Welcome to the Show: The Game [TEASER]
You've been quite unsure about him, not quite comfortable in taking the lead instead of letting them for once. However, by now, you should've learned your lesson not to judge and expect the unexpected.
Tags/Warnings: mentions and discussion of sex work, angst, smut, Jimin x Reader focus, toys, he's got quite the collection, semi-public action, teasing, edging, he's literally torturing her and thinks it's funny, feelings, fluff, romance??
Length: not yet set
-> Masterlist
A/N: I think I'm ready to finally fucking finish this. Please give this chapter love even though I know most of you are only waiting on the maknae chapter. Thank you.
♥━━━━━━━━━━━♡━━━━━━━━━━━━♥
“Jimin-“ you hiss, very much sure that if someone was to walk into the elevator right now, at any moment, they’d be able to hear it. You know they could, fuck, to your ears it’s louder than a construction site-
But jimin just laughs, completely amused by you as his hands rest on your shoulders, a kiss placed against your neck where your pulse races. “Oh but..” he hums against your skin. “…it’s only us here. Do you really think the rest of the guys don’t know what we’re up to?” He says, and at that, you freeze a bit.
Of course. Do they compare their experiences? Talk about your flaws? What you're lacking in? What you did better with someone else?
“They’re all bragging, it made me kind of jealous.” He instead says, as his hands move to wrap his arms around your waist, pulling you closer to himself. “made me impatient to have my turn.”
“Turn?” You ask, thoughts still fuzzy with the buzzing distraction between your legs.
“turn.” He repeats, underlines his word as true. “we’ve got a system in place by now, doll.” He chuckles, and at that, you once again think.
They’ve done this before. Had someone like you before. This isn’t anything new to them- and you will also be replaced if they feel bored of the same thing over and over. This is a job after all, not just some magical fairytale- you’re getting paid to do this, and they basically own you.
But it’s his next words that make you feel.. odd.
“…I feel like I could too.”
“But I have to admit, I can’t blame any of them for falling for you..” he says, a strange warmth in his tone, as if he’s talking about a distant memory he longs to relive again.
109 notes
·
View notes
I made a post talking about my frustration with Lxc mischaracterization and several people mentioned in the tags the adjacent fanon Lxc problem, aka the “himbo” characterization.
Himbo is now just one of those internet words that has been so overused and thrown out of its original context that to me it almost has no meaning. My eyes sort of just glaze over it, which might be why it doesn’t bother me as much. But as far as mischaracterization goes— oh definitely Lxc is not at all a himbo.
Definitions vary but in my opinion to be a himbo one must be three things:
1) Obviously strong
To be a himbo it’s not enough to just be strong, you must be visibly strong. Bimbo and himbo’s were originally negative descriptors given to hot people who were supposedly stupid. What I’m getting at is it’s a visual aesthetic. If a character’s strength isn’t immediately identifiable then they’re not a himbo. I’m not talking “has to have a six pack,” I’m talking clothing that inadvertently reveals their strength. It’s about how they present themselves the same way bimbo is about how you present yourself. To be clear the majority of characters aren’t aware of the himbo label but they are conscious of the way they dress. They’re not dressing to fit a mold they’re dressing to show off in a way they think is cool. (Ex: characters like Itto and Galo walking around shirtless for the vibe)
2) Dumb in an oblivious way
Himbos aren’t book smart, nor are they great at grasping highly technical things, but they do shock everyone around them with their emotional intelligence. This trait comes from the newer, more positive interpretation of the label that the internet has created. Himbos are no longer flat out stupid, no they’re just a little dumb but they have a big heart. It’s the simplicity in their logic that allows them to be so straightforward and cut through the bs to the humanity of any given issue. However, it also means a lot goes over their heads. The obliviousness is the key to their dumb characterization because it’s what allows them to be so open and loud about what they believe in.
3) Kind
I already partially touched on this in the previous blurb but apart of the new understanding of a himbo is their capacity for kindness. Usually himbos are written to have strong internal moral codes that are very simple, but it’s the simplicity that allows them to see past the cultural norms and politics and just be respectful to everyone regardless of their background. That’s why people often say himbos can’t be sexist, racist, etc. Which I mostly agree with, but I do think that there are levels to this. I think if we’re discussing characters, himbos are allowed some minor prejudices as a flaw that they then work through. Sokka, while not a himbo, is a good example of a character who starts a series with a flaw (sexism) that comes from a well meaning place but grows from it. The important thing is the capacity to respect everyone.
Now Lxc does have some of these traits but he doesn’t display them in a way that matches what a himbo is.
Stength:
He’s very strong both in his cultivation and physically. Too bad we can’t see that just by looking at him.
