#treachery sex & contempt

[jeweled-blue-eyes]

Let's adress the elephant in the room: the incest. And by that I do not only mean Medraut's complicated feelings towards Lleu, but his relationship to his mother and how it could be potentially affecting his relationship with his brother.

You see, Medraut is King Arthur's bastard son born of an incestuous relationship with his half-sister, the queen of Orkney. Morgause seduced Artos as a young man in an attempt to babytrap him and make her queen. When this plan failed she tried to raise their son as a weapon against Arthur. But that's not all. The story heavily implies that Medraut himself is also a survivor of sexual abuse and incest at her hands. There is a short story “no human hands to touch” by Elizabeth Wein which goes into detail about Morgause’s grooming and abuse of Medraut. When Medraut kissed Lleu and threatened to have his way with his body, he was trying to scare him. It was a power play. Medraut was trying to be as cruel as everyone else believed him to be, which meant becoming like his mother who is the most terrifying person he has ever known. In that moment Medraut was considering using the same depraved methods his mother had used on him. Medraut doesn't want Lleu's inheritance, not really, "It is your self, your soul that I envy. More than anything I want your birthrigh without shame, your clean lineage." Medraut doesn't want the throne as much as he wants the things associated with Lleu's position as crown prince (most of all his easy claim to their father's love). A bastard can never undo his own birth but he can taint Lleu's self and break his spirit.

What ultimately triggered Medraut's betrayal of Lleu was his accident reveal of Medraut's true parentage in front of Morgause's other children and the profession of his deepest contempt for Medraut when Lleu becomes witness of Morgause's assault on Medraut.

Therefore it is easy to imagine that Medraut would do all the things he had been fantasizing about in secret as a form of revenge once he has Lleu completely at his mercy. "You sneer at me for being a bastard born from incest, what will you do when you become guilty of incest as well? Can I drag you down to hell with me?" might be what went through his mind. You might be surprised to hear this, but I don't think Medraut would actually sink so low as to rape his own brother. He would never forgive himself and would either kill himself afterwards or let himself be killed. Actually, let me rephrase that: he would never violate Lleu in the same way he has been violated as long as he is in his right mind and outside of his mother's influence. The problem is that Medraut was turning increasingly unstable towards the end of the book. Everything came crashing down on him: the illness, the reunion with his abuser, his father's distrust, the horrible accident in the copper mines resulting in the loss of many lives, Lleu's denouncement of him in front of their cousins, the humilation of having the wooden sword held at his throat...

The original plan was that Medraut kidnaps Lleu, intending to turn him over to Morgause, who in turn, plans to trade Lleu's life for the throne. Provided Morgause keeps her word (which I doubt), Lleu would be released once Medraut has been crowned king. I'm convinced that Medraut would make a great king had he ascended the throne under normal circumstances and Lleu raising an army against him would be detrimental to the common folk.

However, since Medraut is trying to usurp the throne through treachery with the help of his mother and turning his back on anyone who has ever had a positive influence on him, I assume that left on his own, he will easily fall back into old habits (sex with Morgause) and Morgause will use this to extend her influence over Medraut, stoking his worst desires and fears to establish herself as his only ally and bind herself to him. An outcome that makes my stomach turn but that I find disturbingly realistic is Morgause marrying Medraut in order to become queen. Exerting control through sexual abuse is her M.O., she did it with his father and now she's doing it with his sons too. Her original plan was to seduce Arthur and make him crown her his queen, the only thing that has changed is that she moved her interest from her brother to his son. I don't doubt it that if Medraut were to become too defiant for her liking, she would dispose of him as soon as she's with child.

Morgause and Medraut would co-rule Camelot and depending on how broken Medraut is, Morgause would be sole ruler while Medraut would merely be king in name/her right hand. It would be an endless battle between him and her. She would behave like a tyrant and Medraut would spend most of his time doing damage control. Although he would finally have his childhood dream fulfilled, he would be deeply unhappy. If Lleu and his army blew down the gates of Camelot, he would welcome his death with open arms. Medraut has taught Lleu anything except how to kill. It would be very poetic if the first human life Lleu takes is that of his brother.

I view Medraut as a very tragedy-coded character who sometimes escapes into constructed narratives and stories in order to make sense of the things that are happening to him. For example in "no human hands to touch" Medraut references Oedipus and Jocasta when Morgause forces him to have sex with her after she had drugged him.

Even if Lleu spared Medraut's life because his experiences made him more understanding of Medraut's circumstances, Medraut would punish himself brutally. I can imagine vividly how he would gouge out his eyes with the needle of Morgauses brooch and then travel through the kingdom as a healer to atone for his crimes. Lleu would become King, beloved by the commoners that had given him shelter when he was in hiding and those who fought side by side with him against Morgause, and he would be a good King to them but the character growth cost him his family and innocence. He'll never be the Lord of Spring again.

But I'm looking too far in the future and presupposing that both Artos and Morgause won't be playing dirty. I don't think Artos would be giving in so easily without attempting to retrieve Lleu through other means (hostage exchange, secret rescue mission, setting up a trap for Medraut). Just as I believe that Morgause won't see this coming and punish Lleu accordingly. Let's not forget that she was very open about her desire to rape Lleu.

I suspect that part of the reason why Medraut didn't turn Lleu over to Morgause was Agravain's reminder about what Morgause was planning to do with Lleu once she has him in her clutches. It would be fear but also possessiveness. “My heart surged with jealousy and fear: and all you did was to look at him”.

In an AU where Medraut wins Morgause would be the only true winner as Medraut suffers. He would be forced to be her puppet king and sex slave. Trapped in a position where he would have to witness his mother inflict the same torture on his brother that he went through as a child and unable to do anything against it. He can't turn his eyes away, she would make him complicit in the abuse too.

Medraut would feel a cross of three different emotions, primarily guilt, which he would drown out by his anger and jealousy of the attention Morgause is giving Lleu, that he would redirect towards his brother.

How much Medraut's soul blackens depends greatly on how sensibly Artos negotiates with him after the kidnapping of Lleu. It's incredibly delusional of him to think taking Artos' heir hostage would make him publically admit his mistakes and mean it. If anything it would cause Artos to abandon Medraut entirely and lure him into a trap where soldiers in hiding are waiting to kill him. The betrayal would break Medraut's heart. His father's ultimate rejection of him would permanently destroy his relationship with Lleu. You can bet after Artos' death Medraut would be projecting all his daddy issues on Lleu.

