#fandom psychology

[cozyrosykay]

I just got done at a conference on trauma informed care in foster homes and attachment disorders in children with trauma and there was an emphasis on if there isn’t intervention, and honestly? I thought a lot about Andrew and Riko on the drive home and how accurate Nora’s portrayal of them was given the trauma they endured. Heck Neil too.

#aftg #all for the game #thinking thoughts #fandom psychology #andrew minyard #riko moriyama #neil josten #nora sakavic

[pseudo-hero]

Conner Kent basically is a child from (medical) rape. Not calling him Clark's child is basically the mentally healthiest way to cope with this for everyone involved.

Note #1: I first want to apologize for taking this long to respond, though it's not the only time that's happened and probably won't be the last. I'm still surprised that this particular blog even got an "ask", to be honest! That being said:

WARNING: This post is about—among other things—sexual assault, properly defining/utilizing the terms and has a few violent descriptions within it. Some possibly unpopular and controversial opinions are below. Absolutely no harm or insult to any person or group was intended while I typed this out (including to the "asker"). I hope any possible readers will make it to the end before judging. I've typed this up for anybody, with no one in particular in mind, so 'you' therefore, refers to anyone as well as what's said in the "ask". This gets into and brings up a lot different subjects and ideas in regards to the Kal-Kon family relationship (both in-universe ones and meta ones), so apologies to the above anonymous user if it ever seems like I'm going off on a tangent; although I like to think all of this was relevant to the "ask" in some way.

As always, I'll try to be open-minded to differing opinions/information and I hope any possible errors made can be forgiven. This is also going to be really, REALLY L--O--N--G because I have a hard time giving short, straight-to-the-point responses for anything, I guess. Especially topics that have wide-reaching implications. I switch between character names a lot (and other quirks), may get a little repetitive (but I will try to make new points each time) and I also may at times be harsh on Clark here (but it's arguably DC Comics and their partners that are truly at fault, not him).

Note #2: I've always wanted to make a post about why Clark's treatment of Conner throughout the years has been questionable writing at best and detrimental to Clark's character at worst [as part of a not-yet-completed series on what's destroying Superman's character and legacy these days, in fact] but maybe this will end up being that post [or they'll just share many points/arguments in common].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but I'm not playing that game. Only rape is rape. You comparing (and perhaps twisting) Conner Kent's/Kon-El's creation to being that of a "child from (medical) rape"—which, mind you, I can't help but be reminded of "rape baby" (one of the names unfortunately often used on such victims-by-proxy for the wrong reasons) when I read it—is not only, to me, an insult to any version of the character's backstory and the hardship they've gone through, but to those who have actually experienced the trauma of rape or other forms of sexual assault (or being conceived from any such act).

While I understand why some interpret Kon's creation that way/where the belief comes from, I feel that's only one possible interpretation and one that unfortunately—on top of promoting offensive and less-than-rational conclusions—might actually be missing the point about the real reason(s) Kon got and still gets treated the way he does.

First off, let's get down to how every version of Kon was created before getting into the details of the origin of one or another, and proving how none of them sprouted from rape: Kon is, put simply, a genetically engineered progeny; a form of "test tube baby" (not meant to be disparaging). He was made in an undoubtedly sterile (purposefully loaded word) lab from the ideas, research-based input and experimentation of dozens of scientists and geniuses, his human parent typically included. (Note how I didn't name a human parent? I'll get to that.) After many failed attempts, there was a success, first dubbed Experiment 13.

There was no warmth or genuine intimacy involved in E13's creation, just as is the case with 95% to 100% of sexual assaults (I'm trying not to assume how it went for all victims). However, there was also no physical contact, beyond perhaps the extraction/finding and adding together of DNA-type substances. (You know, what with every version of Kon being treated solely as science experiments in their early days and all.) Without physical contact, specifically/particularly/especially of the sexual variety, already the case for Superman being "raped" begins to fall apart and we can get closer to what fandom/societal problem is really behind this idea being pushed and what truth is continually missed/hidden due to said problem acting as a cover.

Continuing from before: So, as we all know, almost every version of Kon-El/Conner Kent get's his DNA from a male kryptonian progenitor (always Kal-El/Clark Kent unless stated otherwise) together with the also-male human progenitor's, and rarely anywhere else. These days most versions of Conner seem to be the half-human genetic child of Lex Luthor and Superman, and it's been like that for a while. In the beginning however, he was solely a clone of Superman before it was later decided that he was actually an altered clone of some now-forgotten man named Paul Westfield and that he only mimicked Superman's powers. They later changed it up again ("retconned" it) to the Lex Luthor/Superman combination origin(s) for the 2000's version of him, but in doing so, made it clear in BIG, bright letters that Kon is not a "clone" anymore.

Unless—we're calling him a binary clone (what we all are).

That's right, a binary clone is one of many words for child. It's just a specific type of child/progeny. Here's another definition example, with the same description. I would hope no one needs to see the definition for child, too, but you never know. So, notice how so many of the definitions for child match up with what Kon is? What are the people that argue that Superboy is not Superman's—or that he's neither Clark's nor Lex's child—really trying to say or inadvertently saying, I wonder? That Kon is no one's child? That he isn't even a child (unless someone wants him)?? Good luck using that logic with real life "test tube children" (in-vitro children, if we want to be clinical), foster children and adoptees. Bet they'll really appreciate the insensitivity.

As for his age? Why does that matter? At his oldest, he's an upper teen, so still an impressionable minor. And who ever said you needed to pop up in someone's life as a perfect, little chubby cherub to be their child? Who said your parents needed to accept you/get the chance to raise you, for you to be directly descended from them? If a parent dies before a child is born (and stays dead), is the child not their child anymore? Even if someone meets their kid—that may appear to others, to have been created when the parent was a teenager—when the youngling is already a teenager him/herself now, that's still their child, isn't it? Look at all the questions that we are forced to ask when certain fans try and come up with arbitrary definitions, explanations and excuses (or ignore preexisting ones) for what makes a child a child.

