has never presented compelling evidence to prove her claims, we’re supposed to accept her version of events by virtue of her genitalia ... [#MeToo] has exposed something deeply troubling at the heart of our media and larger society – the infantilization of women. To assert that a woman is not capable of defamation, malice, or lying, is to ask us to deny the reality of human nature. It actually reeks of a deep lack of respect for women and all of the complexity they have to offer. Women are, as feminists rightly claim, capable of anything that a man can do. This encompasses, of course, the good and the bad. The notion that we must take a woman’s word before being presented with evidence has been one of the most detrimental effects on our society ... Depp may have prevailed in his defamation suit, but how many other men have Amber Heards at home who attempt to ruin their lives based on hearsay and never get the opportunity to defend themselves?"

II. "But He Said There Wasn't Any Letter. He Said I Was Going Out of My Mind." - (Gaslight, 1944)

One of the most appalling things about this entire case, and probably one of the things I latched onto the most, was how much gaslighting there was, and how much gaslighting there continues to be, on so many levels. Since this post is mostly just about the public's reaction to the verdict, I won't get into how I feel about the gaslighting in the actual relationship, except to say that it was genuinely triggering to me to discover not only how often Johnny's addiction struggles were used against him (for example, Amber claiming Johnny was drunk when he wasn't, that he was abusive during "blackouts" and so he didn't remember, things like that) but also just the blatant manipulation of so many events.

Mostly, I think listening to the audio recordings was really eye-opening. I'll address this more later bc it's not really something I talk about on here, but I have been in an abusive relationship and I have been gaslit, both in that relationship and in general, and I know what it feels like to be made to feel like you can't trust your own perception of how things played out, or that the truth means nothing, and how going around in circles with someone who is gaslighting you can feel like - well, it genuinely does make you feel crazy. The audio recordings reminded me a lot of that.

IIa. "You Keep Using That Word. I Don't Think It Means What You Think It Means."

When Amber and Johnny's divorce was finalized, Amber was awarded $7 million, which she immediately announced she would be donating to charity. After the divorce, she repeated this a lot - that she "wanted nothing," that she had donated her entire divorce settlement to charity - half to the CHLA and half to the ACLU. However, during the trial, it came out that she never actually donated any of the money, she just said she did. So then she changed her story to say, well, I pledged it, and I was going to honor that pledge, but then Johnny sued me.

Camille Vasquez established that the entire settlement had been paid to Amber a year before the lawsuit was filed, and Amber had yet to donate any of it to the charities, so she had the money. And there's this weird back-and-forth in which Amber sits there and insists that she has donated it, because she uses pledged and donated interchangeably, and even after Camille says something like, I don't use them interchangeably; again, have you donated your divorce settlement to charity as of today? Amber just doesn't back down from insisting that she donated the money bc, to her, saying she would do it is the same thing as actually doing it.

Camille's reaction after asking, yet again, have you donated the money, and Amber answering, yet again, yes, I pledged it:

^^ I normally wouldn't make gifs of a regular person (which Camille is, despite her being in the spotlight right now), but her expression here - the pure exasperation - just couldn't be captured in screengrabs and speaks to how frustrating it is to go around in circles with someone who not only won't back down from a lie, but makes you feel like you're the one who's wrong.

To me, the "pledged vs. donated" thing says a lot. It's an example, in real time, of how Amber continues to talk in circles and assert things that either are just not true, or are only true in the sense that she personally defines truth (but are not actually true). Even when confronted with evidence, she will not back down. It's so telling to me that if this is what she acts like on the stand, under oath, then imagine (or don't imagine, just listen to some of the audio recordings) how much she lies, bends the truth, or blatantly gaslights Johnny (and others around her/them).

And as I said earlier, according to people's comments online, this is what made a lot of people start doubting her credibility. Bc she was so blatantly asserting her own version of the truth, and it made a lot of people be like, well, how much of what else she's said is her version of the truth (if not outright lies)? What's going on here?

Looking at it from this perspective, it makes sense that the most die-hard Amber supporters' arguments hinge on misrepresenting the truth.

IIb. Something Something Last Two Braincells.

Earlier I mentioned the UberFeminists who have more or less taken possession of the #MeToo movement and made it a space that excludes men. Now these UberFeminists are the ones who are most ardently supporting Amber. From what I'm seeing, there are two groups of people supporting Amber:

Group A, said UberFeminists (along with actual radfems/terfs) who hate men so much that they'd rather align themselves with a narcissistic liar than admit a man can be a victim of domestic violence, and

Group B, people who aren't so much invested in believing Amber as much as they are in not believing Johnny. They're brushing the whole thing off with "Both of them are just as bad as each other" and not only do they openly admit they haven't watched (and therefore don't actually know anything about) the trial but also act like those of us who are watching are the problem. "It's none of our business," "There are more important things going on," "I'm not interested in watching two people fight over money they don't need," etc

Of course, there is

Group C, people who genuinely give zero fucks, are not invested either way, or don't even know this is a thing that's going on, which, whatever, I'm certainly not saying anyone is obligated to care or show interest in anything they don't want to. I have no reaction to the zero-fucks crowd, ie no emotion, ie it isn't bothering me. (I kinda envy it, tbh.) My issue is with the first two groups (and by extension the mainstream media).