At first Lleu would fight him ferociously, as he has fought him on anything. Soon these periods of rebellions would be punctuated by episodes of depression and suicidal ideation. But after a certain amount of time filled with struggle and punishments he would submit, or at least pretend to submit and bid his time until he saw a chance for escape.

The first months of imprisonment by Morgause would be pure torture for Lleu. Solitary confinement, sexual violence, attempted mindbreak, medical torture are on the daily schedule. Even if Morgause were to keep her word and release Lleu once she's finished with him, any man surviving this ordeal would only be a hallow shell of his former self. I don't think Morgause would be stupid enough to let the trueborn heir run around making alliances with powerful noble houses and kings beyond the sea while her bastard son is working hard to gain legitimacy and get the local lords on his side. Pretending to keep up her end of the deal, she would use a slow working poison on Lleu that builds up in his body until it kills him a few months after his release or the torture she has subjected him to would have taken such a toll on his body and mind that he would never be able to lead an army. BUT! That kind of scenario is too bleak for me that's why I'm moving to another! 😃

Remember how I mentioned earlier how Morgause views her son as an extension of herself and her nephew as an extension of her brother and how Medraut hurting Lleu would be as if she were to do the same things to Artos? I could imagine that Morgause would find Medraut's hypocricy endlessly entertaining. Her son condemns the incest between her and Artos (and himself) yet he lusts after his younger brother and is choking on his own jealousy just like she did. She would force Medraut to rape Lleu in order to destroy their bond, to rip his eyes open to the truth that they were both birds of a feather and make Lleu lose faith in his brother's goodness.

Medraut realizes if he continues to fuck Lleu he could spare him alot of pain. He is caught between a rock and a hard place. It's either him or Morgause. He doesn't really have a choice. If he calls Lleu to his bedchambers at night then he has ensured that Lleu is not alone and vulnerable to Morgause and Morgause would tolerate this kind of protection to a certain extend, because to her it's a sign of beautiful corruption that has taken root in Medraut's heart.

(and when Medraut and Lleu grow even closer she gets jealous of course.)

Maybe they have fucked up threesomes together and Lleu and Medraut bond over their shared trauma. If Morgause thought it would destroy their bond then she would be only partially correct. Something between them broke but the broken pieces were forced together incorrectly again and it changed them fundamentally. They are now closer than before. Observing how Morgause treats her son in private would give Lleu the chance to reflect on his past actions towards Medraut and emphatize with his situation. Although he would never excuse his crimes, he would feel very sorry that these things happened to Medraut and beseech him to be better than his mother.

Morgause wouldn't be succeeding in killing Lleu's spark of fighting spirit completely and it's mainly Medraut's merit for holding his protective hand over Lleu when he can. I don't think that Lleu would break in the same way as Medraut broke under Morgause's torture given that contrary to Lleu Medraut was given to Morgause as a child and lacked familial love, but he would develop some kind of stockholm syndrome/captive-captive bonding with Medraut where he yearns for his comfort but also has moments of explosive anger and emotional outbursts that manifest itself in physical violence pointed at Medraut. In an unguarded moment Lleu would stab Medraut with a fork and Medraut would respond the same way he always had with mockery, threats, another violation of his bounderies, drugs or withdrawl of help. They would be deadly towards each other if left alone for too long. It's Morgause's dangerous presence and Medraut's distate for her cruel machinations that make him take on the role of the protector again.

The following quote summarized their relationship very well:

The brothers enter a vicious cycle where Morgause hurts Lleu and Medraut rushed to his help and heals him, but he enjoys his role as the sadistic caretaker too much. Justifying doing things he shouldn't be doing, causing Lleu to either resign him to his fate or lash out in his hopelessness and suffer the consequences: Morgause's punishment and Medraut's inaction.

Some day when Morgause has tested something particulary nasty on Lleu, I can see Medraut offering himself up to Morgause from time to time to lessen Lleu's pain just like back then when he was becoming Morgause's test subject in the stead of the children of the servants that she'd been poisoning in pursuit of her research.

Lleu turning suicidal a few weeks after imprisonment would be another turning point for Medraut. I don't know if it would be enough for Medraut to help Lleu escape since he's aware the foundation of his power is Lleu's submission. He burned all bridges and cannot go back to his family. And if his father is dead or he is dead to him what is stopping Medraut from acting on his urges? Another reason why he might hesitate to let go of Lleu is that he is lonely and Lleu keeps him sane. Medraut letting Lleu go would mean accepting that they would see each other again at the battlefield and would have to kill each other. It'd be their last dance.

A way that could lead to this particular ending could be Medraut making occasionally bets and competitions with Lleu in exchange for something he wants, which could provide him with crucial information and guide him to his escape. Lleu's freedom vs total obedience would be their final bet with the highest stakes and perhaps Medraut would lose this one on purpose.

#I got a bit carried away hehe ૮ ˶ᵔ ᵕ ᵔ˶ ა #the winter prince #medlleu #headcanons #tw sa mention #tw child abuse mention #question asked by yono in my dm's but the answer far outgrew the word limit

[convenientalias]

As I contemplate Hwi/Seon-ho/Bang-won tonight and try to write fic, I just have to pause to ramble about the component ships and how different and excellent they are.

Like, Hwi/Seon-ho? A friends to lovers ship that is also enemies to lovers. The fact that they have all these canonical beats that could easily be “miscommunications” but actually they tend to understand each other very well. Hwi gets that Seon-ho probably had reasons for getting him drafted and it’s probably his dad’s fault and Seon-ho probably still cares about him; he also gets that despite this, Seon-ho’s still being a dick and Nam Jeon is worse and Yeon’s in danger and so he’s still gonna go fuck shit up. Seon-ho understands exactly why Hwi is targeting his dad and even agrees with his reasons but Nam Jeon is still his main source of power and he’s not ready for Hwi to ruin that for him. (Okay canonically I know he says he just wants Nam Jeon’s downfall to be of Epic Proportions but can we all agree that was bullshit? That was bullshit.) They have their own separate goals and even though they’re constantly Pining, they’re never prioritizing their relationship at the same time as each other and so they’re ships passing in the night. The instant they don’t have opposing goals they get really gung-ho about being friends again. A ship of missed opportunities. A ship of lifelong longing and mutual sacrifice and also a lot of resentment and messiness. Beautiful, superb.