As far as I can see, Superman is not delusional nor prone to denialism and isn't known for letting his emotions (or what some believe his emotions are or should be) get the best of him. At least, he's not supposed to be. Some writers in the past have had different ideas on that. In my opinion, they often ruin things for a large amount of us though, seeing as engaging in poor, contradictory behavior will never automatically = a character being more complex. It's more likely that the character will just come across as very petty, selfish, obnoxious or callous, things Superman generally should not be; maybe even should never be.

All that is to say that the need to pretend Kon is anything but Clark's (and Lex's) child in-universe and based on real-life standards, has nothing to do with authentic science or logic and at times doesn't even involve an agreed on continuity. You (the "asker") may already realize this (since you mentioned mental health and coping in your "ask") but many others don't seem to yet. In fact, the exact science isn't what matters, considering how the situation is fictional and therefore mostly pseudoscience anyway.

And even if it wasn't fictional, consider that animal reproduction is technically considered sexual whether two organisms had sex/copulated or not because of the act of the male and female gametes (sex cells) coming together. Based on that, can or can't Kon be considered just another typical mammal (mammal-alien hybrid?) made through a form of sexual reproduction, even if he wasn't made from the combining of male cells and female cells (typically not used in his case) nor (most likely) any sexual cells at all? Does it even make a difference in regards to his parentage? In reality, it actually doesn't and that question is only a pedantic-semantics one. All such questions are.

What actually matters here is the basics. Cells/DNA from these two beings were melded together to make another being. No intercourse was needed or involved. A large amount of people would still consider that as a child being made, with or without the added story context. (Many mythologies have had similar events happen in them, fwiw.) So why shouldn't our honest, selfless and compassionate Superman view it that way? Where is the extensive evidence that this is solely about Clark and his family's feelings anyway, especially in the present day? I'm sure that may be the excuse some writers hide behind, but let's be real here.

Clark, in multiple continuities, has had no problem giving Kon a name (twice, if you count Conner Kent too), encouraging him to have a secret identity like Clark, so he also gets to live his life outside of being a hero, has occasionally been seen spending time with Kon by choice, mentoring him, fighting alongside him, sending Kon to the boy's grandparents for raising in the calm, warm town of Smallville (where Clark himself was raised), enrolling him in school in that same town, literally considering him family...but he won't dare go as far as to call him son??

Now, don't get me wrong. Do I believe Superman knew what was going on just before and during Superboy's artificial development? No. He never knows until after Superboy is already out in the world flying around. Does that make it non-consensual and somewhat or very violative to him? Of course. But besides these adjectives/descriptors and (if you want to count it) the springing of a child from the experiments, the situation actually—again, I say—has little in common with rape.

(POSSIBLY VERY TRIGGERING LANGUAGE FOUND BELOW. If you can, pay special attention to what words I put emphasis on.)

Rape can be and is many awful things. The severity of the act can range from little to no bodily injury but major emotional/psychological harm from awareness of the unwanted/forced sexual contact you were put through, to very extreme bodily and mental harm. It can cause tearing, often-heavy bleeding and infection in any targeted orifice (vagina, anus, mouth and/or throat) that can take months to heal from or that the person never fully recovers from. It can make it painful to move and do certain positions with the body. For specifically the female reproductive system, it can lead to damage that's so horrible that a woman can no longer reproduce and so is left infertile. Or she can be left with a pregnancy that's taken root in her own body that she of course was not planning—since it was forced into her—and one she often won't feel like she can handle birthing. There's also always a chance that she could die during the months before the labor begins, if not during the birth itself.

In the case of one form of medical rape (which again, I don't believe Clark was put through, unless you're talking about a different definition for it), it's rape because the victim gets impregnated by semen that they did not agree to have used on them. So it's rape by deception, if not also due to the disturbingly forceful nature that 'fertility treatment' often comes with.

Can someone tell me what about any of that, purposefully emphasized words and all, is the same as how Kon was created? Am I really supposed to believe that Superboy's surprise creation through indirect means, is equivalent to the above in any way for any person involved? In the early years of the character's creation, it was implied or outright stated that Superboy got his Superman DNA from scientists—I believe CADMUS—stealing Clark's presumed-dead body and taking a bit from it (Kon was originally supposed to replace Clark, but not destroy him). What did they get? Maybe a hair? A skin cell from one of his arms? I'm not sure.

However, this was in the early years and the most violative it ever got. (Actually, I don't recall that version of Superman being all that shaken up over the matter compared to how some seem to think every version has been regarding Kon's creation, even though that one probably had some of the biggest reasons to be; he even reached out to Superboy first, in fact. Only to be rejected by him.) It also wasn't, and is still, not rape. It's overall more comparable to someone stealing his/her ex's or one night stand's condom off their body or from the trash to cause a pregnancy. A horrendous deed—but not rape.

I'm stating all this because your claim is built on a false premise. One that likely comes from an over-reliance on and desire for extreme comparisons/equivalencies. One that appears to be a very common opinion in the fandom, but which is still misguided. It's imperative that we try not use the word rape (or related words) to seriously describe any other different action just because we disapprove of it. It's superbly harmful and frankly, disingenuous.

Are you calling the situation rape because you truly feel that this is what happened or because it's the worst word you could think of to try to make people feel even more horrified than they may already feel about the situation, and to shut down conversation on Clark's strange behavior toward and relationship with, Conner? Is it that you do realize that sexual assault is a severe issue and definitely no laughing matter, so you use mention of it so flippantly to emphasize your point, not realizing that this is only contributing to the problem?

