Y’all Ever Remember Something Extremely Embarrassing And Just Feel Horrible About It

I personally will never understand why Marvel is so consistently trying to paint Peter Parker as this loser dork when the guy is able to pull beautiful/powerful women on a daily basis.

Mary-Jane Watson Gwen Stacy Gwen Stacy's Cousin Betty Brant Liz Allen Cindy Moon Carly Cooper Debra Whitman Felicia Hardy Captain Marvel Silver Sable Black Widow Hawkeye's ex-WIFE Emma freaking FROST

You've got to be out of your darn mind if you think I'm going to believe that the guy who could pull Emma Frost is a loser.

If not friend, then why friend shaped? 😭

Aww man, I want a heart shaped mouse 3:

When all you want is fluff and angst fics or etc, but all you're getting is lemons

Like yo, why is it so hard to find something fluffy or emotional?

My Conclusion about Prince Adam - A Disney Theory

I already know I'm probably gonna make some people disagree with what I'm gonna say, but honestly? I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone else comment on this yet. If you genuinely are going to be offended just from me having my own opinions and observations about a FILM, then I dunno what to tell you, bro. I perfectly understand if you disagree with my theory, but that's what it is---a theory, not fact. You can still like the movie.

Now finally addressing the main point...

So, according to some other fan theories, the Beast/Prince (his name is Prince Adam, don't know why they never mentioned it in the movie, but apparently, that’s his name) was a child when he was cursed by the enchantress since the flower was supposed to die during his twenty-first year.

And the movie specifies that enough time had passed to the point where the rose began to wilt and lose petals—which was the condition it was in before he met Belle anyway. Chronologically, this would mean Prince Adam got cursed when he was eleven. So if that were to be the case, then yes---the Enchantress would be the real villain here for cursing a child that followed the simple rules of 'stranger danger.' And for a while, I also believed this conclusion.

However, there's something else in the movie that I think disproves this theory entirely.

When Belle enters the West Wing despite the Beast telling her not to, she notices a ripped painting of a man. Then when the beast gets transformed back into a human at the end of the movie, he looks like the man in the ripped painting.

In order for that painting to have been made, he was way more than likely already a grown up before he became a beast---hence how the original artist even got the facial reference to know what to paint. You really expect me to believe this is a random painting of someone else who just HAPPENS to look like Adam? I don't think so.

Same creepy wide blue eyes, same length hair, same skin color, etc. And sure, the shading and colors are a bit different, but the similarities are still there.

There’s no way he was around 11 when that portrait was painted. Even if he was let's say in his late teens, he still would not have been young enough for him to be a smaller child. The ABSOLUTE youngest I think the prince could've been in order for that painting to be made and ALSO look like that is at the very LEAST 15.

Even in the beginning of the film, it shows Prince Adam definitely not looking like a kid. He's also wearing a SIMILAR collar to the one he wears in the torn painting.

That dude don't look 11 to me. And keep in mind, the curse said he would die during his twenty-first year if he didn’t find love. The curse very well COULD'VE meant his 21st year of being a BEAST and not necessarily point to his AGE. Considering the controversy around what Belle's ACTUAL age could/might be, I'm not gonna comment on that. But TLDR: I don't think Prince Adam was a child when he got cursed in the movie due to the ripped painting of him found in the West Wing.

Hotel Transylvania is Toxic - [A look into the Dracula Family]

[Spoiler Warning — Duh. I also have the article posted on Medium if you wanna check that out]

So we all know the movie, “Hotel Transylvania” right? For those who don’t, to sum it up, it’s a movie series about this hotel that’s for monsters so that monsters can hide from humans. The owner of this hotel is none other than the culturally known classic Dracula himself — and turns out he has a daughter named Mavis. Her mother died shortly after she was born due to human’s hatred for vampires during that time period. However, I feel like the story tends to be deeply problematic in terms of how the characters treat each other (specifically the Dracula family).

First and foremost, let’s get one thing out of the way: Dracula is a horrible father in these movies.

