I had a thought for a creator but they didn't believe they were the creator and could influence others into believing it too.
The two characters are Sara kujou and yae miko
@mastadon64 here you go!
Gaslight, Gatekeep, Godboss - Kujou Sara and Yae Miko
Kujou Sara
Cw: Sexual innuendos
-Honestly, waking up in Teyvat, you had a hard time convincing yourself you weren’t dreaming
-(It took you tumbling down a hill and slamming into a particularly sharp rock to realize it was not a dream. Also, ow)
-(You ignored the way your blood was golden. You were pretty sure you’d never seen the Genshin characters bleed anyways. It was probably just censoring. Totally.)
-Some way or another, you ended up in Inazuma
-Honestly, it wasn’t as bad as you were expecting
-Most of the creatures were pretty chill, and as long as you avoided the people, you didn’t get in much trouble
-And then you kicked a Tenryou commission officer in the face and got arrested
-You know, jail wasn’t as bad as you expected either!
-Your cellmates weren’t too bad either- one of them asked you if you were god, which was weird, because you didn’t look anything like the Shogun, but you gave him a stick of dango and he shut up
-(You might not have been a god, but the fact that you managed to keep your inventory from the game was the closest thing to a divine blessing that you could imagine. Who needs a gnosis when you have your own pocket dimension?)
-It’s about half an hour before you’re taken from your cell for questioning
-You walk into a small interrogation room, shock igniting in your chest as you spot Kujou Sara
-Wasn’t she important?
-Was kicking that guy in the face really such a grave offense?
-“Are you the Creator God?” She asks, deathly serious
-Why did people keep asking you this???
-You’re pretty sure you don’t look too godly, garbed in stolen clothes that you’re ninety percent sure you put on wrong, a fading bite mark on your arm from when you tried to pet a rifthound, leaves in your hair. Honestly, you looked pretty disheveled, and…
-“Is that your way of saying you think I’m hot? Like… godly or whatever?”
-Considering the way the Tengu’s face turns a vibrant red, you’re either very right, or very wrong
-It’d be funnier if you were right though, so you press on
-“I mean, not that I’m not into it, but I’m feeling kinda iffy about the power dynamic here- prisoner and cop is a cute trope and all, but not all that smart in real life, I mean I get it if it’s a kink or whatever, I know handcuffs are attractive, but as of right now it’s immoral-”
-“Shut up. Please.” Sara mumbled, covering her red face with her hand. Her hair has more volume than usual, tiny sparks of static dancing between the strands
-“… I mean after I get out of prison I’d totally be down to go on a date, and if you feed me well enough I might even let you handcuff me.” You add.
-The silence in the room is heavy
-“Get out.”
-“Yes ma’am. Hm. No. Yes Mommy? Yes Master-“
-You’re cut off by an electrically charged arrow striking the wall beside your head.
-“Out.”
-“Okay!”
-You’re released from prison three days later, now with a whole gaggle of new friends from criminals
-(You ignored the fact that some of them made really important sounding speeches swearing their fealty to you. Also the small shrine they were building in your honor. If you didn’t acknowledge it, it didn’t exist)
-You were surprised that as soon as you left, you were met with a glaring Kujou Sara, who takes your hand in her own
-“Am I being arrested again?”
-“… I’m going to take you on a date. And then I’m going to handcuff you.”
-“Yes Mommy!”
-“I Will Shoot You Again.”
Yae Miko
-You had to admit, stumbling upon a small shrine that seemed to be dedicated to your doppelgänger was creepy
-But you had also just been Isekaied to video game land, so you were pretty adaptable at the moment.
-Or high on adrenaline.
-You pick up one of the Sunsiettas from the shrine, biting down and relaxing, until-
-“Your excellency?!” A voice squeaks, and looking up you see a very frazzled shrine maiden staring at you.
-“Uh. No?” You say, swallowing the Sunsietta.
-The shrine maiden starts sobbing. “Your excellency!”
-“Oh- no- I’m- uh- I’m like you? You know? I’m uh… a messiah? Priest? Prophet? Whatever gets you to stop crying?” You awkwardly pat her head.
-“You- you’re the Creators chosen one?” She blubbers.
-“Uh. Yeah. Totally. Stop crying.”
-“CHOSEN ONE!” And she’s crying again
-After a lot of crying, you’re led to the Grand Narukami shrine, where you’re introduced to the head shrine maiden as the chosen one
-“… Are you sure she’s not just the creator?”
-“You flatter me. I’m just gods favoritist and most specialist little princess.”