I often wonder if a huge reason for this is because many nowadays are, thankfully, far more knowledgable of the importance of consent, but to the unfortunate extent that they separate it from the actual acts that make sexual assault, well, sexual assault. Again, lack of consent by itself is not what makes something rape. There has to at the least be forced penetration involved, too and arguably blatant sexual intention.

Likewise: Stealing someone's wallet or squeezing all the money out of their bank account without their knowing, is not "financial rape". Beating someone to a pulp and leaving them there injured is not "punching rape". Wiping someone's mind of memories is not, technically, "mind rape" (despite how popular that term is now). Leaving a baby or puppy on someone's doorstep and hoping/expecting that the owner of the home will sacrifice their time to raise them, is not "nurture rape" (or "nurture coercion" for that matter). You know why all the previous is true? Because, again, only rape is rape!

Languages are always changing, adapting, sometimes shrinking but also expanding. We often add definitions to words that may not have been implied before and use metaphors and other figurative speak to make points. However, words have those original definitions for a reason and especially in the case of crime and morality, it is not wise to dilute the meanings of words for your personal opinions/arguments/headcanons. That is not only hurtful but possibly dangerous.

If you feel that this or that version of Clark is right to be weirded out by Conner for being created 'unnaturally' (based on average, modern human POV), just say so. If you feel some version(s) of Clark is right to be disgusted by Conner for being made without his knowledge or ability to stop it (presumed dead or alive), just say so. If you feel modern versions of Clark are in the right to reject Kon solely because of who the human parent typically is, i.e. Lex Luthor (since we all know that connection and Lex's intentions when creating Kon must somewhat play an enormous factor in some people's view of Kon's existence), just say so.

If you, for similar reasons, despise every version of Lex Luthor and believe he's an irredeemable monster (which I find understandable, even though I personally do like the character) and therefore that everything connected to him is tainted too, just say so. If you are so preoccupied with comparing Damian Wayne's (usual/modern/recent/current?) conception origin to Kon's own, to the point of only noticing possible similarities and wanting to claim the situations are exactly the same, despite the obvious differences (and despite how that makes Superman/Clark negatively appear but in comparison to Batman/Bruce this time who accepts his child, regardless of the actual sexual assault that took place to create him), just say so.

If you just have a certain set of characteristics in mind for Superman or think it should be anything goes if it entertains you, as the rule of thumb for Superman writing, then please, just say so. That way people with a different opinion than you will know what worldview they're really arguing with when you debate. You do not need to use a word (rape) with an already established definition that's important enough to be referenced in laws the world over, to emphasize your point. Your argument should be able to stand on its own without doing so.

It wouldn't surprise me if one of the biggest contributors to modern people's current view of Clark and Conner's relationship is due to largely popular, dramatic media like the animated series Young Justice. The show had a take on them that was based on certain older-but-still-modern comic interactions with the more modern look/personality for Kon and it was considered by many to be realistic/relatable in regards to Superman's viscerally perturbed reactions toward and avoidance of Kon. However, some others saw it for what it also was: An excuse to seep out as much angst as possible to make us feel for Kon, but at the expense of Superman's characterization.

Compare their relationship here to the one they had in the DC Animated Movie Universe film, Reign of the Supermen (a sequel to The Death of Superman movie from the same universe; both are based on the 90's Bronze Age comic(s) that I've mentioned already). It was Lex in that movie that was being unquestionably vile toward Kon. As you might expect! And it was Clark who, only after knowing Kon for a short period—probably 20 minutes at most in-movie and a few days in their world—showed the poor mentally-abused child compassion and immediately took him under his bright red cape of hope and, as often happens these days, got help from Kon's grandparents in raising Kon. As you'd definitely expect! Although it wasn't exactly explicitly said in the movie whether he considers Conner his son or not, their relationship there was still handled infinitely better from the jump than was the case with alternate versions of their relationship. The reactions from these two men from different media that are supposed to be the same character, are like night and day! It's almost like they're not the same character (hint, hint)!

There was no unnecessary drama or hypocrisy on Clark's part in ROTSM (remember they'd both be seen as dangerous in the eyes of regular earthlings). Beyond a moment of eyebrow raising, and some possible annoyance or hesitance, Clark seems to grow accustomed to Kon's existence very quickly (after Lois already had, without his realizing!) and starts acting sensibly about it afterward (while still coming across as a warm but stern and outraged father; again, as you'd expect!) which I think was a good thing and arguably just as realistic as the reverse, with the added benefit of not making Clark look douchey, un-empathetic and unreasonably judgmental. We should be way past acts of actual!superdickery in this day and age, imho. Considering the universe he exists in, Clark should be ready to take on whatever is thrown his way, even a hormonal teenage "clone" of himself, no matter if they have a human parent or not, and even if Clark doesn't get along with that parent. Seriously, more writers need to remember that. The DC world is insane and anything could happen; so the characters ought to be mindful of that at all times.

Which leads me to ask: Why should Clark be extremely upset almost every single time Kon pops up anyway? Why does he have to be extremely upset at all? He didn't get a choice to thumb up or thumb down Kon's creation but beyond that, what was forced on him? As I noted earlier, he didn't get forcefully impregnated or even deceived. No one made him let Kon into his life either and Kon is a good kid anyway who wants to be the best superhero he can be and who's typically no worse than cocky. (Though some versions of Superman surprisingly need to be convinced/reminded of Kon's innocence.) Less honest people will try and dance around the elephant in the room, which is that they wouldn't think what was done with Clark's DNA was a big deal if Kon hadn't come from it. "Well, duh!" you might say. Duh indeed, because without Kon's existence, literally no argument can reasonably be made that Kal was harmed in anyway. (Unlike with physical attacks, which are obvious. The harm done to him would then, at most, be emotional/psychological but only if Clark acknowledges on some level what/who Conner is (his son!) but struggles to accept him/rejects him despite/because of it. Superman (and the fans that do the directly-above), should focus their ire on the true wrong-doers, not a victim. I mean really, Conner has only done wrong to Clark and his family/friends once, while brainwashed by somebody else!! (It was Lex Luthor, of course.)

