#when they express discomfort over a dynamic being interpreted as romantic | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

hephaestuscrew · 22 days

Text

“This has both our names on it”: Viewing Fleet and Clara’s relationship in Victoriocity through a queerplatonic lens

TL;DR: By Season 3 of Victoriocity, Fleet and Clara have developed a committed emotional partnership that certainly moves beyond the purely professional. Whilst very much operating as a duo, they can be interpreted as often rejecting or subverting romance-coded elements in their relationship, instead embracing a unique dynamic that can be read as resonating with the concept of a queerplatonic relationship (QPR).

Buckle up because this is over 2,500 words long! If you'd rather read it as a document, you can access it here: Fleet & Clara QPR Google Doc

Disclaimer: I'm not making any claims about creator intent, nor about how anyone else ought to interpret Fleet and Clara's dynamic. It's also worth acknowledging that queerplatonic relationships are inherently defined by the people in them and any attempt to apply such terminology to a story set in 1887 is obviously anachronistic (although whether that should matter when said story also contains a cyborg Queen Victoria is up for debate).

With that said, if we define a QPR as a committed personal partnership which is not entirely captured by the typical expectations of either friendship or romance but may contain some elements typically associated with either (other definitions of QPRs are available), I enjoy viewing Fleet and Clara's relationship through a QPR lens, and I want to talk about some of the reasons why I think this reading works.

***Spoilers for all three seasons of Victoriocity and the novel High Vaultage***

Detective duos

Even before we actually get into Fleet and Clara's particular bond, detective / crime-solving duos as a general concept have QPR energy to me (which probably predisposed me to this interpretation). It's the Holmes-and-Watson legacy. It's the use of the word 'partner' in a non-romantic context (‘associate’ or ‘companion’ can also serve a similar purpose). It's the intense trust and reliance on each other. It's the sense of being a recognisable pair, always appearing together, known as a duo, with skills and attributes that complement each other.

Romantic assumptions

Moving on to Fleet and Clara specifically, one aspect of their relationship that can be read through a QPR lens is how they are often in situations where other people believe or imply that there is a romantic relationship between them. Sometimes this is a deliberate strategy of theirs, and sometimes it’s imposed upon them by others. But I’d argue that there’s never a point where they both simultaneously seem entirely comfortable with that romantic narrative for their relationship. Usually one of them will actively deny the assumption or react negatively to the implication:

When Mrs Hampshire interprets Clara and Fleet as a couple experiencing “young love”, Clara might be happy to adopt this as an effective cover story, but Fleet seems unsettled and keen for them not to be perceived this way: “No. No. You’ve misunderstood, we are not, that is to say I am…” (S1E2)

When Warden Hughes assumes Fleet is the new Warden and Clara is the new Warden’s wife, Clara says “I am certainly not”, with emphasis on the ‘certainly’. (S2E2)

Fleet definitely doesn’t sound enthused when he realises Clara has gone for a married couple as their cover story at the Grand Salcombe: “I am sure I’ll regret asking, but by any chance am I [Mr. Theasby?]” (S2E2)

When Titus Byrne tells the pair “I take it you're happy sharing [a room]”, Clara responds with a horrified “What?” (S3E4) (Obviously sleeping in the same room isn’t inherently romantic, but it is often perceived that way.)

Of course, fake dating and external assumptions of romance are very common tropes in romantic will-they-won't-they dynamics, and these moments could definitely be interpreted that way for Fleet and Clara. But I prefer to read these instances as reflecting a different kind of closeness between these two characters. They have a sense of emotional partnership that allows a marriage cover story to seem plausible to others and that other people sometimes automatically assume to be romantic (obviously with some period-typical heteronormativity at play). But to me, it doesn't seem like either of them are fully comfortable with their relationship being perceived in a directly romantic way. Perhaps they are a couple in a different sense…

Proposal via door plate

The way that Fleet asks Clara to be his business partner has always seemed to me like a platonic version of when people find personal ways to surprise their romantic partner with a proposal:

CLARA: You bought me a door plate for your office? [...] This has both our names on it. FLEET: What do you think? CLARA: I like it. (S2E7)

Fleet could have just asked Clara outright, without going to the trouble of buying a sign that would have been useless if she’d said no. If it was purely a professional business proposition with no emotional meaning behind it, I think he would have just asked verbally. But instead, he gifts her a sign with their two names paired together: Fleet-Entwhistle Investigations. There's something so intimate about that to me: about Fleet asking Clara whether she would like to be a duo with him in a more formally-defined but still non-romantic way; about him choosing to present this offer in the form of a gift; about the way he presents her with their two names joined together etched into metal and asks what she thinks; about the significance that this gesture attaches to their partnership; about him having enough trust that she'll say yes that the effort and vulnerability of presenting her with that sign seem worth it for him. And the gesture means an awful lot to Clara:

She thought about the door plaque he’d had engraved with both their names on it as his way of inviting her to be his business partner – typical Fleet, refusing to tell her so much as his favourite breakfast food and then to go and do something like that. It was the nicest thing anyone had ever done for her. (High Vaultage, p187).

Anniversaries

In the special episode ‘Murder in the Pharaoh's Tomb', Clara says “And you know what else is a big occasion Fleet? It's our one-month anniversary.” She wants to celebrate the anniversary of Fleet-Entwhistle Investigations. Their partnership holds a significance for her that means key dates associated with it are worth remembering and remarking upon.

When Clara first mentions their anniversary, Fleet nearly chokes on his drink, which seems like an instinctive reaction to the usually romantic connotations of an anniversary (see my point above about Fleet not being comfortable with their dynamic being perceived as romantic). But when Clara clarifies what she means, Fleet seems much more cheerful about the notion of their anniversary: “Ah, so it has.”

“Miss Clara Entwhistle, my partner”

I get extremely strong QPR vibes from this moment, when Fleet introduces Clara to the sailors at Grave End:

FLEET: This is Miss Clara Entwhistle, my partner - in business, my business partner. CLARA: I'm also his friend, but he doesn't like to say it. (S3 E3)

Fleet and Clara are partners, but not in the way the average person might assume from that word, which Fleet realises mid-sentence here. This is another instance of Fleet reacting negatively to the idea that their relationship might be interpreted romantically (see above). And yet, 'partner' (rather than, say, ‘colleague’) is the word that comes naturally to him in this moment to describe who Clara is to him. He then frantically emphasises the professional element of their relationship so as to avoid the romantic implication, but Clara is keen to proudly assert that there is a personal, emotional aspect to their dynamic too. They are first-and-foremost partners, and they are friends, and they do not want to be seen in a romantic light - this post basically writes itself...

“Her ridiculous detective.”

When Clara fears for her life at the display of the Lanterns, the narration tells us:

“she thought of her brother, her sister, her parents... Her ridiculous detective.” (High Vaultage, p172)

The fact that Clara thinks of Fleet in this moment of fear clearly indicates his importance to her, but I think the phrasing of this quote is particularly interesting. The narration lists Clara's immediate family: two of whom are dead (her sister and father), one of whom is publically mourning Clara's life choices (her mother), and only one of whom we have any real evidence of her having a positive relationship with (her brother). And then, separated from these complicated familial relationships by an ellipsis, the narration tells Clara also thinks of Fleet, “her ridiculous detective”.