Legit, I can’t tell which movie he’s worse in. The only movie where I think he’s not entirely problematic is the third one where they go on vacation. And even then, he completely ditches his grandson to date Erica and lies to Mavis (but even that situation was a bit complicated if you watched the movie).

Excluding that, he’s straight-up horrible. Don’t believe me? What did he do in the first movie?

In the first film, Mavis states she wants to travel since she’s now 118 (which signifies her newfound autonomy in the monster realm the same way 18 is the new adult age for humans — gee, imagine having to wait that long?). However, Dracula, remembering his past trauma with humans, is terrified of her leaving because he doesn’t want her hurt. Obviously, this sounds like a caring father, right? But here’s the major issue.

Eventually, Dracula says that Mavis can test the waters by visiting a nearby human village. This obviously excites Mavis considering that she’s quite literally never left the hotel throughout those 118 years (if I was her, I’d also wanna go outside, hot dang).

Mavis flies over to the village. But the most bleeped up part about the whole thing is during that scene where she’s inside the village, it’s shown that Dracula actively set up the village and hired other monsters to pretend to be humans as a way to scare his daughter into leaving — making them seem like they’ll attack her.

Let’s restate that. Dracula — Mavis’ father — hires other monsters to cosplay humans — and scares her into leaving so she goes back to the hotel.

The guy traumatizes his own child into staying with him so that way she doesn’t leave. Deep down–despite Dracula possibly having the good intention of wanting to protect her from humans who hate monsters — only wants to keep his daughter to himself because he’s become dependent on her for his happiness since the death of her mother (Dracula’s late wife). Yes, Mavis does confront him about this after finding out about it (and during her 118th birthday party no less), but it’s still so slimy that Dracula would manipulate and traumatize his daughter just so he could keep her to himself due to his own outdated perception of humans.

I understand that Dracula also avoided humans up until Johnny showed due to his own experience and trauma, but the fact he even went that far just to have Mavis isolated in the hotel with him is all kinds of wrong. It’s one thing to disagree with something that you think is dangerous for your child, and it’s a complete ‘nother to straight up manipulate and traumatize them just so YOU can keep them where you want them.

You think that’s bad? Oh, you haven’t heard the half of it.

In the second movie, Mavis and her human husband Johnny (who she met in the first movie) have a child named Dennis. Throughout the film, Dracula has a creepy fixation on the vampiric aspects of Dennis rather than completely accepting his grandchild for who/what he is. Almost every chance he got, he tried to teach Dennis to be a vampire or try to trigger his vampiric growth. Sure, you could try to paint it as Dracula trying to connect with Dennis or helping him discover more aspects of himself. But he constantly gets progressively more and more shady about it.

It starts off small with Dracula trying to teach Dennis how to turn into a bat late at night while he sleeps. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still icky to wake up a child from their needed rest, but just bare with me here. Then when Dennis got his tooth knocked out during the werewolf children’s birthday party, Dracula — instead of showing concern for Dennis’ wellbeing–acted happy about it, hoping it meant that a vampire fang was growing in despite there being no correlation between the two whatsoever. Even if Dennis would somehow grow a fang as a new tooth, the fact he cared more about his grandson’s vampirisim than whether or not he was okay is incredibly offputting (for lack of a better word).

And then when Mavis trusts her father to look after Dennis while she and Johnny visit his family in California (a plan formulated by Johnny and Dracula), he completely dismisses her wishes and takes him on a trip, hoping to get him to become a vampire while she’s away. He even visits his former vampire camp and throws him off of a high ledge since apparently, he learned to fly by “being thrown and figuring it out.” Yes, he saves Dennis before he hits the ground, but the fact that he’s so willing to throw his toddler grandson off a tower in hopes of him becoming a vampire is deeply concerning — if not immoral and dangerous.