Hwi/Bang-won? The loyalty kink that wasn’t. Two people who genuinely respect each other and are fond of each other and also an inch away from betraying each other and aware of that fact bc they’ve both been betrayed in the past. Hwi makes a moving speech about how Bang-won’s country will be “the country of the abandoned”, and Bang-won says these words have saved him and his friends and accepts him as his man... but it’s hard to say how much Hwi means what he says when what he really wants is just for Bang-won to topple Nam Jeon, country’s future be damned, and Bang-won despite his supposed welcome immediately sends out men to investigate whether or not Hwi’s a spy, which Hwi actually IS. Even when Hwi does end up working for Bang-won it’s first to destroy Nam Jeon and then to protect his friends, never so much because of a shared vision or bc he’s loyal to Bang-won personally. And he’s willing to lie to Bang-won if he has to even before he discovers Bang-won’s treachery (as seen when he hides Seon-ho after Seon-ho’s failed assassination attempt). And Bang-won really likes Hwi but is also watching his back like a hawk bc of his past with Seo Geom. Bc yeah, he killed Hwi’s father! Just your average prince/warrior ship, nothing to see here, carry on. AND YET. Despite the lack of real loyalty here, these two still had something and you want to believe in it, and when it breaks, it hurts. 

Then there’s Seon-ho/Bang-won, a ship of hate sex and power struggles lols. Okay actually I think Seon-ho and Bang-won have really interesting parallels. The terrible fathers. The dead mothers. The ambition to create a better world, an ambition strong enough to drive them to commit terrible acts (...though admittedly these are sometimes pushed on them by the above terrible fathers). The fact that they are both pining for Hwi. If these two ever had a conversation about, like, their lives and moral principles, it would be really interesting, and yet Seon-ho DESPISES Bang-won (partly bc Bang-won is a threat to him personally, partly bc of Bang-won’s vendetta against bastards etc.) and the two are constantly at odds (and Seon-ho is always losing lols, poor Seon-ho). But Bang-won doesn’t actually hate Seon-ho? He spares his life bc he sees himself in him; even when he does almost kill Seon-ho, he tells Seon-ho to rest as if it’s an act of mercy. He pities Seon-ho, maybe is even a little impressed by him at times, and wants to offer him mercy, but ultimately he can’t do that if it’s at the expense of achieving his own goals. And he’s not going to admit to feeling anything but contempt for him until it’s too late, probably partly bc he knows Seon-ho wouldn’t exactly take it well, partly bc it wouldn’t change anything, and partly bc he has his own pride too--this is a shameless, power-hungry bastard who is everything Bang-won stands against, and for Bang-won to see him as a mirror... It’s fascinating and anyways I just think Bang-won looming over Seon-ho is hot and they should do more of that and also they should fuck.

Anyways they’re all great, thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

#my country the new age #i like writing a bang won that gets madder at seon ho than canon tho #bc it's funny

[fuckthe10essays]

Love and the corruption of love is a major theme in Othello.

As far as the major themes in Othello go; Jealously, revenge, infidelity, love is quite possibly the one that stands out the most. Love and the utter corruption of it of course. Unlike real life today where people sometimes spend their entire lives searching for ‘true love’ and believing it to be the cure all to all their problems, Othello takes love and shows us the many, many ways in which to warp it and turn it against people. In this play love is not a thing to be celebrated but a thing to be feared and above all something that is expected not to last. For Venetian society in the 15th century did not equate love and marriage and our token villain Iago is a perfect example of what that can do to a person. Love and the subsequent corruption of it is a major theme in this play and in this essay, I will go into detail as to why.

There is perhaps no other relationship in this play that embodies both love and the corruption of love as well as Desdemona and Othello’s relationship does. In the beginning we see Desdemona defying her father and choosing to elope with Othello instead. But by the end of the play both Desdemona and Othello are dead. How could such a happy and loving couple end up on the same deathbed together after only being married a short while? The answer is Iago, and his willful corruption of their love for each other, specifically Othello’s adoration for Desdemona. With Iago’s jealousy and insatiable appetite for revenge it was only a matter of time before their relationship became compromised. Othello loved Desdemona completely and Desdemona loved him to the very end. Even when he was suffocating her, she tried to absolve him ‘Nobody; I myself; Farewell.’ Iago’s skillful manipulation of Othello wreaked havoc on his mind and his sense. Othello believed Iago when presented of the handkerchief as ‘proof’ in the hands of Cassio. This led to the death of Desdemona by Othello’s hands and an attempt on Cassio’s life. Her love for him was so strong and so true that even when Othello hit her, was rude to her, belittled her in front of her family and accused her of being a whore she still loved him. Whether this is an admirable thing or not is a different question, but Desdemona’s love stayed true to Othello through it all. It was Iago’s corruption of Othello’s mind that led to the downfall of their marriage and the eventual end of their lives. Othello ends up killing Desdemona, convinced that she is unfaithful to him with Cassio. Emilia reveals the truth about Iago’s schemes and professes Desdemona’s innocence. At this Othello kills himself, not being able to bear the weight of her unneeded death on his shoulders. One couple went from unbridled happiness and love to marriage of mistrust and lies all because of one person's hell-bent desire for revenge. This is a commentary on how little it takes to sow the seeds of doubt into someone’s mind and just how easy it is for one person to ruin so many lives for a petty jealousy.

Perhaps the first inkling of the possible corruption of love we got in Othello was at the beginning of the play in act 1 scene 3. Desdemona has chosen Othello over her father; Brabantio and the duke has allowed them both to go the Cyprus together. Brabantio reacted badly to the news of his daughter's elopement, disowning her straight after. ‘I had rather adopt a child then get it.’ When the duke gets up to leave Brabantio says to Othello ‘Look to her Moor, if thou hast eyes to see; She hath deceived her father and may thee.’ Brabantio implies that because Desdemona has gone behind his back and ‘betrayed’ him that she may do the same to Othello. It is a comment meant to remain in Othello’s mind making him question Desdemona’s faithfulness to him. And it succeeds in doing just that. Brabantio sowed the first seed of doubt into Othello’s mind about Desdemona and Iago just worked off of it. He, to keep with the metaphor, watered the seed continuously with false facts and insinuations about Desdemona and Cassio. It was this off the cuff comment that allowed for the further corruption of love and happiness that would follow thanks to Iago.