Parents and siblings are familial relationships that tend to come with established expectations, in which the use of a possessive pronoun (i.e. her brother) to indicate the relationship is a norm. ‘Detective’ does not fall into this category; unlike ‘brother’, ‘sister’, ‘parent’, ‘friend’, ‘partner’ etc., ‘detective’ is not a word that inherently implies a relationship or that we'd usually expect to see preceded by a possessive pronoun. The idea of ‘her detective’ therefore stands out, giving the sense that there is a unique relationship being indicated here. The way in which Fleet is ‘hers’ is something that Clara has chosen for herself, something that they have shaped together. Who they are to each other can't necessarily be fully expressed using standard phrases that traditionally describe relationships between people. But Fleet is Clara's detective, of which she only has one, and who she'll think of in the midst of “the screaming of the heavens at the end of the world”.

Fleet is also the only one in this list of Clara's loved ones who gets an adjective - her love for him has detail. And while “ridiculous” might often be perceived as negative (it's certainly not a classic romantic endearment), it seems to me like there's such fondness in it in this context: the recognition of and affection for eccentricities, the idea that his importance to her is not (purely) based on his professional strengths but on Fleet as a whole - perhaps at times ridiculous - person.

“Settled”

When Clara and Fleet talk about Clara's mother’s expectations for her, they have this exchange:

"She's still living in hope that one day I'll settle down." "You're not settled?" asked Fleet. "I am." (High Vaultage, p259)

By ‘settle down’, Clara's mother of course means ‘marry’, ideally into “at least a minor baronetcy”. But Clara already considers herself "settled", just not in a way her mother would understand or appreciate. She's not looking to "settle down" into a lifestyle other than her current one. She is settled in a situation where Fleet is certainly her closest personal connection in London (and perhaps anywhere), and where the two of them work closely together, operate as a duo, and then go back to their separate homes. And this partnership with Fleet is a comfortable set-up that feels right for Clara exactly as it is, rather than being a precursor to, or a distraction from, the marriage ambitions that her mother wants for her.

I think this exchange also contains an implicit sense of the commitment between the two of them. Fleet wants to check that Clara is ‘settled’ in her current situation, of which working closely - and platonically - with Fleet is obviously a major element; Clara confirms she is. There's a subtle indication of their shared intention to be in this for the long haul.

As a sidenote, Fleet and Clara’s implicit assumption that their partnership is a long-term one can manifest itself in joking contexts as well as serious ones. Look at this exchange from S3E5:

FLEET: We're not bandits, we're just going to flag it down. CLARA: We'd be terrific bandits! FLEET: Let's just see how our current line of work goes.

I think it’s notable that, in this joking speculation, both Fleet and Clara use ‘we’ and ‘our’. The joke could have been phrased just as effectively if they were imagining only Clara becoming a bandit. But the suggestion is that, if either of them was a bandit, they’d be bandits together. Even if they changed their lives entirely, they'd still approach life together.

Inseparable

Fleet and Clara have become a nearly inseparable duo in a way which is noticed by others. For example, after Clara and Fleet fall out in High Vaultage, Fleet meets with Keller, who says:

"You're here with me instead of barrelling across town with her, so I'm just assuming there is some thickheaded puffinry for which you need to apologise to Miss Entwhistle" (p335)

Keller, hardly the most emotionally perceptive man in Even Greater London, automatically infers from the fact that Fleet is on his own that he has had a falling out with Clara, rather than that they just happen to be in different places. When all is well, Keller expects to see the two of them together, whether or not they are in a position to be actively working a case.

Going back earlier in their partnership, Keller makes a similar assumption about Fleet and Clara being inseparable in S2E6. When Clara shouts her name amidst Keller's anti-Vidoc booby traps, Keller asks "Entwhistle? Which means… Fleet?" Again, there's this idea that if one of them is there, the other is likely to be there too - they come as a pair. (It's worth noting that this scene takes place less than two weeks after they first met.)

“Like a friend might?”

At the end of S3E7, Fleet suggests that he and Clara go to the theatre together. It would have been easy for this invitation to have been explicitly framed as a romantic proposition, or even for the nature of the offer to have been left more ambiguous. But Clara says "Archibald Fleet, are you inviting me to a social activity? Like a friend might?" The use of the word 'friend' directly labels this as a platonic interaction. And it's with that platonic lens on it that Clara is extremely excited to spend non-work-related social time with Fleet.

“Maybe it'll just be my good luck charm.”

CLARA: My grandmother's ring, I don't suppose you managed to hold on to it? [...] FLEET: Oh, it's been crushed.. I'm sorry Clara [...] CLARA: No, you keep it. FLEET: What? No... CLARA: Keep it. Maybe it'll remind you not to run towards trains. FLEET: Maybe. Maybe it'll just be my good luck charm.

In S3E7, Clara gives Fleet a ring, which - as a gift from one person to another - is traditionally a symbol of a particular, legally recognised, kind of personal commitment. But when Clara tells Fleet to keep the damaged ring, down in the Underground tunnels after the destruction of the beast and Fleet's latest brush with death, it is quite a different situation to a wedding or a proposal. A married man would traditionally wear his wedding ring on his finger for all to see, but Fleet won't ever wear this ring like that. The ring itself has been bent into a different shape between the wheels of their misadventures, subverting the usual associations of a ring given from one person to another. (In a heteronormative world, those associations are particularly strong when the two people in question are a woman and a man.)

That ring is not an engagement ring, but it is Clara’s grandmother's ring, an inheritance from the blood family she never really felt she belonged in, now given to the man who might be a very different kind of family for her in London. That ring - with which Clara saved Fleet's life - is a symbol of their bond. And it therefore serves as a reminder for Fleet “not to run towards trains" and as a “good luck charm”. I like to think he'll carry that ring with him, perhaps in his jacket pocket - a little piece of his partner, kept close to his ticking heart…

Thank you for reading all of this!

If you’ve read all of this, I'm assuming you also enjoy the concept of Fleet and Clara as a QPR (unless you're really a glutton for punishment) and that makes me very happy! This was long because there's so much to say about them… And I wrote all of the above without even getting into: the potential to headcanon Fleet and/or Clara as aspec (which I don't think is necessary for QPR headcanons, but which is also fun); Clara's baggage around and discomfort with marriage in general; the speed with which Fleet and Clara become a ride-or-die duo; and the many other demonstrations of care, understanding, trust, respect, and affection between them that didn't feel as directly QPR-coded to me but are nonetheless wonderful. Please do feel free to share your own thoughts!

#victoriocity #clara entwhistle #inspector fleet #archibald fleet #high vaultage #I'm not really trying to persuade anyone who doesn't already vibe with Fleet & Clara QPR as a concept #I just enjoy digging into that interpretation #I don't have any lived experience of QPRs myself #I'm just an aro who occasionally yearns #which tbf is probably the demographic most likely to obsessively interpret fictional duos as QPRs #I tried to avoid straying into anything like ‘they are too important to each other to be *just* friends’#when writing this #because I deeply dislike that outlook #That's not what I'm getting at here #Friends can be that important to each other without being in a QPR #I just think Fleet and Clara are important to each other in a particular way that can easily be read as a QPR or QPR-adjacent #Ngl for me personally I was very happy that there was no explicitly romantic Fleet and Clara moments #in S3 or High Vaultage #I’m sure I would still love their dynamic if they did explicitly take it down that route #I’m sure it would be done well #But the fact that Fleet and Clara are platonic (or at least ambiguous) means a lot to me personally #A related thought to that bit on romantic assumptions is that under amatonormativity #even the denial of romance/attraction is so often treated as evidence for it #which can mean that there's no way to escape that implication #so that's another reason why I enjoy taking characters at their word #when they express discomfort over a dynamic being interpreted as romantic #I finished writing this on Wednesday and I've been so impatient about waiting until S3 is fully out to post it lol

46 notes · View notes

snowblack-charcoalwhite · 8 months

Text

This is kind of a follow-up to this post about the Targtower brothers dynamic. I just love them. What`s not to love, honestly:

In that post I used the word 'lust' to describe a certain aspect of Aegon`s feelings towards his brother - but upon consideration I believe the word 'desire' to be more suitable. But what are the roots of these feelings and how do they and the form in which they are expressed change with time?