And it makes no sense for him to do this either. Even if it was how Dracula personally learned how to fly, we see in the first movie that there’s a flashback where Dracula teaches a young Mavis to fly in a completely different way. She’s in the comfort of her own home, is wearing a helmet, and Dracula is placed underneath her to catch her should she fall. So it’s definitely not how he taught Mavis. Why would it be any different for Dennis if his method of teaching Mavis was much more considerate and softer? At that point, Dracula may as well have only done that for some sadistic reason. There’s still major favoritism with Mavis going on and I wouldn’t be surprised if Dracula did that out of malice for the fact that Dennis is half-human.

Even when Mavis returns to the hotel and chews Dracula out for it, he still keeps up his antics by attempting to ‘scare the fangs’ out of Dennis by having Dracula’s father, Vlad, possess the mascot playing Dennis’ favorite TV character, Cakey (who most likely mimics or is a parody to Cookie Monster from Sesame Street) and making him act scary. Yes, Dracula ends up stopping it — but the fact that he even agreed to it and dragged Johnny into his mess (don’t worry, I’ll address Johnny later on) is diabolical. He once again attempted to traumatize someone he supposedly loved to gain control. And what is his motive for doing all of this? To control Mavis.

See, in the movie, Mavis states that she wishes to move out of the hotel and go to California since she reasonably believes that it’d be safer for Dennis. Therefore, if Dennis were to be a vampire (and he does become one by the end of the film), Mavis would be okay with allowing him to stay at the hotel. But throughout the film, it makes it seem like Mavis’ desire to move out is unreasonable or a bad thing when she was most likely the only voice of reason throughout that entire movie (but even she’s not without her flaws and I’ll address that as well). Though when you truly think about it, Mavis simply wants to do what’s best for her child and is constantly gaslit in the second movie about it.

Because of the fact that Dennis is half-human half-vampire, he’s obviously going to be weaker than his monster counterparts. Even if not, Dennis is five years old — thus very young — and it was proven he was not even at an actual good strength capacity to survive the chaotic nature of the hotel to begin with. For crying out loud, Dennis got his tooth knocked out during a werewolf party. And considering Dracula’s less-than-concerned reaction to that, it’s no wonder Mavis didn’t want Dennis to be raised in that environment.

Granted, she may have been incorrect about his ability to become a vampire and sure, she might be ‘overprotective’ (a notion I very much disagree with) but at the end of it all, she just wants her child to be safe since she doesn’t know how weak or powerful he could be. In fact, she actually wanted Dennis to be human because she believed it would've given him more opportunities in life than she did. So if anything, Mavis is the only one in the second movie who was ever truly considerate of the well-being of her son for the right reasons — even if supposedly her views were slightly flawed. But, it still doesn’t justify all the stuff that Dracula and Johnny did to Dennis previously.

Dracula was so hell-bent on getting Dennis to be a vampire because it meant that Mavis would stay in the hotel. Even after Mavis gets married and has a kid of her own, her father is still trying to control her. Dracula still refuses to allow Mavis any sort of autonomy over her life and how she wishes to do things.

And Johnny (her husband) is absolutely not in the clear here either because one of the only reasons why he agreed to help Dracula in his manipulative endeavors is because he liked Transylvania so much that he didn’t want to leave.

I’ll say it again.

He liked Transylvania so much that he didn’t want to leave.

Johnny is not even thinking about the safety of his own child and is focused on his own wants. I get that Johnny’s whole character dynamic is that he’s something of a dummy, but there’s a difference between being a dummy and being so outright selfish to the point where you place your own wants above the needs of your child. Heck, the whole reason why Mavis and Johnny were on that trip to California to begin with was because Johnny and Dracula both agreed to trick Mavis into leaving so that way Dracula could keep trying to turn Dennis into a vampire. The one time that Mavis finally has some time with herself and her husband is all because her husband and father are manipulating her.

You’re seriously trying to tell me that Johnny, this selfish incompetent man-child, is Mavis’ zing/soulmate? You’re trying to tell me that Johnny is her one and only love? Because I’m pretty sure if he was, he’d also understand and be willing to discuss the problems with his wife, rather than manipulate her behind her back and essentially betray her trust.

