Tumgik
#whereas she infantilizes you so that she can feel in control for once
musical-chick-13 · 2 years
Text
The thing that really Gets To Me™ (derogatory) about Control Z is that they are SO CLOSE to doing a good job on the representation of Sofía's mental illness.
Her mental breakdown in season 1 where she self-harms again while listening to a sad song, the ostracization she faces from her peers for being "crazy" and the feelings of alienation that come with it...and even smaller, isolated incidents: like being seen taking medication, knowing that medication so well from taking it so consistently that she can immediately tell when it's been tampered with, her being the one to say that Luis's drawing were just Catharsis Art and that artistically depicting something doesn't mean you actually want it to happen-that THINKING something doesn't mean you want it to happen, and INSTANTLY knowing that Natalia meant suicide when she said "something else" caused Maria's death-because she had made an attempt herself. (Whereas Javier had to have it said explicitly, because he's not used to thinking in vague "polite" language regarding suicide/mental illness the way Sofía is.) Even after Sofía has proven herself, when she tries to tell people what’s really going on at the end of season 3, people still accuse her of making things up and calling her “crazy,” because ableism is an ingrained prejudice that isn’t just going to go away because one mentally ill person did a cool thing.
Like, they genuinely do so many good things in depicting this, they just can't...fully...get there...
We have Sofía dealing with realistic levels of ableism from her classmates at school, but Raúl was one of the people participating in this and that just. Never gets mentioned. It’s not even just that she forgives him for that (though trust me, I hate that, too), it’s that no one brings it up at all! Mental illness has had a considerable, significant impact on Sofía’s life (as mental illness is wont to do), it is-as it stands right now in Sofía’s story-an inextricable part of her overall life experience. You’d think someone would at least acknowledge that Raúl was part of the problem and actively making her suffering through ableism worse (despite claiming to care about her). But straight up no one ever does.
And they also started off with an interesting angle with Sofía’s relationship to sex and romantic physicality. It’s not uncommon for people struggling with severe mental illness to have a complicated relationship with their sexuality, and Sofía’s experience at the party in season one, how uncomfortable she looked when told to kiss someone for fun, her awkward conversation with Javier after she chose him, all of this fed into that angle of the complex entanglement between sex, romance, and mental illness that can sometimes exist. I didn’t even have an issue with Sofía’s first hookup with Raúl, because it was obviously an impulsive decision born from her current state of crisis (fighting with her mom-specifically over being coddled and infantilized, which also can happen to mentally ill people-and having flashbacks to everything involving her dad), and the whole scene was darkly lit and frenetic. There was a weird red filter over everything, and the camera panning to Raúl’s hacker mask cast an ominous shadow over the whole thing. Sofía’s relationship with her sexuality was still complicated. She didn’t do this because she trusted him or because she’d gotten over her unsurety or other potential hang-ups. It was an impulsive decision to feel something other than what she was experiencing. This particular instance was an unhealthy coping mechanism, and considering what Raúl was doing at the time (i.e., being the worst boy alive), it proved to be the wrong decision.
Aaaaannd then they screw that all up in season 2. She immediately hooks up with Raúl again, after the smallest amount of an attempt at bonding time. There’s no further discussion at any point of Sofía’s hinted concerns and insecurities regarding sex. It’s like she had sex once (in a very unhealthy situation that was based on Raúl lying to her constantly) and then suddenly there were no issues any more. I could maybe chalk it up to a minor oversight, but when she gets together with Javier post-time-skip, she is completely fine with everything involving their sex life. She’s suddenly this sexually confident person, which as an arc (learning to separate her mental illness struggles and experiences with ableism from her ideas about sex) would have been really interesting! It’s a dimension we don’t often see in depictions of mental illness onscreen, but we are never shown how she got to this point. Sorry (I’m not), but if you have issues with something--anything (and especially if you are mentally ill)--you’re not just going to get over those issues by engaging with the thing you have a problem or insecurity with one time. That’s not how human beings work.
And it’s also...odd, that Sofía seems to lose all symptoms of mental illness when she’s around Raul-presumably because pairing them up would be impossible to make sense of otherwise. She (at least as far as I can remember), isn’t shown taking medication around him; she becomes more cavalier, making jokes/teasing comments in situations where doing so wouldn’t make sense; she starts brushing off pieces of conversations that should be red flags, especially for someone whose primary character trait is “observant”; and for someone who is characterized as being “in her head” all the time (EVEN AS PER RAÚL HIMSELF) because she is literally always observing and deducting--something very common among people who suffer from mental illness--her least thought-out, most rash actions all involve her relationship with Raúl. Which would be fine as a characterization choice if it were framed differently. But (ill-advised season 1 hook-up aside), nothing in her interactions with him: from responding to his aggressive advances in season 2 to her out-of-character teasing/borderline flirting that CONTINUES INTO WHEN SHE’S IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH JAVIER, to drinking more when she’s around him, is presented as impulsive or jarring or unhealthy. At best, you can argue it’s neutral. Mostly, it’s presented as “cute.” I’ve already talked about how Sofía’s personality and values have to change completely in order for this ship to have ANY believability, but probably what angers me the most is that any and all opportunities they had to discuss and depict Sofía’s mental illness get completely thrown aside the moment the narrative has her interact with Raúl.
(Addendum: many mentally ill people latch onto their personal morals/causes for fear of being a bad person. This interpretation (though I’m not sure it was intentional) makes sense for Sofía, whose primary trait-other than being observant-is that she is a nice person. But for someone so committed to her values, she’s willing to overlook Raúl’s faults (that he never tries to change or apologize for), which is especially egregious considering that she doesn’t forgive similar behavior from anyone else.)
It’s just so frustrating, because obviously they could fully commit to their choice to have their main character suffer from mental illness. They have enough good stuff and interesting characterization decisions that they are almost there in terms of this being well-represented. IF THEY TRIED A LITTLE HARDER, IT WOULD BE GREAT.
11 notes · View notes
iamanartichoke · 3 years
Text
I wrote a Thing. It’s extremely long. I’d prefer it not be reblogged; I wrote this for my own catharsis and would prefer it not be circulated, bc of Reasons. 
I changed my mind, okay to reblog. <3 
Under a cut for (extreme, did I mention?) length. 
So I got about 12 minutes of sleep last night, as you do, and around 3am or so I found myself - out of sheer curiosity - going down a meta hole of Ragnarok discourse, trying to figure out where this "satisfying redemption arc" for Loki happened. (I mean, there's a lot of things I would like to figure out, but I started there.) Because I could. 
Basically I was looking for meta that went into detail about how Loki was redeemed in a satisfactory way. The ‘satisfactory’  is an important word here bc there is a redemption arc in the film, in that Loki starts off the film as an antagonist (kinda) to Thor and he ends the film as an ally to Thor, standing at Thor's side. In that sense, yes, there's a redemption arc. I didn't find much (and I had no idea how much people just despise Ragnarok "antis" [I really dislike that word] but that's another topic [that I don't particularly want to get into, tbh]) but I did find some. I read what I could find, and I read it open-mindedly, and overall I came away feeling like, okay, there are some valid points being made here and I can kinda see where they're coming from.
But it was a bit (a lot) like -- flat. Idk. The best comparison I can think of is that it’s like if a literature class read, I don't know, The Yellow Wallpaper for an assignment, and some of the students came away from it feeling like it was a creepy story about a woman slowly driving herself insane, and the other students came away from it incensed at the oppression and infantilization of women in the late 19th century -
- and neither side is wrong, but the former is a very surface-level reading and the latter isn't (bc it stems from looking at why she drives herself insane, why she was prescribed 'rest' in the first place, the context of what women could and couldn't do back then, etc; basically, a bit more work has to go into it). 
[Note: I am not disparaging the quality of The Yellow Wallpaper. At all. It’s just the first relatively well-known story that popped into my head.]
In this sense, I can see the argument for Loki's redemption arc, but I don't think it's a very good argument. Not invalid, but not great.
I mean, for example, I think the most consistent argument I found variations of re: Loki's redemption is that Ragnarok shows Loki finally taking responsibility for his bad behaviour and misdeeds. This includes recognizing that his actions were fueled from a place of self-hatred and a desire to self-destruct in addition to bringing destruction on others. That he probably feels awkward and regretful of these things and doesn't know how to act around Thor, but he figures it out by the end, and decides that returning to Asgard is the best way to show that he's ready to make amends. His act of bringing the Statesman to Asgard is an apology. He allies himself with Thor and ends up in a better place, both narratively (united with Thor once again) and mentally (having taken responsibility and made amends for his past).
And setting aside that he had already made amends by sacrificing his life in TDW (and also setting aside that the argument is made that Loki redeems himself in IW by sacrificing himself to Thanos but if that's the case, wouldn't that imply that he hadn't achieved redemption in Ragnarok or else there would be no need to achieve it again in IW? Or, if you think he did achieve redemption in Ragnarok, then what the fuck did he give his life in IW for? What was his motivation there, and why did the narrative not make it clearer? I digress.) 
- setting aside those two factors, I think this is a very fair argument. Loki is fueled by self-hatred, and he does want to self-destruct, and he does want to inflict that pain on others as well (particularly Thor). No lies detected here. 
However, I also need to know where that self-hatred and desire for destruction (toward himself and others) comes from and for that, we need to go back to Thor 1.
Thor 1. 
Loki starts Thor 1 out as "a clenched fist with hair," to borrow a quote from the Haunting of Hill House (that I tucked away in my mental box of Lovely Things bc it says so much so very simply). He's very used to bottling everything up, pushing it down; he slinks around behind the scenes, pulling the strings to this plot or that. He's "always been one for mischief," but the narrative implies that the coronation incident is the first time Loki's done anything truly terrible. And it all immediately pretty much goes to shit, so Loki spends the rest of the movie frantically juggling all these moving pieces while trying to seem as if he's got it all under control, every step of the way. That's how I view his actions. 
But I always come back to that quote where Kenneth Branaugh tells Tom, of the scene in the vault, "This is where the thin steel rod that's been holding your mind together snaps." In other words this is where Loki discovering he's Jotun is just one thing too many. He can't take it. But though the rod snaps, his descent isn't a nosedive. It's a tumble. As the story progresses, the clenched fist starts to loosen, the muscles are flexed in unfamiliar ways (that feel kinda good, after being stiff for so long), and it culminates with the hand opening completely and shaking itself out. All of that repression, that self-hatred, that rage and jealousy just explodes so that, by the time the bifrost scene happens, Loki's already hit bottom. It's not just about proving his worthiness to Odin. He wants to hurt Thor, too; he, essentially, throws a tantrum. (That's right, I said tantrum.) 
(Note: The word 'tantrum’ has negative connotations bc we normally equate it with a toddler stamping their feet and screaming in the aisle when their parent won't buy them the toy they want. But in itself, the word tantrum isn't infantalizing. It's an "emotional outburst, an uncontrolled explosion of anger and frustration" [paraphrasing from dictionary.com]. That's exactly what happens here [and why Tom called Loki's actions a massive tantrum, but people took that to mean Tom agreed it was childish whereas I doubt Tom meant it that way]).
He's been pushed past his limit, and he does bad things. He does really shitty things. He hurts Thor, he hurts his family. I'm pretty sure he knows this all along so this isn't, like, some revelation further down the line that "hey, those things I did were probably kinda bad." He got the memo already. 
Ragnarok 
Fast forward to Ragnarok, and we're introduced to a version of Loki who's had 4ish years to sit with everything that's happened. To sit with it and not do much else. The rawness of it has faded, and now it seems as though it's just become a thing, like when you move through life aware of your childhood traumas and have more or less just accepted them (and you probably share a lot of really funny depression memes on Facebook, which is kinda the equivalent of Loki's play, but that's probably just me). 
Loki has, more or less, chilled out. He seems more bored than anything else; he's been masquerading as Odin for longer than he ever planned or intended to, so he's more or less ended up hanging out, letting Asgard mind its own business, and entertaining himself with silly plays. This is the version that starts out the movie as an antagonist to Thor - a version that is, arguably, in a much different place [and is a much milder threat] than the version who originally did those Bad Things. 