First things first:

1. Long post;

2. Nothing is this post is intended to promote or encourage sexual relations involving minors;

2. I enjoy both platonic (canon version) and romantic/sexual (fanon territory) interpretations of Aegon&Aemond relationship - without belittling any other pairing (canon or not) involving either of them. In fact I quite enjoy some of those other pairings as well.

So, the sensual side of the Green brothers` relationship is not the focal point of the show (or even of their relationship in general) by any means. And it`s not a simple 'I just want to bend you over the nearest piece of furniture and give it to you' thing from Aegon`s part either. It`s deliciously subtle and quite complex even from the beginning of their interactions we see - and it gets even more complicated as they transition into their adulthood.

Teen Aegon is a flirt in general. But when it comes to his brother the flirting intensifies - and begins to resemble 'pulling pigtails'. It`s in the spirit of mockery but one heavily tinged with fondness - and other feelings, deeper and heavier.

It`s the way Aegon's focused on Aemond - to the point that it feels like they are alone, even with other people in close vicinity. This focus doesn`t dissolve even when Aegon looks elsewhere.

It`s in the way Aegon touches Aemond: seemingly carelessly - but there is a kind of hesitance, almost shyness, about his touch. Huge props to Ty for his acting: the not-exactly-platonic undertones are there, yet the vibe doesn`t feel gross in the slightest (the way it might have felt if acted out with less finesse, given the fact that Aemond is a minor after all, and so is Leo) - if anything it`s endearing. And I believe it feels this way because the roots of Aegon`s feelings are not sexual after all.

To Aegon, Aemond is a mystery: he`s his likeness yet his antipode, he`s so close yet so far. He can`t get a full grasp of him however much he tries. Aemond is like some rarity, a mystical object created by the Warlocks of Qarth, the one he wants to dismantle and see how it works but doesn`t dare to do it since he might not be able to put it back together. But first and foremost Aemond is Aegon`s brother - his blood, his companion; the one he wants to feel close to, the one he wants to be like him and tries to achieve it in any way he can - hence the trip to the brothel. It certainly wasn`t a nice thing to do, and Aegon`s train of thought there might have taken various directions at once, but ultimately I don`t think it was about corruption or causing Aemond discomfort but about unity, companionship, feeling close, alike and one - the things Aegon chased after and was deprived of.

A crack-ish side note: Aegon telling Aemond he fancies creatures with 'veeery long legs' with this playfully lecherous grin on his face -

-has never not been funny to me since the moment I realized that adult Aemond, courtesy of Ewan Mitchell`s gorgeous physique, might just have the longest legs among all the characters (or at least he`s damn close to the top).

As the brothers grow up so do Aegon`s feelings.

Both curiosity about the intricacies of their similarities and differences and deep desire for true company and understanding are still very much there. But now there is also so much more. Guilt and shame over not being by Aemond`s side when he needed it most - and seeing a reminder of this on his brother`s face every damn day. Protectiveness that seems misplaced nowadays, but that`s not always the case: Aemond will need Aegon`s support after what happened at Storm`s End - if only he allows himself to accept it. Admiration and envy - about how strong and brilliant his little brother has become, how right he`s turned out to be in contrast with Aegon`s perceived wrongness. And it all comes to a head during the chase and fight scene in episode 9.

A lot of people mentioned that they expected the Targtower brothers to kiss when Aegon pleaded with Aemond to let him go. Well, that`s entirely understandable given that we have this shot:

TGC`s eyes did not just slip there, after all: such things are not done at random, it was a conscious acting choice. And I`m pretty sure Aegon would have indeed kissed his brother if not for Criston intervening and breaking the spell of the moment. Because while under this spell Aegon saw Aemond for everything that he`d ever been to him: his playmate and his toy, his judge and his closest human friend, his solace and his torment - and, perhaps the most important thing right then, his freedom. For years Aemond truly was the personification of the fate Aegon wanted to have - being the second son, free of the burden of the future rule, of excessive expectations, of torturous scrutiny. But also in that moment Aemond literally became Aegon`s freedom, or his best chance at getting it. And so, Aegon was ready to kiss his little brother goodbye - and at the same time kiss his freedom in greeting. But, alas -

-in a few seconds freedom slipped away, and Aegon let go of it - let go of his brother, never tearing his eyes away until the very last moment.

Just look at his face, it`s all there (Tom, you are a genius).

Also, at the risk of sounding like a broken record: Tom and Ewan`s chemistry is everything. In a notably short amount of screen time they shared they have managed to give life to an astoundingly authentic, layered and compelling sibling bond that outshines pretty much every other (not that there is a competition going on but still).

To try and sum all of it up, it`s not that Aegon wants to fuck Aemond - it`s that he wants Aemond, period. And that want, need, desire can take many forms and include many things. Their relationship is complicated, dramatic and wholesome with a side of fucked up - but absolutely beautiful. And I, for one, love it to pieces.

@the-girl-in-the-box here you are!:)

#aegon ii targaryen #aegon the elder #aemond targaryen #aegond #aegon x aemond #tom glynn carney #ty tennant #ewan mitchell #leo ashton #house of the dragon #hotd #hotd meta #green brothers #targtowers #targtower brothers

180 notes · View notes

stahfakz · 11 months

Text

Tuesday the 13th June 2023

in a meeting, paper planes were left on the table and sandy picks some up and flies them around the room due to her playful nature; she subconsciously aimed one towards matthew, and after watching it slowly do a loop, it landed in his lap, she laughed and he smiled quietly. matthew is very introverted and whilst sandy has picked up on his feelings for her, he has yet to disclose his feelings to her, and inwardly sandy is also shy, however they have exchanged moments of emotional intimacy together over the last 12 months, and appear to get along, laughing at each others jokes, catching each other stare at each other, with warmth and sparks of joy whenever they talk together.. Later that same day sandy casually asks the group, 'so what are your thoughts..' with matthew interrupting and saying, 'yes. whatever the question is, im saying yes." Sandy responds by saying, really? so if i ask you anything, you'll say yes?'" Matthew responds sheepishly, well not when you say it like that' with co workers laughing good-naturedly with one making a comment that matthew could have taken advantage of an opportunity, with sandy saying, 'well nothing that extreme.' After the actual discussion with the team, a casual chat follows between sandy, liam and matthew, were liam points out matthew wears sketchers which arent as good, however sandy says she likes sketchers wearing them all the time at home, just not at work cos they're bright blue. Earlier that day, sandy discloses to liam and matthew that she was having an (autistic) meltdown due to sensory overload, with matthew piping up saying he'd yell at all the loud people for her until they go away, which made her laugh.

-->>This scenario depicts a dynamic between two individuals, Sandy and Matthew, who share a connection characterized by emotional intimacy and a subtle romantic tension. Let's analyze the various elements of their interaction.

Playful nature: Sandy's spontaneous act of flying paper planes around the room reflects her playful nature. This behavior could indicate her comfort and openness in the meeting setting.

Subconscious aim: When Sandy subconsciously aims one of the paper planes towards Matthew, it suggests a subconscious desire to engage with him. This action may stem from her underlying feelings or an unconscious attempt to seek his attention.

Matthew's reaction: Matthew's smile in response to the paper plane landing in his lap implies that he appreciates the playful gesture from Sandy. As an introverted individual, his quiet smile may serve as a subtle expression of his feelings for her.