We could call it a ‘lapse’ in judgment all we want, but at the end of the day, what decent father agrees to the traumatization of his own child just for his own personal gain? What Dracula did to Mavis, Johnny is doing to Dennis in a similar format. It’s disgusting.

Sure, the movie has Dennis become a vampire by the end of the movie, but let’s be honest. The only reason why the movie would’ve had to go that direction is because otherwise, the conflict between Mavis versus Johnny & Dracula would’ve never truly been resolved. She still would’ve rightfully been super angry with them for endangering her child to suit their own selfish desires. But when Dennis did become a vampire, there was no longer a point for her to be angry since it then would’ve been better for him to stay at the hotel. Though let’s be clear, Dennis being a vampire doesn’t negate everything that Johnny and Dracula did to her.

Throughout the whole second movie, Mavis is gaslit, manipulated, and her boundaries are constantly being dismissed by her husband and her father.

I know it seems like I’m mainly sympathizing with Mavis here (and that’s because I sorta am) but there’s one thing Mavis does in the second movie that grinds my gears as well.

Why. The heck. Did she invite. Her anti-human grandad. To see her son? In the movie, she says, “He’s never seen Dennis.” But in the grand scheme of things, why did SHE expect a vampire centuries older than her father to be more accepting of humans over her actual father who still has trouble with being unbiased towards them? It makes NO sense. I’m glad she at LEAST acknowledges it in the movie when she says, “I don’t know why I ever invited you,” but it still makes no freaking sense and the only explanation I can think of as to why is because she didn’t want Vlad or Dennis to interrogate her about it later.

In the fourth movie, after Dracula gets married to a human woman named Erica (who was the daughter of a van Hellsing of all people), Dracula realizes that Johnny and Mavis will eventually inherit the hotel. However, Dracula has a problem with the fact that Johnny (a human) would be inheriting the hotel.

So even after all this time, meeting Johnny, letting Johnny marry Mavis, having a half-human grandson, letting the human side of his family visit him (who were all very accepting of the monsters by the way), and even marrying a human woman, he still is discriminatory against them. So this goes to show that deep down, Dracula is just an obstinate racist (well, speciest) who refuses to change his mind unless it suits the situation he’s in. He’ll say, “Doesn’t matter–vampire, unicorn, no matter what.” But he doesn’t actually believe it. Actions speak louder than words. That’s also why in the second movie, Dracula was adamant about calling Dennis “Denisovich’’ which is his vampire name — it subtly removes humanity from Dennis’ identity.

Throughout the movie series excluding perhaps the third one, Dracula consistently shows himself as a manipulative human-hating control freak. Yes, I get that Dracula has had bad experiences with humans, but he’s also had way too many experiences thus far to believe that humans are the same as they were in the 1800s regarding their view on monsters.

This whole family (aside from Johnny’s parents and the children) is so toxic. Sure, Johnny’s parents aren’t perfect, but they were more than willing to let Dennis stay with them and make accommodations to make Mavis and Dennis feel comfortable (even if the said execution was less tasteful than Mavis would’ve originally wanted).

Abortion is Murder & Unbiblical

The Bible does not use the word abortion. How could it? The term itself as a procedure wasn't invented yet! However, the Bible does cover: 

Humanity's inherent value and rights as (uniquely among creation) made in the image of God

Murder

Child/infant murder as something abhorrent to God

Life's beginnings, indirectly (although that also has biological support) 

Legal ramifications of killing a child in the womb 

How God sees and interacts with children in the womb 

How we as His followers are meant to treat children 

What He expects us to do for the defenseless and vulnerable (i.e., the most defenseless and vulnerable human imaginable is the one in the womb) 

And how the question of following Him and His Word is what makes or breaks the difference between a Christian and someone who claims the name but is tragically unsaved  Below are some verses and some additional explication (partial credit: @glowsticks-and-jesus)  

Proverbs 31:8 

Luke 1:44 

2nd Kings 17:17 

Jeremiah 19:5 

Genesis 9:6 

Exodus 21:22-25 

Matthew 7:20 - 23 

John 15:14 

1st John 1:5-10, 2:3-6 

Exodus 20:13 

Mark 10:13-15 Leviticus 20:3-5 (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/mizzaro_2233.htm) 

Matthew 18:10, 14

Psalm 22:10

Jacob & Esau, John the Baptist, Samson, etc. 