And of course Thor is still mad at him, and of course they're going to butt heads, because that's what they do (and Thor's grievances are genuine, I’ll add, bc it's not really his fault he assumed Loki faked his death, nor can he be blamed for being pissed about Odin).
One argument framed this version of Loki as being a person who is facing the awkwardness of coming out of a dark place, which is fair. If we're going to frame his actions in Thor 1 as a tantrum, then Ragnarok would be the part where the toddler has been taken home, possibly has had some lunch and a juice box, and is now watching cartoons. They're over the tantrum, and would probably feel pretty silly about it if they weren't, yknow, toddlers. They probably can't remember why they even wanted that toy so badly. If they're a little older and self-aware, they might even be embarrassed for having melted down.
Like the word tantrum, this feeling isn't a thing limited to toddlers. I know I've had a few epic meltdowns as a grown ass adult, and I know I always feel deeply embarrassed afterwards - like, want to crawl into a hole and die. I've said things I can't take back. Adolescents and teenagers throw tantrums, mentally ill people throw tantrums, adults throw tantrums (I mean, my god, look at all the videos of Karens having screaming meltdowns - screaming! - over having to wear masks in order to shop at stores). Humans throw tantrums. And usually, after the feelings have been let out and the tantrum has passed, humans feel pretty regretful and awkward and embarrassed about whatever they did and said in the midst of their meltdown. 
I get all of that and agree it's valid and that Loki probably feels it. By the time Ragnarok happens, Loki's had some time to reflect and think hmm, yeah, probably could've handled that one a lot better. The argument further goes that in order to navigate this awkward period, Loki must come to terms with what he's done, acknowledge that some things can't be unsaid or undone, and begin to make amends. Supposedly, some people feel that Loki becomes a better person because he does "own" everything he did wrong and, even though he feels like a jackass (paraphrasing), he sets that aside to become a become a better person by choosing to help Thor and Asgard at the end. 
Thus, the overall arc goes like this. Loki, Thor's jealous little brother, 
throws a tantrum of epic proportions bc Reasons 
continues to act badly and make things even worse (Avengers) 
has to face consequences for his actions (prison sentence) 
ends up with a stretch of time in which he's free to contemplate and chill out 
feels embarrassed and awkward about how he's behaved
sees an opportunity to make up for it and decides to take it 
helps Thor, saves the day, and ends the film a better person. 
Redemption achieved.
None of this is wrong. The film supports it. It's a fair interpretation. But it leaves. out. so. much.
To circle all the way back around Loki being "a clenched fist with hair," and his actions stemming from his self-hatred, you have to ask - how did he get that way? He didn't end up with all this self-hatred on accident. Generally, one isn't born despising themselves, it's a learned behavior. (I realize chemical imbalances are a thing, obviously, as I have Mental Shit myself, but for argument's sake I'm assuming that's not the case with Loki [at this point in time]). 
Where did Loki learn it? From his family, from his surroundings, from his culture. We see examples of these microaggressions in the first, like, twenty minutes of the movie - a guard openly laughs at Loki's magic after Thor makes a joke about it (the tone of the conversation implies that Thor "jokes" like this often) and though Loki does the snake thing, the guard faces no real consequences. Thor doesn't acknowledge that anything went amiss. Not much later, on their way to Jotunheim, Loki's barely gotten two words out to Heimdall before Thor cuts him off, steps in front of him, and takes charge. Loki doesn't look annoyed at this; he looks resigned. 
Then, for absolutely no reason at all, Volstagg decides to make a jab at Loki ("silver tongue turned to lead?") just because he can. The ease with which he makes this comment and the way that no one else blinks an eye at it implies that this isn't out of the norm. And Loki doesn't react, not really. In the deleted version, he delivers a particularly nasty comeback but he delivers it under his breath, without intending Volstagg to hear it. In the final version, he simply says nothing, though his expression can be read as hurt or stung. Either way, the audience sees an example of Loki being walked all over by Thor and his friends and bottling up his reactions instead of standing up for himself. 
Microaggressions matter. They are mentally and emotionally damaging. They hurt. The implication that this is not unusual treatment for Loki means that Loki's probably gone through this for most of his life. It's like the equivalent of being, I don't know, twenty two and you're the friend who has to walk behind the others when the sidewalk isn't wide enough, and it's been that way since the first day of kindergarten. At this point, you're used to it, but that doesn't make it hurt any less when the jabs come seemingly out of nowhere, for no reason other than to make you feel bad.
(I personally identify a lot with this bc I experienced passive bullying in social settings for years. I was the 'doesn't fit on the sidewalk' friend; I hung around with people who'd pretend to be my friend and would be more or less nice to my face, but would laugh at me and make fun of me behind my back for whatever reasons. And often there'd be the random jabs at me, things that would come out of nowhere to smack me in the face, followed by the fake laugh and “just kidding!" so that I couldn't even get upset without being made to feel like I was overreacting and couldn't take a joke. I'd deal with this socially, particularly in middle school when girls are their most vicious, and then I'd go home and, because I was the only girl with a lot of brothers and because boys are mean and because I am who I am, the dynamic was that my brothers would just endlessly roast me to my face and sometimes it was a "just kidding!" thing, where I was the only one not laughing. But that’s beside the point; my point is that microaggressions, passive bullying, and consistent invalidation are harmful and that shit stays with you into adulthood.) 
So, yes, Loki needs to be held responsible for his misdeeds, and it's valid to say that he recognizes those misdeeds and wants to make amends. I have never disagreed with that. But the problem with this interpretation is that it lets every single other character who contributed to Loki's self-hatred and mental breakdown (let's just call a spade a spade here, that's what it was; he was broken psychologically) get off scot-free.
First of all,
Odin is not held accountable for instilling in the princes a mentality of Asgard first, everyone is beneath us but Jotuns are benath us the most, they are literal monsters. He is not held accountable for pitting his sons against one another (even if it was unintentional, he still did it) with "you were both born to be kings but only one of you can rule" being the general tone of their upbringing. He's not held accountable for his favoritism toward Thor.
Frigga is not held accountable for deferring to Odin both in supporting the above things and in keeping the truth of Loki's origins a secret while doing nothing to discourage the "monsters" narrative. 
Thor is not held accountable for his own tendency of taking Loki for granted (he assumes Loki will come to Jotunheim, he oversteps Loki constantly, “know your place,” etc.. He grants his implicit permission for Loki to be treated as the sidewalk friend in their “group,” a group which is loyal to and takes their cues from Thor as Thor continues to do nothing in his brother's defense).
[Note: Wanting Thor to be held accountable for things he's done wrong isn't vilifying him. Acknowledging that Thor benefited from Odin's favoritism and his own place as Crown Prince doesn't negate Thor also being raised in an abusive environment. I don't think anyone's saying that or, if they have, it's not something I agree with.]
Furthermore, 
Odin is not held accountable for his cruelty in disowning Loki (”your birthright was to die” is never going to be forgotten, speaking of people saying things that can't be unsaid or taken back) and in sentencing Loki to a severe prison sentence (life! only bc Frigga wouldn't let him execute Loki) for crimes that are no worse than what Odin himself has committed (around which the entire plot of Ragnarok revolves! Colonialism (and subjugation) is wrong is, like, a major theme [that people rush to praise, even] here). 
Thor is also never held accountable for not trying harder to understand what made Loki snap (fair enough, he didn't have a ton of time after returning from Earth, but certainly he had lots of time to sit around reflecting while Loki was being tortured by Thanos for a year). He knows Loki is "not himself" and "beyond reason" and accepts it at face value; he questions it once and then lets it go. He's fine with assuming Loki's just lost his mind, and isn't that a shame. (I realize I'm simplifying Thor's emotions but my point is that Thor could've tried harder to figure out that Loki was being influenced and/or not acting completely autonomously.) 
Thor is also never held accountable for - if not facing consequences for his own slaughter of Jotuns - then at least addressing why Loki can't kill an entire race even though Thor tried to do that, like, two days ago. (Granted, it’s difficult to understand how Thor got from Point A ("let's finish them together, Father!") to Point B (this is wrong!), but that failing belongs to Thor 1 (which is not, by the way, a perfect movie).
The interpretation that Loki is fully redeemed because he took responsibility for his actions, returned to Asgard, and allied himself with Thor to save their people is all well and good - but, why is Loki the only one here who has to take responsibility for their actions? 
What about all the loose threads in his story? 
For example, how did he get from: 
Point A (believing himself a literal monster, having a complete mental breakdown, getting tortured and further traumatized after that, etc) 
to 
Point B (Hey, yknow what would be fun? I'm going to write and direct a play about how I heroically died to save Thor and Jane, and I'll go ahead and have Odin say he accepts me and has always loved me. I'm going to do these things because Odin never said this in real life and instead of acknowledging my sacrifice, Thor left my body in the dirt, so someone has to validate what I've done right and that someone might as well be me. And hey, while I'm at it, I'm going to control the narrative on revealing myself as Jotun to Asgard, instead of living in fear of it being found out, and I'm going to do it in a way that they have to sympathize with me and revere me in death, bc they never bothered to do so when I was alive. And Matt Damon should play me, also.) 
to 
Point C (Yeah, I guess I feel kinda awkward about that whole tantrum thing, also I should help Thor and support him being king.)
The answers to these questions are handwaved and the audience takes that to mean they don't matter. Furthermore, framing Loki's redemption around an act of service (more or less) to Thor makes Loki's redemption about Thor. Does Loki make this decision for the sake of Thor and of Asgard, or does he make it for himself? It's not super clear to me, and I think arguments can be made for both. Which, again, is fine, but - whatever.
If we're going to collectively agree, as a fandom, that Loki is complex, that he's morally gray, that he's worthy of redemption and therefore arguably a good person who's done bad things, then why is it asking too much to have it acknowledged that Thor (also a good person who's done bad things) played a part in Loki's downfall and has shit to apologize for, too? Bc one can only assume the reason is that you're taking a very gray concept and making it black and white by saying Loki has to apologize and make amends because he is the villain, and Thor doesn't because he is the hero (and it's his movie). And it's lazy.
This is where the crux of the issue lands. There's more than one valid interpretation, yes. And no two people (or groups of people, or whatever) are going to consume and therefore interpret or analyze the source material in the same way. I think I saw a post recently about how studies have been done on this, in fact. But, there is a lot going on under the surface that tends to get overlooked when exploring Loki's redemption arc in Ragnarok, as far as I can see, and that’s why I don’t consider it satisfactory. 
[I did read similar arguments regarding other issues that are often debated ('debated'), like Loki's magic and/or being underpowered, whether or not Loki's betrayal of Thor was the natural outcome of the situation on Sakaar or not, whether Thor actually gets closure with Odin [if he does, how does he reconcile the father he's idolized with the imperialistic conqueror he's discovered? Why doesn't he hold Odin responsible for covering up Hela's existence and the threat of her return, especially as he knew he was nearing the end of his life? Is Thor's "I'm not as strong as you" meant to imply that he acknowledges those shortcomings of Odin's and that he's okay with them, or that he's just overlooking them, or is he not okay with them but didn't have the chance to get into it bc he was in the middle of battle? T'Challa confronted his father on his wrongdoings in Black Panther; could Thor not have had at least one line that was confrontational enough to establish where he stands as opposed to this gray middle? Can someone explain to me how any of this equates to Thor gaining closure? Please?) but obviously I'm not going to go into all of them (well, I tried not to), bc this mammoth post has gone on long enough (I may not even post this tbh)]
- but my overall point to this entire thing is that when I say I'm critical of Ragnarok bc it's flawed, that Loki's arc was neither complete nor satisfactory, that many things went unaddressed and, due to all of these things, I do not think Ragnarok is a very good movie nor a very cohesive movie, this is where I'm coming from. I have not seen anything to change my mind to the contrary. 