Keeping in reference to the title an example of love, few and far between as they may be, is Desdemona choosing Othello to love over her father. In a valiant display of loyalty and admiration Desdemona publicly chooses her new husband Othello over her controlling father Brabantio. ‘You are the lord of duty; I am hitherto your daughter: but here’s my husband.’ Desdemona eloped with Othello behind her father’s back and bravely declared her love for him in front of the duke of Venice. Brabantio was disbelieving at first of Othello’s story of how he wooed Desdemona ‘she is abused, stolen from me and corrupted by spells and medicines bought of mountebanks.’ But after he heard Desdemona verify how they fell in love ‘She loved me for the dangers I had passes and I loved her that she did pity them.’ he promptly disowned her ‘I had rather to adopt a child then get it.’ Desdemona has made her choice, her husband over her father. So, when the Duke tells Othello that he must leave for Cyprus to stop the impending Turks, Desdemona asks the Duke to allow her to go to. ‘Let me go with him.’ The duke has just heard from Desdemona how she fell in love with Othello and how distraught she would be if Othello had to leave her behind, so he allows her to accompany him. Desdemona and her courage have won over the duke of Venice but not her father. But she has made her choice and stands by it every step of the play, even when Othello gets heavy handed and infatuated with jealousy. This act of love is one of the few in the play and stands by Desdemona in the making of her character. It is a nice moment in the play, to see her do something for herself, even if we know how bad it will end up.

A very good example of platonic love being corrupted is Rodrigo’s relationship with Iago. I could have used the word friendship, but I genuinely do not believe that any aspect of their relationship could be chalked up to friendship. Rodrigo is an enamored, spineless twit who is blinded by his hapless love for Desdemona and has more jewels than he does sense. Iago sees this and takes advantage from the very beginning of the play. Iago uses Rodrigo’s crush on Desdemona to entice him to come to Cyprus and tells him that Desdemona will inevitably become bored with Othello. ‘Put money in thy purse; follow these wars; defeat thy favour with a usurped beard I say, put money in thy purse. It cannot be that Desdemona should long continue her love to the Moor, put money in thy purse, nor he his to her.’ This allows Iago to use Rodrigo’s money to fund his schemes. Alas Rodrigo does not cop onto Iago plot to bleed him dry until act 4 scene 2. In this scene he is aware of how Iago is using him and will not allow it to go on any longer ‘I will indeed no longer endure it.’ and tells Iago that he’s done with his excuses. ‘Faith, I have heard too much, for your words and performances are no kin together.’ But Iago wins him back by saying that if Rodrigo does not have sex with Desdemona, he can kill him ‘if thou the next night following enjoy not Desdemona, take me from this world with treachery and devise engines for my life.’ Iago then drags him into the plot to kill Cassio. ‘Wherein none can be determinate as the removing of Cassio.’ ‘And that you would have me do.’ In Rodrigo’s only scene of standing up for himself he allows himself to be dragged down even deeper by Iago. In the end Iago betrays Rodrigo, stabs him mortally and blames Cassio’s attack on him. Rodrigo meets a sorry end due to Iago constant and incessant manipulation of Rodrigo and the utter corruption of any platonic love they may have shared.

A perfect case of the corruption of love in Othello has to do with the husband-and-wife duo of Iago and Emilia. Take Iago, he is a murdering, racist misogynist who has no qualms about using people for his own gain, least of all his wife, and is completely apathetic to all of the pain he causes. He has no love for his wife and repeatedly uses her for his own schemes, the biggest example of this being the handkerchief debacle. Iago told Emilia to steal Desdemona’s handkerchief, a very important gift from Othello, so he could use it to implicate Cassio and Desdemona in a nonexistent affair. Emilia loves her lady and didn’t suspect that Iago was planning on using the handkerchief for bad and gave it to him. ‘What will you give me now?’ ‘For that same handkerchief?’ Iago was very crass to Emilia ‘It is a common thing to have a foolish wife.’ and wouldn’t give it back when Emilia asked. Iago is a truly terrible husband who cannot even afford thanks to those who help him. He believes rumours that Othello has slept with Emilia but doesn’t ask his wife if they are true or not. He has no love or appreciation for anyone other than himself and is simply fine with ruining lives and corrupting love. In the end Iago murdered Emilia for speaking out the truth against him in front of Othello. He stabbed his wife for ending his sick mind games and showed the true dept of his contempt and utter lack of love for her.

On the other hand, Emilia suffers greatly from the corruption of love in her life and around her. Her husband Iago is a violent, detestable character with a penchant for corrupting everything he sees and touches, including, but not limited to, their marriage. She is above all an obedient person, to both Iago and Desdemona, which will bring about her demise. Emilia wants to please her husband. She does this by stealing the handkerchief and giving it to him ‘What will you give me now?’ ‘For that same handkerchief?’ Iago uses this as the one solid piece of ‘evidence’ for Desdemona and Cassio’s affair, which effectively signed both their death warrants. Emilia seems to want to be faithful to her husband. Even though one of Iago’s motives for starting this whole mess was that he believed the rumour that Othello had slept with Emilia. Even stranger is that when Desdemona was questioning Emilia if wives would really be unfaithful to their husbands Emilia replied with ‘Who would not make her husband a cuckhold to make him a monarch.’ This shows that Emilia would be willing to cheat on Iago but still remains obedient to his will. Emilia looks for love and approval from Iago but seldom gets it. In the last scene Iago stabs Emilia fatally after she exposed him and all of his lies in the presence of Othello. Emilia dies next to Desdemona after having defended her honour and sentencing Iago to his painful fate.

In conclusion I agree with the title love and the corruption of it is a major theme in Othello, although there may be more of the latter going on than the first. At the beginning of this play love is so present that it’s unavoidable but, in the end, it was the subsequent corruption of love that led to so many people losing their lives. Iago himself is a corrupt individual who has no love or appreciation for anyone other than himself. Maybe if he allowed himself to be loved or even extended the courtesy to others, possibly his wife, less of these tragic events would have occurred.  

[erenmortel]

Same-sex Marriage and its Ignoble Ban on the Supreme Court: An Argumentative Essay

The petition to legalize same-sex marriage, led by Jesus Nicardo Falcis III, has been junked by the Supreme Court with "finality." The reason for this denial was due to the fact that the said motion "has unsubstantial arguments, lack of legal standing, violation of the principle of hierarchy of courts and failure to raise and actual, justifiable, controversy." The Supreme Court should recognize and legalize same-sex marriage because it is not restricted on the 1987 Constitution and it is a basic human right.