Judges 16:17  Glowsticks-and-Jesus Collection:

"Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 'Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.'"Jeremiah 1:4-5

"The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name."Isaiah 49:1

John the Baptist leaped in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary greeted her cousin (Luke 1:39-45), an example that babies in utero are responsive human beings already aware of the outside world.

The righteous Hebrew midwives at the time of Moses pleased God by saving babies deemed unworthy of life by the authorities of their day (Ex. 1:15-21).

 As an additional note -- these references are included above, but worth a second mention -- it's plain that child sacrifice - child murder - is something that God abhors and explicitly does not command. I'd look here (https://biblehub.com/jeremiah/19-5.htm) and here (https://biblehub.com/2_kings/17-17.htm) and check out the cross-references as well. Likewise, there is direct support for laws against murder and the protection of the unborn (up to capital punishment) in the Bible (Genesis 9:6; Exodus 21:22-25  -- an additional reference here included about the common misunderstanding of the latter verses: https://www.str.org/w/what-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion).

In summary -- it's possible (although, I believe, it does deprive its proponents of a foundational basis for the value of life) to be both secular and anti-abortion. But it is not possible for a Christian who truly understands their faith, their God, and His Word to be pro-abortion.

Potentially Unpopular Opinion - A character grieving loss is not an excuse for them to be a killer

I'll further specify my points in the following post.

Now here's the thing--I'm not opposed to the trope itself and here's what I mean by that.

Scenario 1: Character's loved one is killed and they kill their loved one's killer. That's fine.

Scenario 2: Multiple people the character loves are killed by different people and they kill their loved ones' killers. That's fine.

Scenario 3: Character's loved one is killed so the character kills innocent people. That is NOT fine.

Grievance doesn't mean dookie if all that's happening is that the character is using it as an excuse to just go on a murder spree. Now these types of characters CAN make for good villains and/or antagonists and that's completely fine. I'm not even all that upset about the trope itself. More so, specifically what ticks me off is when people try to downplay the behavior of the character simply because they're likable.

It's one thing to like a character who does awful stuff. It's another to like a character who does awful stuff and then try to paint them as an angel who doesn't do anything wrong.

My Take on the Yandere Trope - A Character Rant (kinda)

