"I Don't Think I Could Have The Relationship With You That You Have With Me," She Said. She Was Very

"I don't think I could have the relationship with you that you have with me," she said. She was very casual about it, and I was immediately on the defensive.

"What do you mean by that?" I asked.

She put the book she'd been reading down. "It's just, the way you've described it, and the vibe that I get, I don't think I could do it how you do it."

"I still don't know what that means," I said.

"You're always doing this like ... micro calculation thing," she said. "You weigh your words. You try to time things. You have never once called me up while I was at work, or asked me for something when it was inconvenient for me, and you check and double check that you're not being a nuisance."

"And ... that's bad?" I asked.

"No, I love that about you," she said. "It's very kind and considerate. I know that if I tell you I'm not in the mood to hang out, you'll apologize and not push it. If you suggest that we get pizza and I say I'd rather have Korean BBQ, you fold instantly and we get Korean BBQ. I like that. I get the things I want. But it seems like an exhausting way to deal with people."

"I want you to be happy," I said with a small voice.

"I am happy," she replied. "You're great. You remember when we first got together I was like 'hey, look, if you want pizza, we can get pizza, it's just not what I'm in the mood for', and you kept insisting that you didn't care, that you would rather have me follow my needs? And I just thought, 'you know, maybe I should just trust that's what they actually feel'. And it is, as far as I can tell. There's not some secret part of you that wants me to break your way."

"You think I'm ... a simpering coward?" I asked. Even as I said it, it felt too accusatory, the wrong thing to say in the situation.

"Whoa, no, not at all," she laughed. "I think you do all that stuff because ... I don't know, you want to? Because otherwise why would you do it? It's how you are with every aspect of your life, you're a tryhard. I mean you said to me that you wanted to reclaim the term. Your relationship with me is that you're a tryhard (affectionate)."

"And you're ... not?" I asked.

"I'm not that way with anyone," she replied. "You know why I hang out with you so much? It's 'cause I like you. Most days, I am very much in the mood for you, and if you ask for a meetup, I'll say yes, and if you don't ask for one, then I'll ask you first. And for you ..."

"What?" I asked.

"It's like ... you're keeping track," she said. "You want to make sure that you're not sending me more messages than I'm sending you. You're balancing social micro stuff that I don't pay attention to. You're consciously monitoring how much each of us has said and making sure it's the right number of words or whatever."

"It's really not about the number of words," I replied. "It's more ... making sure that social and emotional labor is equitable, that there's a good rhythm to the conversation. I don't think you'd get good results by tracking word count."

"But see, I don't do any of that," she said. "I talk because I feel like talking. I listen when you need to vent because I like you and it feels good to give you an outlet. I mean you are undoubtedly putting in a bunch of work, and for me, there's no work. That's all I meant, really."

"You've thought about it," I said.

"Oh, I'm just reading this book, and there are two characters like us in it, and I was like 'yes, exactly', and then 'that would not work for me'." She shrugged.

"And if I stopped 'putting in the work'?" I asked. "Would we still be ... friends?"

"See, I don't know," she said. "Because that's never who you've been. You're asking me if I would still be friends with you if you changed your personality and how we interact with each other. Maybe? Probably? Who knows? Maybe we'd be better friends somehow. Maybe we're just two basically compatible people, and every time you've ever worried about anything it would actually have been completely fine."

"Or maybe it's load-bearing," I said.

"Maybe!" she replied with a smile that slowly faded. "You okay?"

"I'm thinking," I said. I didn't know if I could verbalize what I was thinking in a way that would be palatable.

"Do you not like being this way with me?" she asked. "Because I have never asked you to. I've made my preferences known, but if you've been bending yourself into knots and feeling a burden, then ..."

"No," I said, because I knew it was what she wanted to hear. "No, I like the way things are between us."

"Good," she smiled. "I do too."

i seriously cannot comprehend the sex drive that makes one exclusively horny for captain america looking movie hunks or the victorias secret angel archetype of tall underweight women with generically pretty faces in bikinis. that shit is like carbon monoxide or infrasonic noise to my libido like my sexual senses cant even clock it

Stan's Twin Theory

Hey, this is a new blog dedicated to Gravity Falls, and specifically to theories about Gravity Falls. We have some interesting (possibly far-fetched) theories. This is one of them.

