Y'all Are Blessed. I Had To Deal With Homestuck Rayla

Y'all are blessed. I had to deal with Homestuck rayla

This was supposed to be about Rayla redesign BUT NOOOO. AARAVOS

In a scenario in which Aaravos abandons Viren in favor of Claudia, the thing I have the hardest time understanding is Claudia’s motivation. Maybe it’s because I’m assuming that scenario involves literal physical separation/abandonment? I also don’t buy the idea that Viren is now suddenly an unvaluable asset because he…died? Is old(ish)?

Viren is a powerful and experienced mage who also has useful political knowledge of the human kingdoms. He is most probably in a terribly unmoored state and particularly susceptible to influence. He is also the bait that’s been leading Claudia the past two years.

I can definitely see Aaravos valuing Claudia as a weapon, but not as a co-conspirator in the same way as Viren (and now, Callum too). Viren has (had??) a larger political/social goal while Claudia hasn’t seemed all that interested in politics or, really, anything outside of her family.

I can see Aaravos using that to his advantage (appealing to her desire for an intact family to persuade her one way or the other), but as for her larger role, she is also a mystery to me.

Isn't it just really aggravating when you try to search up a concept on google for inspiration and it just doesn't exist? like i got to make this creature from scratch? darmn

hAHA turns out why is because its ugly and shouldn't be done. beware the silly idea train

Isn't it just really aggravating when you try to search up a concept on google for inspiration and it just doesn't exist? like i got to make this creature from scratch? darmn

50 posts!

Apparently there's a thing for fifty posts 😵‍💫

Why media has always to "fix" asexual/aromantic characters?

(this is a little rant. I don't wanna seem rude or trying to ignore certain identities so please read till the end. maybe I am just overanalysing things but...)

When a character shows little to no interest in love matters there is always a common pattern in their evolution. First they are ridiculed or treated like a child. Then their arch and growth is shown through "fixing" them: they start to catch feelings, get in relationship and so on and that becomes a methaphor of their maturity, healing or "regaing humanity".

I am thinking of BBC Sherlock that after stating many times that he doesn't want nor like those kind of relationship he kinda "regains humanity" by actually engaging with Irene. Watson litterally tells him to go out whit her, like if without romantic/sexual love his existance would be wasted.

I am thinking of Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory. His friends always make fun of him for his approach to relationship. Then magically he has sex with Amy as a way of showing he is matured and had a "fundamental human experience".

I am thinking of Will Byers that in a season doesn't understand why all his friends are falling in love. And in the following season the show makes clear that he is not heartless but actually he is in love with his friend. (I know he is supposed to be really young, is still a good representation and his asexuality/aromanticism was just a not-so-wide-spread headcanon....but the way all of that is portait still fit this annoyng narrative)

I am thinking of people saying Loveless or even Heartstopper by Alice Oseman are childish and immature or irrealistic.

And I know that asexual people can have sex, aromantic people can be in relationship, demisexuals and demiromantics exist and all of this is valid but I am tired of seeing that a "full no" is never a really valid option in media. A person who doesn't want no kind of relationship is always shown as a flawed starting point in need of fixing. And then, eventually, they will grow, make up their mind, fall in love, realising they where just holding back, scared or in need to explore themselves.