But I am not saying that anyone satisfied with it is wrong, or shouldn't have the interpretation that they do. I'm not vilifying Thor in order to lift Loki up, just acknowledging that Thor is arguably just as flawed as Loki without the stigma of being Designated Villain. I think a lot of these arguments get overlooked or dismissed, and that's fine, but it doesn't make the people who do engage with them hateful, or bitter, or trying to excuse Loki's crimes, or feeling like redemption means that Loki's crimes should be erased rather than reconciled. 
And sure, yes, perhaps we are expecting too much and exploring all of these themes (or wanting them explored) means that somehow we think it should be Loki's movie (we don't). Loki is a supporting character, but he's still a character. And the movie itself doesn't have to delve into all these things - no one's saying that. (At least, I'm not.) We just want acknowledgement, from the narrative, that this stuff was an Issue. 
This could have been accomplished with - 
Some dialogue closer to the novelization (and original script), like Thor and Loki both acknowledging the harm they've done one another and their kingdom due to their Feels.
 A single line of Thor confronting Odin, or even asking "Why?" 
A narrative acknowledgement that Odin did both Thor and Loki dirty (”I love you, my sons” isn't an apology, because it doesn't acknowledge either that there's been wrong-doing or express regret for having done the wrong in the first place). 
A little bit more nuance in the way Loki treats his own past (ie, instead of flippantly telling the story of his suicide attempt, maybe - if it must be flippant - talk about getting blasted in the face with Hawkeye's arrow or sailing through to Svartalfheim [And in that moment, I sang ta-daaaa!]) or whatever. 
I recognize that wanting full, in-depth exploration on all of these issues regarding a supporting character is probably too much to ask or expect - but, I also feel like, if you're going to be professionally writing a narrative (or rewriting/improvising, as it were), it's not too much to ask that a little more care be taken in regards to all of the layers that have contributed to said supporting character's downfall and subsequent redemption arc. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to want. 
And maybe if there had been more nuance and continuity in how these things were portrayed on screen (ie, if TW had actually done as good a job as his stans think he did), the fandom wouldn't have divided and conquered itself over which "version" of the same character is more valid and whether or not the film did its best to close out a trilogy (not start a new one), to the point where everyone in this fandom space makes navigating it feel like walking through a minefield. 
But, I mean 
Tumblr media
(Again, please don’t reblog if possible.) 
Edit: Okay to reblog. <3 
96 notes · View notes
yanderenightmare · 3 years
Note
any tips in writing a yandere midoriya? i’m currently writing this book — and honestly the way you write midoriya is spot on! it’s hard for me to grasp characters, especially since they’re gonna be tweaked since they’re yandere. it’s not only midoriya that’s a yandere, it’s poly, so how do you think he would go about sharing his darling as well?
How to write yandere ! Midoriya Izuku
First: let’s look at the basics, as in key personality traits.
Midoriya is seemingly two things personality wise: he is optimistic and passionate. These two things however are strictly based a certain mindset, certain emotions, emotions that are highly volatile, as in changeable. What we can take from him being optimistic and passionate, is that he is calculating, observant, diligent and tireless. These traits, as opposed to the emotional traits, lack needing to be fueled by certain emotions such as happiness, and will therefore survive no matter his emotional state, which in turn makes them his key personality traits. Viewed in other ways: these are his key personality traits because they are unshakable as opposed to his awkwardness, anxiety and self-doubt, which are also things he can overcome, (things he has overcome in my take of him). All in all, no matter his emotional state, he will always remain calculating, observant, diligent and tireless.
-
Now: having these traits calls for different abilities, a.i. they add up and award him with certain titles. Titles such as Hero, Genius... God.
Being a genius, where his experience as one of the most revered people in the world has led to many opportunities in dissecting and analyzing all his peers, meaning he has a great understanding of the human psyche, which in turn distances himself from them and makes him feel above them. Because, despite being superior, he is still human and still vulnerable to all human faults, and when humans are worshipped, they will think they are God, forgetting their purpose in the light of glory, forgetting that he is a Hero for the people, of the people, by the people and beginning to believe he’s above the law, (which eventually leads to him justifying kidnapping for his pleasure). He genuinely believes no other human can achieve his level of strength and smarts. And having a God complex as well as being psychopathic-smart, will lead to the bending and eventually breaking of morals, where he can excuse his depravity with it being conscious and not mindless, he can excuse it for being for the greater good, something above regular human understanding. Thinking that: because he’s aware of it being wrong, that it is somehow allowed, somehow less dangerous and justified. Completely blinded by his own sense of superiority, never once seeing just how dangerous his feelings of being above the law can become, (definitely not seeing it when eventually regarding his darling).
Secondly: we have to take a look at how Midoriya views love.
Because Midoriya is such an intelligent person who knows the natural laws and works behind love, knowing how it’s simply a chemical reaction made to make animals breed with nothing supernatural or mystical or heavenly about it, he’ll naturally have a very unromantic and practical approach to finding a partner. He’ll want to resist falling prey to dependence.
But, even he cannot fight the vicious bite of loneliness. Finding a perfect someone after so many years of resisting and ignoring and denying those primal urges obviously gets to him in the end, where finding his darling feels almost like godsend. Which was exactly what he was trying to avoid falling prey to, where he was aiming to rise above regular human needs, regular human beliefs regarding love: a concept he had no faith in, a concept he didn't want to have any faith in, but fell for anyway.
However, while beholding his darling as something precious, his own God complex gets in the way of viewing her as his equal, where she’ll often feel as though he doesn’t even view her as human, more like a pet or even a plant, not something to communicate with, but something that should sit still and look pretty, something to maintain and admire, not intelligent like him. 
But, there are different types of smarts in the world. Whereas Izuku has practical, social and analytical intelligence, he’s more or less let go or forgotten about true emotional intelligence. Which is something that will surprise him about his darling, or something that will surprise him about himself, how much he enjoys her presence, her humanity, her basic straightforward moralistic compassion, her need for contact, things he’s long ago forgotten, things he’s only now realizing that he’s missed dearly. At first he believes he’s simply entertained by her, but then he realizes he quite admires her, envies her even, because she’s innocent enough to feel things that he no longer can.
Thirdly: we have his yandere characteristics: sadistic, obsessive, possessive.
-Sadism (groundwork)
It is simply my belief that all yanderes have an inch of sadism dwelling inside them, because I find it hard to digest that any other human without such desires would enjoy controlling another human being. However, the amount of sadism inside may vary drastically.
Midoriya’s sadistic tendencies lies dormant, yet can come out at any given moment, making him rather radical, as in unstable or unpredictable. Though, not like an animal is unpredictable, as he will never act without finesse, he will never act without having complete control over the situation, including himself. We have to remember that Izuku takes great pleasure in knowing how he can rise above impulses. His sadism is more like a hunger that arises every now and again, where which Izuku realizes he is hungry, followed by Izuku luring and trapping his food then playing with his food and finally eating his food. Executed with finesse.
-Obsessive (one side of the coin)
Obsessiveness in general: is not just about laying worship, not just about adoring someone so much that it hurts, it’s about needing someone, needing someone so much that it outweighs and overcomes all obstacles that stand in his way to achieve having them
Obsessiveness in Midoriya: is slightly delusional, where which it tells him that him and his darling belongs together, where he’s optimistic that time will eventually gift him with her love in return. This is his softer side, his more lenient side, his understanding side, his tolerant side. And despite it being slightly delusional, this is actually his more logical side as well, where he’ll bare patient understanding that it’ll take time for her to reform herself, where he takes her emotional status into mind.
-Possessive (the other side of the coin)
Possessiveness in general: is not only about ownership, not only about restrictions, it’s about fear, it’s about reassurance, it’s about finding security in knowing that he and only he will ever have the liberty of having his darling, where he finds an inane amount of uneasiness in thinking she wasn’t always his, needing to find a way to make him forget that disgusting thought by having her belong to him in every single possible way.
Possessiveness in Midoriya: is slightly denialistic and protective, where it tells him that she belongs to him, no exceptions, no room to misunderstand, where what she feels doesn’t really matter because he loves her, he’s chosen her, and she’s simply not allowed to love anybody else, where any refusal will be corrected, will be proven futile.
Fourthly: what is Midoriya’s attitude towards his darling:
Here we add up everything we’ve just considered!
His intelligence calls for a type of deserved arrogance, a vain imagery of himself, making him a narcissist, which again makes him prone to dumbification when approaching his darling, manipulative suggestive language constantly making her feel like her rightful place is beneath him. This can be done in many ways, more so than degrading verbal comments. In visual effects: he can dress her up in innocent clothing just oozing with childlike naivety, braid her hair, decorate her with pastel bows all making her look like a sweet harmless little thing, but more importantly making her feel like a sweet harmless little thing. He can also act out degradation: through head-pats, carrying her places, bathing her. One can even take it so far as infantilization.
Obviously, the creation of rules and laws will build, also the product of his degrading nature, where the list of things his darling can and can't do or should or must do will grow longer over time as he finds that he quite enjoys having this type of control. I believe Izuku is quite lenient but has a breaking point. He won’t enjoy punishing his darling for every single little indiscretion she dares make, believing that this is both time consuming and a waste. His method is to wait until his darling has made a certain amount of faults, her mistakes topping each other like building blocks until the tower eventually tumbles, where which he will deliver a rather large punishment meant to correct her attitude once and for all, or at least until the tower topples again.
He’ll constantly be making a case of how much smarter and stronger he is than her, not in an aggressive way, but in a demeaning, patronizing way, often accompanied by him smiling a chiding smile that looks sweet yet when accompanied by his threatening eyes just look like teeth. Exercising dominance will become like a drug to him, where I’d say he’ll develop both a daddy-kink and a size-kink. His daddy-kink calling for patronizing behavior, teaching her manners and posture and punishing her when she refrains from doing what daddy tells her. And, his size-kink evokes the love to measure everything of his up against everything of hers, often comparing her soft petite precious hands to his deadly scarred ones, how she has no chance of pushing him away whereas he’ll have no problems in crushing her skull if he so wished.
Then of course, his feelings of entitlement call for him taking giant liberties when he’s craving she give him something she’d rather keep to herself. These entitlement feelings coming to fruition through his status as the world number one hero, his morals disappearing in those seconds he manages to twist his view of his darling as her own person into seeing her as his reward, as the world’s way of saying thank you, made simply to please him and having no purpose outside of him.
But, his idealization of his darling encourages him to pamper her, or at least in a way that he views as pampering. He’ll often ask her if there’s anything that she may want, either it be a wish for activity such as art supplies or reading material, or accessories such as jewelry, lingerie, cute little dresses. And when she never asks for anything he wants her to ask for, when her response is always a demand that he let her go, he’ll give her something anyway, something she’ll cry so preciously for to make him stop.
Obviously, I have expanded my view of him here, but I believe the key attitude he’ll carry towards his darling is simply being sweetly degrading, demeaning and patronizing.
Fifthly: how would he go about sharing?
In order for him to feel comfortable enough to share his darling with someone, they have to be someone he respects, someone he can almost look at as an equal or someone he looks up to and idolizes.
In other words: Midoriya will have to love his yandere partner in some form or way to share his beloved darling with them, either it be through mentioned respect, or through loyalty, where platonic or fluid friendship could also be a possibility.
Here are some examples I see being possible poly relationships:
MIDORIYA - ALL MIGHT - relationship based on idolization MIDORIYA - BAKUGO - relationship based on equality/respect MIDORIYA - SHINSO - relationship based on admiration/respect MIDORIYA - “FAN or FREIND” - relationship based on loyalty/trust MIDORIYA - URUAKA/TENYA - relationship based on friendship
I don't see sharing being much of a problem, unless the darling picks favorites. But, because Midoriya is likely much softer than the other yandere, I’m presuming, the favorite will probably be him and not his partner. In that case, he might really like having a parter to compete with! He’ll enjoy how she’ll resort to pleading with and appealing to his soft nature as opposed to the other yandere. He’ll probably love that sort of attention. 
I also think Midoriya will like cornering his darling with the help of his partner, trapping her together. I can definitely see him love playing good cop/bad cop. Perhaps even sharing the daddy-kink. Dynamics like Daddy/Master/”DARLING” or Sir/Boss/”DARLING”.