-The Kitsune likes this. Perhaps too much, but we’ll let her have her fun
-And thus, the war to get you to admit that you’re the Creator begins, hidden under the guise of her introducing you to chosen one duties
-She takes you on a pilgrimage all across Inazuma first, going to the most dangerous places possible just to put you in danger and save you at the last second, disappointed that you never use godly powers to save (read: reveal) yourself
-She meditates with you, and paints obscure markings on your face when you fall asleep, which you have to pass off as messages from the creator
-She takes you to meet the Shogun, but after leaving you alone for five minutes, returns to you teaching her poker and robbing her blind. You cited divine luck and she pretended she didn’t notice the cards stuffed inside your sleeve
-It ends pretty anticlimactically, actually
-She’s introducing you to the local foxes, when you trip over a rock and face plant into the floor
-And get a nose bleed
-Miko can’t help but doubling over in laughter at the sight of your pout as golden blood drips down your face
-“And how are you explaining this one, Oh revered Chosen One?”
-“Genetic condition.”
-The laughter doubles
132 notes
·
View notes
hiii!!! so uh, this is sorta about 'contradicting' (?) identities in general, but i only recently found out about, like, lesboys and gaygirls and all of that, but what is it exactly? like how does it work? or is that weird to ask? i'm trying figuring myself out but a lot of stuff i've seen doesn't exactly... explain it (or explain it well), and while i guess i do get why, it's just kinda hard to understand it myself for my own identity
also, probably a question you get a lot in a hating way, but isn't the definition of lesbian nonman loving nonman? so then how does lesboy work? like is it for people with more complicated gender identites, like fluctuating genders and bigender? just genuinly confused, my apologies...
sorry for not getting to this sooner- been busier lately and didn't have the time to collect everything I needed to respond!
About what it exactly means to be a lesboy or a gaygirl ('turigirl' is the more common term, 'turi' meaning turian, another word for gay attraction to men. so I'll be referring to it as that from now on), there isn't exactly....one right way to call yourself such. it really depends on the person, but I can give you a basic definition and a list of common reasons someone may call themselves such
im gonna put a read more because this ended up being super long so sorry
lesboy is a term for any lesbian who may have a connection to manhood and/or masculinity. turigirl is just the opposite of that, a gay person (mlm/nblm) who may have a connection to womanhood and/or femininity. common reasons I've seen are:
being multigender or genderfluid
being cusper/in between trans and cis gnc (in between trans man and cis gnc woman, in between trans woman and cis gnc man)
being a system who uses lesboy/turigirl as a collective identity or when identities blur together
a person who uses man/boy or woman/girl as a means of masculine or feminine gender expression but not actually identifying as such
being a trans man/ftm or a trans woman/mtf who still identifies as lesbian or gay for personal reasons
those are far from all the reasons, everyone has their own unique experiences, but the gist is these people may have some sort of connection to manhood/womanhood while still having a queer attraction. personally, I'm multigender, genderfluid, and transmasc. lesboy I find is a nice label to express being both my bigender self and being a lesbian, as it forces people to acknowledge both without separating the two. it's cute and makes me feel validated!
as for "nonman attracted to nonmen" definition of lesbian......it has its issues. it's received criticism all around from all sorts of lesbians in the community. this definition is very new - it emerged only in the recent years, and someone on twitter had date searched it and found it didn't even really exist before 2019. and having that as the one and only official definition that every lesbian has to abide by, when lesbian is a centuries old word with so much history behind it, is a bit ignorant. people who are multiple genders or ftm or bi being lesbian is not even remotely new, going back decades upon decades, and it never stopped existing too. It's a bit weird to have a whole new definition that doesn't include all sorts of lesbians that have been here for so long and just tell them they're not welcomed anymore, right?