This means that they know Kon is his own person with endless potential, who is vulnerable and always at risk of manipulation, who deserves sympathy regardless of how he was made and who just needs an outstretched hand from someone who cares and wants him to stay on the right path, despite where he came from. Which means they also know what it says about Superman for him to neglect Conner, but just accept it as "a blind spot" as opposed to calling it out as the horrible writing decision that it always is. Kon in the ROTSM movie is the biggest victim in that scenario and it's made clear there. In that movie, Superman didn't turn his back on or avoid Superboy at any point and dived right into a father-son relationship with him. Thank goodness.

I repeat: The parent in the movie that actively created him without the other parent's knowledge, treated him like fresh garbage, like a toy that doubled as a tool/weapon, like an object. The other parent on the other hand refused to do the same and instead did right by him and took him in. Kon's feelings and needs were acknowledged as they deserved to be. Clark was called dad by the boy and he more or less stood in his role that wasn't gonna change whether he wanted it to or not, nor whether he accepted it or not. A parent is a parent the moment they have a kid, even if they choose not to be there for them. Adoption is one way of becoming a parent that I admire (as long as no cruelty was committed for it to happen) and I'm happy for those happy to be adopted. However, mind you, Clark or The Kents raising Kon who is one of Clark's own bio kids, would be regular parenting/grand-parenting; not adoption or fostering.

He also did have a choice btw, when it came to that movie, as he always does and like everyone else has/would. He could have chosen to ignore/avoid Kon and left him to teach himself how to swim, but this is Superman we're talking about here and he, more than anyone, would ideally never behave that way to someone in need (least of all a child/his own child!). Even if other people in his place would unfortunately be unable to (which I understand and can sympathize with). Superboy did appear to be physically younger (if not emotionally) in ROTSM than he was in YJ, but my point still stands for both stories and related.

In fact, if memory serves right, (as briefly referenced earlier) the 90's version of Superman which the TDOSM and ROTSM movies are loosely based on somehow wasn't near as avoidant around or upset by the 90's Kon-El Superboy (Kon sure was annoyed by him though) as the character was in some later writers' stories, despite supposedly being of the same continuity and despite the fact that Superboy became a better person and hero as years passed. Which actually kinda adds to my point about how ridiculous this behavior/flaw from modern versions of Clark is. Funny. It also sort of reeks of higher-up interference to me... Almost like they needed an excuse to keep the two apart; very separated and in their own books with rarely any overlap, before eventually deciding to recurringly erase one of the characters from "canon" and/or their connection/closeness to the other more prominent character...

Which, finally, is what the reasoning for constantly excluding and distancing Kal-El from Kon-El really all comes down to. Seven things actually, which are all often/always connected: 1. Keeping tradition going which often causes 2. Plain old homophobia to win when it comes to writing decisions, but also usually leads to 3. Clois favoritism, both of which are due in part to 4. Fear of trying anything new and 5. Peeving off the fanbases within the fanbase, whose members all have their own version of Superman in mind (think about the YJ vs ROTSM example), which brings about 6. Laziness and simplicity for simplicity's sake and we can't forget 7. That probably more than anything else (and where the other seven stem from) there's the issue of THE FOCUS ON $$$ [profit, with as little effort and change put forward to gain it as possible, or in some cases too much effort used on the wrong thing(s)].

The need to always hold on, in some way, shape or form, to tradition is a tale as old as time and an obvious reason for Kon's constant alienation from Kal and the larger Superfamily.

I mean really, think about it. Although I focus a lot on how Conner is treated by DC and specifically Clark, he's not the only child from his life that Clark's failed to raise or be there for to the best of his ability. It's just the most glaringly obvious with him.

Every reappears-in-"canon" minor (so not imaginary story character) that pops up at Clark's doorstep gets the short end of the stick, often multiple times at different points. In fact, it's happened so many times now that it's becoming a fandom "joke" and is even��for me at least—starting to become an expected outcome on Clark's part. And guess who it began with?

That's right; Kara Zor-El aka Supergirl: Cousin of Kal-El/Superman.

In the earlier Silver Age comics, Superman got up to some very weird or borderline abusive acts that he often involved Supergirl in. From refusing to take her in and keeping others from adopting this innocent teenage orphan, to forcing her to play pretend as his love-interest (likely as a not-so-veiled excuse to kiss her on the lips), to admitting he actually wanted her in that way, but couldn't, solely because of Krypton's cousin marriage laws?? Supergirl admittedly came across at times like she had an unnatural attachment of her own to her cousin but all the same, she was far younger—even underaged by many standards—traumatized and in need of guidance, yet that version of Superman didn't notice or care and even took advantage of this fact.

The tradition has been, for a while, to have Superman treat/neglect the children in his care so horribly that any chance of them having something of a father figure-child type relationship or mentor-student relationship is nullified. In one of the most recent issues of this current run of Action Comics (2016), Superman has once again come across a child, no, two children in fact, and actually took them both in. This isn't the first time he's done that (Lor-Zod/Chris Kent ring a bell?) but knowing how every other attempt at parenting by main universe Clark has ended, I'm hoping and praying that his sweet, impressionable, ill-raised, adopted twins named Otho-Ra and Osul-Ra (girl and boy) aren't destined for tragedy. Or outside involvement that cuts their childhood short. Or somehow still getting rejected in the end after the fact because it's not convenient enough for Superman/Clark and Status Quo. Considering how cluttered the current Action Comics's Super-Family is starting to seem...it wouldn't surprise me one bit if any of these options happened to them in due time.