To elaborate, the 1987 Constitution does not define or restrict marriage on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. Article XV, The Family, section 2, states that, "Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the state and shall be protected by the state." Though they did acknowledge this in their court summary, the denial of the petition directly goes against the 1987 Constitution, and it can almost be seen as xenophobic and immoral. Despite this, the LGBT Community's couples who want to be civilly married still cannot be legally recognized and they do not gain the privilege of married heterosexual couples under the Family Code of the Philippines.

Likewise, the 1st and 2nd article of the Family Code only recognizes a civil and religious partnership between a man and a woman, as claimed by Falcis in the court summary. However, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations states that, "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." The Philippines, ever since 1945, has been affiliated with the United Nations. Naturally, the political obligation of the country and its implementation through laws must have a legal binding effect between the parties that have agreed to them. From this perspective, we can infer that same-sex marriage falls between legality and it is within the full range of protection due to human rights.

On the contrary, even though same-sex marriage has every right to be legal, the fault in all this falls on technical grounds. Same-sex marriage has been dismissed by the high court due to the fact that the petitioner did not prepare the case well and was also found guilty of contempt of court. To think that dismissing the petition as agreeable is acceptable. This is due to the fact that the case, as presented with the facts, is only final for this particular case (hence "with finality"). This does not mean to say that I am against same-sex marriage (as a self-identified homosexual, that's treachery), it simply means that, for this case, if I were to argue against it, I would state that this could give way to another petition case with better facts and petitioners.

In brief, same-sex marriage, being reasoned as a basic human right and not a restriction to the 1987 Constitution, should be legalized and recognized by the Supreme Court. As has been noted, Family in the 1987 Constitution has only been described as being 'an inviolable social institution,' while the Family Code explicitly states that marriage is between a man and a woman, as to which Falcis supposed was unconstitutional. Furthermore, the UDHR statement gives full legitimacy to the petition that sought to strike down the prohibitions against same-sex marriage under the Family Code, although failed as the declaration of unconstitutionality proved to be unsubstantial. Case in point, if continued to be fought for, the LGBT Community will not stop pushing for their rights to live, to love, and to marry.

#non journal #essay

[omginstantpaperbouquetblr]

By David William Pear. January 17, 2018

[Photo:  President of South Korea Moon Jae-in, Image by from Wikipedia]

[First published by The Greanville Post, revised January 17, 2018]

Fearing that peace might break out with the two Koreas talking to each other, Washington instructed South Korean President Moon Jae-in to keep the message about anything but peace. It is not just Trump. A former top official for the Obama administration warned Moon that South Korea was not going to get anywhere with the North Koreans unless they have the "US behind them". Humiliating, that is like saying that Moon's "button" is not as big as Kim's. The metaphor is exactly how the Washington elite see South Korea: as Washington's obedient eunuch. The official went on to say, "If South Koreans are viewed as running off the leash, it will exacerbate tension within the alliance". Running off the leash! Now more humiliation, is South Korea a US poodle?  Instead President Moon Jae-in is showing that he has teeth, and that South Koreans want their country back from US humiliating domination.

During the talks it was agreed for North Korea to participate in the Winter Olympics in February.  The two countries will even march together under a common flag, and future talks between the two are planned to reduce tension. Trump continues to bluster, while the two Koreas have “engaged in the most substantive direct talks in years”. Neocons such as John Bolton are outraged that North Korea has proven once again that it is willing to come to the negotiation table. Bolton says it is a dirty trick and that North Korea is "taking advantage of a weak South Korean government", adding more insulting humiliation. To Washington, South Korea talking peace is weak, running off the leash and going it alone without its US master. The North using the peace option is seen as a provocation and propaganda that Washington will not tolerate. In retaliation the US sent more nukes to Guam, and put the state of Hawaii on a full alert that a "ballistic missile was inbound". The nukes outbound to Guam are real; the ones inbound to Hawaii were fake, just like the ability of the billion dollar THAADS to shoot them down. Too conveniently the Hawaii false alarm comes just as the US and its vassals are readying for what the US plots to be a show of solidarity and unity on killer sanctions against North Korea. The US wants its chorus to perform the tragedy of telling North Korea to obey or watch 500,000 of their children die. As Madeleine Albright said about Iraq's 500,000 dead children from US sanctions, "the price is worth it". The US does not think the price of diplomacy is worth it though.

The US continues to block efforts at diplomacy, and express its contempt for South Korea's elected President Moon Jae-in. He was elected on a peace platform by the South Korean people. Moon's predecessor Park Geun-hye sang from the US hymnbook until she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. In 2017 the South Korean people went to the street and demanded the granddaughter of former dictator Park Chung Hee be impeached, and now she is in prison. Peace is not anything that Washington's plutocrats want to hear, although the South Korean people like the sound of it, and elected Moon their president by a wide margin. The self-interests in Washington preferred the corrupt warmonger Park. She carried the US's tune with perfect pitch, even (allegedly) conspired to assassinate the North's Kim Jong-Un. The message of the humiliation from US apparatchiks is that if Moon does not change his tune the US will try to undermine South Korea's democracy with a regime change project might be in his future. The US habitually meddles in other's elections, and wants to keep tensions high on the Korean peninsula, keep the South Koreans in line, make North Korea a boogeyman, frighten the American people, station 30,000 US troops in South Korea with wartime operational control, buy more multi-billion dollar THAADS from Lockheed Martin, and divide the Korean people. Even at the risks of a nuclear war, which the US proposes making easier.

The establishment nearly went to war with North Korea in 1994 until Bill Clinton negotiated peace. The neocons in Washington and the mainstream media keep saying that North Korea refused to come to the negotiating table. Clinton's decision to use diplomacy instead of threats proved the warmongers wrong again. It was the US all along that refused to talk, preferring belligerence and threats just as it does now. Once Clinton showed a willingness to bargain, then a nuclear deal was struck. The deal was called the Agreed Framework. What North Korea wanted then for it to suspend its nuclear program was for the US to halt the massive military exercises on North Korea's border, a non-aggression guarantee, compensation for abandoning its needed electric producing nuclear reactors, and relations with the US. Now the situation with North Korea is back to where it was in 1994. George W. Bush reversed the path of peace when he came into the White House. In 2001 he tore up the Agreed Framework, put North Korea on the Axis of Evil list in 2002, invaded Iraq in 2003, and hanged Saddam Hussein in 2006. Very predictably North Korea resumed its nuclear program for self-defense against a paranoid and unpredictable USA that sees enemies to attack under every bed.

