It's One Thing To Dislike Halsin, But Don't Flipping Try To Justify A Rape Threat From Minthara While

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.

Rejection Sensitivity

Neurodiverse Journeys

i haven’t been able to finish my current me3 playthrough yet due to my brother hogging the xbox so he can play ARC: Evolved but here’s a list of things i remembered i hate in the OT in no particular order

the elevators

the asari

mark meer’s voice acting in ME1

liara’s writing if you don’t romance her (wtf bioware)…especially considering that the reason i generally DON’T romance her is because in ME1 at least, it feels like an adult dating a teenage girl.

femshep’s romance options and how most of them get fucking shafted to shit in ME3

how heteronormative ME2 was

jacob taylor’s loyalty mission and how racist it was

how racist and lazy the writing for jacob taylor was in general (ofc there are many reasons i dislike jacob in and of itself, but some it can be chalked up to bad writing)

jack’s chuppy ass default outfit in me2 (really bioware??? a woman could have the smallest titties in existence and she still wouldn’t be able to strap ‘em down with just a fucking belt. even if this game was written by mostly men, that’s still dumb as hell)

miranda’s largely unnecessary ass-shots

thane’s death

kai leng

that fact that you can’t call out kaidan for his bullshit cheating accusations in ME3 if you DO choose to romance someone else in ME2 as femshep if you romanced him in ME1, but mshep can do that to ashley (????? BIOWARE!)

the fact that an aro ace shepard it practically impossible to play after a certain point in the series without being a complete dick (and if you play the citadel dlc, impossible as femshep! because if you don’t romance anyone you wake up next to javik! lmao)

the fact that the dlc for the ME2 and 3 literally never goes on sale on pc like it does for the console versions, forcing me to pirate shit i already fucking paid for because i am unwilling to shell out £200+ on this shit again because EA and bioware are lazy money-grubbing fucks thanks ea thanks very much for your business practices

related to the above, but why did they never sell me2 or 3 with all the dlc included? that shit would sell like no one’s business…oh wait, EA…again.

the elevators

I feel like people really don't understand what happened in Early Access. I was there and can tell you what happened.

Myth: Larian promoted Halsin to a romanceable companion because straight female fans were soooooo horny for him.

Reality: While EA fans made a fair number of "daddy Halsin" memes, most were interested in Halsin because at the time, most of the good companions were still assholes (Gale and SH were much ruder back then, Lae'zel and Astarion were outright evil, and Karlach hadn't been added yet, leaving Wyll alone for "nice companion" rep) and were interested in Halsin because he was a genuinely nice and helpful guy who broke the mold for how elves and Druids usually were. The datamined story where Halsin was responsible for the Shadow Curse also was like catnip to the fans. There was wild speculation about how that story would play out for him.

Thirst was a child-sized piece of the entire pie for reasons people wanted Halsin. But then Larian added him and indulged only the thirst-based comments, not the people actually interested in Halsin and his story, so now people still have a laugh about how it was literally the "fault" of horny women (fucking women, they ruin everything am I right?) that Larian implemented Halsin in the worst way possible. Serious, take a look sometime at the Larian forums back during EA... those same posters now hate Halsin more than anyone else. I'm not one of them, I still like him, but this is not what any of us asked Larian for. I ordered a cheeseburger and got a wedge salad, and not only that, but I'm getting attacked for being the reason the person next to me didn't get fries with their burger too.

Halsin fans don't have it nearly as badly as Wyll fans, but we definitely got fucked over as bad as Karlach did.

.

Gortash fans are saying this?! Gortash fans?! Fans of a guy:

-Who violated Karlach's bodily autonomy

-Sold Karlach into slavery

-Who experimented on people

-Streamlined the interrogation of people's brains in a jar by using an elven woman's head to voice their thoughts in that Mindflayer pit. One of those brains was a child's by the way.

-Ran a dictatorship through the Steel Watch with innocent civilian brains running them

-Whose own fans admit that part of Gortash's appeal is his "rapey" look?!

And they have the gall to act self righteous about nonexistent creepy behavior from a character?!

I fucking HATE the Facebook girlies sometimes.

Ripped this from the comments of a post in a Gortash simp group that was talking about which of them smelled better/worse

The amount of people who think he's creepy TRULY confuses me. Like where do you get this from, who hurt you????

