Something I realized (which was obvious to me subconsciously) is that... The family that vehemently didn't accept me when I first came out but now do accept me are still the same family that I am most unwilling to be open about things I feel protective over.
I remember that my dad reacted so poorly, not to my coming out, but to my transition specifically that my therapist was the one to ask if I wanted to put it on my file that I wanted nothing to ever be shared with him about my health after I broke down multiple times due to my anxiety that I would never transition. While there are and were protections for me, I was incredibly fearful at the time because I was a minor, and I was so worried that he would have prevented my transition that I couldn't have said for certain what (if any) lengths he would have gone to to prevent that.
He's grown a lot as a person, and made some commendable strides. But he didn't find out from me when I medically transitioned the second I turned eighteen, and I think that's among the things that truly made him realize the scope of the issue.
I'm not here to guilt trip parents, guardians, or other members responsible for the care of the children or teens or young adults in their care.... but this is a cautionary tale. You aren't saving the people in your care when you do this, you simply reinforce an idea that you will never care for them, never want them as they are, would rather them be shoved away.
When you give people reasons to be secretive, they will behave secretively. When you give people reasons to doubt their safety around you, they will become sneaky, defensive, and withdrawn. When you give people reasons to doubt that you value their life, they will believe that you don't care if they live or not.
123 notes
·
View notes
Some of the evidence supporting Mike not being in love with El is brutal. No, but seriously.
In s3, when El's leg is injured, instead of Mike putting his arm around her waist, allowing him to take some of the weight off her injured leg, he puts his arm around her shoulder, basically having the exact opposite affect of taking the weight off of her, instead just adding more weight for her to have to carry.
Now, I’m not coming at Mike here, I’m actually coming at the writers, because this choice here has everything to do with them using this gesture to signal Mike’s lack of feelings for El, even at the expense of realism.
I say this bc any person with common sense, including Finn and everyone around him and Millie filming these shots, would've known it looked unnatural for Mike to be adding more weight onto El as opposed to taking some off of her.
This means that what Mike did here, Finn was directed to do, and therefore it was for a specific reason.
And we know they could have easily made the opposite choice, because they show us Max AND Lucas doing it.
See how putting an arm around El's waist looks so much more natural? Because homegirl is injured and clearly needs help taking weight off her leg to qualm some of the pain she's experiencing there, which is why Max and Lucas are shown here doing it the correct way.
And so, why can't Mike do the same? Why are the writers making a point to show Mike being incapable of simply taking some weight off of El, instead doing the exact opposite?
I don't think it's as deep as Mike not being able to do something intimate, and that's bc, again we see Max and Lucas doing it.
I honestly think what they're trying to convey with this choice here, is that Mike thinks he's helping El, when he is in fact doing the opposite despite his best efforts. The implications of that and how that sort of aligns with their romantic relationship and what it leads to at the end of s3, going into s4, is pretty spot on.
I do think Mike thinks he's doing the right thing by being with El instead of voicing any doubts at the end of s3, because he is under the assumption that she is in love with him. I do think he believes he is indebted to her and that this is the least he can do after everything they've been through together, which has mostly been riddled with romantic pressures and so continuing that instead of disputing it seems like the only option anyways. Not to mention, he does care for her deeply, so it's not hard to imagine that he's a teenage boy confusing deep care for love (he literally tells us this is his problem when he can only say care and not love to El's face... but that's a whole other conversation).
Still, when it's all said and done, Mike's not actually doing El any favors by being with her romantically, if that is not what he truly wants.
Because that's the sad truth about all of this, which is that you would never want someone to be with you just because you want them. If you knew that they truly couldn't have those feelings for you, you'd want to know, right? You don't deserve someone just because you have deep feelings for them. And I think there's so many layers to this idea, bc many people are capable of not giving Byler a chance bc they truly believe Mike could never return Will's feelings. Will also feels this way atp, so though it hurts, he rips the band aid off, because he would never want Mike to be with him just out of pity or something. No one would want that. And so it all really comes down to who Mike truly loves romantically and wants to be with. And the right thing to do, even if it hurts someone, is to be honest, because being with them just bc you think that will make them happy is never going to be enough if you aren't truly feeling it, or worse, feel it for someone else.