Emotional intimacy: Over the past year, Sandy and Matthew have shared moments of emotional intimacy. They exhibit positive non-verbal cues such as laughter, catching each other's stares, and a sense of warmth and joy when conversing. These shared experiences indicate a growing bond and connection between them.

Matthew's undisclosed feelings: It is mentioned that Matthew has yet to disclose his feelings for Sandy, despite her picking up on his emotions. This suggests that Matthew may be reserved or hesitant in expressing his romantic interest.

Casual conversation: During the casual conversation, Sandy initiates a playful question to the group, and Matthew eagerly interrupts, stating that he would say "yes" to anything she asks. This interruption could be interpreted as an attempt by Matthew to demonstrate his willingness to please Sandy or go along with her desires.

Sheepish response: Matthew's sheepish response to Sandy's inquiry reflects his shyness or discomfort in being put on the spot. He clarifies that he wouldn't say "yes" to anything, highlighting the need for a more nuanced approach to his agreement.

Workplace banter: The coworkers' good-natured laughter and comments about Matthew possibly missing an opportunity suggest that they have noticed the chemistry and potential between Sandy and Matthew. This workplace banter highlights the underlying romantic tension in the scenario.

Shared preferences: Sandy mentions that she likes wearing Sketchers outside of work, but not at work due to their bright blue color. This casual remark demonstrates a connection between Sandy and Matthew, as she shares this preference in footwear with him.

Supportive response: Sandy discloses her experience of having an autistic meltdown to Liam and Matthew. Matthew chimes in, offering to yell at the loud people on her behalf until they go away. This supportive response from Matthew elicits laughter from Sandy, showcasing their camaraderie and his willingness to protect and assist her.

Overall, the scenario portrays a budding romantic connection between Sandy and Matthew. While Sandy appears to have picked up on Matthew's feelings for her, Matthew remains hesitant to disclose his emotions explicitly. The subtle exchanges of emotional intimacy, shared moments, and supportive gestures contribute to the depth of their relationship. The dynamic between these characters suggests a potential for further development and exploration of their feelings for each other.

7 notes · View notes

fivebyfive005 · 2 years

Photo

Alright Horizon fans. Let’s talk. Now, I did not want romance in Horizon at all until HFW gifted us with Kotallo. Now I'm adamant that he should be with Aloy, and I previously posted this essay about why. So I'm back with this intensively thought-out explanation regarding why (in my opinion) Aloy should not be with various other characters with whom she is often shipped. Just an FYI - if you disagree and want to ship her with other characters (or nobody) that is obviously fine, and I’m not here to argue. This is just me spewing out my thoughts, since I feel like I’ll explode if I keep them pent up.

Petra – I’m starting with Petra because Ashly Burch previously wrote on Reddit that she felt Petra would be the most compatible with Aloy up to that point (this was about four years ago now, so before HFW). Her reasoning was as follows: “Petra is the only one who would respect and understand her need for full autonomy and frequent excursions on super dangerous mission...I also don't think it would be a particularly intimate relationship, and I doubt that Petra could stay monogamous.” She did, however, go on to say that “I actually don't think I would personally ship her with anyone that we've met yet,” though I am aware that there are still a good number of Aloy/Petra shippers. I think this is all quite accurate and well-reasoned by AB, and it is worth noting out of the gate because she is basically the proverbial horse’s mouth. Also regarding Petra, I can’t help but feel that the dynamic she has with Aloy is really one of friendship more than anything that seems romantic, intimate, or sexual. When Aloy runs into Petra in the very beginning of HFW, Aloy is pretty rushed, and is practically dying to get away from Petra ASAP. This actually seems to make Petra a bit salty, by the way, which is, interestingly, opposite the argument that AB made in the first place (though she seems to get over this pretty quickly). Moreover, this does not seem like behavior of someone attracted to the person they just ran into, on Aloy’s part. As they continue their dialogue at Chainscrape, it is really pretty much all business, too, and I feel like you’d have to do quite a bit of interpretational gymnastics to see any kind of romance developing there. I also feel that historically Aloy has frequently appeared uncomfortable when Petra flirts with her, and I don't think this is because she has feelings in return, but rather that she doesn't know how to treat a friend showing her such overt flirtation (we have seen this discomfort for her with other characters making moves on her, as well). Furthermore, Petra is a bit of a one dimensional character, and though I enjoy Petra for the levity her character brings, I think Aloy's personality would work best with someone a bit more multifaceted and deep.

Erend - There are a lot of Aloy/Erend shippers but I also know that a lot of them have already expressed willingness to consider Aloy/Kotallo since playing HFW. That probably in itself shows that shipping Erend - at least in some cases - may have been more related to proximity and him just being a beloved character from the first game (rather than a feeling that he would be right for Aloy, and that their relationship would add to the story). Don't get me wrong, I love Erend as well, but he should absolutely NOT be with Aloy. I'd rather be decapitated by a dull guillotine than see that happen. Erend is a loveable goofball for the most part, and while he has more depth than meets the eye initially, I'd say just barely. He really is pretty simple, and I don't think he would really challenge or stimulate Aloy (which I think she needs). Erend is someone who prefers to eat, drink and be merry, whereas Aloy is a very action-oriented person, who I think would still have a heart for action and adventure even after saving the world. As such, I think Erend would bore her. Now, Erend’s affection for Aloy has been made clear, and though I think he has grown a bit in HFW, he still seems to have a tendency to burden her with feeling obligated to give him time and attention (as was the case with him being resentful about her rushing off after the end of HZD). This is definitely not right for Aloy, who really does need to have freedom and independence, and who needs someone who understands that she is putting her mission and duty first. With that said, I do think that over the story of HFW he's somewhat accepted that her mission means that she is not looking for a relationship (to this point). I think he's started to see her more as a sister (like a sort of replacement for Ersa) and Aloy sees him more like a protective big brother. And I think that is the perfect dynamic for them. I love that chemistry between them, but I can't see them being anything more.

By the way, I know some people point to the look Aloy gives towards Erend when they are standing together at the end of HFW, but I think it's really important to point out here that in this moment she has just looked at her entire gang and has made the choice to move forward on her journey with the help of the people she loves. She then looks at Erend (her oldest friend in the group at that point). With that being said, I think her look in that scene is more reflective of the happy notion that she can have a family - even while she tries to save the world - and not actually an amorous look.

Nil - I can't believe how many people ship Aloy/Nil because to me it's blatantly clear that he is all wrong for Aloy. Though I think they have similar personalities with being action-oriented, adventurous people (and I agree that – like Petra – Nil would give Aloy the freedom that she needs), they have none of the same values. Nil is not really one for reducing conflict, which is certainly one of Aloy’s goals. Aloy says this herself during a discussion with Kotallo at the base, and he agrees, with her, by the way. Aloy has also been pretty clear during their conversations that she does not agree with Nil’s choices and his lifestyle in most circumstances. This does not lend itself very well to a relationship/romantic partnership.

Talanah - IFF I were to ship Aloy with someone besides Kotallo, it would be Talanah, but I still don't think this would be a good pairing. Talanah is a bad ass with more nuance than many other characters – and I do think that she and Aloy have similar values and personalities - but she and Aloy are also pretty clearly depicted as simply very good friends and fellow hunters. Their dynamic is really not sexually charged at all, as evidenced by the very platonic hug at the end of HFW, and the frank conversation that they have in that same scene about love (which is in no way directed towards each other). Not to mention that Talanah herself has admitted that she's still a bit hung up on Amadis…

Avad - Blehk. Avad is not a bad guy, but it should go without saying that Avad is a terrible choice for Aloy. She has no interest in being royalty (or Carja, I think, for that matter, with all their excess and opulence), and it is frustrating that he won't listen to her polite refusals, but rather keeps pestering/burdening her with his advances. He doesn't understand her at all, and I think the idea of them being together is laughable. I think the majority of the fanbase agrees, but I’m still including him because he is so forward with his attempts to court her in the game itself.

