[TW Abuse/Sexual Assault]

I once had a guy tell me how to give a blowjob and then asked if I wanted to practice on him. I said ‘no’ and he proceeded to hit me, pin me down on his bed and feel me up as I cried. I was 9 and he was my 12 year old best friend. Our friendship ceased soon after.

(submitted by anonymous)

blake-belladonna-defence-force:

April Rivals Bring New Lovers - Day 24

Elbow

https://archiveofourown.org/works/23412076/chapters/57205069

April Rivals Brings New Lovers - Chapter 24 - Blake_Belladonna_Defence_Force - RWBY [Archive of Our Own]

Not so Friendly reminder that Amber Heard had admitted to hitting Johnny Depp and telling him to “get over it”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7947733/amp/Amber-Heard-admits-hitting-ex-husband-Johnny-Depp-pelting-pots-pans-tape.html

Amber Heard admits ‘hitting’ ex Johnny Depp in audio confession

I’m told I come off as Intimidating

(If you start from a point of likely to hit back, they might not throw the first one)

And that it’s Spooky how I always know where you are

(I know people and their mood by their identifying gait, it was the only warning some days)

And that my silent way of walking is something between Creepy and What Are You Trying To Prove

(I know how to cry silently too, without even shaking the bed)

I’m not like that, really.

You might wonder why my precious things are kept in boxes so easily fit into my car, the car that has three days worth of food and clothing at all times. You say I’m like a girl scout, Prepared.

(Prepared is not the same as Frightened by an inevitable future)

I take my shoes off at the door, religiously, but do not require you to also be Barefoot in my house.

(there was a time when I never took them off until he was asleep, or gone)

All those adjectives can be combined into a word that rhymes with Bitch.

So be warned: if you choose to hunt witches, know that this one has been hunted once already

And only one of us is left standing.

I’m told I come off as Intimidating

(If you start from a point of likely to hit back, they might not throw the first one)

And that it’s Spooky how I always know where you are

(I know people and their mood by their identifying gait, it was the only warning some days)

And that my silent way of walking is something between Creepy and What Are You Trying To Prove

(I know how to cry silently too, without even shaking the bed)

I’m not like that, really.

You might wonder why my precious things are kept in boxes so easily fit into my car, the car that has three days worth of food and clothing at all times. You say I’m like a girl scout, Prepared.

(Prepared is not the same as Frightened by an inevitable future)

I take my shoes off at the door, religiously, but do not require you to also be Barefoot in my house.

(there was a time when I never took them off until he was asleep, or gone)

All those adjectives can be combined into a word that rhymes with Bitch.

So be warned: if you choose to hunt witches, know that this one has been hunted once already

And only one of us is left standing.

magicact:

i think there is something about people who were abused/neglected as kids that makes us embrace things that others consider monstrous. i dont think its a coincidence most of us like “creepy” animals like rats and crows. i dont think its a coincidence that we are the first to jump to the defense of “worthless” plants like dandelions. its why we get so attached to old toys and broken things. when you spend your whole life believing you’re not wanted, it turns you into a defender of the other unwanted things in the world. and you’re not just protecting them - you’re protecting the part of yourself that still believes you deserve to exist. just like they do. just like we all do.

What’s up tumblr. I see I have not been here for… over six months. Times are strange though and I am feeling utterly alone and not handling it. I live with my 6 month old pup in a regional Australian city where I have failed to make any sort of friends. 

Over the last two and a half weeks I’ve tried really hard to stay isolated (because I could). I spent the first weekend at my parents to try to convince them similar. I spent a day and a half at my university campus to grab what I needed and turn my nose up at everyone else who wasn’t working from home (they could have been). I drove all the way to Melbourne (2.5 hours) to give my one friend a lift to the airport because he’s legit just packed up and moved to Japan because he had a job lined up and figured why not. 

I have had a mid-level falling out with part of my extended family. I can’t be bothered rehashing but they are putting my grandparents at significant risk, they are asking everyone else for money to pay for what the rest of us would do for free, and they are basically just assholes. Everyone agrees with me, but no one will do anything about it. And, at the end of the day, the way they’re positioning themselves (to be able to inherit more of my grandparents’ estate) is putting my granny and pop at a much higher level of risk than they need to be. 