Also, I think he’ll love gossiping about their darling with each other behind her back, talking about how cute she is when she does this or that, how lovely she looks in that specific dress, how well-behaved she’s gotten, and all sorts of stuff, kind of like parents talking about their child.
297 notes · View notes
thedreadvampy · 3 years
Note
I dunno how to articulate it but I think there’s something to be said about how like. abled/neurotypical people infantilize neurodivergent people and water their experiences down to something palatable whereas they can’t do that for physically disabled people as much so they’re just uncomfortable? This probably doesn’t make much sense but. yeah :// (obviously I’m not saying being infantilized is a good thing it’s awful and I’ve experienced it more then once)
Maybe? I think there's something to be said for the palatability of (invisible) neuroatypicality (I say invisible in the sense of like. Irl more extremely visible behaviours like twitching, constant stimming or substantially stuttered/slurred speech do make people react differently), that's a very good point, but I think I'd separate it out from infantilisation. I think people with known MH Things or neuroatypicalities are often infantilised, yes, but infantilisation is such a substantial issue for even mildly visibly physically disabled people.
I can only speak to my own experience, but I would say minimisation is the main experience I've had with both mental health/neuroatypicality and invisible physical disabilities (eg my chronic pain, my friends' epilepsy and diabetes) whereas I associate infantilisation more with visible/physical disabilities (for example, my cane use our when I or friends have been using wheelchairs). What people can ignore/minimise they will, and when they can't ignore it they'll ignore you.
like the experience of being visibly physically disabled for me (and again, for me it's very mild because other than the cane I'm pretty Abled Body Passing) has involved a lot of
people talking about me/past me to people I'm with
people trying to do things for me or take tasks off me lest I hurt my poor little self
people Trying Not To Look
pity
condescension
being talked to Very Slowly And Gently
and that experience of fairly mild visible disability hasn't been my experience of being fairly autistic and having moderate PTSD symptoms.
(I also think a lot of people underestimate the degree to which a lot of people are happy to accuse you of faking/making a fuss when you use mobility aids or sensory aids, like one of the most irritating forms of online ableism discourse being perky about neurodiversity is 'people keep telling me I'm making X up and should get over it and they wouldn't tell someone on a wheelchair that!' which. yes. yes they would.)
So yes you're definitely right about watering down experiences to make them more palatable. and I think that extends to some physical disabilities where you can be like 'oh yeah I know they're [hearing impaired/visually impaired/use a cane/have an invisible disorder] but I just think of them as Normal because they can Act Normal' and I think a lot of the structures around ableism are about that 'let me ignore your problem please' like. There's this vast pressure to put as much work as possible constantly into never Appearing Disabled In Any Way, whether the issue is neuro or physical or both, and one way to do that is to say 'everyone feels that way' and the other is 'you don't feel that way' and either way you're supposed to stay palatable, and to a degree I think with a lot of issues it's when you refuse to or can't put all your resources into Being Normal that you get really severely infantilisation and dehumanised as a Poor Little Disabled Thing. that doesn't mean infantilisation is limited to highly visible disability (like the palatable idea of autism is hugely infantilising for example) but. I think that infantilisation is a way of minimising what can't be ignored and so it becomes less about neurodiversity vs physical disability and more about invisible Vs visible or ignorable Vs unignorable.
The thing I think undercuts the fact that online discourse on ableism focuses around neurodiversity and IRL discourse on ableism often centres around wheelchair use and profound sensory impairment is. what's visible and what's ignorable in what space.
online, somebody's words are most of how you know them. it's much more of your first impression whether their disability affects how they think and write than how they look or move. it's really easy to forget that some of the people you talk to are physically impaired or IRL have differences that are really apparent and make people treat them differently (like large scale scarring, deformities, issues in posture or bearing, twitches and tics, etc), and because we're all taught to be uncomfortable with visibly different bodies it's easier for most of us short term to lean into that - we choose to forget that other people are disabled (which is common enough IRL, like people will see and know you're physically disabled but have to be constantly reminded that that means you Can't Do Things, like I had a friend at work who broke her leg and she had to constantly remind people every day from her wheelchair 'no I can't come to a meeting on the 4th floor because I can't climb stairs') and other people may choose not to remind us because people get so dehumanised and infantilising on sight IRL where their disabilities are much more visible that it can be nice to have control over whether and when people notice you're disabled.
but IRL, the first thing people see is your body, your speech, your bearing and your movement. Which means it's easy to ignore or downplay stuff like mental health issues, chronic pain, invisible health issues etc because it isn't immediately visually obvious. so there the balance has historically been tipped in the other direction, where we only talk about the most physically readable forms of disability. which is also not good.
yeah this is kind of long and ramble and doesn't answer your point, sorry. I woke up thinking about this and I guess I'm dumping a lot of thinking into this ask fairly arbitrarily.
13 notes · View notes
the-delta-42 · 4 years
Text
All your little tricks
Based on This Post by @lenoreofraven
All your little tricks
Ladybug sluggishly got to her feet. Hawkmoth stood a few metres ahead of her and Chat Noir was behind her. Ladybug could tell this wasn’t going to end well, not after Lila stumbled over the fact that she was Marinette and managed to convince Damocles that the Fox miraculous that was in Marinette’s bag was hers, despite her necklace being in full view for everyone. Lila then reported her findings to Hawkmoth and things kind of just went downhill from there.
He had an Akuma set the Bakery alight, almost killing her parents, he had another Akuma knock down a wall in the school, which had harmed Rose. Volpina had been there for all of them, smugly gloating about how she always got what she wanted, that quickly changed when Ladybug conjured a knife and went to stab her. The Order of the Guardians had been visiting Paris, looking for Master Fu, only to find his successor in a 15-year-old girl.
It was safe to say that her training started off rocky, with most Guardians being close-minded, Marinette remembered that they were last in the world in the 19th Century, which explained their attitude towards her. Tikki and Wayzz quickly convinced them to change their attitude, now Marinette could be transformed for longer after using her power, she had also been taught how to conjure at that point and was now working to harness her emotion-influenced powers, at most she’d managed to set a bonsai tree on fire.
Each time Ladybug and Chat Noir encountered Volpina, her eyes changed, before they were cold and cunning, now they were a light with greed and a lust for more power. Ladybug discussed the possibility that Volpina would betray Hawkmoth.
��Let’s hope that we’re there when it happens, if she’s successful, we can nab the Butterfly and Fox in one, if she isn’t, then we can at least get the Fox back.” Said Chat, his arms folded. He had told her that His father was more concerned with work than he was his own son.
Chat slowly got to his feet behind her.
“How the mighty have fallen.” Sneered Hawkmoth, as Volpina picked up Ladybug’s discarded dagger.
“Why are you doing this?” Asked Ladybug, clutching her side, “Why are you terrorising innocent people?”
“Simple,” Said Hawkmoth, “I want to get my wife back and I need your Miraculous to do it.”
Ladybug and Chat Noir stared at him.
“Really?” Asked Ladybug, dumbfounded, “And the first thing you do is become a domestic terrorist? Actively trying to kill innocent people, all because you’re stuck in the past?!”
“You wouldn’t understand.” Snarled Hawkmoth, as Volpina drew closer to them.
“Oh, no,” Said Ladybug, glaring at Hawkmoth, “I understand completely. We’ve been fighting to bruise, right from the start, whereas you have been fighting to kill to fuel you own sick deluded fantasies!”
Volpina went to stab Hawkmoth in the back, only for Hawkmoth to grab her arm and force the dagger she was holding to go into her own chest.
“Did you really think, I wouldn’t take all your little tricks into consideration?” Growled Hawkmoth, as Volpina struggled to breath, “Any trick you have ever tried, were mine long before they were yours.”
Hawkmoth then violently thrust the blade into Volpina’s heart, the girl coughing on her own blood and collapsing.
“That, was unfortunate.” Commented Hawkmoth, turning back to the young Heroes, only to have a sword narrowly miss his head.
“Chat, get the Fox and take her to the nearest Hospital,” Commanded Ladybug, fire dancing in her eyes, “I have some pest control to deal with.”
Ladybug spun the broadsword in her hand, before lunging towards Hawkmoth, quickly gaining the upper hand. Ladybug’s sword pieced Hawkmoth’s gut, cutting through his spine. “That, was for Luka, Juleka and Rose.”
Hawkmoth started to slump against the blade.
“Don’t worry.” Said Ladybug, withdrawing the sword and allowing Hawkmoth to fall to the ground, “There are paramedics at hand to keep you alive. I just couldn’t have you running away again.”
Ladybug discretely broke one of Hawkmoth legs, before a Paramedic rushed over.
“Nothing major was punctured, well nothing that can’t be repaired.” Said Ladybug, quietly vanishing the sword.
A quiet thud alerted Ladybug to Chat Noir’s presence.
“She going to make it?” Asked Ladybug, looking at her partner, having a little piece of hope for Lila.
“She was dead before she got there.” Said Chat, quietly, looking down, the Fox Miraculous tight in his grip.
“They are going to demand his head then.” Said Ladybug, looking over at Hawkmoth, as the paramedics treated him, “I cut through his spine, so he shouldn’t be able to walk.”
“How are we going to deal with him?” Asked Chat, looking at the villain, “I mean, he went after your family and killed three of our friends.”
“Minou, I have a feeling he’s going to get a massive surprise in the morning.” Comforted Ladybug, “After all, everything he owned is now yours, considering he’s probably going to be classified as insane.”
Chat remained silent, before marching up to Hawkmoth and yanking the Butterfly Miraculous off his chest. Gabriel looked up at Chat, while the Paramedics stared at him.
“A-Adrien-” Gasped Hawkmoth, before Chat turned away.
“Let’s go.” Growled Chat, as he reached Ladybug, “If I’m here for any longer there isn’t going to be much of him left.”
Ladybug nodded, before launching her yoyo to the nearest rooftop.
“Ironic, isn’t it?” Asked Ladybug, as they reached her balcony, “The trickster was out tricked.”
There was no humour in her tone.
“We won.” Said Chat, hollowly.
“Then why does it feel like we lost?”
AYLT
Adrien kept getting looks and whispers at school the next day. One person actually tried to fight him in the middle of the hallway.
“You’re blocking the way to my class.” Said Adrien, trying to go around them.
“Tough,” Sneered the student, “you need to be taught a lesson.”
The student cracked their knuckles until Marinette stormed up to him.
“ALFRED!” Yelled Marinette, her tone promising death, “What’s this I hear about you threatening my classmates?!”
“It’s only Hawkmoth’s son.” Alfred tried to defend himself.
“And who’s dad is locked away for being a serial killer?” Said Marinette, sharply.
Alfred didn’t say anything as his face went red.
“You have no right trying to take the moral high ground,” Snarled Marinette, getting up close to Alfred, “if I remember correctly, someone tried to do the same thing to you and who stepped in?”
“Toby.” Mumbled Alfred, looking down.
“And where did that get him?” Demanded Marinette, her hands on her hips.
“Hospital.” Said Alfred, still looking down.
“So, what give you the right to bully Adrien?” Marinette demanded, as a scattering of mutters broke out.
“What give you the right to stop it, Dupain-Cheng?” Sneered Chloe, glaring at Marinette and Adrien.
Adrien tried not to feel hurt as his once childhood friend treated him like he was dirt.
Marinette slowly turned at glared at Chloe.
“Tikki,” Said Marinette, her voice cold and calm, “Spots On.”
A flash of light later replaced Marinette with Ladybug.
“Spots off.” Said Ladybug, turning back into Marinette, before she stalked up to Chloe, “I have more right than you do, you pathetic bitch. You worked with Hawkmoth and exposed the rest of the team, all because you didn’t like being told no.”
The temperature of the room started to drop as Marinette spoke.
“You provided yourself to be the catalyst for hundreds of Akumas and, when trying to play the hero, you almost killed dozens of people, myself and my parent included.” Said Marinette, as Chloe tried no to wither, “So, let me ask you again, what gives you the right to bully anyone?”