Friends. Romans. Thank you for staying this long, if you have, and know that I still love you even if you don’t agree with my points. :)

I will conclude by once more saying that Aloy absolutely should be with Kotallo. They have so much in common in terms of similarities of upbringing, and shared goals, values, and personality traits. Going back to Ashly Burch’s comment from 4 years ago about how she would not personally ship Aloy with anyone at that point, it should be noted that Kotallo was not around at the time. But he is now, and I also feel that Aloy has grown and changed a lot over the course of HFW. She is now more open to exploring relationships of all kind, and I think the game could do some really great things narratively by exploring love/strength through a romantic relationship with her and Kotallo, similar to how they made a wonderful story about the power of friendship in HFW.

#horizon #horizon series #horizon spoilers #horizon forbidden west #horizon zero dawn #hfw #hzd #guerrilla games #aloy #kotallo #If you can't tell I have given this way too much thought

82 notes · View notes

thespoonisvictory · 3 years

Note

hello! just wanted to offer an opinion concerning the c!crimeboys fic discussion. (definitely don’t feel pressured to respond to this at all—i’m sure you’re flooded with asks at the moment!) i just wanted to offer my perspective and get a little feedback, if you’re up to continue bouncing thoughts around on the subject. i honestly could really use someone else’s perspective on this, as it’s something difficult to conceptualize for me as a result of my experiences. i’m asexual and have never been in a relationship before, personally, so i’m not very well-versed on romantic gestures or that sort of thing. as a result, it’s quite easy for the lines between what’s platonic or what’s flirty to blur for me. (this is definitely evident when i refer to my real-life experiences—there have been multiple instances where guys have flirted / shown interest in me and it just goes wooosh! over my little pea brain. it’s hilarious, honestly, but simultaneously makes me feel horrible for the dudes i accidentally swerved in the most unbothered way possible.)

i digress! regarding the particular fic that’s been going around that the anon was referring to earlier, i have to say i do feel a bit uncomfortable with the way the characters’ relationship is portrayed. however, the way i personally interpreted this discomfort was that it was intentional on the author’s part. i think a lot of the fic is written to highlight [the older character’s] unhealthy possessiveness, and that it will specifically be a plot-point further into the story—not that the author approves of or romanticizes his behavior. i’m inclined to believe this since a majority of the characters in the story do point out said possessiveness, and also express discomfort towards it. (i do want to say that it’s totally valid to not share this perspective, though! and it’s very much okay to be uncomfortable with the extent of it, and to not like / enjoy the fic as a result. this was just my opinion from a narrative point of view—as you said in a previous post, i think it’s important to wait and see which direction it’s taken. while i don’t know the author on a personal level, i’m under the impression that they’re aware of how it’s being negatively portrayed. they seem very open and understanding regarding discussion of their story, though, so i encourage the anon to reach out to them if they’d like clarification! /gen)

the only point i do sort of disagree with the crimeboys fic anon on is the discomfort towards the characters’ display of physical affection with one another. i definitely respect their point of view, and can understand why they’d feel strange about it—especially if they don’t have siblings themself. however, as someone with a sibling who’s love language is physical affection, it definitely is unfortunate to see others write it off as inappropriate. for reference, i’m 17, and my sister is 11 years older than me—about the same age difference between crimeboys, give or take a few years—and the notion that us cuddling or calling each other cute / adorable is romantic makes me deeply uncomfortable. (btw: not referring to you at all here, spoon! i genuinely agree with a lot of your points on the subject, and think you’re exceptionally well-spoken!)

i sincerely apologize that this ask is so long—i really put my all into attempting to form coherent thoughts that clearly conveyed what i was trying to say. i tend to be bad with conveying tone over text, as well—so just wanted to clarify that everything should be read as /nm! hope you’re having a great day / night, and thank you for reading if you did!

^^^ this expresses my thoughts on it very well, I feel like the author is quite self aware and that makes me not uncomfortable to read it (although it's totally fine if some people are). they've had whole conversations abt how wilbur is more possessive than need be and tommy is very willing to be possessed (for lack of better phrasing), it's shown by more 'rational' characters that this dynamic is unhealthy to a degree, and that this is repetitive behavior for both of them

#asks

19 notes · View notes

nightswithkookmin · 4 years

Text

RE JIMIN'S LOVE LANGUAGE

This is in response to questions I've received in my message box following my recent post on Jimin's love language. Ignore this if you've read my main post on this same topic- Or maybe not.

Also, I'm sorry about the Asks. I accidentally turned it off- AGAIN. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. I purple y'all.

What I meant by my last post was that, for us to understandJimin or even the rest of the members' love language, it is important we make a distinction between what is uniquely Jimin/the individual members' love language and what is their culture's or even the established and accepted practices within their group.

And on that, I said skinship is a cultural practice but also one of the group's adopted love languages. It is their way of achieving intimacy and bonding with eachother and as such they do not associate romantic connotations with it.

Thus, when they touch eachother in any way, provocative as it may seem to us, to them there is nothing romantic about it at all. So when Taekook, Jikook, Yoonmin or any of these pairs touch eachother, it is not with romantic intentions.

Why then does Jimlous and Jeonlous exist? For a myriad of reasons other than that skinship is romantic! Lol

I've explained previously, that JK and Jimin's discomfort with each other's skinship with the others often has to do with the lack of boundaries that is inherent in skinship rather than that they are actually jealous or see skinship as romantic. This is often true for Jimin.

With JK, his possessive nature very often amplifies his discomfort with the lack of boundaries but also because, out of the seven, he is the only one that had had a problem accepting and participating in the skinship culture within the group- well, him and Suga. It's taking them some getting used to.

But that wasn't because he was viewing skinship as romantic but rather because he was uncomfortable with affections and the overt expressions of it as is required of skinship.

That's not to say they do not or have not implied romantic intentions with their touches- there is nothing platonic about boners. Lol.

And any skinship that results in a visible sexual tension or arousal can no longer be deemed skinship- it's foreplay.

Jikook does skinship all the time like everyone else in the band, but often too some of those skinship crosses the platonic threshold into sexual foreplay- they ain't slick.

You just have to see the look on Tae's face when he noticed, through the view finder, Jimin caressing JK's thumb to comprehend that not all their touches are mere skinship.

That's one of the differences between Jikook and the other ships; Jikook presents a mutual sexual attraction towards eachother beyond the pubescent hormonal teen frenzy that marked their early formative days- god, those boys were so horny they could hump a tree to death. Bless them.

Mind you, I disregard any sexual innuendos that was present in Jikook's dynamics as well as any other ship's dynamics, if ever there was one, during that hormonal teen period of their lives. It was all something but nothing at the same time. They were all just being horny and gross teenage boys- Hashtag, war of hormones for real for real. Lol

All that that timeline taught me was, Jikook are freaky af and certainly don't see each other as brothers. CERTAINLY.

That being said, for a better understanding of Jimin's love language, a distinction must be made between love language and sexual interest. It will make sense in a bit.

Because Jimin's father is an affectionate person and this is the love language he has taught to Jimin, Jimin interprets any affectionate and kind act as a loving gesture. It is how he gives love, it is how he receives love.

He values kindness and compassion, selflessness, vulnerability, transparency, fairness etc.

Thus to show his love for you he will be kind to you, vulnerable with you, transparent with you, supportive of you and nurturing of you.