Now, the homophobia. Do I really need to explain this one? The closest we've ever gotten to a gay/bi main-universe (not alternate) Superman...WASN'T EVEN SUPERMAN. Not really. It was his son who I bet you the editors at DC wanted people to confuse for the other when it came to the news article titles. Perhaps as a sort of "test" to see how much they could get away with doing with the real deal. I don't say this to shade Jon, only to tell is as it appears. Clearly a large amount of the fanbase failed the test. So although we do get to have a bi-Jon now (And possibly a basically-bi-Kon? Bicon?) whether or not some people hate it, the backlash over that Superman's coming out (and maybe even the anger over his secret identity being revealed) is proof enough for DC that Clark literally cannot come out, even if he wants to. Decades of subtext be damned.

Clois is and always will be the favored partner for Superman by writers. There's nothing wrong with that imho. It truly is the quintessential superhero comic romance. The issue is that any deviation from this (even if just for a short amount of time) is often met with outrage from a huge (or just loud) portion of the fanbase, causing writers to have to find a way to backtrack, cutting back on creativity. Now it often seems they're scared to try anything genuinely new and fresh with Superman. Who could blame them? They have previous examples that prove what will happen if they do.

It should also be noted again that keeping characters as separated/distant as possible (in this case, Superfamily characters) allows for DC to have each of those characters to have a series of their own so more comics can be made and sold!!

I understand we all have a version of Superman in our heads that's "the correct one" but that's exactly why arguments about what's "right" or what could "work" for the character often go nowhere. It leads to the quality of stories being affected and the companies putting in less effort into creating, knowing that simple and typical is what's wanted anyway. It's like: Why even bother?

So to reiterate one more time: The #1 concern will always be about making as big a buck as possible through as little a means as necessary. If editors and co believe lack of change is the way to achieve that, then that's what they'll do. Them continuing into the present day to stop just short of acknowledging what Kon actually is to the Superfamily likely has very little to do with the usual excuses, and a whole lot to do with the aforementioned, with everything else leading back to it.

#Superman #Superboy #Lex Luthor #Clark Kent #Kal-El #Conner Kent #Kon-El #DC Comics #Superman Comics #Action Comics #Clex #For the ones who care. #mentioned Superman characters #meta analysis #exposing bias #exposing corporate greed #correcting misconceptions #studying fandom #fandom psychology #100 YEARS LATE POST #loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong post #Hope the length somehow makes up for the lateness haha. #Might add more tags later. #Maybe images too. #No promises. #pseudo-hero's tags

[ellieaka]

Apparently a lots of adults in this fandom still don't think teen psychology is a thing to be considered in netflix nordic pr strategy. There are some things that can be easily done to avoid at least half of the mess we've seen in the past few days.

1. Move the "Next" event a few days later than 18 March, even if it is only a day later. Showing that 18 March is for young royals and young royals only. Or at least announce the young royals fan event FIRST!

2. Have APOY promoted at least 1 months later than YR so that Edvin (and Felicia) doesn't have to promote the two projects side by side.

3. Some goofy contents (no spoilers) to distract the fans. And announcement of the promo events that's on the way.

Netflix Nordic could've easily done a thing or two so it doesn't have to end up in a situation where Edvin and Felicia being viciously attacked and the NN IG comments section filled with angry yr fan comments purposely trying to tank APOY using the zionist director as the perfect excuse.

This is a PR failure, no matter if you agree with me or not. It is also obvious that NN started damage control as soon as they found the comments were spiralling out of control. They annouced the yr fan event (which I suspected it's earlier than their planned schedule). They have the Sweden official account posted the yr event announcement. Lisa came online and replied DM from concern fans.

Considering teen feelings in the promotion of a teen drama where a lot of audience are teens who spend way too much time online is not encourage bad behaviors but in fact lead to better fans behaviors and less conflicts. There is a reason why K-pop is extremely successful among teen fans. And I believe there is a thing or two from their perspective that can be learned, instead of arrogantly dismiss whatever the "problematic" teens do online.

If there is a online massive outcry from the teen fans for something that seems as trivial as "Edvin posted APOY first!", maybe people should take a look and see why this is happening and what can be done now to de-escalate. Additionally, what can be done next time so it won't happen again.

I honestly think the yr fandom teens are actually very civil already. The situation could be worse if it were a kpop fandom back in my time. I'm talking about death threats and collective boycott towards the other projects and statement of apology being issued etc.

#young royals #edvin ryding #young royals pr #fandom psychology #parasocial relationships #yr s3 #young royals promo

[gali-in-distress]

Diagnosing Nigel Colbie

This is going to be a long post

In an attempt to gain a better understanding of Nigel as a character, I decided to find a Psychopathological diagnosis that, in my opinion, would fit him, because to me it's very obvious that he's not what you would call a neurotypical individual.

Here is my diagnosis FOR NOW:

Disclaimer: I'm a psychology student, I didn't just made this up. That being said, I am only a student and lack the experience to be certain that this diagnosis is accurate. Secondly, Nigel is a fictional character, aka not a real person therefore it's impossible to truly diagnose him as you would do to a real person. I advice against using this as a guide to diagnose anyone irl, obviously.

CW: mentions of psychiatry terms, personality disorders and mental illnesses.

Semiology:

Qualitative disorders of affective nature

Indifferent behavior.

Incongruity : refered to having opposed emotional reactions to events that would normally have a different effect on people.

Irritability: exaggerated response to frustrated psychological needs.

In many instances Nigel shows almost no response to violent acts against himself or others. He acts coldly and is apparently unaffected by events that would at the very least upset anyone.

At the same time he reacts very intensively to being rejected by Alex at the very end.

I am almost 100% certain that when he went after Alex with the shotgun he was having a psychotic episode.

Cognitive disorders in relation to the Thinking Process:

Autistic thinking: presents itself as disconnected from reality.

Note: (Autistic thinking doesn't mean he's autistic, that's just the scientific term for that particular symptom)

Fixations.

Delusions of grandeur.

