Ep. 11 Angelstone
The longer Apotheosis progresses, the more concerned I am for Peter and Rumi’s relationship, and after episode 11 I’m super interested to see where their dynamic is taken. Cue Angelstone rant:
Rumi is always showering Peter with praise, telling him how he’s perfect, he’s all Rumi wants, he’s more than Exandroth, he’s destined to be great and loved and powerful. And Peter, of course, preens under the praise. He’s a normal-to-below-average dude who has been constantly ignored and cast aside his whole life, and suddenly a gorgeous, tall perfect-looking celestial figure with magical powers and a sparkly sword shows interest in him-- of course he’s going to respond! It’s understandable! But this sudden influx of praise from one person, particularly one he’s in a relationship with, can be dangerous considering his overall mental state because Peter is slowly becoming used to being appreciated. It’s easy to fall into trap of feeling like he may owe them something in return for their love-- favors, loyalty, a relationship he may not fully want or one that isn’t good for him. From Peter’s perspective, the only people who are willing to appreciate him in this way will only stay with him if he helps them, submits to their will, or spends time with them. He may try all manner of things to win their favor out of a fear of rejection by the only people who have reciprocated his love. Although this may not happen, and if they handle it right in the future, it makes their relationship more volatile to become toxic.
Peter’s codependency from a past of emotional distance and dismissal makes him reliant on Rumi--although he genuinely loves Rumi, that love is shaped by his past and it may influence Peter more than he thinks. For instance, Charlie has said multiple times out of character that Peter is only following along because he wants to be with Thanatos and Rumi, the only people who have ever given him the time of day. (remember, he may be doing this because he feels that he has a debt to the both of them, although I’m speculating bc it hasn’t been discussed much in canon) In episode 11, he challenges their goals outright and says he disagrees with their motives, but he stays anyways. He compromises his own values for Rumi and Thanatos because he’s lonely and he won’t stand up for himself. If he’s showed a propensity for bending to others’ (especially Rumi’s) wishes, he’s definitely primed to do so in the future--and that could be dangerous, especially in a partnership, because it leads to an imbalance of power.
Plus, Rumi’s dynamic with Peter is becoming more and more concerning, especially after their relationship became explicitly romantic in episode 11. A bit after the hour mark of that episode, there’s a moment that stuck out to me: Rumi and Peter are discussing their goals with Thanatos, and Rumi makes a comment that there’s no point to arguing with him, because obviously Thanatos will never understand Peter the way that Rumi does. And later in that episode, Rumi becomes competitive with Thanatos for Peter’s attention, becoming easily jealous and giving Peter gifts so he doesn’t feel closer to Thanatos than to Rumi. Rumi, whether he realizes it or not, has a significant amount of influence over Peter because he controls a majority of his life, (leading their adventure, choosing him, claiming to have divine sight that shows him the future, which he needs Peter for, emotional stability with a lack of loneliness or dismissal, etc). By separating Peter from Thanatos, the only other one in the group, he is isolating Peter and making him more reliant on Rumi himself. He is assuring that no one, not even Thanatos, can be trusted above Rumi. These are not the only instances of this either-- a lot of Rumi’s dialogue after the Fade to Black in episode 11 is truly unnerving to watch.
tl;dr: Although they may not be trying to establish one, Angelstone is showing signs of building an unbalanced power structure in the future, with Rumi on top, that will probably lead to a toxic environment for them both down the line.
20 notes
·
View notes
if you don't mind me asking who were the other ros?
i'm guessing you mean the ros who didn't make the final cut? there are three of them:
gender-selectable walking red flag
the human embodiment of the "this is where i watched my parents die raphael" "COWABUMMER" audio
First Class Hater <3
you'll still meet them and they play a fairly large part in the story, they're just on the back burner for now! there's four official ros so i guess you could call them "unofficial" ros? something like that? flirtmances? (we'll cross that bridge when we get there.)
23 notes
·
View notes
terfs when a study shows literally anything positive about trans people/transitioning: 'hm i think this requires some fact-checking. Were those researchers REALLY unbiased? Because if they were biased this doesn't count and if they weren't knowingly biased they probably were unconsciously biased, woke media affects so much these days. Have there been any other studies on this? Because if there haven't been this could be an outlier and if there have been and they all agree that's a bit odd, why aren't there any outliers, and if there have been and any disagree we really won't know the truth until we very thoroughly analyze them all, will we? Were there enough subjects for a good sample size? Did every single subject involved stay involved through the whole study because if they didn't we should be sure nothing shady was going on resulting in people dropping out. Are we 110% sure all the subjects were fully honest and at no point were embarrassed or afraid to admit they didn't love transitioning to the people in charge of their transition? Are we 110% sure none of the subjects were manipulated into thinking they were happy with their transition? In fact we should double-check what they think with their parents, because if the subjects and their parents disagree it's probably because they've been manipulated but their cis parents have not and are very unbiased. How many autistic subjects were there because if there weren't enough then this doesn't really study the overlap between autistic and trans and if there were too many then we just don't know enough about what causes that overlap to be sure this study really explains being trans and isn't just about being autistic. How many AFAB subjects were there because if there weren't enough this is just another example of prioritizing AMAB people and ignoring the different struggles of girls and women and if there were too many how do we know sexism didn't affect the results. Was the study double-blinded? We all know double-blinded is the most reliable so if this one wasn't that's a point against it even if the thesis literally physically could not be double-blinded. Look i'm not being transphobic, i want what's best for trans people! Really! But as a person who is not trans and therefore objective in a way they cannot possibly be, i just think we should only take into account Good Science here. You want to be following science and not being manipulated or experimented upon by something unscientific, right?'
terfs when they see a study of 45 subjects so old it predates modern criteria for gender dysphoria and basically uses 'idk her parents think she's too butch', run by a guy who practiced conversion therapy, 'confirmed' by a guy who treated the significant portion of subjects who didn't follow up as all desisting, definitely in the category of 'physically cannot double-blind this', completely contradicted by multiple other studies done on actual transgender subjects, but can be kinda cited as evidence against transitioning if you ignore everything else about it: 'oOOH SEE THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKIN BOUT. SCIENCE. Just good ol' unbiased thorough analysis. I see absolutely no reason to dig any deeper on this and if you think it's wrong you're the one being unscientific. It's really a shame you've been so thoroughly brainwashed by the trans agenda and can't even accept science when you see it. Maybe now that someone has finally uncovered this long-lost study from 1985, we can make some actual progress on the whole trans problem.'
5 notes
·
View notes
Absolutely devastated to learn that I was misremembering a specific detail from HtN.
She was glad to see that someone—maybe his mother, the mawkish Sister Glaurica—had painted his face as his father had once painted his own, with a solid black jaw to represent the Mouthless Skull. This was not because she had any especial love for the Mouthless Skull, as paint sacrament went. It was merely because any jawéd skull he affected became a wide white skull with depression.
For some reason I was convinced that Ortus exclusively wears the Mouthless Skull. I thought I remembered a discussion - or at least an implication - that he does it deliberately. He knows what happened to his father. He never speaks of it until he starts suspecting that he's dead, and may well die a second time. It would not be too surprising, if he'd at least suspected the truth about the creche flu. I thought -
I thought it was a deliberate act of rebellion. Something like civil disobedience. Look at me, it seemed to say. I am silent. I am silenced.
But no. He wears the Skull of the Anchorite Dying (whatever that means) at the arrival to Canaan House.
Oh well.
12 notes
·
View notes
when u go to queue things but you post instead >:/
2 notes
·
View notes