Anyway, so being a Johnny supporter arguing (either actively, or just by virtue of position) with Groups A and B feels a lot like gaslighting, too. Because Group A (and to a lesser extent, Group B) is full of people cherry-picking and twisting what's been shown in court to create "alternative facts," basically, so they can feel justified in supporting Amber. And when you argue, they say: you're misinformed, lol where'd you hear that, TikTok? do your own research, etc. (And when you say, I watched the entire trial, here's my evidence, here's where xyz was proven a lie, etc, they're like, lol well I didn't waste my time watching this trial, go touch grass like - you literally cannot win. Which can also make you feel crazy - being told you're misinformed, and then having your counterargument dismissed as they belittle you ... for being informed.)

Either they twist the facts to support their preferred narrative bc they are stupid, or bc they genuinely hate men - it doesn't really matter which one it is, the point is that this really gets under my skin bc I've had enough of the "alternate facts" brigade. It's made me feel like I'm losing my mind for well over two years and it continues to make me feel like I'm losing my mind bc this isn't a disagreement of opinion, it's having an objective fact exist and I'm looking at it like, oh okay, so that's a thing, and the other person is looking at it like, I do not acknowledge this as a thing, sorry, nope.

Or, to put it more clearly, it's like I and another person are looking at a big orange basketball and I'm saying, hmm, yeah, looks pretty orange to me, bounces, definitely a basketball, and the other person is like, are you stupid, clearly this is a watermelon, and it's like - how do you even respond? Like, that's exactly what it feels like to me.

So on the one hand, you have Those People, and then on the other hand, you've got the Group B "it's none of our business" people. And I don't think interactions with them feel quite like gaslighting, but rather, they make one more cognizant of gaslighting happening? I don't know if that makes sense, but the easiest way I can think of to elaborate is to address how the mainstream media - publications I have respected - is openly siding with Amber. Headlines about how the internet is "turning on" Amber Heard, how the only people siding with Johnny Depp are alt-right q-anoners (which, believe me, is not a group I want to be associated with even a little), and how big a step backward this is for #MeToo. (Nevermind how damaging these headlines are to victims who are men - their voices don't matter, obvs.)

That's egrigious enough, but they support these statements by straight up saying that people on Johnny's side need to stop getting their information from TikTok soundbytes and Youtube clips. The media is doing exactly what Group A is doing - supporting Amber bc she's a woman and trying to discredit valid arguments against her by accusing the arguer of not knowing what they're talking about.

One article writes, "in the face of an internet eager to pin everything on Heard, it’s important to remind ourselves of the facts — not the TikTok narratives."

I just - this statement is literally not what's happening. It is, in fact, projection. The portion of the internet who is "pinning everything" on Amber is the portion that watched the trial. Who saw the facts and evidence being presented, in real time, and came to their own conclusions. And the media's response is basically, "no, you didn't, but maybe you saw so many TikToks that you think you did. You should stop doing that and get informed of the facts. Read my article."

I mean ... that feels like textbook gaslighting to me. And Group A may be using these same gaslighting tactics as they dig deeper into Amber's trench, but Group B is full of the people who fall for this shit. Either they lack the critical thinking skills to see through it, or they're just too intellectually lazy to challenge it; they fall for the gaslighting because they are content with being told what to believe, bc the media's narrative aligns with their own biases. And when you point out that hey, maybe it's not as clear-cut as the media wants you to believe? they hit you back with, "it's none of our business anyway."

And it's like, well, actually it is our business bc a) the legal system in the United States should be transparent and accessible to the public, and I don't think "we shouldn't be privy to what happens in the courts" is quite the flex you think it is, and b) the implications of this case have a far greater reach than just being Johnny and Amber's personal business.

But no. Group B is latching onto the idea that Johnny's supporters are the misinformed ones so that they can continue to stick their fingers in their ears like la la la, I support women, I will not intellectually confront the idea that men can be victims too, leave Britney Amber alone!

Which is a disappointing thing to watch, certainly, but probably the most disappointing part about it is how many left-aligned people seem to be in Group B, including my personal friends. People who a year ago were speaking out against, like, anti-vaxxers/anti-science dumbfucks are now thoroughly enmeshed in this anti-facts narrative pushed by the media.

So it just ... not only does it make me question people I thought I knew really well - question their intellect, at the very least, but also question their deeply-rooted biases - but it also makes me question media that I previously, as I said, respected.

IIc. "They're Really More Like Guidelines." - the Mainstream Media re: the Rules of Ethical Journalism.

"Proving that corporate media is lazy and stupid ... the Los Angeles Times ... reported a Jason Momoa joke meme as real news. 'At one point, actor Jason Momoa, star of ‘Aquaman,’ testified via live video in support [of] his co-star Heard,' he wrote ... the problem is that Momoa did not testify at the trial. Winton would have known this if he actually watched the proceeding ... Instead, Winton got his news about the trial from TikTok and social media where this meme was making the rounds ... Lawyers who attended the trial in the gallery to report on jury reactions ... hardly ever saw any mainstream news media in the courtroom. Yet Big Media wanted to be the ones guiding the narrative of the trial." (Source.)