Oblivious:
Lxc’s whole thing is that he’s literally book smart. Never once is oblivious to a situation. He purposely allows himself some blissful ignorance when it came to the situation between Jgy and Nmj but that was his one selfish act. He’s well adept when it comes to handling politics more so than anyone in the book. If you think that Lxc’s internal logic is simplistic that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of his character. The dumbest he ever gets is tied to class, where he struggles to do daily chores, and even then he’s never shown to be oblivious to the social hierarchy.
Kindness:
This is probably the trait Lxc embodies the most. He is very kind. That being said his internal logic system is not simplistic at all. Lxc is a lot more morally grey than he seems at first glance. While he feels strongly about not judging others based on their backgrounds he also has a deep understanding of exactly why certain people aren’t accepted in the first place. He understands his status and accepting Jgy was absolutely a calculated move on his part. It was coming from a good place but he also understood the delicacy of the situation. If he were actually a himbo he would’ve had none of that delicacy and pitched a very loud fit over it.
All of this is to say he’s no where near the realm of himbo. I think the only types of people who refer to him as one are typically the same people who only engage with his character on the most surface level. They mean well because it’s supposed to be a compliment— which might be why I don’t mind it as much— but it’s also just fundamentally the exact opposite of his character. He’s a passive reserved artist who’s been forced into a leadership position where he has to navigate politics.
29 notes
·
View notes
I don't know if this one has been asked but I'm sick in the head so anyway, how would the RO's react to the MC coming up to them and hesitantly asking to bite them or for them to bite the MC HARD, like make them bleed, dig their teeth into their skin, leave a scar hard. Now bear with me, the reason why is because MC's life has never been good, they've spent most of their life losing (friends, family, home's, etc.) and now with the whole "you are a danger not only to yourself but to everyone around you" they would be going feral about having or leaving proof of having lived, of having loved and been loved because what is cannibalism if not one of the deepest ways of showing love (the desperate need to shove a whole person in your chest, let them rest right next to your heart, carry them as a part of you for the rest of your life).
Anyways, love the story, bye!!❤️❤️🍽️❤️❤️
Anon I hope you know I yelled when I saw this lmaO thankfully for you cannibalism as a metaphor for love is my jam. Under a read more just in case tumblr's tagging system fails (cw: discussions and references to consensual violence)
Rook: He balks at the idea, at first. His whole thing is trying to keep you out of harm's way, and him becoming the harm? But the idea sticks. You want proof he's here to stay and he wants you to never forget him. He might be willing, depending on how you ask again.
Beck: He wouldn't. Besides it isn't like a scar is proof of someone staying with you. You might notice he does become more bitey, leaving marks on you, as a form of compromise. He hopes you'll come to learn he's here to stay without needing such extreme reassurance, but until then, he hopes the marks he leaves are enough
Rhea: Is gentle with you, saying that isn't how she wants to treat you. Your blood isn't something to be spilled, and even if you're ok with it, she isn't. She'll stay, she swears it. You don't need to go so far for comfort
Zoe: Blindsided by the idea, and probably one of the few times their fake calm mask slips into place around you. Would have a genuine discussion about it with you, and would say to ask them again when you're in a better place. If you still want them to do it, they'll consider
Lars: Consensual violence doesn't bother him, and if you really want him to, he will. He'll ask where you want him to bite, and he makes you swear you'll tell him to stop if it's too much. He cleans and binds the wound after, making sure you're alright emotionally and physically
???: Do you know what you're asking them? They've marked you in so many ways, they wouldn't hesitate. The only catch is, you have to do the same as well. Lean in together and sink your teeth into each other's skin at the same time. Some exchange rings as proof their relationship has eternity. Other people exchange wounds
24 notes
·
View notes
Tagging @explaceholder for post alert.
So, until recently I absolutely didn't care about multiplicity and in fact education that I received suggested that multiplicity is not real, including DID.
What coincided is that in the last few weeks several posts about it made it on my dash and I lurked r/fakedisordercringe. The subreddit left me with conflicting feelings because on one hand it's true that many of the featured people clearly don't fit the criteria for their disorders, but also the place felt too aggressive considering that the "fakers" may be just misinformed.
With most disorders it's clear because there always exist states that severely deviate from the norm but are not pathological. With multiplicity though it's clear that most of those people don't have DID, but some people noted (and later I saw it on your post) that said "fake" multiplicity may be just non-pathological spiritual practice. I know a number of ideas about how human psyche can be dissected into sub-personalities, including those that were proposed as psychotherapy techniques and for a time I semi-regularly interacted with tulpamancers who also fit the criteria of "believe in possessing multiple personalities inside one body". And while I never experimented with splitting psyche and don't want to, I have some experience with other spiritual practices and know that power of believe and symbolism may make you feel very interesting things. And some of the "ex-fakers" even report that those other personalities felt real as long as they were doing practice but eventually disappeared after they stopped.