Chloe gawked, “My-my Daddy will-”
“Will what? Hear about this?” Asked Marinette, “Will hear about how his infantile brat of a daughter decided to run her mouth off to the wrong person and was knocked down a few pegs? How the city embarrassment made an absolute tart of herself? I always felt sorry for you, you never had any stable parental figure, your father doesn’t want to spend time with you, your own mother doesn’t even love you and you try to make everyone feel bad because you hate it when you’re not the centre of attention.”
Chloe resembled a goldfish, as Marinette took Adrien’s arm and dragged him to class.
“You didn’t have to do that.” Said Adrien, quietly.
“Adrien, if I didn’t, who was?” Asked Marinette, as she and her partner entered the classroom.
In a matter of seconds, Adrien and Marinette were on the ground buried under the rest of the class.
“Ivan.” Groaned Marinette, “Get. Off.”
Ivan only decided to go dead-weight, getting more groans from the class.
“I’m glad Kagami isn’t here to see this.” Said Adrien, as he and Marinette wriggled out from the bottom of the pile.
Only for Kagami to tackle to two to the ground.
“Me and my big mouth.” Said Adrien, as Marinette tried to get up, only for Kagami to frag her back down again.
“You know what?” Said Marinette, after Kagami pulled her down for a third time, “Fuck it, I’m going back to bed.”
Adrien looked at his girlfriends, all the while trying to think up an explanation for Mdm. Mendeleiev when she arrived.
83 notes · View notes
saint-severian · 5 years
Text
Dune - Chapter 3
In this chapter, we witness two conversations in the Atreides home, later in the day of Paul’s ordeal. The first is between The Bene Gesserit Reverend Mother, Gaius Helen Mohiam, and Paul’s mother Jessica, who is scolded by the older woman, who was once her teacher and remains her superior within the Sisterhood, for bearing a son (Paul) rather than a daughter from Leto. There is no question at all of it having been an accident: Bene Gesserit are apparently in total control of the gender of their children. Had Jessica bore an Atreides daughter as commanded, the child would have been wed to a Harkonnen male and “breached the gap”. Having, in just the last chapter, witnessed the depravity of the mortal enemies of the Atreides, this comes as a disturbing thought, especially given that it would be the Atreides house absorbed into the Harkonnen, and not the other way around. But this does not even figure into Jessica’s calculation: the first thing she said in her defense was, “but it meant so much to him!”, the Duke. Apparently, the ethical issue of marrying one’s daughter off to a family of barbaric and disturbed tyrants was secondary next to the admiration and affection Jessica has for her man. She would have gone along with the orders of her Sisterhood if not for the particular qualities of the particular man she was assigned to. 
But there was another motivation, or at least implication: the possibility of a male Atreides heir being the Kwisatz Haderach. It’s important to note that the correct word is “being” the Kwisatz Haderach, not “becoming”. The tests for the Kwisatz Haderach, like the tests for humanity, are not formative tests in their objective, but rather they seek to determine whether inborn traits are present. Humanity, like being the Kwisatz Haderach, is an inborn status, not achieved. Although Paul’s training in the Bene Gesserit Way is vital to his fulfillment of his destiny, it is impossible for him to act other than in his own nature. 
In response to Jessica’s desire for an “alternative” to the doom which Mohiam says she has brought upon her house in her disobedience, she gives a prediction of the future: “I see in the future what I’ve seen in the past. You well know the pattern of our affairs, Jessica. The race knows its own mortality and fears stagnation of its heredity. It’s in the bloodstream--the urge to mingle genetic strains without plan. The Imperium, the CHOAM Company, all the Great Houses, they are but bits of flotsam in the path of the flood.” We have of yet no context to place this prediction in (and neither exactly does Mohiam), but we can use this idea to understand the Bene Gesserit mindset. It is probable that the BG see themselves as working against the effects of such a mass-mingling, and of the impulse that motivates it, in their artificial selection project. A project which orients itself as against intuitive human nature. In the most obvious respect, that people don’t naturally like to be bred like horses or dogs (although it takes four books for anyone to voice this obvious reaction), but in a more specific sense: the disgust which Jessica must have felt at the thought of marrying her child to a Harkonnen (whom she later implies as being subhuman) or of betraying the wishes and hopes of the Duke. The Bene Gesserit eugenic program implicitly views human nature as contra to the furtherance of the race. Living in a world in which mass migration from the uncivilized backwaters, the “putrid latrines of the world” to the centers of civilization is a real and ongoing process, not unlike the “flood” that Mohiam describes, it’s wholly natural to agree with this sentiment and to see Herbert in this sense as a prophet of our era. But is it true that true eugenics is necessarily against human impulse? Although it’s true that it is far easier to ruin something than to better it, including a race, it’s hardly probable that every strong and intelligent race on Earth came about by going against its own natural instincts. And, if this is true, what would it mean for the race-loyalism that posits racial endogamy as natural and good, and miscegenation as the product of externally-originating degeneration? I’m inclined to take a page from BAPbook and say that often, arranged marriages, which are historically motivated by political and economic accumulation, are dysgenic exactly because they fail to incorporate the natural law of attraction into the reproductive process. Although it’s true that people get it wrong, the human instincts for healthiness and unhealthiness are the product of millennia of unknowably complex processes, whereas rationality as the source of reproductive selection has much more capacity for fallibility. To put it in the simplest possible terms: would you like to choose your partner based on the necessities of a vast and abstract breeding program, or your attraction to them? Perhaps we answer the same way for good reason. 
The second conversation begins when Paul is called from his soundproof Meditation Chamber into the room with his mother and Mohiam. He’s asked immediately about his dreams. Paul replies that, although he remembers all his dreams, some are worth remembering and some are not, and he simply knows the difference. At Mohiam’s request, he recalls last night’s dream, in which he is standing in a cavern near a large pool with a “very skinny girl with big eyes. Her eyes are all blue, no whites in them”. In his dream, Paul tells the girl about the Reverend Mother (whose name he could not have known at the time of the dream), and about a “stamp of strangeness” which she placed on him. This startles Mohiam. The girl calls him “Usul”, which he initially mistakes as the name of his homeworld, and he tells her a poem about the sea, but he has to explain the meaning of most of the names. 
Mohiam tells him he may be the Kwisatz Haderach, but that she sees no more than possibility, and waits for him to respond. After he quietly waits her out in an amazing power move, she admits that he he has “depths” to him. Before the chapter ends, she gives him a hint and a warning. Her hint on being the Kwisatz Haderach without dying is a koan-like platitude which Paul sees as infantile at first, but nonetheless it evokes in him again the feeling of terrible purpose: that which submits rules. Her warning is this: although he yet may be saved from the coming fall of his house, “For the father, nothing”.
6 notes · View notes
gcintheme-blog · 7 years
Text
42 Things “Male Feminists/Allies” Need to Work On
Too many men say they support women in the broad sense without addressing the sexist things they do almost every day. They expect women to praise them for doing the bare minimum like saying “I am a feminist” and sometimes even think this entitles them to special affection from women (eww). So guys, here are 42 myself and my sisters have personally noticed “feminist” men seriously need to address.
(To clarify, feminism isn’t for men. It it for the liberation of women. Certain aspects of this, like destroying certain certain gender roles, may benefit some men. But men are the oppressors as a class whereas women are the oppressed. Men: stop commandeering our movement.)
Don’t use sexist words. Bitch, cunt, slut, whore, twat, skank, dyke, pussy, sissy, tramp. These are all sexist words. And “I use this word to describe anyone who does X!” does not make it any less sexist. These words all have roots in demeaning women.
Call out your male friends when they use sexist language. Even if there aren’t any women around, using this language shows that they think, at least in some ways, women are lesser than they are and it’s acceptable to talk about us in a derogatory way. Call out friends who engage in rape culture.
Challenge sexism on the internet and social media.
Don’t use condescending terms like “honey” and “sweetie” to adults. This is infantilizing.
Be aware of other words that are often used to demean women such as bossy, ditzy, or nagging and don’t use them.
Don’t watch porn. Pornography sells women’s bodies as commodities and it is also virtually impossible to know whether the woman on the screen is trafficked or not. Even if she isn’t, women’s bodies are not for male consumption.
Don’t interrupt women.
Hold other men accountable for interrupting women. “Excuse me, she was speaking.”
Advocate for hiring and promoting women in your workplace.
Do not expect women to take on stereotypically women’s roles in the workforce that aren’t part of their job description, such as organizing for birthdays or taking meeting notes.
Don’t derail discussions about women’s issues. Organize your own discussions and movements for men’s issues. For example, do not derail discussions about FGM with “What about male circumcision?” You are more than welcome to organize a movement for stopping male circumcision. I think you will find most feminists will support you.
Accept “no” the first time. Do not try to change her mind or keep asking. Rejecting a man can be terrifying because sometimes men attack or even murder women for saying no. We really don’t know who might suddenly turn physically violent so don’t force us to say no more than once. The first time should be enough.
If consuming drugs or alcohol causes you to lose the ability to make good choices, become violent, or act poorly toward women (or anyone, really, including yourself), do not consume drugs or alcohol. Being drunk or high is not an excuse. If you are struggling with addiction, here is a list of addiction and substance abuse organizations.
Don’t expect the women you live with to do all the domestic labor. If you live there, you do your share of the chores unless there is some other agreement in place.
Divide childcare equally. If you father children, you are a parent too. You are not a hero for taking care of your own children.
Educate yourself and others on consent. Here is a very brief overview.
You are not entitled to sex. Nothing you do, say, or feel that you are entitles you to sex. Do not ever pressure someone to have sex with you or guilt someone for saying no.
Consent to sex with a condom is just that: consent to sex with a condom. Do not remove your condom. This is rape. Do not pressure someone to have sex without a condom once they have said they are uncomfortable with sex without a condom. It doesn’t matter if you don’t have one and you really want to have sex. It doesn’t matter if she takes birth control. You are not entitled to sex.
Do not suggest being a “nice guy” or self-identifying as a feminist/ally means women should flock to you. You are not entitled to sex.
Do not comment on women’s dating choices or suggest we are “wrong” for not dating you. You are not entitled to sex.
Don’t leer at or make sexual comments about women. Don’t bother women minding their own business.
Do not make inappropriate comments about women to other people. It is embarrassing and demeaning.
Don’t make comments on a woman’s body parts. Women don’t exist for your consumption.
Be aware of your space in public. For example, if there are several open seats on a train, don’t take the one next to a woman sitting alone if you don’t have to. If a woman is using a cash machine, stand back several steps until she finishes. We don’t know which men might be sexually abusive or violent so avoid putting us in a position to be afraid if you don’t have to. This also protects you because you won’t be suspected of doing something creepy if you aren’t near anyone to creep on.
Don’t expect women to do all the emotional labor in your relationships. Women are often exploited for our emotional labor. Hire a therapist if you need one and pay him or her for their time and expertise.
Don’t flirt at inappropriate times. When women are present to engage in something and share our ideas (for example at a political meeting) it can feel extremely belittling when men are more interested in flirting with us than hearing what we have to say.
Do not commandeer women’s spaces. We have these spaces to be safe from routine and often violent harassment from men. They are not for you. Do not force yourself into them.
Do not police how women talk about our bodies.
Do not explain things to women that we already know just to show how smart you think you are.
Do not ask or infer a woman is menstruating if she is irritated by something.
Do not blame women for male violence. Feminism is not the reason men assault other men. Men assault other men.
Do not blame women for cultural norms that you believe hurt men. Men set these norms. For example, women and feminism are not the reason men feel emasculated if they wear makeup to cover acne. Male supremacy set these norms and attacks men who do not follow them just as it attacks and oppresses women.
Do not deny male privilege. I’ve already done a post on five ways society disadvantages female infants and you can search for the thousands of ways male privilege exists. Boys and men are privileged from birth. Do not deny this or try to deny your own male privilege.
Do not pretend men acting stereotypically feminine negates male privilege. Feminine men are still men and though they might be subjected to male violence for being gender nonconforming, they still have male privilege that women will never have. Gender nonconforming men face problems for being gender nonconforming but they are still men.
Do not pretend calling oneself a woman negates male privilege.