(Note - when I first started writing this, the day of the verdict, most of this stuff was just beginning to come out. Since then, tons more media coverage has been and continues to be published, peddling this false narrative, and Amber's own lawyer has gone around to multiple news shows to spew more misinformation about how unfair the trial was. Here's a small sampling of this trash fire.)

What the #MeToo movement has become over the years set the stage for the media to openly support it by taking Amber at her word that she's a survivor of abuse. By doing so, they have been complicit in perpetuating the "believe all women" narrative and portraying Amber as this brave survivor, at the expense of Johnny Depp's reputation, career, and character (not to mention mental health). This trial was six weeks of evidence to the contrary, and millions of people watched it. And instead of owning their error, the media wants to double-down and call Johnny's supporters misinformed, and turn this verdict into an attack on #MeToo. They'd rather stick to the (extremely harmful) narrative that men can't be victims by calling this verdict an injustice for women.

This is them saving face instead of admitting that a) they might have fucked up and helped ruin a man's life, or b) their journalism has been flawed this entire time, as none of them ever dug hard enough for the truth. They didn't examine Amber's "mountain of evidence" to find out if any of it held any weight. They hopped on the story without doing the homework. Now they don't want to eat crow, so instead, they are trying to control the fallout, and when Johnny's supporters disagree with it (hey, that's not what happened and here's the evidence), the media responds with, whatever, stop getting your information from TikTok you fucking misogynist. Projection at its finest.

One publication, I think maybe the NYT but I can't remember off-hand, wrote an article about how trials shouldn't be aired like this. I followed a twitter link and didn't save it, so I have no idea how to find it again, but it stuck with me bc I think it was the first time I remember seeing (or paying attention to) evidence of this, like, smear campaign against the airing of the trial and the fact that people were watching it for themselves.

It definitely bothered me at the time, though. The tone was very much, like - hey, wait a second, you're not supposed to be watching things like this, you're supposed to believe what we tell you to believe bc we know better, we have the facts. You're fucking up the script and it needs to stop.

And I thought

waitwhat.gif (Tumblr only allows 10 images per post; actual gif spared indignity of being part of this essay.)

- only to find that the "it's none of our business" -ers were (are) eating it up. (Edit: I copy/pasted the wrong part of this post here, and now I don't remember what my original point was with this, besides just generally being appalling. My bad.)

Anyway, after seeing that article, I started to pay attention to what the mainstream media was saying, and in the wake of the verdict, it's just gotten even worse. Over and over - these are the facts. Stop getting your news from TikTok. Read a real news source. Believe Amber, the woman. Perpetuate the myth that men cannot be abuse victims. #MeToo. Even if Amber did some bad things, Johnny's just as toxic. There's no such thing as a perfect victim - stop vilifying Amber for not being perfect. Also Johnny is obviously a lying, toxic abuser bc he's not perfect (he does drugs! He's an addict/alcoholic with a foul mouth! He's a(n older) man!). Round and round we go and it's just fucking exhausting and frustrating.

(Note - Johnny is not even in the neighborhood of perfect, I'm not saying I think he's some innocent angel in all of this, I'm just saying he's human and very flawed but more importantly there's a blatant double-standard here and in general re: "perfect victims" that needs to be acknowledged.)

And it's not like the media gives a shit about #MeToo or victims of abuse. They're not taking this stance here bc they genuinely feel like (or care that) Amber has been wronged. They're taking this stance bc media needs consumers to stay afloat, and people aren't going to consume their brand of shitty journalism (ie, pay money to be fed a version of a pre-determined narrative) if they can go directly to the source instead and come to their own conclusions. So they (the media) are doing everything they can to undermine the credibility of the source.

And like I said before - it's a gross manipulation tactic, if not outright gaslighting, but I could be disgusted by it without feeling emotionally harmed by it until I realized that my friends were falling for it. Friends I've respected and commiserated with and just plain like, as people. Friends whose judgements I've always trusted, whose intellect felt on par with my own, whose beliefs aligned with mine (which, I am not saying everyone has to agree with me about everything ever in order to be my friend, but they do have to agree with me - and with decent human beings - when it comes to things like not being homophobic, racist, sexist [snort], etc).

But now these friends are suddenly looking at this basketball and saying, looks like a watermelon to me. And I'm like, but earlier we both looked at a tennis ball and agreed it was a tennis ball, and that the pomegranate was a pomegranate, I thought we were on the same page? and they reply, well, the pomegranate wasn't a fucking wife-beater.

I may have lost my point somewhere, but basically, the media is contributing to the gaslighting that seemingly has permeated every layer of this case, from the actual relationship itself to how the public responds to the verdict. And with the media, it adds this weird layer, this feeling of being gaslit by proxy in addition to being gaslit by the anti-facters - and it's an uncomfortable feeling, yknow, it's hard to sit with the cognizance of this kind of manipulation and willful ignorance in the wake of what should be a victory - for equality, for male victims of abuse, for survivors. (It also feels like a blow in the wake of four years of Trump and his cult undermining and discrediting the media as they pranced down the yellow brick road to fascism, but I'm not even going to get started on that.)

And I'm just - could people just, like, stop lying about absolutely everything? Stop fucking lying. Stop misrepresenting shit. Stop trying to shove a gray world into your narrow-minded black-and-white box so you can feel more comfortable marinating in your own ignorant biases.