So while having DID without trauma is scientifically impossible, I can easily accept that people may have brains or experience that makes them feel like there are multiple hypostasises inside of them. Which is very different but as legit as any other self-conceptualization.
What I am getting at is that I don't want to dismiss endogenic systems as non-existent, but they are obviously non-pathological. Main complaint from the cringers is that endogenic systems downplay the severity of DID and misinform people, and it would be in fact a very bad thing to do. But like, do they? Or are you mostly having discipline and distinguish pathological and non-pathological states?
I just recently learned about the whole thing and want to study it for scholarly reasons and also because it feels like it becomes louder and louder, so I decided to just ask the most important question directly. Also feel free to correct me on any of the mistakes
Thanks for taking an interest in this and being open-minded!
If you're interested in studying multiplicity, this doc has a ton of sources you can check out:
For plural history, you may want to check out the Plural Deepdive:
Something I find about r/Fakedisordercringe is that a lot of ableist misinformation gets spread around there. Many of the things they claim aren't symptoms of DID are, in fact, and have been well-documented.
I also think you shouldn't necessarily conclude based on behaviors from brief snippets that their experiences aren't pathological.
In the end, the only things you see are the snippets these systems want to show, which are then further cherry-picked by the cringe subreddits.
While it's great that you're more interested in non-pathological plurality, please don't assume that someone's plurality isn't pathological just because you see a video of them being happy with their system. Because dissociative disorders are immensely complex, and there are plenty of systems that get along very well. One study even showed a majority of people with DID said they would miss the voices of their alters if they were gone. But they still had DID.
It's very, very common for people with DID to enjoy some aspects of the disorder, even if other aspects still would result in clinically significant distress or impairment that would make it pathological.
So while having DID without trauma is scientifically impossible
I wish people would stop saying this. We are... in a very gray area.
What we know for certain is that people with DID nearly always report a trauma history with statistics being upwards of 90%, which is huge. And the fact that it's not quite 100% can possibly be explained by amnesia... but we can't know that for certain.
There is a huge difference between "DID is virtually always caused by trauma" and "it's scientifically impossible to have DID without trauma."
Remember, a lot of science operates in these gray areas and our scientific knowledge is constantly overturned with new research.
I don't mind if people believe that all DID is trauma-based. I just don't think it should be presented as if it's some sort of scientific law when there are still too many unknowns.
Main complaint from the cringers is that endogenic systems downplay the severity of DID and misinform people, and it would be in fact a very bad thing to do. But like, do they? Or are you mostly having discipline and distinguish pathological and non-pathological states?
Personally, I think it's kind of silly for people to say "these people who don't say they have DID are downplaying the severity of DID."
Because by and large, that's what we're talking about. Only a very small number of DID systems identify as endogenic.
At least purely. There are mixed origin DID systems who may report being plural before they experienced the trauma that caused them to develop their system, or they may identify some of their headmates as spiritual, or consider themselves mixed for other reasons. But people who will say they have DID without any trauma are an exceedingly rare anomaly.
So yeah, most purely endogenic systems are not saying their plurality is related to any disorder and there's no logical reason their presentations of plurality should affect the perceptions of disorders they aren't claiming to have.
...
Anyway, hope this was able to help! 😁
21 notes
·
View notes
Lucullus and Cicero were, as I have said, ardent friends, and members of the same political party, for Lucullus had not withdrawn himself entirely from political life, although he lost no time in leaving to Crassus and Cato the ambitious struggle for the chief place and the greatest power, since he saw that it involved both peril and ignominy.
-Plutarch, Lucullus
rejected panel layouts for a scene between lucullus and crassus, but it was still fun enough to play with that it gets memorialized on the blog :)
crassus ???? reaction has less to do with his own characterization and more to do with me, who was mostly thinking about how much cato wanted to Stab Sulla and completely forgot that lucullus had independent ties with cato. like, a whole relationship dynamic was going on with those two.
so jump cut to
lmao. anyway! something interesting (gestures vaguely) is happening in all of this
Cato the Younger: Life and Death at the End of the Roman Republic, Fred K. Drogula
Lucullus, a Life, Arthur Keaveney
A Life in Pieces, Plutarch, Crassus 12.1-16-8, James T Chlup
Lucullus: A Life, Arthur Keaveney
Plutarch, Cato 3
bsky ⭐ pixiv ⭐ pillowfort ⭐ cohost
131 notes
·
View notes