that's not even close to the only issue there is with it. it's been disliked for centering lack of attraction to men, or defining lesbian in relation to men, rather than who we're actually attracted to. putting nonbinary people in a new binary of either being "men or nonmen," which not all feel comfortable putting themselves into. especially when considering a definition of gay being "nonwomen attracted to nonwomen," man-woman bigender people are simultaneously excluded from being both lesbian or gay. It inherently overlaps with mspec identity ("attraction to nonmen, which is more than one gender" and "any orientation that involves attraction to more than one gender" kinda obviously overlap), despite people insisting that a lesbian can never be mspec. people have found multiple loopholes in it, (which I can elaborate on if someone wants me to, for the sake of trying to make this as short as possible), and lastly, and term "nonman" (and nonwoman) were found to have existed before to describe the degendering of black people in society. this isn't the only source I've seen for this, but sadly I can't exactly find it (or find it without going back to that hellsite called twitter and I'm not doing that to myself)
oh and as the link points out, defining lesbian by these words also ends up excluding a lot of two-spirit people from ever identifying as lesbian, myself included. which is also really racist. I don't know how you're gonna end up excluding a whole cultural gender that's common for indigenous americans to describe themselves with and try to prove it somehow isn't racist, to be honest
and lastly, some surveys/polls have shown that the definition isn't the most widely accepted by lesbians as people make it out to be. there's this simple poll that someone posted asking how lesbians felt about the definition that received 1,529 responses, and 61.1% of voters said they disliked it. comments gave lots of reasons I've stated already. there was another survey put out that received 211 responses that for any lesbian who had a genderqueer or unique relationship with gender, and one of the questions asking opinions on the "nonmen loving nonmen" as a definition. the average among the group was slightly negative (average 2.838), and reported that the group who tended to feel the most positively about it didn't consider themselves to be trans, with the other positive leaning group considered themselves to be somewhat cis. the group that felt the most negatively sometimes considered themselves to be trans. and of the multigender participants, the average opinion was 2.255 (more negative than the overall average). When concluding, the original poster stated, "When divided by gender, the only groups to feel positive about this definition were "not trans" and "somewhat cis" participants. Multigender participants felt especially negative about this definition"
all of this shows that this definition isn't nearly the best for everyone who considers themselves a lesbian. I know it's been a way to include nonbinary people who are lesbian in it's definition, but I think it really misunderstands why nonbinary people are included in lesbianism in the first place, and just assumes that all nonbinary people aren't men and fails to recognize that multigender/genderfluid people are nonbinary too. and it's not like lesbian has to only have on definition- it can definitely have multiple and depend on each person's experience with it. if someone personally defines them being lesbian around being a nonman attracted to nonmen, and takes pride in not being attracted to men, that's totally fine. what becomes a problem is forcing all lesbians to define themselves like this and make it the standard, or else they're "not real lesbians." it is ahistorical and ignorant to require this or else you'll strip them of their lesbian status, and is really at the end of the day, lesbophobic. especially as a requirement that primarily exists in online spaces. im sure the lesbian who is not at all connected to these circles doesn't particularly care about strict requirements or whether someone is a "nonman" or not. in conclusion, it is not the best nor most accepted definition of lesbian, and deciding which lesbians are valid or not based solely on that definition is pretty exclusionary and ends up policing a lot of lesbians, myself included
32 notes
·
View notes
Trope - Disney Princess Syndrome
"Disney Princess Syndrome" is my personal name for the trope of a rich or powerful character portrayed as "Nice", "Good" or "Down to earth". Because they want to hang around "Normal/Real people" and want to be treated like a "Regular person" or otherwise does not think their phenomenal wealth makes them abnormal.
This trope/character concept is usually contrasted against another rich or powerful persons who flaunts their wealth intentionally, is aware they are rich and tends to be snooty, cocky or otherwise act in a manner that is more reflective of their phenomenal wealth.
Usually these characters are contrasted so that we like the former but hate the latter but weirdly… I often find myself either disliking both or liking the latter more. Largely cos they at least seem self aware of their circumstances and so come off as less frustratingly flippant or willfully ignorant.
Examples will be drawn from, Miraculous Ladybug.
I will largely avoid talking about how X character was raised, or trauma that might influence this behavior. But keep in mind people with bad home lives can often act out in ways that don't make them a "good" victim.
In ML, you have "Wants to be a normal boy" Adrien, "Wants to meet sincere people" Princes Ali, and "This is all so artificial" Musician Jagged Stone. They are contrasted against hotel heiress, Mayors daughter & smug about it Chloe.
Now:
Chloe's a brat, a jerk & a snob to be sure, however I still somehow find her less hypocritical or deluded than these other three because at least she seems aware of her circumstances and what they mean for her VS others.
Jagged treats doing a small autograph session with the mayor like its some horrible imposition and he flips out at being expected to follow trends he deems artificial. But he also drags his literal assistant with him everywhere to manage his life, keeps a pet alligator on him at all times & can be extremely rude and demanding. But it never feels acknowledged in the same way as with Chloe, because he's 'real'.
Prince Ali acts like its weird for people to try and charm or otherwise please him when assigned to give him a tour for a whole event about himself. He also seems to neglect what would be fairly typical greetings for someone of his class & position despite likely being taught them. This again ties into making him seem 'genuine' but comes off as just odd.