I have a neighbor who lives in one of the houses over the back of me. Never seen them, don’t know exactly which house, but it’s a woman and a man that have screaming matches 2-3 times a week. He’s the aggressor, she mostly just screams and begs. I’ve never heard evidence that it’s physical but I would bet it often is. I’ve called the local cops twice. Today I called emergency. 

My income is pretty safe, I think. I live with a rambunctious but reasonably lovely pup. I can actual work a bit from home. I have savings and get afford my rent, my bills, anything I desire. But I am struggling a bit and being an introverted loner, I’m utterly without a soul to talk to. I tried my family and it made it worse. Even the friend now in Japan definitely thinks I’m going a bit nuts. This all just hammers home the reality I faced years ago which was that I ultimately wasn’t getting much out of life and my continued existence was really just a nice thing to do for my family. 

So I’m back, at least to post this very maudlin update. Sighhhhhhhh. 

bigskydreaming:

titans-trash:

fancyfade:

danaharlowe:

fancyfade:

danaharlowe:

it feels like. bruce gets character assassinated in service of dick’s angst (firing him as robin) and then dick’s character gets assassinated in service of jason’s angst (was allegedly never there for him) and then jason’s character is assassinated in service of tim’s angst (being the reckless, violent, failure he has to be “better than”)

I feel like a lot of this is right about the characters being character assassinated, but wrong about the reason. (so this is just adding on)

Bruce isn’t really assassinated for Dick’s angst. The firing as Robin is not to give angsty dick stories. It was done during the writer who hated Robin (starlin).  Bruce firing Dick did not service Dick’s character at ALL, because it went from his nightwing arc being about him to being a reaction to Bruce.

When Bruce gets character assassinated, it is often because the writers want him to be at the CENTER of the narrative. link to analysis here (link).

Or in romantic relationships contexts (link) bruce has girlfriends who dump him or they part their own ways because they’re their own people…  and then the writers later on re-write bruce being a jerk to them, because it makes him The Important Figure. The other characters are just reacting to him being incompetent with emotions or a jerk, rather than whatever their initial motives were. And a lot of the times bruce is character assassinated, it’s not because writers want to make him look bad, its because they unintentionally think they’re making him look GOOD or powerful or cool.

Does this make this writing on bruce any better? No! But it still is important to keep in mind the difference between characters who are character assassinated to make OTHERS look better or for other characters, VS those who were character assassinated because the writers wanted them to be powerful or central to the narrative.

Same for NGL Dick didn’t even get character assassinated for Jason’s angst like.. in canon we saw him hanging out? It’s just fanon who wants to pretend dick was never there for jason

and jason wasn’t character assassinated for tim’s angst, he was retroactively recharacterized as the reckless robin because the writers had to explain why tim was a better robin (so not angst moreof superiority of the new reader insert)

mainly I just feel like this is simplifying a situation and paralleling things that are not really parallel

well this was less of an Essay™ and more of a musing that blew up a bit so yeah i agree its simplified, however i still find it generally true, in the overall effecteach retcon had, if not the original intentions?

cuz like. with “in service of [x]’s angst” i don’t think i was really trying to say that a dc writer did it specifically to make [y] look bad and [x] look good per se but more that, like, for example jason fans now have an excuse to go “ooohhhhh my poor meow meow nobody cares about himmmmm” in the face of dick fans who are rightfully pissed about the nonsensical retcon, you know, so i guess it was more a comment about fanon than canon even if it is spurred on by canon things

anyway what i’m trying to say is you’re totally right, just except for that i don’t think starlin wrote “did robin die tonight” & i’m pretty sure rhato canonized the “dick was a terrible brother to jason” thing, and thats where fanon gets it from, but i could be wrong

ah i guess your original post was more like how the fandom takes it? like the fandom is “My poor little meow meow” but the writers are actually not thinking of it that way. And the writers for bruce’s jerkiness were often trying to make him look cool/powerful, but then dick fans who dislike the jerkiness are like “holy shit bruce is a jerk, this is gonna affect dick” rather than focusing on the fact that the jerkiness was not present in the original story?

fandom does latch onto angst a lot so I get what you’re saying. I do think it’s also helpful to analyze where the writers are coming from, because that affects who is the main character, who has the agency in the stories (like even if some dick fans like the retcon for the ‘angst’, the retcon still takes agency away from him and gives it to bruce, you know?)

anyway hence my addition.