Stan’s Twin Theory:

Stan has to have a brother (although not necessarily a twin), because he’s Dipper and Mabel’s Great-Uncle, and they all share the same last name, therefore he must have a brother. However, we believe he has a twin. Here’s why:

twins are genetic (and the gene can skip generations) 

There are some pieces of evidence found in the show that supports our claim

We also believe that Stan’s twin may be the Author. Here’s why:                            

1. The Hiding Spot

Look, a hole in the ground

In Tourist Trapped, Dipper found the 3rd book in the forest near the Mystery Shack. This may seem like a stretch, but think about it! where would you hide something important that you might want to access easily? By your house.                                        

Gideon’s factory

In The Hand that Rocks the Mabel it is shown that Gideon’s family factory is located on Gopher Road, the same street as the Mystery Shack. 

The Mystery Shack’s address via the Deed is 618 Gopher Road.

This could explain how Gideon found the 2nd Journal. 

And it’s interesting to note that Gideon was searching for the 1st Journal at the Mystery Shack. 

Possible hiding spots

There are possible hiding spots listed in the 2nd Journal, they seem to be located around a building similar to the Mystery Shack.

2. The Bunker

The Bunker is located underground, in the forest near the Mystery Shack.

There is a sign on the wall of the bunker that says that it is a nuclear fallout shelter. Now, where would you build a fallout shelter? Near your house of course! During times of bomb scares people would build fallout shelters in their backyard.

And since the Author did experiments in the bunker and was observing a shapeshifter, it would be more convenient for him to have the bunker close to the place where he lived. 

3. The Glasses              

In Carpet Diem, a secret room is discovered in the Mystery Shack, and Stan finds a pair of glasses.                                                                  

Stan finds the glasses

Later he is seen staring at the glasses, and he frowns at them in both scenes.

Stan contemplating the glasses

This could possibly represent an old memory of a friend or *cough* brother. It is obvious that someone lived in that room at some point, so why would Stan want to cover it up?

!!!

In Dreamscapers, it is shown in the 2nd Journal that the Author was surprised to see glasses on the Bill Cipher wheel, possibly because those are his glasses.Take a look at the glasses, they are similar to the ones found in the secret room.

We don’t think these are Stan’s glasses because his glasses are square with rims at the bottom, while the glasses found in the room and on the wheel don’t have rims at the bottom and are rounded.

Also in Dreamscapers, is a flash back of Stan when he was just a wee lad.

Notice his glasses are square and have rims at the bottom.

Here is Stan a little bit older. Notice that he still has square rimmed glasses.

But, in The Time Traveler's Pig, a younger “Stan” is shown with round glasses without rims at the bottom. His glasses look exactly like the one’s found in the secret room. 

Is this really Stan?

Also, this “Stan” has a cleft chin, whereas we have never ever once seen Stan with a cleft chin (not even in flashbacks). 

4. The Calender

Another small point: the calendar in the secret room has the date July 4, 1982 circled. It can be assumed that 1982 is the year the room was abandoned.

The room definitely looks like it hasn’t been touched since the 80’s

However, in the Author’s bunker, there is a calendar on the wall. Guess what year is on the calendar. 1982.

The calendar in the Mystery Shack and the calendar in the Author’s Bunker are from the same year, 1982. 

This suggests that both the room in the Shack and the Bunker were abandoned around the same time. 

5. Wrestling Match Flashback

In a brief scene in Stan’s flashback in Dreamscapers, we see young Stan at a wrestling match. There is a kid reading a book in the stands that looks very similar to child Stan, he even seems to be wearing the same clothing.

Could this be Stan’s twin?

6. The Swing-set 

In Dreamscapers, Stan’s mindscape is very creepy. One notable object in Stan’s mind is a dilapidated swing-set. This is the stuff of horror movies. 

Good times

Since we can assume everything in the mind is a symbol of a significant part of Stan’s life, then this swing-set is very telling. It likely symbolizes a broken childhood. Since it is a two swing swing-set, it could symbolize another person, likely from Stan’s childhood. A close friend… or sibling…

The fact that only one of the swings is broken is also interesting. In Into the Bunker, the Shapeshifter states that the Author “hasn’t been himself in 30 years” suggesting that he probably went crazy. 

…

Are all these merely coincidences? Maybe… But this is Gravity Falls we’re talking about. This show is filled with foreshadowing, plot twists, and secrets. There is just no way that all of this could be a coincidence. 

So, what do you think? Is this a stretch? Or are we on to something? Feel free to comment with your own theories. The more the merrier! :)

a few years back my car insurance company offered me a discount if i stuck a dongle in my car that would tell them how i drive (specifically reporting hard accelerations and stops), with a base discount of 10% even if i drive like a madman up to 40%ish if i drive like a grandma. and of course naturally my first thought was "huh i bet i could make something running off an Arduino that filters hard brakes and accelerations out of the incoming data stream to get that 40% discount" and i got as far as looking up OBD2 protocols before realizing that that would just be insurance fraud. yes im an engineer raised by two engineers how could you tell