TW: Mentions of violence, abuse, mental illness, etc. Hello, fellow humans on the internet (or at least I hope you’re human). I’m pretty sure the majority of us anime fans know what a yandere is—but I’m still going to briefly explain for convenience sake of getting my point across in this piece. I’m going to try my best to explain my thoughts here, but I apologize if they’re poorly communicated. I am by no means a psychological expert nor have I had extensive experience with any of the following mentioned topics. So if you have a feeling that some of this content is going to hit a sensitive spot for you, I highly suggest you click off for your own sake. A yandere is typically defined as a character who takes a dangerous obsession with another character. This character is so obsessed to the point of being willing to murder others and do morally dubious things. And despite the overwhelming toxicity of this trope (that should in no way be desirable or considered romantic in real life), I feel like there’s a lot of missing nuance in the ways how this character trope is typically portrayed—of which I will explain. The word “yandere” comes from two words meshed into one. The first half of the word comes from “yanderu” (病んでる) which translates to “mentally ill” or “to be sick.” The other half of the word comes from “deredere” (デレデレ) which translates to “lovestruck” or “to be in love” (at least roughly). Now, let’s get one thing clear: If someone is so obsessed to the point they’re willing to *murder* others just so they can have another person all to themselves, I think it definitely goes without saying that the person is definitely mentally disturbed. Something’s absolutely not right upstairs. But I think there’s more intricate ways for this trope to be written based on its translation—rather than the classic “oh ho ho, stabby stabby, you got too close to Senpai!” (I’m never gonna type something like that ever again—) Call this a bad take all you want, but I think that by the so-called “yandere” trope being strictly contained to abusive murderous stalkers, I think that’s kind of an insult to many varying different measures of mental illness people can take. The word *potentially* translates to “mentally ill.” For the sake of hypothetical/argument regarding this fact, I think it’s rather distasteful to paint all mentally ill people with the same brush—and it kind of paints this picture that people who struggle with mental illness are incapable of loving or caring about others in healthy ways.  That’s not to say that there aren’t mental illnesses that DON’T give people murderous or violent tendencies—but my point is not ALL of them do. If anything, I’d actually be willing to argue that most of them DON’T and that the violent actions come from just how a person CHOOSES to be. So for anime media (or media in general) to oversimplify something as complex as mental illness in this manner I feel is a teeny-bit insensitive. Granted, yanderu also translates to the phrase “to be sick.” So the traditional portrayal of this trope could also very well be justified. Because let’s be honest here: would a person who’s so dangerously obsessed with another that they’d be willing to murder NOT be considered sick in the head? Of course they would. So while in terms of addressing mental illness (should that be the goal of the trope—which I don’t think it is), I believe the traditional handling of this archetype doesn’t do any justice. But when it comes to portraying morally inept individuals that want what they want and don’t care what they have to do to get it—yeah, I’m more than willing to agree the ‘yandere’ trope applies considering how their behavior is often portrayed.

Regardless of what the true English form of the word yanderu could be, there is one thing that’s completely absolute in this conversation—and that is the word “deredere” means lovestruck. So even if yanderu were to completely mean one or the other, the word “love” is still very much in the mix when acknowledging the concept of a “yandere.”

Deredere in itself is also a character trope where a character does not shy away in showcasing their romantic feelings whatsoever. Due to the general nature of their way of doing things in the media, deredere characters typically tend to show their affection or romantic interest in relatively much healthier ways. 

Even if we were to search up information on what healthy romantic love looks (or should look) like, these are pretty much the same traits we run into:

⚫ Respect (especially of boundaries) ⚫ Unselfishness ⚫ Honesty ⚫ Compromise ⚫ Good communication ⚫ Empathy ⚫ Desire to protect Another good outlier for what love is supposed to look like is from religious texts. For example, the Bible even says in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 (NLT version), “Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.” We very clearly see here that the traditional handling of yandere characters often include little to none of these characteristics. This is due to the fact that obsession and love are obviously two very different things. So considering what the word “yandere” actually translates to, I can’t say I believe most forms of media have been good at portraying what the concept of a yandere would ACTUALLY entail.  At its base core, the word yandere translates to a mentally unwell human being (regardless of the varying degree of mental unwellness they deal with) who is in love or lovestruck with another. Once again, a person would VERY much be mentally unwell if they were murdering people out of obsession (an understatement, really). But the formula of a classic yandere leaves out the ironically most important aspect of their character—their love. And no, not just a passing infatuation, form of lust, or creepy obsession. I mean ACTUAL love.  How I think a better way of handling this trope based on it’s translation and translation alone, is that it would be a person who—despite having a disturbed way of thinking—does genuinely love and care for another person to the point where they’d push themselves to commit things they normally wouldn’t have considered doing, but do it anyway because they feel it’s NECESSARY.

Sure, you could argue that a traditional yandere would see it as necessary to kill others for their loved one due to their overwhelming need for control/intense insecurity, but that’s the problem—that’s from THEIR perspective and not an OBJECTIVE reality. By a character killing others JUST so they can keep someone else to themselves (whether it be out of jealousy or just wanting to control the person), it’s still not love or genuine protection due to the fact that their justifications are merely just that—justifications. They’re not actually based on a real-time threat. 