Bush scrapped the Agreed Framework, and told then South Korean President Kim Dae-jung that future talks with North Korea were dead. Kim Dae-jung had come to visit Bush shortly after winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his Sunshine Policies of peace with North Korea. Instead of welcoming President Kim and his peace efforts, Bush humiliated him by shockingly calling North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-il a dwarf. North Korea predictably withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 and resumed work on its nuclear program. A month later Bush called out North Korea to pay particular attention to Libya as an example of how a country is welcomed into the international community when it unilaterally gives up its nuclear defense program. North Korea paid attention and it was listening when Muammar Gaddafi said in a 2008 speech that "one of these days America may hang us like they did Saddam ". In 2011 Gaddafi met a brutal death at the hands of US proxies; he was anally raped with a bayonet and left to rot on public display in a meat locker. Before Gaddafi's corpse was even cold a hysterically glowing Hillary Clinton cackled "we came, we saw, he died", hahaha". Now fast forward to 2018 and the US is threatening war against North Korea again.

The US has been abusing Korea since 1871 when it first invaded it with an expeditionary force of Marines to forcibly open trade. Korea just wanted to be left alone, but the US forced Korea to sign an exclusive trade treaty in 1882 at the point of a gun. In exchange for that unequal trade agreement the US promised Korea protection. In 1910 the US proved that its promise was worthless. Instead of protection, President Theodore Roosevelt stabbed Korea in the back by conspiring with Japan. Roosevelt had enthusiastically supported Japan in the Russo-Japanese War. Japan pre-emptively attacked the Russian fleet at Port Arthur in a sneak attack. Teddy congratulated Japan for their brilliance...in 1941 his nephew Franklin would call a Japanese sneak attack "a day of infamy". After Japan and Russia ground down to a bloody stalemate, Japan secretly appealed to Teddy to open negotiations. Roosevelt acted as a (dis)honest broker in negotiating the Treaty of Portsmouth, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Japan won the spoils of the war. Roosevelt had a secret deal that Japan could have Korea and the US would take the Philippines. In 1945 the US deceived Korea again. Instead of liberating Korea from the Japanese occupation, the US occupied Korea for 3 more years until 1948 and then blocked its independence. The US was largely responsible for the division of Korea and backing dictatorships in South Korea until 1993. Americans do not know the US treachery, but Koreans do. Why would they trust the USA now?

In order to understand North Korea, one must start with the "anticolonial and anti-imperial state growing out of a half-century of Japanese colonial rule and a half-century of continuous confrontation with a hegemonic United States", as Bruce Cumings writes in his book North Korea: Another Country. In order to understand South Korea one should take a similar approach. The Japanese colonization of Korea in 1910 was greeted with cheers from the USA. Teddy Roosevelt encouraged Japan to have its own Japanese Monroe Doctrine for Northeast Asia. The Japanese were harsh rulers, and Koreans remember colonial times as a national humiliation. Under the Japanese the Korean economy grew rapidly, but Koreans will rightly argue that little of it helped the average Korean. Like the Korean "comfort women" sex slaves during World War Two, Koreans were forced to obey their Japanese masters. Some Koreans complied reluctantly, some willingly and some enthusiastically. Many, but not all of the enthusiastic collaborators came from the landed aristocratic class of Koreans known as the yangban. Other collaborators were traitors that saw advancing their economic and social status by collaborating. After the division of Korea in 1945 many of the yangban class and collaborators fled to the South where they felt safe with the US occupation army, and for good reasons. The North was redistributing the yangban's vast landholdings. Many of the yangban and collaborators were safer in the US occupied south. Some went on to achieve leadership in business and government in South Korea. For instance, the future South Korean dictator Park Chung-hee (from 1963 until his assassination in 1979) had collaborated with the Japanese as a lieutenant in the Japanese army in Manchuria fighting against the Korean resistance fighters.

Korea has a long history of thousands of years. It united as one people in the 7th century and remained so until after World War Two. The US had started planning for the occupation of Korea six months after Pearl Harbor, according to Bruce Cumings. The day after Japan surrendered a future Secretary of State Dean Rusk drew a line at the 38th Parallel where the US proposed that Korea be divided, and the Russian allies agreed. Thousands of Koreans protested in the streets. They were told that a trusteeship was temporary until elections. Instead the US feared that the people would elect a communist government, and so they rigged a fraudulent election for a separate government in the South. The United Nations rubber stamped it. As in the South, the North then held separate elections for the Supreme People's Assembly which then elected Kim Il Sung, a famous anti-Japanese guerilla resistance leader since 1932. The US and South Korean propaganda portray that North Korea was a puppet and satellite project of the Soviet Union. This is probably the US projecting its own imperial intentions. Cummings says that no evidence exists that the Soviets had any long-term designs on Korea. They withdrew all of their military from North Korea in 1948.

North Korea has experience with US brutality. During the Korean War the US bombed Korea for 3 years, wiped out 20% of its population and destroyed every city, village and vital structure. President Truman threatened to bomb them with the atomic bomb, and General Douglas MacArthur planned to use 30 nuclear bombs which were shipped to a US base in Okinawa. Truman fired MacArthur not because MacArthur wanted to use nukes, but because Truman wanted someone more loyal he could trust with them. Truman preauthorized MacArthur's replacement General Matthew Ridgeway to use the nuclear bombs at his discretion. The US public is oblivious to US recklessness with nuclear bombs and is passive about what is done in their name. The Korean War (1950 to 1953) is called the Forgotten War because the US public has amnesia. Whatever propaganda they do remember is a flawed version of history put out by the US government. Oblivious, passive and amnesia are why all US wars of aggression are quickly forgotten as the US moves on to the next one.

After the US military occupation of South Korea from 1945 to 1948, South Korea was ruled by US backed repressive dictators until the first democratic election in 1993.  The first despot that the US installed was Syngman Rhee in 1948. Rhee was a practically unknown in Korea because he had lived in the USA from 1912 until 1945, when he was flown back to Korea by the US military. The US pumped billions of dollars into South Korea to make it a showplace of US-style capitalism during the Cold War, but South Korea did not develop under either democracy or a free market, according to Ha-Joon Chang, the author of Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism.