IId. The "Perfect Victim"

As I addressed that Johnny is not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, I want to expand on that by referencing this study (which is a fascinating read) re: the credibility of victim testimony in this case, bc it explains - far better than I ever could - that Johnny's foul language and drug/alcohol problems (which Amber's defense and, by extension, her supporters - leaned on most heavily to paint the picture of him as a toxic abuser) do not inherently mean he is violent or abusive:

"Of approximately 70,000 text messages exchanged between Mr. Depp and numerous others during his marriage with Ms. Heard, the defendant selected one as evidence that Mr. Depp threatened her. In this message sent to a friend, Mr. Depp wrote, "..." Nonetheless, this message was never sent to Ms. Heard, nor was it meant to be seen by her. Apart from the testimony of Ms. Heard, there is no evidence that Mr. Depp had either seriously threatened or intended to commit serious violence against her."

*I omitted the text itself bc it's gross and genuinely appalling to me, but you can easily find it in the study linked, or just online.

Furthermore,

"Although Mr. Depp’s drug and alcohol abuse is consistently documented and therefore this risk factor should be assessed as definitively present, it is noteworthy that beyond Ms. Heard’s allegations, there is no indication of Mr. Depp being confrontational, aggressive, or violent while intoxicated, with any of his previous partners or other persons, in other public or private settings, or during other times in his life. His substance abuse did not seem sufficient to impair his capacity for work, he has no drug-related criminal record, and he has no history of driving under the influence. Moreover, the couple regularly recorded conversations as part of their relationship therapy. Ms. Heard explained “ . . . they were also a tool to remind Johnny of what he would do when using drugs and alcohol because he would not remember or would deny what he did or said.” However, in the evidence provided, there is no recording that shows Mr. Depp intoxicated, nor committing abuse or exhibiting violent behavior that escalated while intoxicated. In this regard, I consider this risk factor ambiguous. Drug and alcohol abuse is confirmed, but it is totally unclear that it triggers violence in Mr. Depp’s case."

Note the gaslighting, though - that Amber accuses Johnny of "not remembering" things he supposedly did bc he was "blacked out," with no supporting evidence that that was ever the case. Makes you wonder, doesn't it.

(Btw, this study was posted in 2021 - after the UK trial, but before this one, so these conclusions were reached when the public still largely believed Johnny was the abuser, which is maybe irrelevent but I think adds that extra little layer of credibility, in that the author of the study wasn't being biased or influenced by any pro-Johnny press.)

III. Here's the Real Tea, Sis; Or, Why I Care.

The media would have the public believe that the trial was unfair, that this is a huge setback for victims everywhere, that this is silencing countless voices and will prevent people from coming forward in the future.

As I said earlier, there's truth in that, but it's not bc of Johnny. But the media would also have the public believe that Johnny's supporters are misogynists, or right-wingers, or just rabid Johnny Depp fangirls. And again, that's not even remotely close to the truth.

Here's where I'm coming from. I wasn't even a Johnny Depp fan before this trial. (I'm not sure I'd even consider myself one now, tbh. Just a sympathizer.) I'm probably more of a Jack Sparrow fan than a Johnny fan, and I'm not even that big of a Jack Sparrow fan. I enjoyed a few of Johnny's other movies and just generally viewed him as one of the better actors in Hollywood, but I don't really consider that being a fan. I knew absolutely nothing about this case. I'd heard things here and there about Johnny vs. Amber over the years (I remember the finger incident being talked about a lot a couple of years ago, I think), I thought that we probably weren't getting the whole story bc Johnny had never seemed like an abuser, but maybe he was though, and I never thought about it more deeply than that.

What caught my attention: I was killing time at work, and I started watching some of the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, one of Amber's witnesses (specifically, the psychiatrist who diagnosed her with PTSD), and after watching her being cross-examined for several minutes, I remember thinking, what the fuck kind of psychiatrist is this? Not only were her diagnostic methods being called into question (she didn't understand the assignment), but she was contradicting herself, making sweeping generalizations that rang false, and just generally coming off as not a credible witness.

"Dr Hughes spends over 20 minutes of direct examination testimony describing various forms of domestic violence. EVERY example she gives uses he/him as the source of abuse and she/her as the target of abuse. She also makes excuses for women who exhibit behaviors that could be called abusive. Her excuses expose a belief that if women yell at, hit, etc their male partner it’s because he’s mean to her. To extrapolate from Dr Hughes’ DV description below, if women are abusive it’s because a man made her do it, and if a man is abusive it’s because he’s bad." (Source.)

(^^ The above source is a good, thorough breakdown of how Hughes was biased against Johnny bc she doesn't believe women are ever perpetrators of violence without provocation, which - among other things - undermines her credibility as an "expert witness" for Amber.)

Anyway, this was about three weeks into the trial, and my interest was piqued, so I started watching more attentively. The more interested I got, the more invested I got. I went back and watched as much as I could from those first three weeks, and then I listened to the audio recordings, and I read the witness statements and most of the testimony from the UK trial, and it all just culminated in this feeling of holy shit, this is fucked up on so many levels.