TY for explaining tho. Re the rhato thing. I didn’t know that 1 cuz i save my sanity by not reading rhato. i couldn’t make it more than 1 issue in. i guess i wouldn’t be surprised if it mischaracterized dick considering it also famously micharacterized kory and roy

apologies on the starlin i dont know whats going on w/ did robin die tonight i had just read a bunch that he disliked the concept of robin…. granted that was like heard from other fans rather than any interviews/primary sources so grain of salt. the tone in teh comics seems to validate it tho

Rhato had Jason being like waaaah Dick’s an awful brother and then the evidence he provided was:

1) Dick kicked him when he was pointing a gun at Bruce’s head and looking like he was about to kill Bruce

2) Dick put him in prison/Arkham (not shown in a flashback) which is sort-of accurate in that in pre-boot Dick pulled strings to get Jason put in Arkham so he wouldn’t be murdered in general population in Blackgate (and as predicted when Jason was moved to Blackgate during a later arc, he started getting attacked)

3) When Jason was Robin, Dick tried to mentor him - that’s it. The whole flashback moment was Dick trying to tell Jason about patience and Jason being like it’s a competition and Bruce picked me for Robin not you, loser, and then running off

I guess if you take jason’s comments at face value than sure Dick’s a shit brother in rhato? But they really just showed Jason being a brat ‍♀️ idk if fandom read that and that’s what they got out of it… i’m disappointed 

Also something to keep in mind is how hindsight tends to reframe how a lot of stuff looks? Like, its easy NOW to look back at stories like NTT #55 and say ‘oh Bruce was character assassinated for Dick’s angst’ but at the actual time of the story, that definitively wasn’t what was happening because Bruce’s character was in no way harmed by the making of stories like that. NOW we look back at it and say oh that’s a shitty story for Bruce, he looks super bad in it, but as someone who’s shouted the loudest about that particular issue in fandom, I gotta say…..it took years before people even acknowledging that issue even EXISTS was like…..a widespread phenomenon outside of just Dick Grayson stans.

So its that thing where you can’t exactly cite character assassination when lots of the readers (not just at the time, but even in fairly recent years) simply don’t see certain stories as that big a deal or care how bad it makes certain characters look. Many of Bruce’s shittier moments - not even just back in the 80s but as recently as in the aftermath of Forever Evil and during the Ric Grayson arc, are one hundred percent just NOT in service to Dick’s angst, and can’t really be said to be…..when the writers flat out just DON’T have Dick angsting about how fucked up it is that Bruce does certain things to him!

Like, DC writers as a whole? Not a subtle crop of people. They don’t really go in for ‘the light touch.’ They bring the whole hammer and chisel to the endeavor. If the scene between Dick and Bruce between Forever Evil and Spyral was actual character assassination for Bruce rather than just the writers being dumb? If it was actually just throwing Bruce under the bus for Dick’s angst? We would have gotten - IN THE COMICS - Dick idk….bringing that up literally even just one time. “Hey Bruce, remember when you did THIS to me? How can I trust you after that?” Is a thing that would have happened at least once in a story, if the writers were even cognizant of how fucking angsty that shit SHOULD have been. In reality though? Very few of them seem to see it as a big deal at all, or if they DO see it as a big deal, then the reverse of Bruce being character assassinated is true…..when you consider how often the interpretation has just been that Dick is the one that fucked up by going to Spyral without considering how anyone would feel, even though the entire issue about that very thing was all about Dick arguing with Bruce about how everyone would feel! 

So ironically, the very fact that writers go out of their way NOT to mention that story and how all of that ACTUALLY went down, does more to protect BRUCE’S character….at the expense of Dick’s own character because it removes the spotlight from how and why all of that actually happened and makes him look callous and uncaring instead of like….literally beaten into doing what he did.