Do not pretend men can be as or more oppressed than women by asserting they are women.
Do not spread false information about female biology. No, the vagina does not become looser if a woman has more sex partners. No, a vagina is not just a sleeve of skin for sex.
Do not advance the false notion that male and female brains are fundamentally different. They aren’t. This idea oppresses women by arguing that we are neurologically different from men and allows men to argue we are less intelligent/better geared toward certain jobs (usually domestic work)/naturally embody sexist stereotypes.
Do not use a definition of woman that implies adherence to feminine gender roles (which are patriarchal) or self-identification. Women are an oppressed class of people from birth because of our anatomy and reproductive roles. To use a definition of womanhood based on self-identification suggests that women can identify in and out of our positions as oppressed people, or that we brought this oppression on ourselves.
Do not tell women to “calm down” or “relax” when we are passionate about something.
Do not expect women to accept every “compliment” or “nice” gesture from men. We are allowed to turn down compliments or advances.
Listen to women when we speak.
96 notes · View notes
lorainelaneyblog · 6 years
Text
I am God and this is what I want to say through my new messiah, Loraine Laney, she is doing laundry and she will take breaks, but she will write for a bit, for me, tonight.
I am God, and I would like to state the following: Dean of the Hell’s Angels has decided to see Loraine Laney as a client one time, after, and only after, she meets her beloved, 50 Cent.
There are several Hell’s Angels who have come to respect Loraine Laney, for her work on gay relationships. They include some men of high leadership, Loraine, and some are very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, happy with your work, Loraine, for me, always, the work she does. She does work for me, and not for herself, the statistics are sometimes wrong a bit, because I’ve decided to ruse people, and they can still decide for themselves how they feel inside. For example, there are not as many gay men as I stated, but most of them are bisexual with lesbians alone. Women feel better when they hear this because they love gay men and yet feel very left out of their lifestyle.
Loraine Laney is no “fag hag,” though she is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, interested in bisexual men at this point in her life.
The actual number of gay men is about five percent, Loraine, not eleven percent as I formerly stated. I was teasing them about the ten percent statistic that has been thrown around for years, Loraine. Bank Street in Ottawa has emptied out, Loraine, ever since the gang bang boys have realized that they are not gay, but bisexual. Because they degrade a woman sexually, and this is an erotic practice, not a social practice, they believed that they were actually too misogynist to relate to women in a sexual context. They believed that they were better off without them. This is not true, Loraine, as you know. 
Loraine Laney had to ask a gay friend about blow jobs when she was about twenty two. He said, “Some people really like it,” and she took it on board, irrespective of her feminism. She started to realize that she enjoyed submission, and she didn’t punish herself for it. Dominance and submission in the bedroom is something that is enjoyed by all men and women respectively. The extremes in the gang bangs are not to be eschewed. They are hot for the participants, and weird and domineering and even victimizing for a witness.
Loraine Laney worries that her eighteen husbands will be imprisoned for hurting her, degrading her, depriving her, and exploiting her, which all are part and parcel of the submission of lower submissive women.
Higher women, also submissive, since all women are submissive to all men, are more given to the following: infantilizing, and controlling, which involves the deprivation of the person of other lovers as well as other elements of control, for example, clothing, make up, etcetera.
Loraine’s second husband will be Eminem, and he is so invested in control that it is not even funny. Eminem has never had an obedient wife, never, and nor has any man in this proposed marital group, never. Eminem went through hell with his two wives, Loraine, hell, Loraine, hell, Loraine, hell, Loraine, hell.
Eminem is invested in two things, control and anal sex, Loraine, he loves anal sex, Loraine, and Loraine Laney doesn’t love anal sex, and it is arguable that most women do not love anal sex, Loraine, and it is also arguable that “bend over boyfriend” began as a reason to avoid having sex themselves, as well as creating a preventative measure against anal sex with men, who actually do enjoy it, Loraine, much more than women do.
The high women, God is continuing, do not eat come at all, Loraine, the high marrying women that includes as well as the highest marrying women. Further, says God, highest marrying women, and high marrying women do not suck dick that often, Loraine, they will prefer to get oral sex performed on them, and their ideal partner will love to perform it, Loraine.
Mediums trade back and forth quite nicely, Loraine, and, if they are high medium men with low medium women, they might get a full blow job once in awhile. And, for high medium men with low medium women, oral sex on a woman is not a burden in any way, Loraine.
For gang bang boys, oral sex on a woman is almost a burden, Loraine, because they feel they do so much in sex itself, with going on top, and with fucking from behind, they feel that they should receive more oral, Loraine, and that’s how they feel. Gang bang girls are not overly invested in receiving oral, but Loraine Laney often will say, etherwise, and, if asked, in real, that she would never want to marry a man who wouldn’t perform oral sex at all, and this is high self esteem, Loraine, because all men like oral sex on a woman, so you would be selling out if you settled for less, it’s true, says God.
High marrying women will go on top for the finish, and enjoy it immensely, but penis envy prevails, Loraine, because they still are not permitted an orgasm, and men will even switch positions to prevent an orgasm, because high marrying women, and highest marrying women, are very adept at getting orgasms from being on top, Loraine. Yes, to answer your question, real ones.
“Why is it so easy for them to come with their lower libidos, God?’
It’s not easy, Loraine, it’s just possible, whereas other women don’t get off on the position erotically, and thus, it is not likely that they will have an orgasm.
“Oh, I see.”
How often do you think you should come in this family, Loraine?
“Twice a month, but not twice during ovulation, and preferably towards the end of ovulation, or God, is it not at all?”
You won’t believe it, Loraine, but when you are erotically stimulated, you can almost come as often as a man, Loraine. Seriously.
‘Oh. I feel silly.”
‘Why?’ says 50 Cent.
‘It’s not math, after all. And I’m surprised, it’s work then.’
It’s work then, says God. Loraine Laney is so deprived by work that it’s not even funny, Loraine.
‘Why, God? I get penetration and oral, why? I understand in a way, but why?’
‘You never get gang bang boys. They are cute, and they do well on their own without hookers.’
‘That’s not fair to the lowest women who fall to prostitution, but I don’t believe that prostitution is a preferred alternative either.’
That’s true, Loraine, it’s not. Marriage is important for fulfillment, and prostitution can be a part of any marriage, Loraine. And that’s that. And that’s that.
‘What do you think of that?’ says Dean.
‘Nobody gets stuck at the bottom and there are appropriate prostitutes for all men.’
‘What do you mean?’ asks Dean. ‘What do you mean appropriate.’
‘He can’t see that, because he is high and his prostitutes are probably low, as most are, today,’ says Eminem. ‘But Loraine finds that some men are emasculated by her libido and tendencies. Tell him that, Loraine.’
‘I had a nice evening with a client, and the sex went well. He is the man who told me, etherwise, that “they are saying in Hull that Loraine Laney can’t cotton to any man who is less than a high,” and he was a high. When we finished, he was uncomfortable, as many are,” they say together. “And I didn’t know what to say, and I asked God, and he said to say, “Tell him he’s a lovely man.” I did so. And it gave rise to a small speech.’
‘Funny, Loraine. What was it?’
‘I said, “You know, I love a good blow job, but a good lover is wonderful to find, and you are a wonderful lover.”
‘Funny, Loraine, you insulted him.’
‘We had a very nice time, and I might not go back because of that, because my  marriage is a bit rocky right now, to answer your question my wife is studying to be a psychologist and she’s very into sports as well, and she hates me touching her body at any time. It’s bad. She might even hear about this. But, because she had heard this vulnerability, despite that I had made no overtures, she took it upon herself to clear it up for me. I know that I will never fully satisfy her, and I will never, never, never, never, make the mistake of thinking I can, and it is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, possible, and common, to make that mistake, for both men and women. I asked God, Loraine, and he tell me it is so.’
‘Hm.’
‘What do you think?’ says Dean.
‘I want to say that I was almost elated by her fulfillment of her reputation, alone, and that’s how I felt, and, for that reason, I may, may, may, may, may, return, and that’s it.’
‘How did you feel? Insulted?’
‘No, I understood what she was about sexually because I had looked at the blog a bit. Are you going to blog when you’re married, Loraine?’
‘We’re doing a serialized journal, as before, and she will have to publish promptly, not as in the past,’ says Eminem. ‘We have secrets, and she will be censured.’
‘Oh, I see. Because everyone wants to know how the family turns out, and it will be instrumental, I would think, in keeping the men out of prison, the knowledge that Loraine Laney is doing well.’
‘Oh, thank you, excellent point.’
‘What do you think about cops?’ he says.
‘They need hookers.’
‘Oh, you said that. Do you forgive them?’
‘I do.’
‘Why?’
‘Dad told me when boys are mean to you it means they like you. I could tell from the vehemence of the attacks that they were suffering. I felt bad for them. It see sawed between rage and pity, from which point I could attempt theories and attempt to make efforts to resolve their problem.’
‘Which was what? I heard, from work, you remember what I do?’
‘Well, you’re a social worker with children, are you not, but working a small business organizing psychologists, no?’
‘That’s right. This is out, and I realize that, and God says to come out and it’s okay, Loraine. I know you’re worried, I get it. But I will say this, and Dean needs to know, that it is all over Quebec that Loraine Laney lowered the crime rate, Loraine, did you know that?’
‘No. Thank you. That’s immensely flattering.’
‘What?’
‘Given the criminal heights of the Quebecois.’
‘Funny, Loraine, but why?’
‘They must be seeing hookers and be laying off the gangsters.’
‘That’s right, Loraine, and there is so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, much crime in Quebec, that it is very, very, very, very, very, very, fucking, noticeable when there is a drop in the crime rate. The largest contingent of Hell’s Angels, and this is not telling tales out of school, it is well known in Quebec, is out of Montreal, Loraine, did you know that?’
‘No, but I heard about property coming into the hands of the Hell’s Angels.’
‘What does that mean?’
‘They took over evil landlords.’
‘Oh, right, as happened to you.’
‘Yes.’
‘Oh, shit.’
‘What?’
‘That’s what it is, isn’t it?’
‘I want to say that that is very common, Loraine, it is common work of gangs to eliminate killers and take over their assets. Common work of gangs. And it is big in Montreal, because the cops wouldn’t do it. They feel if someone owns property that there should be a hands off policy.’
‘Hm.’
‘Right?’
‘What about for grow ops, though?’
‘That’s the exception.’
‘Hm.’
‘She doesn’t know anything. Who told you that?’
‘[ ]. No. It was a client.’
‘Oh. Was he a gangster?’
‘Funny.’
‘Yeah, I’m kidding. So you like your little drug dealer, let’s put it in writing that you dreamt about him last night, explicitly because he has been very good to you.’
‘Oh my.’
‘True?’
‘Yes.’
‘Was he your little boyfriend?’
‘Yes.’
‘And you wanted to lick his ass?’
‘Yes.’
‘Oh, I see. So it’s not only big men that you are attracted to?’
‘No, gang bang boys are always, I think, attractive to me.’
‘Does he have a white girlfriend, and is she cute? Is she a gang bang girl?’
‘I think she is. Her nose, from the side, is not beautiful, but, seeing her only briefly, I would say she is pretty cute.’
‘And boyish?’
“I would say.’
‘And cool. Why?’
‘She didn’t look at me when it was his deal, and when it was her deal, she was cool.’
‘Her friend ruined it?’
‘Yeah.’
‘She’s submissive.’
‘Yes.’
‘How can you tell?’
‘She’s really quiet, and obedient looking.’
‘Oh, I see.’
‘I am, that’s how I am. I love him, Loraine, and he’s not the head of family, and, though we are screwing, you can’t have him anymore, I’m teasing, he knows, at least on the ether, that he has to take me to the head of family. But he doesn’t want to.’
‘Mm, yeah.’
‘What do you think of that?’ says Dean.
‘Nobody gets anything.’
‘That’s what I think too.’
‘How many gang bang girls, to be nosy, have been brought to you, Dean?’
‘None, but women, yes, but ownership, yes. Do you think many have died in the war.’