Delusions of reference: refered to an egocentric psychological development responsible for making the patient think that some things that happen in real life are directly related to them, gifting personal significance to unrelated events.

Nigel has very strong beliefs that he does not hide from Alex. He thinks they both are part of a line of great men destinated to bigger things. He finds connections in stories that, in his mind, ultimately lead to him and Alex, putting them both in the center of a prophecy of sorts. He is obsessed about this narrative he has created and eventually also obsesses over Alex and their relationship.

Conative disorders:

Altered social behavior manifested as reticence and homicidal and necrophiliac impulses.

Disordered relationship with self and others.

Nigel is presented as an introverted character who rarely speaks at the beginning of the story. Once he begins pulling Alex inside of his narrative, it's when we can see him be more open and sociable, but otherwise he doesn't seem to have any friends or relationships outside of Alex and his family. He doesn't seem interested in having them either. This itself wouldn't necessarily be a sign of a disorder, but, in addition to his violent and harmful behavior, it does create a pattern.

So far the final diagnosis I'm going for is Schizoid Personality Disorder.

Might elaborate on that later.

Update: Diagnosing Nigel Colbie Part II

#I honestly don't think that anyone cares #but I'm putting it out here cause why not #this is just my perosnal take on this I know some people might disagree and that's fine #like minds #like minds 2006 #like minds movie #murderous intent #murderous intent movie #nigel colbie #nigel colbie is not ok #like minds analysis #nigel colbie analysis #psychology #fandom psychology #semiology #diagnosing nigel colbie #overthinking movies cause why not #tom sturridge #tom sturridge filmography #diagnosing nigel

[unironicallycringe]

*gently parts the bead curtain and places this on your dash*

*leaves you a cup of water and some electrolyte packets*

take care of yourself champ, love ya

#fandom #fandom psychology #Youtube

[crabsnpersimmons]

thanks for the positive response to himbo Moon! he also wanted to say thanks:

some extras under the cut!

Edit: Image descriptions added!

no text version:

oh and in case you're curious about what his new body looks like, i managed to remember to take a picture of the sketch before inking! he basically has glamrock freddy's model design, except his legs and feet are more slender so he can be more light on his feet:

also... i did the math (meaning, i eyeballed a height chart with freddy's model and put the numbers in an ellipse calculator i found online)—freddy, and therefore moon here, has a bust size of 179.74 cm or 70.76 inches (almost 5'11" circumference).

writing muse: not thicc enough. the world record for the largest muscular chest is 74 inches!

...do with that information what you will

this is what i did with that information (with a cameo of @vacantfields's android moon! they've got a bit of rivalry/affair/kismesis between each other ♠️)

poor hairdresser himbo moon isn't as flexible as he used to be :')

#fnaf moon #fnaf dca #dca fandom #New Do Same You AU #Moon New Do Same You AU #Things Are Better AU #i #i am sorry for this /jk #but that 5'11" circumference my GOSH #i can't even wrap my arms around him! #but he'd probably prefer that #he prefers hugs with arms around his waist or his shoulders (if you can reach or if he lifts you up) #he doesn't like being touched on his back #there's a... sad backstory reason for that #speaking of sad! #i'll be sharing my first drabble soon! #be prepared #and #maybe check back and zoom in on this picture later for the foreshadowing i've planted #again #i am sorry #for the psychological damage i'm about to inflict on you #crab art #traditional art #digital art #traditionally inked digitally coloured

[prokopetz]

If you ever catch yourself wondering hey, why doesn't this TV show ratings chart square with my memory of how things actually went down, it's because in the vast majority of cases, when a show goes off the rails, the ratings don't take a dive immediately.

First they have to burn through the established audience's "wait, maybe they're going somewhere with this" optimism, then they have to burn through the established audience's "maybe it's just a mid-season slump" benefit of the doubt, then they have to burn through the established audience's "well, there aren't that many episodes left" morbid curiosity, and only then do the viewership numbers suddenly fall off a cliff.

It actually takes a lot of work to alienate your entire viewership in one go – mere mediocrity isn't gonna cut it!

#media #television #ratings #fandom #psychology

[whetstonefires]

Hey you said something about the my hero academia creator being unhinged about sexism, do you mind explaining?

I tried to write like, a thorough explanation of this and it just got longer and longer and longer and I have not touched this series in actual years and yet I've still got all these receipts a;lkjk;lfasd.

So rather than trying to build the whole massive case, here's a pared-down version. It's normal to have sexism in media, and shounen manga especially. Everyone does it. The level and mode and intentionality and so forth all vary, but of course it's there.

What's not normal is to have lots of varied and interesting female characters with discernible inner lives, and on-page discussion of how sexism is systemic and unjust and holds them back in specific ways, and then also deliberately make consistent sexist writing decisions even where they don't arise naturally from the flow of the narrative.

Horikoshi is actively interested in gender and sexism, he's aware of them in a way you rarely see outside of the context of, you know, fighting sexism. He is hung up on the thorny issue of what women are worth and deserve and how power and respect ties into it. He genuinely wants, I think, to have Good Female Characters, and not be (seen as) A Sexist Guy!

But. He doesn't actually want to fight sexism. He displays a lot of woman-oriented anxieties, and one of the many churning paddlewheels in his head seems to be that he knows intellectually that morally sexism is bad, but emotionally he really feels like it ought to probably be at least partly correct.

There are so many things I could cite, and maybe I'll get into some of them later, but the crowning item that highlights how the pattern is 1) at least partly conscious and deliberate and 2) about Horikoshi's own weird hangups rather than simply cynical market play, is Mineta Minoru.

The writer has stated Mineta is his favorite character. Mineta is also designed to be hated--that is, he is a particularly elaborate instantiation of a character archetype normally deployed to soak up audience contempt and (by being gross and shameless and unattractive and 'unthreatening') make it possible to include a range of sexual gratification elements into the narrative that would compromise the main characters' reputations as heroic and deserving, if they were the actors.