For many decades North Korea outpaced South Korea in economic development and in their standard of living until the 1970’s. With the 1991 demise of its most important trading partner the Soviet Union, North Korea fell on very hard economic times. Then it suffered two floods and a drought in the 1990's that resulted in famines. On top of that the US has imposed killer economic sanctions. So now US propaganda constantly reinforces the belief that North Korea is an economic failure that cannot even feed its own people. While the US touts that South Korea is an economic miracle of democracy, capitalism and free markets. Little is ever mentioned about the economic collapse of South Korea in 1997, which the US had to rescue with a financial bailout package that reached $90 Billion. The package included IMF loans that came with humiliating conditionalities of austerity. The minister of finance Lim Chang Yuel went on TV, humiliated and begging for the South Korean people's forgiveness.

Despite all the propaganda otherwise, North Korea is not only willing to sit down at the table with the US, but it has long been proposing negotiations to a deaf USA ear. What North Korea says it wants today are the same things that were negotiated with Clinton in the Agreed Framework: security, compensation, and economic relations with the US. There is nothing unreasonable that North Korea is asking for, and that is probably why the US refuses to negotiate. It does not want peace for its own insane naked imperialism reasons. Instead the US wants continued hostilities; otherwise if it wanted peace it would welcome diplomacy.

It is the US that is unpredictable. One day Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says that the US is willing to hold unconditional talks with North Korea. Then he says the US won't. Trump says that he will destroy North Korea with fire and fury, and then he says he would "absolutely talk to North Korea's Kim on the phone". It is the US that is paranoid and finding enemies everywhere: Cuba, Afghanistan, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, and Russia to name just a few. The US enemies list has nothing to do with democracy, freedom and human rights. If it did the US would not be friends, allies, and benefactors to brutal kingdoms, monarchies, dictators, fascists and human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Honduras, Haiti, and Ukraine, for example. US foreign policy is based on hegemony, empire, power, corporate interests, corruption and self-interests of the high and mighty, not democracy and human rights.

Who is paranoid?  Compare how much of a threat the US is compared to North Korea. Since World War Two North Korea has not invaded anybody. The Korean War (1950 to 1953) was a civil war and authoritative historians such as I. F. Stone, Bruce Cumings, and David Halberstam agree that the South was responsible for instigating it too. Korea itself has not invaded anybody since the 16th century. The US has attacked at least 32 countries just since WW2. North Korea has a defense budget of only $7.5 billion, compared to the US $1 Trillion. North Korea has developed nuclear weapons because the US has been threatening it with nuclear destruction since 1950, introduced nuclear weapons into South Korea in 1957 in violation of the armistice agreement and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US keeps practicing regime change decapitation invasions and nuclear attacks against North Korea. North Korea has an estimated arsenal of 20 nuke bombs that are not a threat to the US's 15,000 nuclear arsenal. Instead the US is an asymmetrical and existential threat to North Korea and every other non-compliant small country. North Korea has nuclear weapons because it does not want to humiliate itself by being a US poodle.  When are the American people going to wise up to the US propaganda and false cries that the evil wolf is at the door again?

References:

"North Korea: Another Country", by Bruce Cumings.

"The China Mirage: The Hidden History of American Disaster in Asia," by James Bradley.

"Korean Mind: Understanding Contemporary Korean Culture", by Boye Lafayette De Mente

---

David is a progressive columnist writing on economic, political and social issues. His articles have been published by OpEdNews, The Greanville Post, The Real News Network, Truth Out, Consortium News, Global Research, and many other publications.   David is active in social issues relating to peace, race and religious relations, homelessness and equal justice. David is a member of Veterans for Peace, Saint Pete for Peace, CodePink, and International Solidarity Movement.

from Home http://ift.tt/2mY0n0n

#NEWS

[snezoc]