In other words, everything I know about this case, I have learned in the last 3-4 weeks - but, I learned it thoroughly. And I'm not unique - there are so many people, on Reddit, on Youtube, even on tumblr, who have said they got invested in pretty much the same way. They didn't know much, if anything, about the case, they started watching bc it was on, and as the evidence kept stacking up against Amber, they got hooked. There were lawyers live-streaming eight hours a day, watching the trial and offering commentary. One lawyer, live-streaming daily, would have literally 125-150 thousand viewers on her stream, many of them chatting, interacting, asking questions.

There were lawyers sitting in the gallery, watching everything first-hand. Hours-long "recap" videos of people examining and talking about the evidence from that day's court session. Among Johnny's supporters, there is a metric fuckton of people (myself included) who have invested hours, days, the full six weeks into this trial, and it's so fucking insulting to have that reduced to "stop getting your information from TikToks, you're so misinformed."

Also among Johnny's supporters are tons and tons of abuse survivors. Survivors of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, gaslighting. Again, myself included.

It's not really something I talk about on tumblr, bc I just don't feel the need to and it was a long time ago (and also I have repressed a lot of it so I wouldn't really even know how to talk about it if I wanted to, but I digress), but for context - I was in an abusive relationship for over two years. I was nineteen/twenty, and didn't know anything about anything. The abuse was mostly emotional, occasionally physical (but not severely so). A ton of gaslighting. People around me telling me it "wasn't that bad," "everyone fights," when I expressed wanting to leave the relationship. I remember feeling off-kilter all the time, knowing something was seriously fucked up but not truly recognizing the emotional abuse and gaslighting for what it was. So I assumed it was a me problem, instead, that I was horrible in some way for being so miserable. Eventually I got out but even to this day, once in a blue moon, my mom will bring up that guy and mention it's a shame it didn't work out (like maybe she'll find a picture or something that reminds her, it's not as random as it sounds), and I'll say something like, that relationship was toxic and abusive and I hope I never see him again in this life, and she'll kind of shrug a little, like, well, if that's how you see it I won't argue with you. And, I mean, I don't even know what to do with that, except to say that even to this day, even posting this right now, I feel like, maybe that is just how I see it, maybe it wasn't abusive at all, maybe it was just a me problem. So.

But even outside of that relationship, I've been gaslit. I have had my kindness taken advantage of. I have had lies told about me. I have struggled with addiction and I have mental health issues. I know how it feels, and I have some idea of how Johnny feels, and how it all fucks a person up, and I considered that alongside the evidence and landed where I have.

Again, I'm not unique in this. This Reddit thread, for example, is full of people talking about their experiences and their backgrounds - liberals, women, poc, queer people, survivors, male survivors, etc. These are the people supporting Johnny. And I feel like brushing us off and undermining us and gaslighting us in order to side with Amber, solely because she's a woman, does far more damage to domestic violence awareness than Johnny's win ever could.

And that's ... pretty much how I'm feeling. Happy for the verdict, but hollow as well. Disappointed and sad. Frustrated. Recognizing the victory but feeling like it's already tarnished by the toxic people who want to take it away.

So, yeah.

Me @ me, posting this:

Some disclaimers:

This was written literally as just a vent - or, at least, it started out that way, but as I said at the top, I started this on the afternoon of the verdict and I'm finishing it almost an entire week later. What started as a vent became just a space for me to really work out, for my own mental clarity, why all of this bothers me so much and why it matters. I don't expect anyone to be swayed in either direction by this; I don't expect anyone will even read it, tbh, bc it's just offensively long. I'm just explaining why this even exists. Basically, this shit is/was living rent-free in my head and it needs to be evicted.

This is all my opinion and my reaction; take it with a grain of salt. As mentioned, the formatting with headers, etc was just my way of keeping the post sensical for me, as I was writing it. I realize it's probably obnoxious, so, sorry.

I didn't provide links to Amber's quotes taken from audio recordings bc they're all over YouTube and I couldn't find either transcripts or vids that were cut down to just the portion I was quoting.

Between the day I started this and the day I finished it, tumblr introduced its "turn off reblogs" feature, which is super convenient. I don't want this reblogged bc a) I don't think it's particularly well-written, and b) I shared more personal details about myself that I didn't really intend to, and I'd just rather not have any of this floating around in the tumblrsphere.

#tw domestic violence #tw domestic abuse #tw gaslighting #tw all the triggering things #long post #mood gif #off-topic: johnny depp trial thoughts

[thebibliosphere]

So I'm currently unemployed because I got fired for taking too much sick leave (it was legally sketchy blah blah blah but in the end I just can't work and take care of myself and investigate my mystery health problems at the same time). So I've been spending more time writing!

I really admire your writing and loved Hunger Pangs. I'm looking forward to the poly elements developing and I'm wondering if you have any advice for writing about poly. I've made one of my projects a snarky take on "write what you know" ... Apparently what I know is southern gothic meets Pacific northwest gothic, chronic illness pandemic surrealism, and falling back-asswards into threesomes.

I know this is a very open-ended question and I don't expect an answer, I'm just curious about it if you have the energy. As a writer, trying to write honestly / realistically about polyamory/enm, I'm curious if you have any thoughts on what's different about portraying monogamy or nonmonogamy in books, romance or erotica or otherwise.

I'm trying to read examples but it's hard to find examples that fit the niche I'm looking at. Excuse me if this question is nonsense, it's the cluster headaches.

