*Sees Work*

During a fight with Lorroakan, an allied Deva got shoved over the railing. To my surprise, he didn't die but landed on a level below....which I did not know existed as an actual accessible level. It was there I discovered that there was another level below it that can only be accessed by a Weave button according to the placards in front of them. Getting there revealed a unique robe that resembles a beige copy of Elminster's robes and a Legendary Draconic staff:

I've come to describing it as: What we need to find out if we'd want sex with someone is what others complain of as "friendzoning" (aka You must be this friend zoned to have a chance to go on this demisexual ride). Which is NOT an endorsement of being friends in hopes of getting sex. No one owes anyone sex. No one should be friends with an ulterior motive. But it's hard to describe demisexuality without finding an anchor point to something we live with in society. And all too frequently, I've experienced how swiftly friends stop being friends when sex is confirmed to be off the table. Friendly greetings turn cold, plans become empty promises, and laughter becomes silence when you're not interested in sex. How do people find anyone willing to do that attractive enough to fuck?

Sex without attachment is far more prevalent I think than society is willing to acknowledge. Otherwise, we wouldn't have jokes about sex on the third date, the shame of friendzoning, the "expiration date" theme as we age, or the dreaded "frigid" label. There'd never be emphasis of "If you liked it, ya shoulda put a ring on it", "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" And all sorts of "fun" colloquialisms that imply that the temptation of sex is present without the urge to commit to a relationship. Because, why caution others in acquiring commitment first if it's in our nature to only want sex when there are emotional bonds?

Ironically, I think we ought to be de-stigmatizing casual sex and instead be emphasizing consent, safety for health and generally not being a douche to your partners. I get the sense that this sex shaming causes a kind of sociopathic treatment of each other if we're not doing it for the "right" reasons (insert disclaimer about appropriate age being needed to discuss this topic), because it doesn't take long before I'm hearing a tone of disrespect towards anyone who likes casual sex as though they're unworthy of marriage material.

demisexuality can be so hard to explain because it’s misconstrued as you just wanting to trust the other person before you have sex with them. and I get why the misconception happens. But demisexuality differs in that there isn’t sexual attraction at all before that bond forms.

I think what people have difficulty with is the idea that there are people out there who aren’t experiencing sexual attraction at all until a certain point, if ever, because we’re taught that sex, libido, and sexual attraction are all the same, both in and out of queer spaces.

And when you’re learning about asexuality and demisexuality, you may learn that people have romantic and aesthetic attraction separately from sexual attraction, and that sexual and romantic attraction aren’t necessarily intertwined, and that may challenge your worldview on sex.

But “I trust you enough to have sex with you” isn’t the same as “I’m not sexually attracted to anyone but you, and the reason I’m sexually attracted to you now after we’ve established this close bond is literally because of the bond of trust we’ve been able to form”.

It’s easy to see how those can get conflated. On the surface, if you’re unfamiliar with asexuality, they may sound the same. But it’s important to acknowledge the difference between “no sex until I trust you” and “no sexual attraction unless I trust you and maybe not even then”.

Demisexuality is housed under the asexuality spectrum. It’s part of the gray area between being allosexual and asexual. It’s part of why the definition for asexuality includes “little to no sexual attraction”. It’s a mostly asexual experience with an asterisk.

While being demisexual may have impacts on a persons sexual activity, even demisexuals have a varied relationship to the act of participating in sex. Libido and sexual attraction are not always intertwined either, which can make telling the difference tricky.

I think of sexual attraction as libido that has a compass. Since I rarely ever experience sexual attraction, but do have libido, it’s noticeable for me when that libido actually has a direction to go, rather than being a floating, nebulous, independent thing.

Remember, not everyone is demisexual. There’s a difference between waiting to have sex and not having sexual attraction at all until a certain point. This also inherently ties demisexuality to romantic attraction and relationships, and not all demisexuals are alloromantic.

But if you read what demisexuality is and think “everyone is like that” or “that’s just being a woman”, you either 1) are demisexual 2) don’t understand what it is or 3) both. And it’s okay to not know. Just as long as you’re willing to try to learn.

reddit was talking about this, but i feel like tumblr could get a scholarly debate going

Thinking about Halsin coping with the stress of the city through sex with Tav, trying to soothe his ravaged nerves by burying his nose into their neck until their scent drives out the unwelcome reminders of death in the streets, of unwashed bodies and pollution toxins in the air. Thinking about him seeking comfort in their warmth, of wanting them clasped around his arousal until he and they are mindlessly driving each through another orgasm, his hands splintering and cracking the edges of the wooden table holding Tav's weight because nothing of this artificial world can withstand his strength. How the patches of greenery and trees make his longing worse because it reminds him of the world he wants to share with Tav, to hold them close so they can hear the birdsong that's not here in this crowded hell and feel the moonlight he would have summoned to bathe them both in at night. Halsin holding Tav a bit more tightly, a bit longer than they usually would have, deciding that one more dive, one more taste of his dazed lover's body will give him the peace he needs to endure another day until their mission is done. And all the while, Tav is unaware of the comfort he's taking into their presence, seeing them as an unspoken dream he has no right to ask for, his selfish need for them manifesting as desperate passion each night.