I’ll take this, says God. Yes, Dean, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, gang bang girls died in the war. About half, no, kidding, about eighty percent were evil, and about twenty percent were good, so well done, men, kidding, again, Loraine, you can’t kill just because someone wrongs you, but Loraine Laney, yes, Dean, she is an apologist for male violence in light of female promiscuity. Let me finish, please. Don’t say “what about her?” please.
‘Why?’
I’m finishing, and I am God, and I’ll say whatever I want, Loraine Laney is an excellent whore, and an obedient one, she doesn’t run around, and she gets rid of bad clients, Dean. She’s never been an unrepentant slut, ever. She realizes when she’s in hot water with a man, and she gets out fast, fast, fast, Dean, fast, and that is why, despite her promiscuity, and her whoring and her small amounts of slutting--
‘I thought she was a big slut,’ says Dean. ‘She’s not. Because I hate an unrepentant slut, Loraine, they feel nothing for anyone.’
‘Oh.’
‘What are you like?’
She is excellent with microexpressions and that previous example is what she does to avoid causing shit for men. She avoids it like the plague, causing shit for men, she’s duly afraid of men, with good reason, I am God, and I mean to say that women should be afraid of men, and she’s not dumb, in that sense, though, with her low brain cell count, due to the abuse of her frontal cortex, she seems dumb, but she knows people pretty well. That is why she rejected [ ] the other day. She can’t cotton to a man who doesn��t pay, Dean.
‘I thought she fucked all the time.’
She’s well known as a whore who never goes out.
‘Why?’
She hates to get laid, Dean, it’s a waste of time and money.
‘All she does is crack, what does she need money for?’
‘She thinks it’s disrespectful to her clients to be out screwing.’
‘Why? Some say they do a little for money and a little for free, and everyone learns to accept that.’
‘I just respect what I described as protection and compensation, and look at clients as pseudo husbands deserving of the same respect.’
‘As a husband?’
‘Well, they make no demands, and I’ve certainly not been perfect, but as long as I have an apartment, I usually stay home.’
‘Oh, I see, the shelter?’
‘The shelter and the hospital are bad for one’s standards.’
‘Why?’
‘I am also an apologist for female promiscuity, insofar as it is partially due to exposure to men.’
‘Oh, I see. Oh, I see. Oh, I see. Oh, I see. I didn’t have that at all. I thought you were trying to blame men wholly for female promiscuity, not exposure, but seduction.’
‘Well, it is that. But we have choices, and one of them can be to stay home more.’
‘And not get in the fray?’
‘Right.’
‘When did you stop going to the beach and why?’
She stopped, I’ll take this one, almost as soon as she became a prostitute, and she only went a bit, and she had already played the field a bit, and she had already done some threesomes and orgies, little ones.’
‘Why is it always a bit with her?’
‘I was in therapy at twenty five, I’m a precious little bugger, and I don’t like to suffer more than men, but I had a high libido and curiosities about men and women and about group sex too.’
‘So you used the beach?’
‘Everyone uses the beach,’ says John. ‘It typical for women to come down for the first time and have sex all summer with all different men, and everyone finds out, and they start to hate it, the reputation, and the hunting.’
‘Oh, right. How many did you do?’
‘Three.’
‘Oh, right.’
‘And I kissed on one, and I “married” [ ].’
‘Oh, I see. So you’re a baby, then? What haven’t you done?’
‘She’s never had come in the face, she’s never done a double penetration.’
‘I thought Eric was going to do that. You can’t kiss a gangster, Loraine.’
‘I know. I didn’t jump on him, I invited him to kiss me.’
‘What did he say?’
‘He said, “I don’t do that.”’
‘Oh. You’re cute.’
‘You’re cuter.’
‘Why do you think I’m being so nice, and why isn’t Eminem nice to you, ever? We all hear him all the time, being a dick to you, Loraine. Is this what God is saying about you, that you tolerate next to nothing, Loraine?’
That’s what I’m saying. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. She hates to be insulted. She hates when men have it good and she is going down.’
‘When is that?’
‘Roommates, the car, they have sex at your place, and spill wine on your carpet, and knock on your door, and smoke all your weed, and it’s too much bullshit for Loraine.’
‘Would she do cops?’ asks Dean of the Hell’s Angels.
Yes, she would. She would deal with any man who came to her. She would. Why? Do you hate that? Do you think she should eschew cops on principal because of the shit they have caused by virtue of being excluded from prostitutes, who are, by the way, Dean, really, really, really, really--
‘What?’
--appropriate for them.
‘They’re going to take all the gang bang girls, aren’t they?’
Loraine’s marrying a gangster.
‘A rich one, who doesn’t have to work.’
‘I have crime involvement still, she could still lose me to prison, Dean.’
‘What does she think of that?’
‘She hates it.’
‘’Cause some women like it. Because they get money and they start screwing, Loraine, because they are mad about boyfriends in prison, Loraine. How, oh yeah, [ ]. He told you Bros Before Hos, didn’t he? And he was a fag.’
‘Yes.’
‘I’ll go you one better,’ says 50 Cent. ‘She sucked that thing, and he was a prison prostitute. He went soft in about forty five seconds, Dean.’
‘She thought he didn’t like women?’
‘No, no, I knew he saw many women, one called me.’
‘Oh, right. How did you know about men in prison?’
‘It’s something you always, always, always, hear, and I decided to take it seriously. And he told me that it happens behind closed doors--’
‘You thought it was rape?’
‘That’s the first rumor one is privy to.’
‘That’s true. And the soap. What did you think?’
‘I was very jealous. So I kept asking.’
‘She got a prison salute,’ says Eminem.
‘You did? Ugly little you. Why?’
‘She had a blog. And we knew that [ ]’ girlfriend who visited occasionally, was the one with the blog, and we heard, from him, that, not only was she declaring jealousy, you were, Loraine, but that she was always polite and never mad, and always curious and never disgusted, Loraine. And so we saluted her with our prettiest blonds in Chilliwack.’
‘Oh, funny. How many salutes have you had?’
‘Three and a cheering section.’
‘Three, then? Who?’
‘A hockey salute by the Brandon Wheat Kings and their opponent whom I’m sorry I do not remember.’
‘Oh course not. Is that a family member?’
‘My step mother’s family.’
‘He’s not with them anymore.’
‘No.’
‘What’s he like?’
‘He’s a stunner.’
‘What is he?’
‘He must be a gang bang boy.’
He is, Loraine. Let’s get off that. Go get your towels out, Loraine. They’re clean enough, don’t worry. She wants Jason to replace those machines with front loaders. That would please her immensely. But he never will, Loraine.’
‘People panic and break the door, and flood the room, Loraine. Don’t you know that?’
‘Yes, I do. I’m familiar with the panic.’
‘Funny, Loraine,’ says Jason.
I want to say something about gay sex with men, says God. This is God, this is God, this is God, this is God, this is God, this is God, and I want to say that highest marrying men, and even high marrying men are quite bisexual with men, Loraine. They are. They, like polygamist centers, will have sex with men about once per year, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, once married, if they are out of the closet, they feel more secure in their heterosexuality, and prefer, prefer, prefer, prefer, prefer, says God, continuing, to have sex with men about twenty times per year, Loraine.
‘Now that makes more sense.’
‘Why?’ says Jason.
‘Once a year is not enough to sustain a relationship. How important is repetition, on that note, Lord?’
‘Oh, I see. Right. You’re right. My boyfriend, and I do have one, no, you cannot have sex with us, we feel emasculated when a woman has sex with us, except for in the two on one, Loraine. When we are gay, we like to be alone.’
‘Would you feel left out?’ asks Dean.
‘Yes, though I do not expect to be included all the time either.’
‘Oh, right. Will you be jealous?’
‘I’m jealous, yes.’
‘Why? They’re men. You are supposed to be jealous of women.’
‘Women are jealous of men, and men are jealous of men,’ says 50 Cent. ‘And we don’t know why other than that men are superior.’
‘True,’ says Freud. ‘And I even had to remind the great Loraine Laney that it comes down to penis envy.’
‘Why is she the great Loraine Laney?’ asks Dean. ‘I’m great. I’m no new messiah, why aren’t I the new messiah, God? Why isn’t it 50 Cent, if men are so great?’
‘I don’t choose my messiahs based on gender. It is superlative honesty that wins out.’
‘Oh, I see. And immediately she’s thinking of an infraction. Was it serious?’
‘A bit.’
‘Was it intentional?’
‘No. No. No. Not at all.’
‘Were you embarrassed?’
‘I always have been, but that’s not why I didn’t say, I just didn’t say.’
‘Why?’
Naivete, says God. Strictly.
‘She thinks she should have told.’
She knows now, but she didn’t know then.
‘How did it come up?’
‘That’s a really good question.’
‘Talking with her is always frustrating,’ says 50 Cent. ‘Her memory is almost nil.’
True, says God. ‘She was done with e. Coli from babyhood, and she has seen pictures and admits she looked like a dumb baby.
‘Oh, shit. With bad plumbing.’
‘In the bottle,’ says [ ].