I'm sorry to hear you've been dealing with all that and solidarity on the cluster headaches. But I'm glad you're finding an outlet through writing! And I hope you're happy with an open-ended ramble in response because oh boy, there's a lot I could talk about and I could probably do a better job of answering this sort of thing with more specific questions, but let's see where we end up.

There's definitely a big difference between writing polyamory/ENM (ethical non-monogamy) and what people often expect from monogamous love stories.

Just even from a purely sales and marketing standpoint, the moment you write anything polyamorous (or even just straight up LGBTQIA+ without the ENM) you're going to get considered closer to being erotica/obscene than hetero romances. It's an unfair bias, but it's one that exists in our society. But also the Amazon algorithm and their shitty, shitty human censors. Especially the ones that work the weekends. (Talking to you, Carlos 🖕.)

So not only do you start out hyper-aware that you're writing something that is highly stigmatized or fetishized (at least I'm hyper-aware) but that you are also writing for a niche market that is starving for positive content because the content that exists is either limited, not what they want, or is problematic in some fashion i.e. highly stigmatized or fetishy. And even then, the wants, desires, and expectations of the community you're writing for are complex and wildly varied and hard to fit into an easy formula.

When writing monogamous love stories, there is a set expectation that’s really hard to fuck up once you know it. X person meets Y. Attraction happens, followed by some sort of minor conflict/resolution. Other plot may happen. A greater catalyst involving personal growth for both parties (hopefully) happens. Follow the equation to its ultimate resolution and achieve Happily Ever After. 

But writing ENM is... a lot more difficult, if only because of the pure scope of possibilities. You could try to follow the same equation and shove three (or more) people into it, but it rarely works well. Usually because if you’re doing it right, you won’t have enough room in a single character arc to allow for enough growth, and if ENM requires anything in abundance, it’s room to grow.

And this post is huge so I’m going to put the rest under a cut :)

There's also a common refrain in certain online polyam/ENM circles that triads and throuples are overrepresented in media and they may be right to some extent. Personally, I believe the issue isn't that triads and throuples are overrepresented, but that there is such minuscule positive rep of ethical non-monogamy in general, that the few tiny instances we have of triads in media make it seem like it's "everywhere" when in actuality, it's still quite rare and the media we do have often veers into Unicorn Hunter fetish porn. Which is its own problematic thing. And just to be clear, I’m not including this part to dissuade you from writing "falling back-asswards into threesomes." If anything, I need more of it and would hook it directly into my brain if I could. I'm just throwing it out there into the void in the hope that someone will take the thought and run with it, lol.

I’d love to see more polyfidelitous rep in fiction, just as much as I’d like to see more relationship anarchy too. More diversity in fiction is always good.

Another thing that differs in writing ENM romance vs conventional monogamy is the feeling like you need to justify yourself. There's a lot of pressure to be as healthy and non-problematic as possible because you are being held to a higher standard of criticism. Both from people from without the ENM communities, and from the people within. Granted, some people don't give a shit and just want to read some fantastic porn (valid) but there are those who will cheerfully read Fifty Shades of Bullshit and call it "spicy" and "romantic," then turn around and call the most tooth-rottingly-sweet-fluff about a queer platonic polycule heresy. That's just the way the world works.

(Pro-tip for author life in general: never read your own reviews; that way madness lies. I glimpsed one the other day that tagged Hunger Pangs as “ethical cheating” and just about had an aneurism.)

And while that feeling of needing to justify yourself comes from a valid place of being excluded from the table of socially accepted norms, it can also be to the detriment of both the story and the subject matter at hand. I've seen some authors bend so far over backward to avoid being problematic in their portrayal of ENM, they end up being problematic for entirely different reasons. Usually because they give such a skewed, rose-tinted perspective of how things work, it ends up coming off as well... a bit culty and obnoxious tbh.

“Look how enlightened we are, freed from the trappings of monogamy and jealousy! We’re all so honest and perfect and happy!”

Yeah, uhu, sure Jan. Except here’s the thing, not all jealousy is bad. How you act on it can be, but jealousy itself is an important tool in the junk drawer that is the range of human emotion. It can clue us in to when we’re feeling sad or neglected, which in turn means we should figure out why we’re feeling those things. Sometimes it’s because brains are just like that and anxiety is a thing. Other times it’s because our needs are actually being neglected and we are in an unhealthy situation we need to remedy. You gotta put the work in to figure it out. Which is the same as any style of relationship, whether it’s mono, polyam or whatever flavor of ENM you subscribe to* And sometimes you just gotta be messy, because that’s how humans are. Being afraid to show that mess makes it a dishonest portrayal, and it also robs you of some great cannon fodder for character development.

Which brings me in a roundabout way to my current pet peeve in how certain writers take monogamous ideals and apply them to ENM, sometimes without even realizing it. The “Find the Right Person and Settle Down” trope.

Often, in this case, ENM or polyamory is treated as a phase. Something you mature out of with age or until you meet “The One(tm).” This is, of course, an attempt to follow the mono style formula expected in most romances. And while it might appeal to many readers, it’s uh, actually quite insulting. 

To give an example, I am currently seeing this a lot in the Witcher fandom. 