We see him being like this with all the members, even the staff and dancers too at times but more so with Tae and JK.

The question then is, how does Jimin receive love? What actions does he interpret as love? Easy, sexual attraction. Hear me out.

You see, because Jimin is a natural nurturer and he sees nurturing as a universal love language that everyone speaks or ought to speak, he requires his romantic love interest to distinguish between their platonic love interest and their romantic love interest.

To fulfill him emotionally, you would have to make him feel special, treat him differently from your friends, and let him know that you want him and only him.

Sexual interest is one way of distinguishing between platonic interests and romantic interests, and it flows from this that he not only requires grand gestures, or special treatment but that you flirt with him as well.

Hence his emphasis on flirting. He likes to flirt. He enjoys it. He's mastered it. He's a fucking pro at it- give him his medal.

Just to be clear, even though flirting is part of his love language, he has also adopted flirting as part of his idol persona and often when he is flirting overtly he is only doing it for the 'fan service.'

But that doesn't mean all of that is fan service. Sometimes it's blatant foreplay as I've explained above and if you can't tell the difference between his foreplay and fanservice- chileee, I can't help you.

I'm still traumatized by that Bon V 4 moment. Sweet Jesus, save me if they should keep this energy up!

It's important, at this point, to note that because Jimin is a nurturer, every decent human being can easily be compatible with him. I have said several times over my blog that Jimin is ship compatible with anyone and everyone- I ain't mad at that.

What it comes down to then is whom he prefers and whom he is choosing to make him happy and to fulfill him. I explained that choice and being able to be in charge of decision making and to make his own decisions is very important to Jimin because on his background.

And when it comes to love, it's no secret who Jimin wants. He wants JK and that's on Periodttt.

I explained that in the early days during Rookie King, he felt he needed to get emotionally closer to JK when he had an opportunity to talk and heal as a group- his personal was important to him.

In that JinJikook VLive when Jin was eating a lollipop in a provocative way he asked him to stop immediately but couldn't, for the love of god, tear his eyes off JK when JK ate his lollipop in a- I can't. Jikook!

Unless he is in his fan service mood or is being his slytherin slash whore of babylon self- bless him, often he would reject any attempt by anyone to flirt with him except JK.

And I keep reiterating this, flirting isn't JK's thing. It's Jimin's thing. The last time JK tried to this flirty- he cried. Lmho

Take that interview where the host moved closer to Jimin in a flirty way for example. Jimin leaned back away from him. In the popular words of Jimin- don't do that.

Then in this airport scene right here, where Suga and Tae tried to protect JM from getting mobbed (if video is missing check bottom of this post. I hate tumblr)

You could see Jimin moving towards JK. Now some may argue he was trying to protect the JK who seemed oblivious to what was going on but I beg to differ.

I just think Jimin was moving towards JK because that's his safe haven. That's the person he feels the most safe with. 'Jk will protect' 'JK is strong.' He felt threatened and his instincts was to fin that person whom he feels would and should protect him- and that person usually isn't very far away.

And no, I'm not being biased. It's just I can't in good conscience theorize and make wild assumptions about Jimin's emotional needs the way I would the other's because unlike the others, Jimin keeps showing us what he wants. Y'all are just not listening.

It is why I said, JK on paper seemed like the last person to meet Jimin's emotional needs. He didn't strike me as the ambitious type or the daring type the way Yoongi presented himself in early days. It is why I shipped Yoonmin or even Vmin.

And even in those ships, I didn't believe they were real. Suga was too emotional closed off and wouldn't

And as I explained, having been denied his ambitions, it's not a stretch to assume, Jimin desires an ambitious partner. One who loves the stage, loves their career.

But I feel, most people including myself underestimated Jungkook. As much as JK may not appear as ambitious career wise, he is one of the most passionate members of group.

His decision to join BTS was driven purely by passion, his decision to start GCF, get a tattoo and every other endeavor he's embarked has been driven purely by his passion. And passion is a variant of ambition.

Jimin pursues his ambitious and JK pursues his passions- they are the same in the same way. And I see why Jimin will tell JK they are one and the same. They are more alike than we think they are.

So yes, Jimin needs an ambitious partner but a passionate partner equally suffices.

What equally suffices is a supportive partner. One willing to sacrifice their ambitions or needs when it comes to it, to accommodate Jimin's needs. Jimin is very competitive in nature and hates to lose, we've been told.

And nobody lets Jimin win the way JK does. Nobody. It's funny, because VMin's dumpling fight took days/weeks to resolve. And Jikook's raining dat fight took a few hours.

What hit me about that tale as told by Jikook was JK going to Jimin to resolve their fight- another instance he let Jimin win. Tae loves Jimin but I don't see him sacrificing his ego and pride the way JK would for Jimin. I don't see any member doing that for Jimin quite frankly.

It is one way I see JK nurturing Jimin. Jk can be hard headed but there is a softness and a tenderness to him that's speaks to Jimin's love language.

I can go on and on about this topic, you know? Lol

Signed,

GOLDY

#jikook #jikooktheories #kookmin real #jikook analysis #kookmin analysis #kookmin #kookmintheories #nightswithkookmin #GOLDY

123 notes · View notes

starchildsteven · 6 years

Text

Gotta love those shippers who twist what is actually happening in the canon, twist what is actually said in the canon, take moments and scenes that are meant to be playful as serious, purposefully misinterpret and misrepresent things said and confirmed by the cast and basically project what they want onto the show just so they can make a female character look bad so she's out of the way of their gay ship.

Seriously though. If what Laura had Jester do and the rest of them (including Travis) encouraged her to do during the live show makes you feel uncomfortable then I understand and respect your point of view and that's fine. If what Travis said on Talks turns you off to the dynamic of his and Laura's characters, that's fair enough.

But come off this bullshit! "Jester has been creepy to Fjord since the start!" "Fjord has made it clear that he's not into her and she keeps pushing." "Jester has no respect for Fjord!" "Laura is bullying Travis into being with her character." "Travis is only playing along cause Laura is his wife." I am so sick of seeing people saying these things.

First off Travis has been having Fjord flirt with Jester since early on as well. He's intentionally done things (the coming up from the water all romantic like and reaching out for her with his soft "Jester?" because he KNEW it would make her swoon comes to mind) that show Fjord is not completely unreceptive to her more obvious advances. In addition Travis, you know that guy who made and plays the character has said or agreed on multiple occasions that Fjord and Jester flirt with each other. He has confirmed that they have a flirtatious relationship. She does sometimes push his boundaries a little bit yes, standing close to him in the bath house to make him nervous being the best example I can think of. However these actions have never been seen by Fjord as violations. He has never expressed that this means he trusts her any less or that he feels unsafe or unable to be vulnerable to her. These moments of discomfort and annoyance at any of her actions are just that some mild discomfort and slight annoyances. In fact it's been made clear more than once Fjord is basically in awe of Jester maybe not romantically and simply as a person. But he has all but outright said he deeply admires her. What is happening here is moments seen by the characters as minor infractions at worst and a humorous bit by the cast are being blown way out of proportion.

Now onto Travis and Laura and their bet/challenge.

Yes Travis said "I would never do a romance in D&D." and yes Laura took that as a challenge of "I'm gonna romance you and change your mind." I am not in any way denying that. Here is what I will say. That does not mean Laura or Travis are playing out of character. They're actors, real, actual, professional, paid actors. Laura even admit she attempted flirting with Travis when they started their first campaign and yeah we know how that turned out? Her character ended up with his character! Oh wait no she actually stopped trying to flirt with Grog because it felt out of character for Vex and her character ended up married to Percy, Talisen's character. This is because Vex and Percy had a chemistry that Vex and Grog didn't. She is in character when she flirts with Travis's character and Travis is in character when he flirts back! It's just that this time those characters have chemistry.