He's an autistic man who loves animals and nature and has a soft spot for orphaned children????? If you romance him, he is the most loving, comforting, and supportive character in the game and is ALL ABOUT CONSENT????? And you think he's A CREEPY PREDATOR????

There are a couple more Garrus-Vakarian-related hills I'm willing to die on.

Maybe this particular bit of fanon has faded over the years, but there used to be a lot of insistence that Garrus is young and somehow inexperienced when he meets Shepard. Canon doesn't really support this. Turians start their mandatory service at 15. Garrus has at least a decade of experience. Even if he's 2-4 of years younger than Shepard (according to Patrick Weekes), he's got at least as much field experience as she does by dint of the difference in turian and human "enlistment" ages.

Garrus is really damn good at his job at C-Sec. You don't give the Case of Investigating the Rogue Spectre to a greenhorn. You give it to your best, most tenacious agent. Pallin may not always approve of Garrus's actions, but that doesn't actually stop him from putting Garrus on the tough case. Also, we don't know much about how C-Sec works but we do know a bit about how the turian hierarchy works, and we know C-Sec was essentially a turian initiative. That means it's a meritocracy where failure reflects on the superior, not the one who failed. So, in roughly a decade (Shepard's 29 in ME1; I always think of Garrus as about 27), Garrus has not only done shipboard military service, but he's also risen to be one of C-Sec's top investigators; Pallin wouldn't risk having Garrus's "failure" reflect poorly on HIM otherwise. I'd say that actually makes Garrus as remarkable in civilian law enforcement terms as Shepard is considered to be within the ranks of the Alliance military.

Of course Garrus was scouted by the Spectre program. And honestly, if his dad hadn't stepped in, I think Garrus would have become a Spectre, no problem. Especially for a turian, he's cut from precisely the cloth the Spectres would be looking for: extremely skilled, extremely capable, and--most importantly--he's a turian not just able but willing to work outside the chains of command that turians are taught from birth to revere and be loyal to above all else. This is the reason Pallin is leery about Spectres: he's a good turian. Good turians follow straight lines; they don't carve out their own paths.

Garrus's dad's not dumb, and he's not cruel, and he, too, rose to the top of the C-Sec hierarchy. He took one look at his kid, I think, and said, "I love my child, but I'd say it's a 50-50 chance he ends up a shooting-first-asking-questions-later Spectre like Saren Arterius, and I don't want to see that happen." Yeah, he uses his parental influence to try and jam square-peg-Garrus into round-hole-C-Sec and Garrus resents him for it, but there's no way he did it just to stop his son from getting his way or because he doesn't like Spectres. I expect Vakarian Sr. had to clean up more post-Spectre-interference messes than we can possibly imagine. But we also know he and Alec Ryder were pals later.

So the importance of what Garrus learns from a Paragon Spectre Shepard is this: You can't just do what you want and claim the ends always justify the means. That's what Saren does. Over and over again. Garrus's code and his idealism and his sense of justice and his ability to work alone should make him a great Spectre, actually, but he needs Paragon Spectre Shepard's actions to show him the lesson he tells her he's learned during ME1: "If the people I'm sworn to protect can't trust me... well, then I don't deserve to be the one protecting them." (And the seed of Archangel was planted.) I think for the first time he realizes that even though he believes his sense of justice to be correct, it doesn't matter for shit if he can't show others why that's so. And that's where the trust comes in. (Also, ow, the extra level of importance this gives their exchange where she tells him she trusts him and he tells her she's about the only friend he has left is... a lot. Cool, cool. I'm totally fine. Nothing to see here.)

When Shepard asks him what happened on Omega, he replies, "My feelings got in the way of my better judgement." Something tells me that this never happens to "good" turians, which just makes the line so much more devastating. And although the lesson some might take away from this is "feelings bad; no feelings ever," the "grey" that Garrus has to learn to deal with is precisely the grey of recognizing feelings, validating them even, but not acting on them until they've been examined. (Which is why my Shepard stands between him and Sidonis; she doesn't give a shit about Sidonis. But Garrus has refused to process his own feelings of failure and self-loathing, so they have to take the therapy session to the Citadel and deal with it there.)

Ahh yes. The mountain range of character analysis.

Ok, so I came across one post that said that you can turn Mizora into stone as it doesn't count as damage against her (and I won't accidentally trigger Wyll into attacking even though he's technically free of his pact to her).