Fanon Netflix!Jaskier is everyone's favorite ethical slut until he meets Geralt then woops, wouldn’t you know, he just needed to find The One(tm). Suddenly, all his other sexual and romantic exploits or attractions mean nothing to him. Let's watch as he throws away a core aspect of his personality in favor of a man. 

Yeah... that sure showed those societal norms... 

If I were being generous, I’d say it’s a poor attempt at showing New Relationship Euphoria and how wrapped up people can become in new relationships. But honestly, it’s monogamous bias eking its way in to validate how special and unique the relationship is. Because sometimes people really can’t think of any other way to show how important and valid a relationship is without defining it in terms of exclusivity. Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how ENM works for a lot of people and invalidates a lot of loving, serious and long-term relationships.

This is not to say that some polyam/poly-leaning people can't be happy in monogamous relationships! I am! (I consider myself ambiamorous. I'm happy with either monogamy or polyamory, it really just depends on the relationship(s) I’m in.) But I also don't regard my relationship with a mono partner as "settling down" or "growing up." It's just a choice I made to be with a person I love, and it's a valid one. Just like choosing to never close yourself off to multiple relationships is valid. And I wish more people realized that, or rather, I wish the people writing these things knew that :P

Anyway, I think I’ve rambled enough. I hope this collection of incoherent thoughts actually makes some sense and might be useful. 

----

*A good resource book that doesn't pull any punches in this regard is Polysecure by Jessica Fern. It's a wonderfully insightful read that explores the messier side of consensual non-monogamy, especially with how it can be affected by trauma or inter-relationship conflicts. But it also shows how to take better steps toward healthy, ethical non-monogamy (a far better job than More Than Two**) and conflict resolution, making it a valuable resource both for someone who is a part of this relationship style***, but also for writers on the outside looking in who might have a very simple or misguided idea of what conflict within polyam/ENM relationships might look like, vs traditional monogamous ones.

** The author of More Than Two has been accused of multiple accounts of abuse within the polyamorous community, with many of his coauthors having spoken out about the gaslighting and emotional and psychological damage they experienced while in a relationship with him. A lot of their stories are documented here: https://www.itrippedonthepolystair.com/ (warning: it is not light material and deals with issues of abuse, gaslighting, and a whole other plethora of Yikes.) While some people still find More Than Two helpful reading, there are now, thankfully, much, much better resources out there.

*** Some people consider polyam/ENM to be part of their identity or orientation, while others view it as a relationship style.It largely depends on the individual. 

#long post #writing #ethical non-monogamy #relationship styles #relationship models in fiction #also that kindle link is an affiliate link #because fuck giving amazon free recs

[thedreamingscorpio]

Personal 4

Okay so I'm feeling really chatty today, have good energy levels, and don't feel the urge to cry, and so I noticed how I want to talk and share and my blog is messy, also that I'm in a sorta transformative stage right now, the knowledge that if I happen to get a college, we'll be shifting by this time next month and that I have to do a crash course in driving in the meantime, it's... Daunting.

I may be talking a lot lot from now on, also just noticed how cute the word lot is, also this is a grammatical blunder, distracted again, but anyway, I love you all so so much and it gives me comfort knowing that even though people present around me physically may not always get me and my brand of weird, I can rant here, get mushy and go on obnoxiously long speeches about my new hyper fixation. This is me, my antics, my thoughts, a substitute to the personal diary I never write in for over 20 days, the ups and downs of my every day, my love for things new and fascinating, me being an idiot, and my tears.

For your sake and mine, I'll be tagging things appropriately from now on, maybe create navigation? Idk, but yeah I will bring some structure into this, so you can read what and if you want to and not shove it down your throat. You see I remember tagging things, but then I'm like wait let me find that particular cat and just keep on scrolling endlessly and I'll be like, oh here it is, my friend will glance over expectantly, and then I'll be like oh no it's not that one, but still so cute, but you wanted the one with the crazy claws, lemme find it and it'll keep looping over like a gif every day. Don't want that to happen.

Also, I'll tag things because I tend to get way too emotional over nothing sometimes, like drying my childhood napkin, or how I read all of wiki over fruit bats, right down to the gore when I encounter one at 1 at night, you'll know if I fainted when seeing a cadaver for the first time or not(I soo want to tbh, I've never fainted ever, but then they gotta make the lab full of pillows and cushioned floors and for the floor to give off this wonderful scent to mask the formalin), or if I get locked into a bathroom, or maybe I won't get a college again(don't want that happening, am 99% sure it won't, got my OMR and all, but yeah I'm a skeptic so...)

But really I love love love it here, I can really talk about my utter inability to maintain/perform(Idk what's right?) small talk, why I don't want to meet my friends, even though they're super angry because of this very reason because I feel like I'll dampen their moods with mine, how I'm just scared of the most random things in general and sometimes feel like I want to go on a trek without phones and for the road to lead the way and we can talk like Robert Frost about the road not taken, or how and where it would've led us if we did, how I have simply too much energy sometimes(like today and then I go on writing such disgustingly long paragraphs, which either you haven't read in the first place, left midway or are still reading and thinking about my idiosyncrasies and have sighed around 4 times by now, or are wondering just why is this on your dash at all), in any case, I appreciate you to the depths of infinity(okay invalid) and am thankful for meeting you.

I think I'll finally check my mail now, call up the friend I want to talk to for about 15 days now but am putting off, answer my asks and actually get to some work, something I prefer to imagine about all day rather than getting to it.