We see how Mike's inability to be honest with El at the end of s3, leads to a season of Mike feeling deeply insecure and undeserving of the love El has to offer him, and even though he does try, he always comes up short. Despite Mike putting up this front that they are the perfect couple, the details are telling us something is off. And it gives him away.
Another example that I think is very similar to this loaded gesture from Mike to El in s3, is the scene in s4 when they hug in the airport.
Common sense ppl, picture this: You're reuniting with your long distance girlfriend. Then suddenly, she runs up to you, with her arms wide open, and instead of opening your arms wide to embrace her properly, you take the bouquet of flowers you brought her as a gift, and shove them against your chest just as she approaches to hug you, effectively squishing the present you got for her (a pretty delicate present at that) for no reason other than to... what exactly?
Like?? El isn't even squishing the present Mike, she's trying to hug you, dude! Your gf is trying to hug you properly and you threw the gift you got for her in between you so you could throw in a careful! x3??
Again, this has less to do with Mike's thoughts and reasoning behind this gesture in a literal sense, and more to do with the simple fact that this is a narrative choice! Mike is not a real person! There are real people sitting down and writing this and actors are having to do multiple takes to act it out. What feels natural for a situation is going to be what is often chosen 9 times out of 10, because of realism and wanting the audience to see stuff happening that is believable. That 1 time though, when it's not being done the way it would usually be, is usually because there's a specific reason for it.!
So the question really is, not why is Mike doing this, but why are the writers having Mike do this, and what message are they trying to convey about Mike's feelings based on his behavior, in these moments where he's just not capable of committing to El genuinely, one way or another?
149 notes
·
View notes
okay so for the people in the comments of this post and the other one i wrote about this: i am aware that this is something oda said (i actually don't know lmao i just saw people saying it ngl i doubt he said this and if he did y'all are misinterpreting the shit out of what he said). however, i personally think he meant it in a very specific context of "one of the mugiwaras betraying them in such a horrific way that luffy would have to force himself to say this".
the thing is, there are A LOT of things to have in mind when it comes to this statement. yeah. zoro would kill a mugiwara if luffy asked, but there's a lot going on before that even crosses his mind:
1. luffy would need a valid reason to want to kill a mugiwara (teach level of betrayal). and even then, i doubt he would ask zoro to kill them. but yeah, let's suppose hypothetically that he says that.
2. zoro would instantly assume something's wrong because luffy would NEVER say something like this. some of you act like he would act without hesitation when his devotion to luffy isn't irrational, but unconditional. he would stop, think about it, ask luffy why and if he's sure. and he would even try to stop him.
3. if stopping him doesn't work and the betrayal is bad enough, zoro would kill a mugiwara for luffy.
y'all make it seem like he would do it and kill nami (for example. he would never, tho) without hesitation when he would be the very first one to be against that idea and question luffy's irrationality. the whole thing about these two is that they trust each other bc they believe in each other, not bc they're blinded by love. it's such a deep understanding and trust that they would do anything for each other, and that also includes grounding the other and stopping them if they're wrong.
zoro's trust and loyalty is on luffy, of course, but assuming that it makes him unable to care for the other members of the crew and that it blinds him enough to kill them is just wrong.
answering the question y'all refuse to answer without thinking first: yes, zoro would kill a mugiwara if luffy asked under the right circumstances and after a long time thinking about it, but it wouldn't happen just because.
85 notes
·
View notes
Today I went on my first-ever date with another lady!
We met on the dating site H.E.R after chatting for over a month and though I was terrified of my 1st date as a bisexual woman, I'm also so, so very proud of myself for going thru with it.
Overall, my date was so very kind, attentive, funny, and pretty! She gave me a warm, tight hug when we met outside the burger joint; we chatted casually as we waited in line (she thought I was shy at first...and I was!!); she insisted I order first; she likes her iced tea sweet like I do.