I see this confusion time and time again, despite explanations that personality matters a great deal to many players and not just looks. Garrus was written as a character first, not tailored to what people think women want. And this isn't a knock on the other romances either. People loved them because of their personality just as much too. The point being is that our reasons, despite the tendency for "critics" cheapening our love for this character as some shallow freak fetish, are just as based on the bonds developed over time.

It's funny; Garrus' romance is a pretty good summation of what demisexuality is. He wasn't physically attracted to Shepard by his own admission, but his respect and admiration makes him able and willing to explore a romantic side of it with her until he does develop a physical attraction to her in ME3. In fact, you literally can't romance him if you deliberately kept him off the team in ME1. No history, no bond, no romance.

He's brash, but respectful. He's reckless but wants to do good. He's stubborn but listens if Shepard disagrees. He has strong opinions and isn't afraid to voice them, but that's never harmed the friendship he can have with Shepard.

He's one of the first teammates there for Shepard she can trust when she had woken up alone and struggling in an organization she does not trust.

It's a little disappointing that we have to repeatedly say, the personality matters in our attraction to a character. Especially if we're particularly struggling to feel sexual attraction at a glance.

Do you think Mass Effect's character writers deserves more recognition for how they managed to turn an entire generation of people sexually and/or romantically and/or aesthetically attracted to someone who is essentially a featherless spacebird?

No because they did it entirely by accident, tried to placate the confusing requests by female fans to make him romanceable but because that was not something they planned for they were still writing him primarily removed from being a romance partner and were more focused on writing him as the "best friend" character to MShep (not realising this is EXACTLY why the female players (as well as gay players) liked him) and by Mass Effect 3 they just threw up their hands and went "WELL HELL! YOU GUYS LIKE HIM SO MUCH YOU GET ALL THE ROMANCE THEN!!!"

Garrus' writing as a romance was a perfect storm of factors, many completely out of the writers' control that even they themselves completely missed until their players POINTED IT OUT TO THEM. Garrus is lightning in a bottle of unplanned factors, incredible voice performance, the writers willing to comply to player feedback, and the symbiotic relationship Bioware had with their fans and players.

Garrus is an incredibly well written character in his own right, that's WHY he's such a good romance option and the best one Bioware has ever had. But a part of this was luck, chance, and willingness to adapt his character to what a subsection of fans wanted.

Proof further by every single romance Bioware has since written with the INTENT of making them exactly what their female players want, never hit the same way Garrus did. And speaking personally, none of their other romance characters in any of their games scratches the same itch.

Also "Featherless Spacebird" means nothing to me because my "sexual attraction" level is lower than 0. It's not DESPITE him looking like that. It's BECAUSE he looks like that. Not because I find him physically attractive, but because he does not resemble something I am supposed to be physically attracted to in any way shape or form.

I like the way Garrus looks because he's Garrus. And because I like Garrus it means I like the way the turians look.

The caveat of "essentially being a featherless space bird" implies that "haha isn't it CRAZY gamers would be attracted to THAT???"

no.

His personality, voice, performance, and writing is wonderful. Why WOULDN'T players be attracted to that?

Generally, it depends. Luth's been taught that it's usually a bad idea to show something got to her so going quiet is her default response until she can decide what to do with the offender. Some generic asshole looking for a response? Dismiss and ignore as the companions and her have more pressing matters to deal with. Can't ignore it? 18 Charisma makes for some effective threats and warnings.

Threatening their lives however? She'll burn several sorcery slots to make a point. Good luck dodging 3 ice storms.

Tav Question

How does your Tav express their anger?

This series of polls is regarding whether people like or dislike a character, with anon explaining that they would like to connect with people who have similar feelings to them regarding the characters. So, for the purposes of these polls, I will not be checking tags/replies/comments (and I suggest that anyone else who doesn't want to see their faves get hate take the same approach). If you really want to highlight something POSITIVE about a character, you can send me an ask and I'll (probably) post it. Be kind to real people, and do NOT say anything bigoted. (Also I reserve the right to delete these polls at any time if I feel they're getting out of hand.)

There will be one poll for every companion/advisor (if you want any other specific major characters to have a poll, dm me or send an ask). As this will be a lot of polls, I'm tagging them as 'feelings polls' for those who don't want to get spammed to filter.

Unless you're diabetic

‘bread is bad for you’ ‘rice is bad for you’ sorry im not subscribing to the idea that staple grains that have been integral to cultures for centuries are evil. i love you carbs

Day 10: Favorite Romance

Fair Warning: This is an incredibly long essay with tons and tons of flycammed screencaps.

Obviously, my fav romance is Shakarian. It’s my favorite for many reasons, but I think the reason that I like it best is simply because it is actually a romance. I honestly love it so god damn much that I’m having a hard time focusing on what I want to talk about with it, because its that damn good.