Adrien balances it best by wanting his father to be less controlling and his father is indeed controlling. But he's also only bothered by Chloe, her parents or his fathers haughty behavior if it alienates him or people he wants to be friends with. He laughs it off or otherwise tends to ignore it with staff but is meant to be better.
This isn't to say a character 'can't' want these things, or find the trappings of wealth utterly unsatisfying. Especially children who are not themselves actually rich and exist at the whims of their parents who are often functionally immune to the law.
Its more an issue with how the trope tends to be executed. Both in terms of the "Disney Princess" who wants to be "Out there" having no self awareness of their wealth, or internal hypocrisy. With this being framed as more endearing than anything, despite often coming off as entitled or selfish by accident.
Or in how the rich jerk just ends up feeling more grounded, or accidentally becomes sympathetic because they are usually an antagonist. Thus meaning they not only have to lose, but usually are surrounded by people like themselves. Leaving the impression their behavior is less to do with having the money to get away with t and more born of mistreatment.
& that as they say is that.
18 notes
·
View notes
i missed that class what dont you like about starlins rendition of their relationship?
(and also like, DID you think he did something in particular well or was it all…meh
the crux of my issues in this regard stems from batman #416. in the post-crisis era you began to see this way more lopsided depiction of bruce and dick's relationship wherein the former was portrayed to be almost.. bitter that dick had moved on to establish his own life. and it stood in great, great contrast to the bruce of the pre-crisis era, who was certainly devastated at the realization that dick was growing up, but also very intent for him to find his own happiness and way in life. they would have their disagreements on occasion (e.g., bruce initially disapproving of dick dropping out of college, bruce immediately taking leadership of a situation where the titans were involved when dick was better equipped to handle it, etc.) but the outcome of those situations was never outright bad yknow. bruce was very much capable of recognizing where he might have overstepped and subsequently stepped back to let dick have his own space. and i think initially max allan collins expanded on that dynamic in the post-crisis era in interesting ways by juxtaposing bruce's desire to see dick flourish against his own constant fear for dick's life. so instead of mike w. barr's comedic and lighthearted backup stories in early 80s tec where bruce disguised himself to keep an eye on dick's shenanigans and assure himself everything was going alright, you got this more serious confrontation within bruce with regards to his position as a parent. i don't think a lot of people read it that deeply but i've always viewed batman #408 as one of the most sensible depictions of that dilemma. the general complaints tend to be that this issue robbed dick of his pre-crisis decision to retire robin on his own, and i'll concede that as a worthwhile concern. but i don't think it's esp damning what with the implication that bruce no longer wants to be the person indirectly making the decision for dick to continue to be in this line of work. their moment at dick's bedside is less about bruce robbing him of the decision and more about him saying, if i let you still be robin, that's a direct reflection on me, bc i'm the one who got you to do all of this originally. i'm the one who put you directly in harm's way. if you're going to do this from now on, you need to do it on your own terms. you need to decide for yourself that this is who you want to be, without your relationship with me even being a factor.
it's a moment contributive to that delicious dynamic between them wherein every decision bruce takes to service dick's agency is inevitably read the wrong way by the latter to imply that he's not valued or not worthy of being seen as bruce's equal (and before the hounds pounce on me this obv does not include the increasingly abusive depiction of their relationship as the 90s progressed). that is an unavoidable dilemma when you're simultaneously someone's ward/adopted son and also their partner-in-crime! dick wants to be bruce's son and to be entitled to all of the love and care and protection that that entails but he also wants to be bruce's brother, his equal, his confidante, the one person he trusts more than anyone else in the world, etc. it's a tough place to be! it is paradoxical! and i'm so, so open to seeing that explored and think the way collins attempted to approach it in #408 was marvelous. but the way starlin (and other writers as well) totally swerved right in #416 to create this sudden resentment in bruce that dick had grown out of needing him was.. so utterly bizarre. like completely out of left field in a way i don't understand why people don't question it anymore bc in light of everything in the immediate fifteen years prior to the crisis it makes so little sense. their relationship with each other was so valued, bruce was so anxious to see dick establish himself while nonetheless maintaining a protectiveness over him, but it was all very much in good will even if he could overstep on occasion. it had all of the potential to allow for a very nuanced, empathetic exploration into the dilemmas of parenthood and esp when you are someone like bruce who has to forever live and contend with the crime of taking kids with him out onto the streets. bc he has to feel guilty! there is no escaping it. this is history, done and dusted forever, can't go back in time, so on and so forth. whatever harm comes any robin's way he has to live with as in some part being traceable back to his own actions. and i frankly believe that would be far more likely to evoke grief and anxiousness and concern than it would be bitterness that his son is charting out his own life
4 notes
·
View notes
i got rickrolled today but it didn't work because i have adblocker installed, so youtube just told me i violated the terms of service. yesterday i was trying to edit a picture as a joke for my girlfriend, and google made me check a box to prove i'm human because i wasn't "searching normally".