She has to fail 3 saving throws for this to work but my goodness, it is satisfying after she tried to kill Wyll's father and refused to leave camp when I told her to leave. No more stirring up trouble, no more taunting Wyll, no more spying on us.

Defending my new favorite ship again because why tf not

I’ll start by stating the obvious (cuz apparently it isn’t a given to some of the folks on here, which is weird, but okay). We DO NOT condone abuse in any form. With that said, an explanation is not an excuse and many folks, almost all I’d venture to guess, have been abusive at some point in their lives (I know I wouldn’t have been on the receiving end of so much abuse if that were untrue - hurt people hurt people). We also DO NOT condone racism. I get the feeling people assume malice on the Ghoulcy shipper side because of disgusting comments that were made long ago about Rey and Finn (which was a similar dynamic that, I’d argue, made more sense than a Lucy/Max relationship but that’s also my 🌈 heart shipping him with Dane). These disclaimers also extend to the villains, which Barb is one of. We DO NOT condone misogynoir here either cuz while I haven’t seen much racism on Lucy/Max, I have seen a surprising amount about Barb. Being a fictional villain does not allow for any kind of bigotry, NOTHING does, but I digress.

So on Ghoulcy, I’ll say this. The foreshadowing is layered heavily throughout the story. Whether they are intended to be friends or partners is up for debate, but the writing makes it quite clear that these characters are destined to team up, bringing us to the end of Season 1 when Lucy walks off with Cooper. I’m brought back to what Wilzig said at the beginning of the season, when Lucy was by herself camping and he warned her several times to go home before finally saying:

“The question is, will you still want the same things when you’ve become a different animal altogether?”

Lucy is very distraught at the end of the season after learning everything she does about her dad and Vault-tec and, for her to return to the vaults and live out her days there, with or without Max, seems like a stretch when things are all said and done. This can be poignantly compared to Persephone going to the underworld (in Lucy’s case, the surface world) - she has eaten the proverbial pomegranate.

This isn’t the only dynamic which Ghoulcy has been compared to, either. I have also seen them compared to Beauty and the Beast, which brings Max back into the dynamic often as a Gaston. Personally, I don’t see that, but if he turned out to be a villain it would be an interesting storyline and Aaron Moten could play it off very well. But bringing Max back in, something about his character to me feels very incomplete and I’m not sure if a love interest is the way forward for him. We only know one of his wants:

“I want to hurt the people who hurt me.”

And at the end of the season it’s like he seems less convinced by that, even though it’s hard to guess exactly what he’s thinking when he is knighted (something he should want, but judging by his expression he seems disenchanted by it) and finds Lucy has left. Part of the reason I ship him and Dane is because Dane has been a rock to him, one who he can probably trust with doubts about the Brotherhood. But returning to Ghoulcy, Cooper has been exactly where Lucy is before. He was betrayed by the one person he trusted most and what did he love most about Barb before they divorced (remember there was talk about alimony in the first episode - not sure how people forgot that):

“I know you always try to do the right thing. That’s what I love about you.”

Who embodies that better than Lucy, I ask you. (Cooper very well could still care about his ex-wife so take that with a grain of salt) But when it comes down to it, and we don’t know who initiated the divorce so it’s up for interpretation like any good story, part of Cooper died when he listened in on Barb’s Vault-Tec meeting just like part of Lucy is dying after she learns what her father did to her mother and Shady Sands.

“If my dad found out that I destroyed an entire community to save him... that'd break his heart.”

That is likely what’s on repeat for her when she learns about the city. And when Cooper offers her his company to New Vegas, his tone notably softens. I think when they first met, the vile things Cooper did to Lucy made her realize very quickly what she would have to do to make it on the surface. Cooper is intrigued, maybe even put off by, her genuine goodness. And it’s not just that, but he sees part of his past self and seeks to kill it any chance he can get. I’d argue that’s a large part of why he’s so cruel to her (him shooting the Vault Boy poster was more than just a fuck you to Vault-Tec). And likewise, Lucy shows him that embracing his humanity again is not so bad - whatever morsel he has left. It begins with trust, though, whatever they have. When she follows him, he has his back turned to her and is walking ahead with the dog. Normally, he wouldn’t put himself in such a vulnerable position, but he is showing her that he believes in her golden rule. Or more accurately that he believes that she believes in it.

Anyway, I dare not risk turning this into an actual essay. It’s already long enough. I’m interested in exploring other aspects that I might have missed if y’all have any thoughts.