Outside of that a D&D webshow is a very unique form of media that I wish we as creators were having more discussions over. It is though a game. D&D is a game that Laura and Travis are playing with their friends. While I do think them making that game public and sharing it outside their circle of friends means there are more limitations and responsibilities than if it were just them playing at home in private it is still at the end of the day THEIR game. If Laura and Travis as a healthy, happy, playful married couple added a little bit of a competition to it then I see no problems with them doing so. It hasn't overshadowed the gameplay or the story. It hasn't changed their interactions with other characters or with their own person story arcs. It's a fun thing they decided as a couple and honestly probably didn't/aren't taking it that seriously. Most of all though they are having fun! They are having fun with their little game of chicken. They are having fun trying to outlast the other. They are having fun with their banter and jokes and flirting. Are you actually MAD at a couple for having fun?

Like I said if you don't like Fjord/Jester anymore because it feels "forced" or "fake" I understand why you feel that way and I respect that. If you feel like Jester is being creepy and invasive then you have a right to your opinion and again I see where you can get that impression.

But if you go around bad talking Laura or claiming because YOU interpret something one way that means it is the ONLY way it can be seen then you don't have my respect because you don't deserve it.

#critical role #critical role campaign 2 #fandom drama #fjorester #in defense of female characters

18 notes · View notes

primrosetta · 7 years

Text

Analysis of Hak’s character and his relationship with Yona or something

I feel almost alone when saying this, but I find Hak a kinda fascinating character with the way he was written. I have no idea if Kusanagi did it on purpose, but he was written almost to resemble a deconstruction of your average wish-fullfilling love interest character. Before his character development, he started off embodying a lot of common love interest tropes; overprotective, seemingly untouchable by emotional trauma (and therefore, someone who will always serve as walking emotional support, meanwhile needing nothing of the same in return), prone to physical advances... but as the series went on, those traits became something of flaws and/or were revealed to have deeper influencers than originally thought.

His overprotectiveness culminated in both himself and Yona nearly being killed by Taejun’s soldiers, and ultimately he has to come to terms with the fact that he can’t protect Yona from everything by himself. As such, he agrees to teach her archery and later swordsmanship. By the end of the Awa arc, we see a new character trait emerge from this; an attraction and pride in badass Yona. He no longer wishes to stifle her in an attempt to protect her; he wants to let her grow.

As for being untouchable by emotional trauma... well, for the longest time he never seemed nearly as broken up about Suwon as Yona was. Very, very angry, of course. But I never expected the bitter, broken rage he flies into in chapter 91 until it happened, and as a reader, it made me realize Hak wasn’t as okay as he pretends to be. It wasn’t that he was untouchable by the trauma, or “too manly” to be hurt. It was that he had a habit of suppressing it, so he could fulfill that role of emotional supporter without having to unload any emotional baggage on Yona, and the result was realistically unhealthy for him.

But the trait that really makes me wonder if he was meant to be a deconstruction is his dynamic with Yona, and the way he tried to make romantic advances. These advances were A) something he did as an attempt to make his feelings known because he’s established as a character who has trouble conveying serious emotions verbally and B) portrayed as largely ineffective in both attracting Yona and conveying what they meant.

The manga provides a reason why Hak tends to take a physical route to making romantic advances. It’s not because he thinks it’s ~sexy~ or because he thinks it’s what would work the best for someone like Yona; it’s his inclination due to his personality. He’s not great with words; Yona’s commented on it a couple times, and if someone (Jaeha) pisses him off, he’s more likely to throw a punch than say anything. Even when he had his break-down with Suwon, he went straight to kill-mode. He didn’t say a word until Jaeha and Kija held him back from attacking, and even then, what he was saying was largely incomprehensible. Imo, it’s portrayed that Hak is physically affectionate because he doesn’t know how to be verbally so.

Additionally, Hak and Yona’s romantic relationship remained mostly static so long as he used this method to convey his attraction. Their friendship had grown plenty, but their romance really wasn’t much closer to mutual than it had been at the castle. The physical advances; the attempts to kiss, the kabedon... none of it did a thing for Yona. She wasn’t really repulsed or bothered by it, but she wasn’t attracted to it either. She was only ever confused by it, dismissing it all as teasing when it was meant to be genuine.

When asked to stop, however, he does. As far as he’s concerned, when Yona asked him to halt his “jokes” in chapter 63, he had been rejected. Sure, Yona may not have realized the meaning behind his advances, but she expressed discomfort with it in that moment, and so Hak does actually stop. While the scene itself is mostly played for laughs, it also marks a change in Hak’s behaviour--next time they share a romantic scene, Hak is the one to pull away and mention that he promised to stop his “jokes”.

And maybe I’m overthinking it, but I can’t help but notice any real development in their romantic relationship begins right after Hak agrees to stop “joking”(like I mean the literal next page). As in, Yona is actually, on an attraction level, aware of Hak. She’s blushing from looking at his face, she’s self-conscious sharing a bed with him where she used to be completely unaffected. The next day, she’s unconsciously bothered watching women fawn over him, whereas she didn’t care at all when she caught him in a brothel back in Awa.

Fast-forward to chapter 110, in which Yona comes to realize just how strong her feelings for Hak have grown. What triggers the realization? It’s not a near-kiss, not any of the physical advances Hak used to employ to convey his love... it was his words. After she gifted him the lapis necklace and wishes him protection, despite how hard it is for him, Hak actually opens up and verbally acknowledges his affection toward Yona. He thanks her, earnestly telling her that his greatest happiness is her happiness. And with it, Yona too realizes she loves him.

Hak personifies many love interest tropes, but the manga frames it in such a way where those tropes are not played straight. They’re instead presented along with the realistic consequences and/or influencers someone who actually had such a personality might face. It takes some wrongly romanticized tropes, and instead of them being Hak’s static personality that Yona and much the audience is supposed to find attractive, they are the starting point--the flaws--in which he later develops out of.

This is merely speculation of mine; again, I have no idea if this is what Kusanagi intended with Hak as a character, but this is certainly my interpretation of him and part of the reason I love his character so much.

#akatsuki no yona #hakyona #son hak #i am the world's biggest hakyona piece of trash #i put way too much thought into this #i just love this boy okay #he's the best supportive boy #and i think kusanagi deserves a lot of credit for writing him the way she did #any discussion

943 notes · View notes

whorchataaa · 4 years

Text

Dysfunctional Families and Their Psychological Effects

When the lockdown protocols were enforced earlier this year, our freedom, routine and responsibilities within households were disrupted. Along with this, increased uncertainty, financial stress and burden of care have lowered our window of tolerance. For many, it has opened old wounds and led to persistent conflict at home. Children are forced to experience strained family interactions, day in and day out, without the solace of distraction and distance.

There is a great degree of variability in how interactions and behaviors occur within homes, and the pattern of these interactions form the core of our family dynamic (Harkonen, 2017). Families have a unique set of dynamics that affect the way each member thinks and relates to themselves, others and the world around them. Several factors including the nature of parent’s relationship, personality of family members, events (divorce, death, unemployment), culture and ethnicity (including beliefs about gender roles), influence these dynamics. The list is endless, and it is no surprise that growing up in an open, supportive environment is the exception, rather than the norm.

It’s important to disclaim that the idea of a perfect parent/family is a myth. Parents are human, flawed and experiencing their own concerns. Most children can deal with an occasional angry outburst, as long as there is love and understanding to counter it. In “functional” families, parents strive to create an environment in which everyone feels safe, heard, loved and respected. Households are often characterized by low conflict, high levels of support and open communication (Shaw, 2014). This helps children navigate physical, emotional and social difficulties when they are young, and has lasting impacts as they transition into adulthood.