Just in case you are wondering, why not make a personal blog, it's just that I'm too attached to my main and that I have a tendency to spiral into the dark and deep beyond what is considered a healthy amount, don't want to end up creating a gloomy space for me to get lost in, I'm flickering a lot since the past couple of days and so I'll try and keep everything as separate as possible.

I immensely appreciate your time and effort if you did get this far and I hope you have a great day ahead!

#very unnecesarily long #Avni babbles

[marshmallowdonutsprinkles]

Honestly, I don't find it terrible , an average anime at best. But I wouldn't hate it half as much if it wasn't for the goddamn fans. And did you see they are releasing a Yurio body pillow.... he's 15 for Christ's sake...

You’re right.

Yuri on Ice, tbh, is a mediocre anime (I.E. in terms of character and plot development). I gave it a 5/10 on MAL. YOI is poorly written (..and animated) and the fact that it apparently took Kubo 4 years is…appalling. I was so excited when the first PV came out, but watching episode 1 was, uh, something. I have seen worse anime, so YOI is not the bottom of the barrel to me. If the fandom wasn’t so outright obnoxious, I would’ve watched the season, kept my opinions to myself, and moved on. As an anti, I am not bashing YOI fans for liking YOI, you can like whatever you want. It becomes a problem, however, when they :

(1) begin bashing other anime that have nothing to do with YOI, in an attempt to make YOI look better (Haikyuu!! And Free! seem to be the main victims. Mob Psycho 100 was, for what it looks like, bashed on for a certain amount of time because of crunchyroll awards).

(2) integrate themselves in every single fandom that has nothing to do with them (example : Figure skating championships. Nathan Chen is not Yuuri Katsuki. Nathan Chen is Nathan Chen. Stop it.)

(3) crucify anyone (including fans) who have even a tiny bit of criticism towards the show. They do the absolute most trying to defend the show with ridiculous meta, it actually makes YOI and the fandom look worse, IMO. If anything it shows how insecure they are, since apparently 100% of people who watched YOI must like it-or else.  At such lengths they go to “protect” it, they prove again and again that the anime wasn’t as #revolutionary as they claim it to be. Maybe they’re in denial. That being said, please refrain from reaching, fandom, you look ridiculous. Accept the flaws, or keep scrolling. Better yet, blacklist, as you love to tell other people when you invade their fandoms. P.S. Death threats are stupid and does not make you look better. Y'all need Jesus and Therapy. The hell is wrong with you guys?

(4) Maintain the superiority complex. YOI is not the gospel. “Kubo-sensei” is not a “pure” woman who saved the Earth. She is (apparently) a writer who wrote a fanfic that got popular. Popularity ≠ Good Quality. The show and y'all personalities are trash. For more info on Kubo, I believe fellow tumblr user @saotome-michi has all the receipts on her blog. That’s like a whole story on it’s own lmao *sigh*

(5) Set the main ship as relationship goals. Trust me, it is not. This is not Disney, you are not Cinderella. Wake up.

I am an anti, yes, but I’m more anti (yoi) fandom than anything. They cause more problems in the name of YOI, looking like a bunch of idiotic YOI Crusaders, so it makes the anime look worse. When you see the fandom vs the anime, it’s really not that good. The unnecessary hype makes them look very delusional. It kind of reminds me of 2015 when everyone was screaming “WATCH SHINGEKI NO KYOJIN!!!!!!!! OMFG IT’S THE BEST THING EVER” and I watched it and…?? It’s a good show but I wouldn’t call it a masterpiece. It’s not like SNK did anything spectacularly different from all the other post-apocalyptic type shows (no hard feelings SNK fans) The openings were straight fire tho. If there was no fandom (or at least not this current behavior) the show would’ve been fine, it’s whatever. Now I can’t even think of ice skating without making a face.

What I think the fandom fails to realize is that criticism doesn’t necessarily mean hating (unlike what they do to other fandoms). I am criticizing because I actually liked YOI (keyword: liked). If I did not care about YOI at all, I would not have a strong opinion to be even receiving this ask (thanks by the way💗). I am on the anti side because I believe YOI had the potential to be a great anime, but fell short (waayyy short. I mean, wtf was that?). I feel that I, and other anti yoi members, were scammed, cheated, bamboozled, hoodwinked, robbed, you naammmee it. Serious sports anime where??????? The only thing serious about Yuri on Ice is the blatant flaws and toxic fandom it somehow produced. I blame trump.

It also doesn’t help that there are 20+, 30+ year olds in the fandom acting like this. How are you a grown adult acting like a 12 year old fangirl of a crappy boy band? Not trying to be confrontational, but…?????? Y'all don’t got work, school, maybe kids?????? Parties?????? Something way more important than this? Hello get those priorities in check please

30 minutes into writing this I noticed the second half of your question, lmao. I didn’t know, actually. I stay away from the main tags. I think I just cringed thinking of things people would do to that body pillow…

🚔🚔

#anti yoi #anti yoi fandom #the only time i've seen people so deluded were these trump supporters #and when you present both with facts they become quiet or just start spouting nonsense #i guess yoi fans believe in alternate facts too #this is the longest response to an ask i've ever written wtf #i better put this same energy into college next week