Meander

Oh absurdity of life, long have you remain hidden to me behind a veil, sneaking and snooping about, circling me with naught visible but the crest of your chasing fin.. Thou hath caught up to me. Update after update I have begun to write but soon the thoughts are abandoned and, along with them, the post itself. There is much to be covered but no centralized ideas, no focal points or specific heart-renders; rather, there are a slew of ideas pressing forward, lonely thoughts desperately needing acknowledgment and love. My emotional state; how is it? If I think about it, fair but relative. It is too easy to trespass the parameters in which we place our goals in. I am still rather volatile at times, unpredictable and unsure, lacking confidence in myself. I will realize this, brush it off with one hand telling my self next time will be different, and accordingly forget about the entire haughty affair. Good! You have identified your misgivings. Now what will you do? Will you identify and then no more? Or will you not assure that you do not repeat yourself? Doing solely the former is pointless, it's like knowing you have a flat tire but being too lazy to fix it. So. It is apparent that you can't to the latter without the former, and if you can only do the former you might as well just continue being unstable. Being self-aware is simply just not enough. Indeed, forcing up to the surface the reasons for the illness is not enough to cure it; why then, have I not done so? It is a difficult and puzzling process. In the heat of battle, emotions can fly off the handle like hot oil flies off a pan, and then, it seems no matter how hard you try those pathetic little vices emerge and squeeze the life out of those virtues you endeavor to instill in yourself after long introspection. Those vices - anger, anxiety, fear, dread, misery, selfishness - contemptible, frightening things. Why are they frightening? Consider the parasite. It has one purpose: to bore out a hole in its unsuspecting host and inhabit him, invoking feelings of insane discomfort and displeasure - and our poor host, oblivious to the source of his suffering - is none the wiser, he welters and writhes all about in vain attempts to dislodge the intruder... He is terrified because he is aware of the devilish pest and all of its treachery.. and his terror is mirrored ten-fold because, at least to his knowledge, nothing can be done. But lo, something can be done! Can not the man, rather than being held prisoner by his accursed beast, crying before it or otherwise hoping for things to get better soon, actively research ways to uproot the thing, or find out ways to deal with the immense pain? Similarly, those negative emotions you harbor, instead of letting them feed off you without fear of reprisal, can you not take better measures to ensure their subjection? When a bitter emotion creeps up on you, when you feel the cold running up your spine and entering your heart.. Stop. Really. Pretend like you can manipulate time on a whim, and freeze. Cease all emotion for for a brief moment only - harken back to those memories where serenity burrowed deep within - those moments where the vacuity of hate formed a void; and rushing to fill this void was a wholesome resplendence called serenity. The autumn sun and those fluttering flakes of white, the golden leaves and the cool air; the vast blue ocean and a horizon sponged with wonderful purple and orange; a dark room, a vanilla bean candle, and a thunderstorm; those divine memories of yours. Simple experiences of tranquility they may be, but there is a fundamental truth to them: that the most delightful scenery is a composition of harmonious elements; we love nature like this because we revel in natures balance, it's melodic brilliance. That is why it is important to bring at once those thoughts of nature into our mind when we begin to feel at odds with it. Nature is never angry, or jealous, or scornful or anxious of haughty: it is indifferent. Be indifferent. Be cognizant. Be nature. Now, we have only just begun to scratch the surface. My relationships are plagued with what I feel like is inauthenticity. Real emotion, conversation, interest, care, support, are rarely shown, and it seems as thought most of my ties to people are mainly for selfish reasons, leaving myself to wonder: what's really the point? These relationships are not helping me to grow, learn more about myself, learn more about the other person, learn to empathize and care for them. A profound, infuriatingly difficult question I have been wrestling with: is it my fault, or the other persons, or are we both guilty? Have I allowed my relationships to be built on a foundation of mutual trust and honesty, or are they built merely for passing the time or simply just getting by? This is a extremely important question that I must prod at frequently. Recently, I made a bold move: delete all of the social media connecting me to my friends. It's been about two days since I did that and so far I am enjoying it. I don't feel tied down to constantly check my phone to trivial conversations with people I don't really have a strong emotional connection with. These conversations made me feel not alone; but it was, and always is temporary.. I am still lonely inside, craving for something for meaningful and authentic. The time spent answering and constantly checking Snapchat is just a way to shallowly alleviate symptoms of loneliness. I reached my breaking point on Saturday when I hung out with Sam, Hayden, Juan, and Liam. I have been hanging with them since June doing the same thing: watching movies. The more I think about it, the more interesting this little group dynamic is. They're all funny guys. And that's great. They make me laugh hard with their dark, matter-of-fact manner of humor. But that's all there ever is. Any attempts at legitimate conversation are usually stymied by a joke or witty quip, and truthfully speaking, the maturity of most of the group members is low. Both Liam and Hayden are emotionally immature, which is understandable given their age, but it is very problematic at times. Hayden is very insecure and isn't comfortable really expressing himself, Liam is hot-headed and is infallible in his ability to derail conversation or get super defensive about anything. Sam I believe is mature, but due to Liam his abilities to express this are quickly nipped in the bud. There was actually one time where it was just me, Maiki, Hayden, and Sam, and we managed to have good serious discourse. I think Liam is the biggest problem. We are all bonded through movies, but this seems to be one of the very few of our common interests. We all know each other's relationships with one another is weak, and has so far only been sustained via memes and movies, knowing this, we are scared to venture further than this in general because it is what we are comfortable with. But this dissolves, or makes much it harder, to explore more about one another and forge more intimate bonds. That is why we must entertain new mediums of hanging out, we need to switch it up. We have started to do this somewhat, but I think we are all generally confused on what direction the group is headed. I want to give them all a second chance, but I also think it might be better if I leave them all. Surrounding myself with immature people will reflect poorly on me. I need to decide what friends are worth keeping and what ones aren't. That leads me to my next problem: Joy. What started as a meaningful, and overall sincere conversation surrounding movies, quickly devolved into something that meant much more little. We became friends... sort of. I have always been a little attracted to her, and when I really started talking to her me and Arlyn were waning (I will get to that in a moment though) and so I decided I would talk with her some more and find out more about her. But that hasn't really happened. I am interested in her in a purely sexual way, I think, for now, at least. Frequent back and forth snapchats talking about trivial things, making jokes about each other etc etc. jokes jokes jokes jokes. Fucking jokes. I'm tired of them. Authenticity is struggling for air. Too unsure to ask her to hangout because our relationship is so teetering, and because the Arlyn thing isn't really settled, we have been stuck in limbo with nothing really productive is being made possible by our friendship. I haven't really learned anything about he. Nor her me. It's just hurrdurr screenshots and a desire to have sex with each other it seems. To resolve this, I will have to make more of an effort to be more genuine in our conversations -- that means getting OFF Snapchat and asking for her number or something so we can begin to establish something more substantial. Right now I can't see the point of it, so that's why I had to delete Snapchat because I was sort of having an existential crisis. Now, Arlyn. She is amazing, really, she is beautiful and our conversations are authentic, I have learned a lot about her and she has learned a lot about me. She is just incredibly held back with her emotions, often doesn't take the initiative, and that sometimes makes me feel like she doesn't really take what we're trying to build seriously. She is hard to talk to sometimes, but easy at others, I would say she's not the one, but I haven't really gotten the chance to find out. We aren't able to see each other, and ultimately a myriad of factors prevent us from being together. It's come to my attention that these factors won't clear the way any time soon. I feel awkward talking to her in real life sometimes, we're both really nervous understandably. Bottom line is we would probably be good be each other but we won't find out anytime soon because of the situation with her parents. I actually compiled a very long list of thoughts regarding the situation and sent to it her. Me, being someone who thinks there is always a way around a perceived obstacle, proposed that I at least meet her parents so they attach a face to the idea of this monster that is interested in their daughter. We figured this could be arranged and she said it may be able to happen but then: nothing. Nothing ever happened. It was never discussed again, it both sort of drifted from our minds and boom - back to where we started - confused. Why is this? Partly my fault, I don't want to pester her and be too assertive about this, partly hers for not really taking initiative except when I instruct or bring up an important relationship matter. Again, I am left with two choices: cut her off, or try once again to push to meet her parents. I haven't texted her seriously in a long time, it has mostly been filler stuff lately, I.e "I still want to talk to you because we have talked for so long but talking about the actual matter is difficult so we'll just talk about nonsense and jump around the actual issue" kind of thing. Maiki: a good friend. He is authentic, will speak his mind, isn't scared about disagreeing or saying something controversial, will be honest with you etc. drawbacks: hostile at times, can be unaware of his many annoying tendencies, is difficult for him to be truly authentic at times, tries too hard to be edgey, has many bad habits (watches child porn), very greedy at times, can be redundant and can be hard to express myself clearly to him as English is his second language. But I can be truly comfortable around him. We won't have to prattle on every moment about trivial things, we can sit in silence and have a good conversation when it arises; nothing is too forced. Sometimes I can resent him because he is so hard to get through too at times, but I love him nonetheless. He is very independent. There aren't any glaring problems here, nothing that can be remedied, at least. We are fundamentally two very different people with conflicting ideas on conversation and interests and communication; so problems will inevitably arise. But those problems are navigable. And I have to understand and accept that we just have a friendship very different from most. We won't text everyday asking how he other is or stuff like that. We can go days without talking but then pick up where we left off whenever. It's very strange, but admirable.