Alternatively, growing up in a dysfunctional family can leave children emotionally scarred, and affect them throughout their lives. Hurtful family environments may include the following (Hall, 2017):

Aggression: Behaviors typified by belittlement, domination, lies and control.

Limited affection: The absence of physical or verbal affirmations of love, empathy and time spent together.

Neglect: No attention paid to another and discomfort around family members.

Addiction: Parents having compulsions relating to work, drugs, alcohol, sex and gambling.

Violence: Threat and use of physical and sexual abuse.

For children, families constitute their entire reality. When they are young, parents are godlike; without them they would be unloved, unprotected, unhoused and unfed, living in a constant state of terror, knowing they will be unable to survive alone. Children are forced to accommodate and enable chaotic, unstable/unpredictable and unhealthy behaviors of parents (Nelson, 2019).

Unfortunately, children don’t have the sophistication to understand and verbalize their experiences, discriminate between healthy and unhealthy behaviors and make sense of it all. They may interpret the situation to fit the belief of normalcy, further perpetuating the dysfunction (e.g., “No, I wasn’t beaten. I was just spanked” or “My father isn’t violent; it’s just his way”). They may even accept responsibility for violence, to fit their reality. The more they do this, the greater is their likelihood of misinterpreting themselves and developing negative self-concepts (e.g., “I had it coming. I was not a good kid”).

During their younger years, children form certain beliefs and carry them, unchallenged, into adulthood. These beliefs are influenced by their parents’ actions and statements and are often internalized, for instance, “children should respect their parents no matter what,” “it’s my way or no way” or “children should be seen, not heard.” This forms the soil from which toxic behavior grows and may be communicated directly or disguised as words of advice, expressed in terms of “shoulds”, “oughts” and “supposed tos.”

Spoken beliefs are tangible but can be wrestled with. For instance, a parental belief that divorce is wrong, might keep a daughter in a loveless marriage, however, this can be challenged. Unspoken beliefs are more complicated; they exist below our level of awareness and dictate basic assumptions of life (Gowman, 2018). They may be implied by childhood experiences, for example, how your father treated your mother or how they treated you, encouraging you to believe ideas such as “women are inferior to men” or “children should sacrifice themselves for their parents.”

As with beliefs there are unspoken rules, pulling invisible strings and demanding blind obedience, e.g., “don’t lead your own life,” “don’t be more successful than your father,” “don’t be happier than your mother” or “don’t abandon me.” Loyalty to our family binds us to these beliefs and rules. There may be a marked gap between parents’ expectations/demands and what children want for themselves. Unfortunately, our unconscious pressure to obey almost always overshadows our conscious needs and desires, and leads to self-destructive and defeating behaviors (Forward, 1989).

There is variability in dysfunctional familial interactions — and in the kinds, severity and regularity of their dysfunction. Children may experience the following:

Being forced to take sides during parental conflict.

Experiencing “reality shifting” (what is said contradicts what is happening).

Being criticized or ignored for their feelings and thoughts.

Having parents who are inappropriately intrusive/involved or distant/uninvolved.

Having excessive demands placed on their time, friends or behaviors — or, conversely, receive no guidelines or structure.

Experiencing rejection or preferential treatment.

Being encouraged to use alcohol/drugs.

Being physically beating.

Abuse and neglect affect the child’s ability to trust the world, others and themselves. Additionally, they grow up without a frame of reference for what is normal and healthy. They may develop traits that they struggle with throughout their adult lives, and the effects are many. They may not know how to live without chaos and conflict (this becomes a lifestyle pattern) and get bored easily (Lechnyr, 2020). Children robbed of their childhood have to “grow up too fast.” As a result, they are disconnected from their needs and face difficulty asking for help (Cikanavicious, 2019). Children, who were constantly ridiculed, grow up to judge themselves harshly, lie and constantly seek approval and affirmation. Children may fear abandonment, believe they are unlovable/not good enough and feel lonely/misunderstood. As adults, they face difficulty with forming professional, social and romantic bonds, and are viewed as submissive, controlling, overwhelming or even detached in relationships (Ubaidi, 2016). To numb their feelings, they may abuse drugs or alcohol and engage in other risky behaviors (e.g., reckless driving, unsafe sex) (Watson et al., 2013).

Perhaps most serious of all, these individuals continue the cycle by developing their own parenting problems and reinforcing the dysfunctional dynamic (Bray, 1995). Being aware of the dysfunctional patterns of our past and how they affect how we think and act in the present is the critical first step.

Name painful or difficult childhood experiences.

Recognize you have power over your life.

Identify behaviors and beliefs you would like to change.

Be assertive, set boundaries and practice non-attachment.

Find a support network.

Seek psychological help.

For parents:

Heal from your own trauma.

Be kind, honest and open-minded — and listen.

Create an environment of respect, safety and privacy.

Model healthy behavior and practice accountability.

Give clear guidelines and factual information.

Learn how to apologize.

Be gentle with teasing, sarcasm, etc.

Allow children to change and grow.

Enforce rules that guide behavior but do not regulate one’s emotional and intellectual life.

Spend time together as a family.

Know when to ask for help.

References:

Härkönen, J., Bernardi, F. & Boertien, D. (2017). Family Dynamics and Child Outcomes: An Overview of Research and Open Questions. Eur J Population 33, 163–184. https://ift.tt/2Ybl1Nw

Shaw, A. (2014). The Family Environment and Adolescent Well-Being [blog post]. Retrieved from https://ift.tt/2V9xnEb

Dorrance Hall, E. (2017). Why Family Hurt Is So Painful Four reasons why family hurt can be more painful than hurt from others [blog post]. Retrieved from https://ift.tt/3hF1bSo

Nelson, A. (2019). Understanding Fear and Self-Blame Symptoms for Child Sexual Abuse Victims in Treatment: An Interaction of Youth Age, Perpetrator Type, and Treatment Time Period. Honors Theses, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 89. https://ift.tt/2N7ye3y

Gowman, V. (2019). When Children Believe “I Am Wrong”: The Impact Developmental Trauma Has on Belief Systems and Identity [blog post]. Retrieved from https://ift.tt/2C9lK9k

Forward, S., & Buck, C. (1989). Toxic Parents: Overcoming Their Hurtful Legacy and Reclaiming Your Life. NY, NY: Bantam.

Cikanavicius, D. (2019). The Effects of Trauma from “Growing up Too Fast” [blog post]. Retrieved from https://blogs.psychcentral.com/psychology-self/2019/12/trauma-growing-up-fast/

Al Ubaidi, B.A. (2017). Cost of Growing up in Dysfunctional Family. J Fam Med Dis Prev, 3(3): 059. doi.org/10.23937/2469-5793/1510059

Lechnyr, D. (2020). Wait, I’m not Crazy?! Adults Who Grew Up in Dysfunctional Families [blog post]. Retrieved from https://ift.tt/37DLRAY

Al Odhayani, A., Watson, W. J., & Watson, L. (2013). Behavioural consequences of child abuse. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 59(8), 831–836.

Bray, J.H. (1995). 3. Assessing Family Health And Distress: An Intergenerational-Systemic Perspective [Family Assessment]. Lincoln, NB: Buros-Nebraska Series on Measurement and Testing. Retrieved from https://ift.tt/3fBCF34

from https://ift.tt/2N5vlAl Check out https://peterlegyel.wordpress.com/

0 notes

ashley-unicorn · 4 years