She likes vanilla milkshakes with whipped cream and I like cheer-wine floats; she shared chicken wings with me and I shared french fries with her; when I teased her that she's nasty for liking bleu cheese dip, she unironically bought me hot pleasantly mild sauce for my fries and insisted it was mine; we both made each other burst out laughing with personal stories and anecdotes; we shared some minor pain with respect; she likes red and sportswear and I like pink and Barbie; she gave me an even bigger, tighter hug at the end of the date...the kind that makes my ribs hurt a little and makes my back feel squished.
Just the kind of hug I like.
She thinks I'm adorable as anything.
I'm not too sure where it's all going to go yet, but I cannot wait for our 2nd date to a movie next week! Gah!
-swoons-
@alexseanchai, @bittylildragon.
24 notes
·
View notes
The difference isn't "people write fanfiction now and it's fundamentally unserious and unworthy to be Culture." People who break out the smelling salts and head to the fainting couch when they hear "Dante's Divine Comedy was fanfiction" are ignoring the point that cultural production is the same as it ever was: Any foundational cultural myth has hundreds to thousands of different versions that each reflect the experiences of contributors from different times and places. Look at Robin Hood. Look at King Arthur. (I'm picking those because they're the easy ones most Westerners know. What I'm saying is broadly applicable.)
What has changed is that corporations now own the majority of foundational cultural myths and leverage them as capital. That gives them carte blanche to claim that derived works are fundamentally lesser and subject to their authority, a claim most people accept uncritically. "Fanfiction" has always been going on as long as you recognize that "fans" are the folk in folklore. They receive something from a storyteller, they change it, and their versions drastically outnumber the so-called official version. For most of history, the folk have defined the grounding myths that underpin their social consensus. It was very difficult to nearly impossible to point back into history and say "this was the first, canonical version from the real author." In many cases, we still can't figure it out. And it's probable we never will, because narratives weren't (that kind of) capital for most of history.
This is just another way fences are being placed around the commons and we are all being robbed of something intrinsically human, the right to shape and share the collective semiotic space.
8 notes
·
View notes
one of the absolute funniest moments on scott's tour that i wasn't able to capture on camera (for obvious reasons) was at the meet and greet after the nashville show these two older gay guys mentioned they were reading scott's wikipedia page before the show to find out more to chat about at the meet and greet and like. idk if this is just because i am very familiar with scott's wikipedia page but you could tell that was the extent of their scott knowledge (which is valid not everyone is researching a documentary on the guy)
but then they asked about the poster for the lowest show, which they'd never heard of before their wikipedia reading, specifically this quote:
"The posters—featuring Thompson lying supine on the ground with a big wad of semen dripping down the side of his face—went up around the city on September 10, 2001"
and they were like "wow we'd love to see those posters hahaha" and i immediately jump in like "oh i have that photo on my phone give me like 2 seconds"
to be clear: these guys had not interacted with me or acknowledged my existence the entire conversation. they had their backs to me when they were talking to scott, i did not introduce myself as directing the documentary since i wasn't filming and they didn't ask who i am, etc. but my brain was like "oh someone wants to learn more about scott? my time to shine, let me pull up that folder in my camera roll". even scott was like jfc here they go again.
anyway i barely had to scroll back in my doc research folder so i immediately held out my phone to the guys and showed them this
it's a photo taken days after 9/11 of scott in front of the posters for his show which was supposed to open the following week
so i hold out my phone and explain this thinking like hey i'm being so helpful these guys wanted to see this aspect of scott lore and i gave it to them!! meanwhile these two old guys are like i can't even focus on the poster anymore i am standing next to scott thompson and also WHO THE FUCK IS THIS CHILD AND WHY DID THEY JUST HAVE THIS ON THEIR PHONE?
another one of the funniest tour moments was after meeting up with some gay guys in their 70s who were friends-of-a-friend-of-scott and immediately befriending both of them we were about to leave and i asked for their phone number and scott just rolled his eyes and was like i'll give you his phone number in the car as though he was saying "jfc jessamine this is ridiculous even for you". he never ended up giving me the old guy's number
4 notes
·
View notes