Good Guys don't grope girls' tits and run away snickering in triumph, after all. Non-losers don't focus intense effort around successfully stealing someone's panties. Nice Girls don't let themselves be seen half-dressed. And so forth. You need an underwear gremlin for that. So, in anime and manga, longstanding though declining tradition of including such a gremlin, for authorial deniability.

Horikoshi definitely uses him straight for this purpose, looping in Kaminari as needed to make a bit work. And yet he has Feelings about the archetype itself.

The passages dedicated to the vindication of Mineta, then, and the author's statements about him, let us understand that Horikoshi identifies with the figure of the underwear gremlin. He understands the underwear gremlin as a defining exemplar of male sexuality, at least if you are not hot, and finds the attached contempt and hostility to be a dehumanizing attack on all uh.

Incels, basically.

It's not fair to write Mineta off just because he's unattractive and horny (and commits sexual harassment). Doesn't he have a mind? Doesn't he have dreams? Doesn't he have human potential?

So what's going on with Horikoshi and gender, as far as I can figure out, is that he knows damn well that women are people and are treated unjustly by sexist society, but however.

He also understands the institutions of sexism as something protecting him and people like him from life being nebulously yet definitively Worse, and therefore wants to see them upheld.

So you get this really bizarre handling of gender where obviously women's rights good and women cool, women can be Strong, and the compulsory sexualization imposed by the industry isn't them or the author, and so forth.

But also it's very important that in the world he controls, women never win anything important or Count too much, and that jokes at their expense that disrupt the internal logic of their characters are always fair game, that women asked about sexism on TV will promptly get into catfights amongst themselves, and they are understood always in terms of their sexual and romantic interests and value, and sexual assertiveness and failures to perform femininity well enough are used to code them as dangerous and irrational, and that the sexy costumes are requisite and will never be subverted or rebelled against--at most they might be circumnavigated via leaning into cute appeal.

And that Yaoyorozu Momo, who converts her body fat into physical objects, is being frivolous when she wants to use money to buy things instead (rather than as sensibly moderating her Quirk use) and is never encouraged to eat as much as possible at every opportunity to put on weight and even shown being embarrassed by hunger (even though Quirk overuse gives symptoms that suggest she's been stripping the lipids out of her cell walls or nervous system to keep fighting) and always, no matter how many Things she has made, has huge big round boobies.

#ask #hoc est meum #beastenraged #bnha #sexism #i think i got the main points here #just getting lost in the weeds of subsidiary arguments and supporting evidence was destroying me #i don't need to do those this is fandom on the internet #and not even a serious level of that #meta #mineta minoru #yaoyorozu momo #honestly psychologically pretty interesting #it's like he keeps saying 'look i know sexism bad but I Need It' #someone tell him that the patriarchy is exploiting him too and we can all achieve liberation together #this is the same mechanism that upholds white supremacy among the poor #'my life is so bad already the idea of liberating those below me and having to share the crumbs with them is horrific' #ESPECIALLY if i know they're worthy and lots of them are better than me #injustice is the only thing keeping my head above water! #he's also fishing for vindication ofc #but it's wild to see how he'll put in the groundwork that would let him do something gender-egalitarian with his themes #and then opt not to #despite having done the hard part already #idk how much that's making a statement and how much it's just 'this Feels Right' #but as a pattern it murdered me

[artistcalledbella]

Some outlast drawings

#is this fandom still alive what’s going on #digital art #procreate #outlast #horror #outlast chris walker #outlast fanart #outlast fandom #survival horror #video games #psychological horror #eddie gluskin

[mylittleredgirl]

when i hear "found family" in relation to an ensemble of fictional characters in media there's two different things that could be happening here.

often it's what i think of as forced family, which is like "i found myself in a situation with these people" but a key part of the trope is that, like most families of origin, they're stuck with each other and can't leave without taking extreme action. voyager's "found family" is a forced family. i'm watching m*a*s*h now and it seems that way too. in both cases there's an outside constraint where you literally cannot escape these people and so grow to love them as a result, often in a codependent or unhealthy way but you are closer to them than you will ever be to anyone who did not share this experience. you would sell some of them to satan for one corn chip but god help any outsider who tries to break you up or even understand the situation. sometimes you get lucky and there's a person or two in there that you would choose to spend every day with regardless of circumstance (but would you really? can you even tell for sure??). but also it's "i will never ever speak to you again as long as i live but i'm really bored so can you give me a ride to the 7-11 first."

meanwhile chosen family is more like star trek the next generation where they are placed in this group at random but there's no hostage element to it. any one of them could request a transfer at any time, but they never will because this community and group of people have become an inseparable part of their identity. in both cases they'd saddle up and risk their lives to save each other forever at any personal cost ("not to me, not if it's you") but forced family also contains the element of "i'll fucking do it but christ alive." not every ensemble fits into one or the other but i think it's fun to distinguish as a concept.

#on fandom #star trek thoughts #i was thinking about all the times when hawkeye and frank are like i would literally murder you at the slightest provocation #but then in that ep where trapper thinks he's leaving he's like are you gonna move out to get away from frank #and hawkeye's like of course not. or the time when they both trick frank into staying at the 4077 for some flimsy reason?? #or when margaret tries to rage quit the 4077 and henry's like lol yeah we all commit psychological warfare on each other #but how could you actually want to leave that?? we're a family margaret hello?? #mashblogging

[rookflower]

i think it's a wonderful thing that warrior cats online circles being so driven by fan creations and original stories leads to the community being easy to engage with and accessible to newcomers despite the length of the reading list, but i also think that this is in many instances a hellish disastrous nightmare because it leads to absolutely repulsive character takes formed through fanon telephone and childhood misrememberings, and also nobody deserves to be exposed to warrior cats in the first place so everyone loses

#constant psychological back and forth between 'oh i love this fandom and the stuff people make for it' and 'jesus fucking christ'

[scribble333]

My opinion on why Angel×husk relationship might be hard to come true

First of all, I am not saying it won't happen, I'm saying that they're gonna need a lot of time to be official.