0 notes
words-for-the-void · 7 years
Text
DEAR SUGAR, THE RUMPUS ADVICE COLUMN #85: WE CALL THIS A CLUSTERFUCK BY SUGAR
Dear Sugar, I recently had sex with a guy who has a complicated history with a friend of mine. I knew sleeping with him would hurt my friend’s feelings, and so I told her I wouldn’t. She didn’t ask me not to sleep with him, but it was implied. She would make references to “his crush on me” and once asked him if we had had a threesome with this other girl. Long story short, I broke my promise. I meant what I said to my friend at the time, Sugar, but I failed. The man in question is a good guy. I enjoyed spending time with him and let’s just say my conjugal bed has been rather empty of late. My desire outweighed the potential hurt I knew my actions would cause. The guy and my friend have had many conversations since I slept with him, and they appear to have made up, whereas my friendship with her is still on shaky ground. I think it will normalize eventually, but I already feel like our friendship is something that’s not that important to her. I don’t even know if it’s all that important to me either. Very recently, my step-dad had a heart attack. It was his second. It made me think about gravity and consequence and trivialities, and that if this one night of problematic sex forever alters or negates all the other ways I’ve been a good friend to her, then so be it. If that’s the case, our friendship wasn’t meant to last, and I have more important things to worry about. But at the same time I can’t help but wonder if I am losing my humanity a little. Because today, an ex/friend of mine basically said she hadn’t completely forgiven me for hurting her six years ago. I cheated on her like the dumb 22-year-old I was, and I have apologized a thousand times since then. We weren’t friends for a while, but we became good friends again eventually. Until today, I was operating under the assumption that we were okay. To hear her say she relates to me differently, that she withholds information from me because of how I behaved years ago, makes me profoundly sad and angry. Forgiveness isn’t something piecemeal to me, but clearly I am upsetting people in ways that have staying power. What does it mean if someone forgives you, but never forgets? I feel both horrible and stubborn. And I don’t know how much of this anger is due to acknowledging potentially ugly truths about myself—that I value desire at the expense of my friendships; that I can’t seem to learn from past mistakes; that I am a person others deem untrustworthy. The last one stings the worst, and is a doubt I expressed to the guy shortly after our tryst. “She never trusted you,” he said, which was a confirmation of my fears, if not a self-fulfilling prophecy. I would probably have done the same thing, given another opportunity. And I don’t know if that should worry me or if it makes me some kind of pleasure addict or just a terrible friend. I don’t regret my recent behavior, but should I? Am I throwing away solid friendships for stupid sexual gratification? Part of me feels selfish even writing to you, because I know you’ll call me honey bun and make me feel better when I don’t deserve it. Friend Or Foe *** Dear Sugar, I have two friends who I love dearly. One is a man I’ve known since we were teenagers. A few years ago, he and I started a brief non-monogamous romance. He then fell in love with another woman, who he rightly chose over me. Though I knew we were meant to be friends instead of romantic partners, my feelings for him ran deep, so I was crushed. Eventually the pain subsided, and we became closer as friends. The other friend is a woman I admire greatly as a writer and as a person. She’s witty, sexy, brilliant. We support each other through romantic traumas and laugh constantly whenever we’re together. She was there to comfort me when my male friend told me he had met someone else. She sat with me as I unabashedly cried in public in the middle of downtown San Francisco. Recently, these two friends met and hit it off. He started joking about sleeping with her. (He is single now.) I told my male friend that this idea made me feel uncomfortable, but he dismissed my worries. I didn’t press the issue because my female friend swore that she would never sleep with him. She said this to me, repeatedly, emphatically, even when I didn’t ask her. While I was over my attraction to this guy, the history was still a little too fresh, and I wasn’t finished processing the heartbreak. She saw how it was still affecting me. I trusted her. But it happened anyway. They slept together. When my male friend told me, I got very upset; I yelled at him for the way he’d dismissed my feelings in the past. We talked on several very long phone calls, and by the end of it I felt heard, valued and respected. He also forced me to come to terms with my jealousy and lack of claim I have over others’ actions. Since then, I’ve had to do a lot of hard looking at my own insecurity and desire for control. Two weeks later, when my female friend apologized for breaking the promise she had made to me, I told her I no longer thought I’d had a right to that promise in the first place, even though it hurt and angered me when she broke it. She had done what she felt was right for her, and now I had to figure out what was right for me: taking time and space. Part of me felt at peace with this conclusion. But by that point, I also felt so emotionally exhausted by the whole situation, and so disgusted with myself, I wasn’t even sure I deserved an apology from anyone. Sugar, I’m conflicted. I know what they did wasn’t morally wrong; I’ve felt desire before for the exes of friends, and the friends of exes. These two friends have a relationship that’s independent of me. Still, I was so hurt. And the worst part is, I’m ashamed of my hurt. I’m ashamed of the jealousy I didn’t know was still in me, even eighteen months after the romance ended. I want to be the person who can gracefully take joy in the fact that two people I love were able to share some sexy fun. I want to believe that the hurt is all in my possessive, competitive little brain, so I can just change myself and get over it. All I do now is beat myself up, for whatever choice I make. My internal compass on this matter is so broken. I need your wise, soothing words. Love,
Triangled Dear Women, A couple of years ago the Baby Sugars got into a vicious fight over the decapitated head of a black-haired plastic princess. My son was all but frothing at the mouth. My daughter screamed so hard for so long I thought the neighbors were going to call the cops. The decapitated head in question was about the size of a gumball, its neck not a proper neck, but rather an opening into which a tiny interchangeable torso was meant to be snapped. This torso was either the ancient female Egyptian my daughter was holding in her hand or the sultry skirted girl pirate my son was holding in his. Hence the uproar. Neither of them could be convinced to relinquish their claim on the decapitated head of the black-haired plastic princess, no matter how gently or sternly or maniacally I explained that they could take turns, each of them attaching the head to “their torso” for short periods of time. Likewise, they refused to be consoled by any one of the countless items that clutter the room they share—not the bin of agates or the wooden daggers; not the stuffed kittens or alphabet flashcards; not the foam swords or half-trashed markers; not the ballerinas or Roman warriors or monkeys or fairy statuettes or fake golden coins or movie-inspired action figures or unicorns or race cars or dinosaurs or tiny spiral-bound notebooks or any other damn thing in the whole motherloving universe but the decapitated head of the black-haired plastic princess. It’s mine, my daughter shrieked. I was playing with it first, countered my son. It’s special to me, wailed my daughter. She plays with my special toys all the time, my son bellowed. I talked and reasoned and made suggestions that soon became commands, but really, ultimately, there was nothing to be done. There was one head and two torsos. The indisputable fact of that was like a storm we had to ride out until all the trees were blown down. I begin with this allegorical snippet from Chez Sugar not because I think your individual and joint struggles regarding your friendship are as infantile as a tussle over a toy, but rather because I think it’s instructive to contemplate in essential terms our desire to have not only what is ours, but what also belongs to those we love, and not only because we want those things for ourselves, but because we want the other person not to have them. That fervor is age-old and endless and a gumball-size piece at the core of what we’re grappling with here and I invite you both to ponder it. We all have a righteous claim to the decapitated head of the black-haired plastic princess. We believe she is ours alone to hold. We refuse to let her go. Before we begin disentangling your situation in earnest, I’ll say right out that I’m quite sure if the two of you continue talking silently to yourselves about this crappy and weird thing that happened with the man I’m going to go ahead and call The Foxy Fellow you’re going to regret it. And more than that, you’re going to hatch a whole slew of increasingly distorted beliefs about what went down and what that means and who did and said what and it will not only make you miserable and sad and bitter, it will also rob you of a friend who you really should be sitting on a porch with ten years in the future, laughing about what knuckleheads you were back in the day. You both did something you basically know wasn’t so great. Your desires and fears and failings and unreasonable expectations and things you won’t admit to yourselves clicked into each other as neatly as a plastic head does into a plastic torso and when you put them together you both got pinched. The same thing happened to you from different points of view. With whom should our sympathies lie? On which woman’s shoulders should the greatest blame be placed? In what directions do the arrows of your narratives flow? How best do you find your way out of this place? These are the questions I asked myself as I pondered your letters. Every time I tried to straighten the stories out in my head they got all tangled up instead. I made charts and lists with bullet points. I took a piece of paper and literally drew a map. I turned your Foxy Fellow imbroglio into a pair of mathematical equations of the sort I never learned how to do properly in school (which utterly frees me to use them for my own whimsical literary purposes). Here’s how they look. Friend or Foe: “I solemnly swear that I will never fuck The Foxy Fellow because my friend still has tender and territorial feelings for him and I don’t want to hurt her” + [I am a caring person and fucking The Foxy Fellow would compel me to question the sort of person I believe myself to be] + fucked The Foxy Fellow anyway = eek/ugh2 x [but perhaps, when I really think about it, my friendship with this woman is “not that important”] ÷ and yet there was that time I sat with her in downtown San Francisco while she bawled unabashedly > so – fuck this shit! + how dare she be mad at me! + I was a good to friend to her in every other way! + The Foxy Fellow has not even been her boyfriend for, like, EVER! + I am attracted to him! + he is attracted to me! + I’m not even 30 and my vagina is growing cob webs! + who the hell is she to say who The Foxy Fellow and I get to have sex with in the first place? < I am a terrible person and a selfish sex fiend [will the damning ex-girlfriend please present her testimony to the court?] ÷ cheated, yes + lied, yes + to ever be trusted or forgiven, no, never, not by any woman in any time for any reason whatsoever = you know what? Fuck those bitches! + I’d totally do The Foxy Fellow again! ≠ Except. Well. [Damn] Triangled: “The Foxy Fellow is a wonderful person” +  [we “broke up,” though we were never really together, never monogamous, even though he crushed my heart in this really hard-to-exactly-define-way for which I do not fault him because I didn’t have expectations—why would I have expectations? etc] ÷ it’s pretty clear to me that he wants to fuck my lovely woman friend who watched me bawl unabashedly over him in downtown San Francisco and this makes me feel like puking2 + [what is the meaning of monogamy? what is love? do we ever owe anyone anything when it comes to sex? why do I feel like puking if The Foxy Fellow is “only my friend”?] = accept adamant and profuse promises from my lovely woman friend regarding her plans to not fuck The Foxy Fellow x [sisterhood!] – allow The Foxy Fellow to brush me off when I express my wish he not fuck my lovely woman friend = cry/rage when they fail to not fuck + [how could they? she promised! I thought she was my friend! he never listened to me!] < long, difficult, ultimately satisfying conversation with The Foxy Fellow that makes me feel oddly closer to him [and worse about my puny, insecure, control freak, jealous, uncool, dumbass, competitive, needy self2] x short, unproductive, decidedly cool conversation with my lovely woman friend [doesn’t it seem like she should be sorrier than this?/what right do I have to an apology? since when do I get to say who fucks whom?/but she promised!] ÷ fantasize that my lovely woman friend will take a long-term job in Korea + listen to my generation’s equivalent of Lisa Germano’s “Cancer of Everything” repeatedly while huddled into the pathetic ball of myself + [alternate with trying to cheerfully compose the phrase “to share some sexy fun” in relation to those two selfish assholes] ≠ Except. Well. [Damn] In the math ignorant world of Sugarland, we call this a clusterfuck. You are both wrong. You are both right. You both know you can do better than you did. The fact that you failed to do so equals nothing unless you learn something from this. So let’s learn it, sweet peas. Triangled, if it really hurts and enrages you that The Foxy Fellow fucks a friend of yours he isn’t your friend and you should not conduct yourself with him as such. He is your ex, the love you’ve yet to get over for reasons you may not be able to explain or justify even to yourself, the man who is an absolute no-go zone for anyone who’s even remotely in your inner circle. Lose the but-we’re-just-friends-now/free-love mumbo jumbo and own up to what you actually feel: if The Foxy Fellow is fucking anyone, you don’t want to be hanging out with her. Not yet. Not now. Maybe not ever. At the very least, heal your heart before you go introducing The Foxy Fellow to your friends, especially those you’d describe as “witty, sexy, brilliant.” And then brace yourself. Though it may seem that Friend or Foe’s choice to break her promise and fuck The Foxy Fellow is what caused all this pain, her actions are not at the root of your sorrow. What’s at the root is the fact that you failed to recognize and honor your own boundaries. You tried to have it both ways. You wanted to be the woman who could be friends with a man she’s not over, but you are not that woman. I understand why you want to be her, darling. She’s one cool cat. She’s the star of the show. She doesn’t take anything personally. But you are not her. And that’s okay. You are your own fragile, strong, sweet, searching self. You can be sad a guy you sort of fell for didn’t fall for you. You don’t have to be a good sport. You don’t have to pretend you’re okay with sharing your interesting and beautiful friends with The Foxy Fellow, even if you feel like a puny asshole not being okay with it. You can say no. But the thing is, you have to say it. You have to be the woman who stands up and says it. And you have to say it to the right person too. Not to the lovely friend who can’t possibly keep the promises she’s made to you while swimming in the shared waters of your wishy-washy ache for affirmation and orgasms, but to the man himself. Yes, The Foxy Fellow. The one who is, but who is not, your friend. You have to live with the uncomfortable reality that it’s from him—not her!—that you need time and space. And then you have to take it, hard as it is, come what may. Friend or Foe, you made a choice you knew would hurt someone who trusted you—a choice, it’s worth noting, you explicitly vowed not to make—and afterwards you justified that choice with reasons you could’ve more thoughtfully discussed with her beforehand. This makes you neither “a pleasure addict” nor “a terrible friend.” It makes you someone who did what most people would do in this situation at this moment in your life—a woman who took what she wanted instead of pondering what she needed. You are at once blameless in this and entirely responsible. You were sort of set up by Triangled and you were also basically a jerk to her. The reason all that other junk came up in your post-Foxy Fellow contemplations—(your ex, your feelings of being eternally punished for having wronged her, your sense that your friend never trusted you either)—is that, contrary to your claim that you don’t regret what you did, you know you could have done this differently, better, or not at all. What’s at stake here is not only your friendship with Triangled, but also your own integrity. You promised you would not hurt someone you cared for. You hurt her anyway. What do you make of that? What would you like to take forward from this, honey bun? Do you want to throw up your hands and say oh well or do you dare to allow this experience to alter your view? We all like to think we’re right about what we believe about ourselves and what we often believe are only the best, most moral things—ie: of course I would never fuck The Foxy Fellow because that would hurt my friend! We like to pretend that our generous impulses come naturally. But the reality is we often become our kindest, most ethical selves only by seeing what it feels like to be a selfish jackass first. It’s the reason we have to fight so viciously over the decapitated head of the black-haired plastic princess before we learn how to play nice; the reason we have to get burned before we understand the power of fire; the reason our most meaningful relationships are so often those that continued beyond the very juncture at which they came the closest to ending. I hope that you’ll do that, dear women, even if it takes you some time to stagger forward. I don’t know if your friendship is built to last a lifetime, but I know the game is worth the candle. I can see you on that ten-years-off porch. Yours, Sugar
0 notes