it isn't just that capitalism is killing fun and whimsy, it is that any element of entertainment or joy is being fed upon by this mosquito body, one that will suck you dry at any vulnerability.
do you want to meet new friends in your city? download this app, visit our website, sign up for our email list. pay for this class on making a terrarium, on candlemaking, on cooking. it will be 90 dollars a session. you can go to group fitness, but only under our specific gym membership. solve the puzzle, sign up for our puzzle-of-the-month-club. what is a club if not just a paid opportunity - you are all paying for the same thing, which makes you a community.
but you're like me, i know it - you're careful, you try the library meetings and the stuff at the local school and all of that. the problem is that you kind of want really specific opportunities that used to exist. you are so grateful for libraries and the publicly-funded things: they are, however, an exception - and everything they have, they've fought tooth-and-nail to protect. you read a headline about how in many other states, libraries have virtually nothing left.
do you want to meet up with your friends afterwards? gift your friends the discord app. you can choose to go to a cafe (buy a coffee, at least), a bar (money, alcohol) or you can all stay in and catch a movie (streaming) or you can all stay in bed (rent. don't get me started) and scream (noise complaint. ticket at least).
you want to read a new book, but the book has to have 124 buzzwords from tiktok readers that are, like, weirdly horny. you can purchase this audiobook on audible! your podcast isn't on spotify, it's on its own server, pay for a different site. fuck, at least you're supporting artists you like. the art museum just raised their ticket price. once, they had a temporary exhibit that acknowledged that ~85% of their permanent art galleries were from cis white men, and that they had thousands of works by women (even famous women, like frida! georgia o'keefe!) just rotting in their basement. that exhibit lasted for 3 months and then they put everything away again.
walmart proudly supports this strip of land by the street! here are some flowers with wilting leaves. its employees have to pay out-of-pocket for their uniforms. my friend once got fined by the city because she organized a community pick-up of the riverfront, which was technically private property.
no, you cannot afford to take that dance class, neither can i. by the way - i'm a teacher. i'm absolutely not saying "educators shouldn't be paid fairly." i'm saying that when i taught classes, renting a studio went from 20 bucks an hour to 180 in the span of 6 months. no significant changes to the studio were made, except they now list the place as updated and friendly. the heat still doesn't work in the building. i have literally never seen the landlord who ignores my emails. recently they've been renting it out at night as an "unusual nightclub; a once-in-a-lifetime close-knit party." they spent some of those 180 dollars on LEDs and called it renovating. the high heels they invite in have been ruining the marley.
do you want to experience the old internet? do you want to play flash games or get back the temporary joy of club penguin? you can, you just need to pay for it. i have a weird, neurodivergent obsession with occasionally checking in to watch the downfall and NFT-ification of neopets. if i'm honest with you all - i never got into webkins, my family didn't have the money to buy me a pointless elephant. people forget that "being poor" can mean literally "if i buy you that toy, i can't afford rent."
you and i don't have time to make good food, and we don't have the budget for it. we are not gonna be able to host dinner parties, we're not made of money, kid. do you want some kind of 3rd space? a space that isn't home or work or school? you could try being online, but - what places actually exist for you? tiktok counts as social media because you see other people on it, not because they actually talk to you.
there was a local winter tradition of sledding down the hill at my school. kids would use pizza boxes and jackets and whatever worked, howling and laughing. back in september, they made a big announcement that this time, rules were changing, and everyone must pay 10 dollars to participate. when im not scared shitless, i kind of appreciate the environmental irony - it hasn't gone below 40. so much for snow & joyriding.
i saw a bulletin for a local dogwalking group and, nervous about making a good first impression, showed up early. the first guy there grimaced at me. "sorry," he said. "there's a 30-dollar buy-in fee." i thought he was joking. wait. for what? the group doesn't offer anything except friendship and people with whom to walk around the city.
he didn't know the answer. just shrugged at me. "you know," he said. "these days, everything costs money."
47K notes
·
View notes