They are both fucked up. Im not familiar with Husks previous love life if he even had one, but I do remember that in the pilot, he said to Charlie: "I lost the ability to love years ago." and yes, Charlie was talking about the hotel there, but I don't think Husk was. so if he will begin feeling something towards angel, he will either say "fuck it" and confess OR, a more likely outcome, he will be in denial, very stubborn and will avoid Angel for the sake of avoiding his feelings until he is put in a corner and forced to say or do something. I'm guessing, and this is just a guess, that because of his demenior and the way he handles situations, he might completely avoid having anything to do with angel because maybe he believes he isn't lovable or as I mentioned before "can't love."

As for angel dust, we all know the connection he has with V@lentin0, the connection being that he sold his soul to him. I think that after all he went through and is still going through, after all the shallow sex and traumatic abuse he just isn't emotionally, mentally or physically ready for a real, healthy, honest and long term relationship. He was abused to the point where he can't tell what a real relationship is sopoused to be like. He is so deep into it that "the act" that Husk called it is not an act anymore, which is what we heard from Angel later. I think that he cannot see the difference between what's real and what isn't in the matter of connection, love and even the basic care. The abuse consumed him to the point where he became what was before only acting. And I think that with that and with Husks problems too, them being together will be very complicated to execute. But don't get me wrong, I love them, I love the ship, I do think that there is hope for them being healthy for each other once they learn how to make it that.

#hazbin hotel #vivziepop #vivzieverse #blog #rant #angel dust #huskerdust #tw abuse #my thoughts #fandom #psychology #hazbin angel dust #lgbtq

[freezingmcxn]

MY HCS FOR JEFF THE KILLER

These are very dark so scroll if you’re not interested

(Im not involved with fanon, I enjoy looking at psychology and realistic versions of different creeps)

.

.

After killing people Jeff poses their bodies in dehumanising ways.

This is common with lots of serial killers.

Why?

There’s two main purposes behind it:

A) the gratification of the offender

B) to shock those who discover the body (investigators,cops,family etc)

Jeff does it for both those reasons, he wanted to do something to make a statement, a bigger name for himself.He has signature poses for his victims making it so law inforcement know it’s him, he gets off on the fact he’ll never be caught and can piss them off.

One pose Jeff normally places his female victims in is a kneeling pose.

Why?

It demonstrates power.Kneeling in the presence of power means the kneeler is under control, they’re submissive.

He’s sees women as submissive creatures who are weak.

Jeff is putting himself in “Gods role” as the enforcer of mortality (it feeds him solopsistic ideation + god complex)

He doesn’t only use his knife as a weapon, he partakes in strangulation

Strangulation, particularly ligature strangulation, is more commonly associated with sexual sadistic murderers than non sexual sadistic murderers.

Jeff is a non sexual sadistic murderer.

Why does he do it?

It allowed the perpetrator to exert more power over their victims, that is what Jeff enjoys.

Being able to see the light drain from their eyes at the mercy of his hands,how they fail to fight back? Absolutely, sign him up.

Thank you for reading, again I’m apologising for not answering asks, I’m busy writing my fanfic at the minute! I will come on occasionally and answer some like I’ve been doing <3 I don’t want to rush them I wanna think them over! Thank you for being patient :)

#creepypasta #creepypasta fandom #hcs #realistic #alternate universe #horror #slenderman #headcanons requests #jeff the killer #jeffery woods #jtk #psychology #criminology

[brotherconstant]

SUCCESSION ➤ Timestamp Roulette 2x01 The Summer Palace 🧡 @sdktrs12 🧡

#successionedit #what an episode. thank you for the request!! your gifs are some of the LOVELIEST in the fandom you're an inspiration <3 #the timestamp generator said fuck roman give us more turtleneck shiv (and colin psychologically demolishing ken) #succession #kendall roy #shiv roy #logan roy #marcia roy #beegifs #timestamp roulette

[etheral-moon]

ℑ𝔱 𝔪𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱 𝔟𝔢 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔳𝔬𝔦𝔠𝔢𝔰 𝔱𝔥𝔬 ʚ♡ɞ

𝑱𝒌 𝒋𝒌 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝑰 𝒏𝒆𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔/𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒈𝒊𝒓𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝒔𝒐 𝒘𝒆 𝒃𝒆 𝒎𝒖𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒔 ౨ৎ ⋆｡˚

⋆｡‧˚‧｡⋆

#ahs fandom #ahs murder house #coquette #dolette #girl stuff #girls being girls #evan peters #dollette #girlblogging #memes #taissa farmiga #taissa x van #violet and tate #tate and violet #tate langdon #violet harmon #harmon and langdon #my writing #writing #writers on tumblr #writeblr #writerscommunity #american horror murder house #horror #horror movies #horror films #horror art #psychological horror #girl horror #american horror story

[procrastiel]

I love y’all very much, but I need to know: do you really think Aziraphale is the dominant partner in this relationship? The angel who literally went ‘toot-toot’ when he sounded the Bentley’s horn?

#80% of this fandom is Top Az #I love it and think they’re both switches but like #where are my #Top Crowley #peeps at #and how do you combine toot toot with him gagging and whipping the demon #please #tell me more #I don’t know how you do it #I am interested in the deeper psychology of this twist #do you secretly see yourself in Crowley #is Crowley more accessible because he’s more openly NB and traumatized #I would like to know #good omens #unpopular opinion #Crowley #Aziraphale #relationship dynamics #crowley loves aziraphale #aziraphale loves crowley #aziraphale and crowley #aziraphale x crowley #crowzi #ineffable husbands #ineffable lovers #will i regret this? #wait and see #i have things to say