I think I’m going to talk about the development of it, because there’s lots of essays out there already about why they’re suited for each other or what makes them such a good pairing. What I think is particularly interesting about the way the Shakarian romance is set up is that so much of the romance is not in what they say – it’s in how they say it.

Keep reading

While there is no doubt that having the Qun inflicted on everyone else is unacceptable, knowing why there are adherents is important because it'd never survive if it wasn't at least addressing enough people's needs to become a culture. One of the biggest things that stand out is that the Qunari do not believe in neglecting their poorest and weakest members of society. Oh sure, ideally, everyone should be taken care of, the Chantry sisters do have charities.

And yet.

There are people still joining the Qun (for good or for ill) like the city elf brothers who were wanted for murder. Why did they kill? Humans raped their sister. Did they go to the City Guard? Yes. No one did anything about it. Why? They were city elves, the least of all citizens.

No amount of spare food or clothing will address that need for justice there.

It's notable that Andrastian myths focus more on Andraste, her relationship to the Maker and a few involved in her story. But the story of the Qunari's reason for arising centers on the failure of societies in taking care of their poorest, their neglected.

Long ago, the Ashkaari lived in a great city by the sea. Wealth and prosperity shone upon the city like sunlight, and still its people grumbled in discontent. The Ashkaari walked the streets of his home and saw that all around him were the signs of genius: triumphs of architecture, artistic masterpieces, the palaces of wealthy merchants, libraries, and concert halls. But he also saw signs of misery: the poor, sick, lost, frightened, and the hopeless. And the Ashkaari asked himself, "How can one people be both wise and ignorant, great and ruined, triumphant and despairing?"

So the Ashkaari left the land of his birth, seeking out other cities and nations, looking for a people who had found wisdom enough to end hopelessness and despair. He wandered for many years through empires filled with palaces and gardens, but in every nation of the wise, the great, the mighty, he found the forgotten, the abandoned, and the poor.

There's another passage that comes to mind of how the Qun may not be all fascism and pigeonholing tyranny to the citizens (taken with a large grain of salt):

Dragon Age Wiki

Codex entry: Qunari Tamassrans

See also: Qunari, The Qun, Tamassran Nanny Goodwin lay on the hard stones of the Kirkwall docks until the sailors left with her purse. As sh

Nanny Goodwin lay on the hard stones of the Kirkwall docks until the sailors left with her purse. As she struggled to her feet, a large grey hand reached down to help her. It was one of the Qunari, the great horned giants who had come to live in the city.

"I thank you," said Nanny Goodwin hesitantly, looking for her satchel. "I did not know the docks were so dangerous, or I would have asked one of Lord G___'s guards to accompany me as I bought healing herbs for the children."

"You are a tamassran," said the Qunari. "Under the Qun, no sailor would accost you. Why are you here?"

"I am but Lord G___'s nanny," Nanny Goodwin said, "and Lord G___ did not believe me when I told him that the children needed healing herbs, so I was forced to buy them myself."

"Under the Qun," said the Qunari, "tamassrans are trusted and listened to when caring for the children, and any healing herbs they needed would be provided. Why did Lord G___ not attend your words?"

"He is a noble," Nanny Goodwin said, "and I am merely a servant who cares for his children." She shifted her shawl to hide the bruises the sailors had given her, as well as the bruises Lord G___ himself had left.

"Under the Qun," said the Qunari, "all are equal, and no tamassran thinks herself a mere anything."

Nanny Goodwin bid the Qunari good day and returned to Hightown with much to think about.

Sounds like propaganda, doesn't it? And it'd be easy to dismiss as just that, if not for a few non Qunari members of the Qun like Gatt.

Dragon Age Wiki

Gatt

Gatt is an elven agent of the Ben-Hassrath. Gatt was a slave in Tevinter until he met Hissrad. A Qunari team led by The Iron Bull (who was t

Gatt has lived under the Qun after escaping from Tevinter so he has two societies to compare side by side to on the pros and cons. And his assessment is this: The Qunari are meeting enough of his needs to offset their flaws in society.

So there are some positives in Qun society. It's far too rigid and narrow in its overzealousness to categorize and control everyone, but it's fascinating in how it's not just a cartoonish, mustache twirling parody of an evil government. They genuinely do want to take care of every single member of their society, it's just a shame that expectation to conform is non negotiable.

CONFESSION:

It sucks that we rarely get to see any truly positive or cultural looks into Qunari life. Sten was kind of our only real peak into it without every character around them going "wow thats TERRIBLE the qun sounds AWFUL you're basically SLAVES". Even Tallis's storyline eventually turned into her running away from it. We'll shine a light on how the Chantry and the slave empire are 'flawed but worth saving' all damn day, but maker forbid the Qunari have any kind of positive exploration with the modern storyline. I'm not saying I want them to be a shining perfect utopia, but would it kill anyone to add a little nuance?