And even if they were (like for example, their partner tends to cheat on them with other people, so they kill the people their partner cheats on them with), that only gives more reasons as to why the relationship isn’t love based whatsoever and it would just be toxic from BOTH ends rather than just one like it would typically be. I think a better way of giving justice to the morse-so traditional version of this trope (while somewhat acknowledging the translation due the impending nuance) is to make a character that does genuinely love someone unselfishly and has understandable goals in terms of showing that love, but has messed up ways of going about it. Here’s a character that I think fits what I am trying to explain: There’s a relatively known character within the DC Comics franchise that goes by the title of Mr. Freeze. He’s generally known for going to extremes in order to preserve the life/health of his wife Nora. Regardless of which iteration you interact with, one thing is consistent: Despite his obvious mental unwellness (which is very valid considering the crap he goes through), Mr. Freeze genuinely loves his wife and is willing to do anything for her if it means keeping her one this for longer. 

And while that doesn't justify the crimes he commits whatsoever, the franchise he belongs to DOES often showcase WHY he does what he does instead of chalking it up to oversimplified means. Yes, his actions do vary depending on his alternate versions, but I think the idea is rather clear here. This kind of morally gray form of sacrifice or extension of action I think could make for very dynamic and interesting characters where we understand that while they are doing what they do out of a genuine love for another—it doesn’t justify the potentially morally corrupt things or morally gray things they do. I want there to a LEAST be a very real reason for WHY that makes it easier to—at bare minimum—understand the character’s motivations. I think it would give more incentive to place the audience in this character’s shoes since they’re not doing what they do out of a delusional obsession, but are acting based on a very real reality and threat that their loved one is facing. I think that’s what a true yandere should look like.

i went to a leftist festival last month and there was a panel dedicated to prostitution, why abolition is the only road to go for leftists and how to help and support prostituted women exiting the trade, and i keep thinking about that union organizer who said, "we hear more and more that 'sex work is work', but if that were true, then there'd be professional trainings leading to a qualification for prostitution, then there'd be prostitution diplomas, then high schoolers could send applications to follow those trainings and become prostitutes. but we all know that all these things don't exist, and if they did exist we would all recognize them for what they are: a grooming business encouraging pedophilia and violence against women and girls." and what she said later; "trade unions that argue that 'sex work is work' never engage in legal battles against pimps or brothel owners. they don't even recognize that pimps are the bosses of the prostitution market. "sex workers' trade unions" don't fight pimps because sex workers' unions don't represent the alleged "workers" (prostituted women), they represent the bosses: pimps."

and that made me think of what Kajsa Ekis Ekman said about the trade unions that consider prostitution to be work and prostituted women to be workers: they offer trainings about condom use and spend millions of dollars funding "worker peer education" about "safe sex".

So one again, it's prostituted women who are held responsible for the spreading and the prevention of STDs - not the johns, not the pimps. the prostituted women, many of them victims of sex trafficking. "As human trafficking expert Malka Marcovich has pointed out, this means a return to nineteenth-century ideals of hygiene, where the onus was “primarily on the women to take responsibility for the health of ‘the customer’, so diseases would not be spread to their families” (2007, p. 347)."

It's quite obvious to any trade union organizer that prostitution is not work and the sex trade can't be organized as a trade union. a few months ago, the biggest unions in my country (which included the traditional left-wing trade unions as well as students' unions) issued a paper condemning the 'sex work is work' narrative and the pimp lobbies got so mad about that because they know their strategy isn't working because leftists know what left-wing politics look like and they know women's liberation doesn't come from prostitution. Now it's interesting that the biggest voices of the "sex work is work" movement come from the USA, where the anticapitalist left doesn't exist. American liberals love to pass reactionary politics as revolutionary but not because they are stupid in their own country does it mean they should influence the actually left-wing labour movement in other countries, right?