And then as others have said, the issue with Dick being character assassinated for Jason’s angst is half just Lobdell and half just fanon….and I’d argue that given that for years it was literally JUST fanon before Lobdell started using certain fanon preconceptions as a cheat sheet for his character work……like, I’m just gonna leave that there and let people make of it what they will. (Also I will pedantically argue that while a lot of people have GONE with the idea that Dick put Jason in Arkham in the New 52 because we saw Jason in Arkham there and Dick was connected to the initial pre-Flashpoint story where Jason ends up there in totally different ways…..I don’t think we’ve ever had it conclusively stated in canon that in the new 52 specifically, Dick is the reason Jason was in Arkham where Harley was his therapist, etc. And so much else was different between the post Flashpoint and pre Flashpoint stories about Jason in Arkham that I don’t think you can actually just….treat them as an even swap and assume that all the offscreen stuff is the same and interchangeable when even the onscreen stuff is like….dramatically different).

I will agree that Jason was subject to character assassination of a type during the years he was dead, in how he was referenced at times, but I think that was just DC being shitty about a teen character they killed off because they didn’t like people saying ‘DC you should feel shitty about this teen character you killed off’ whenever the subject of Jason Todd came up…..but I’d argue that none of that had anything to do with Tim’s angst specifically, and it would be weird if it did, because…..idk I just think its a strange look to look to Tim for angst when the subject of Jason came up while he was dead, when Jason’s actual father and brother were like….already right there. Angstily.

*Shrugs* I mean the thing is, its not that the phenomenon you’re describing doesn’t exist, OP, its that I think its not as relevant to the Batfam in specific as people often make it out to be.

Character assassination for the sake of another character’s angst kinda requires that there’s a focus on that other character’s angst……and in a lot of these situations, there’s waaaaaaaaaaaay more defense played for the character being ‘assassinated’ both in canon and by fans, than there is scrutiny paid to their role in the other character’s angst.

I mean, just to go back to the stuff about Bruce firing Dick as Robin, Dick being definitively kicked out of the house and punched by Bruce after Jason’s death, etc….

In like, thirty some years, the amount of times that stuff has even been referenced in canon is pretty much just limited to the issues it happened in. And when for three decades writers refuse to go back to the well of ‘Bruce did actionably shitty stuff here’ whenever the subject is gone near, and instead vaguely handwave ‘oh they were both just fighting’…..doesn’t feel like character assassination so much as just ‘initial writers did stuff that made Bruce look Not Good because they weren’t thinking through the implications or prepared to delve into the full fallout and later writers backpedaled with all the rapidity.’

And to use some other characters as examples…..look at RHATO #25, or Batman #71 or #72…..like, Bruce’s character was made to look shitty as hell for the sake of Jason’s angst when he beat his son pretty near to death over shooting the Penguin with a blank, yeah? But in the aftermath of that, did we have Jason or anyone else holding Bruce accountable for that, focusing on his ANGST from that at the continued expense of Bruce’s character, or did we get an awkward handshake hug and a ‘we don’t need to talk about this ever again’ the one confrontation they had about it, which did far more to protect and preserve Bruce’s longterm characterization (or at least attempt to ‘fix’ it) than it did to highlight the impact all of that had on Jason’s actual character?

Same thing with Bruce hitting Tim in Tom King’s run. People got mad as fuck at Bruce for that, which again like with Jason, like with Dick, they were absolutely right to…..but did the comics fall in line with that and pay any attention at all to how Tim was rightfully angsty in the aftermath of that, or did they do a complete 180 the second they realized ‘oh shit that did not go down the way it did in my head’?

Unfortunately, I think the real villain of these stories is just….canon writers AND various fans not paying enough attention to what they’re actually saying and DOING with these characters, especially in terms of how these characters are affecting other characters with their actions and words even if the other characters aren’t meant to be the primary focus.

I don’t know if character manslaughter has the same oomph as character assassination, but I think its a bit more accurate in describing this particular phenomenon. The issue isn’t one of intentional doing, but one of neglect and inattention to what one is doing.

Made myself sad.

Loki and Fenrir have a conversation (TWs for discussions of parental death and killing, implications of abuse/domestic partner violence):

Fenrir shook his head, and did something he never thought he’d dare do, and tried to start a conversation with his father.

“What was he like, your dad?” he asked.

Loki shrugged and continued walking. Fenrir couldn’t tell if they were squinting against the wind or wincing at the question.

“Sort of looks like me, except older and uglier,” they said. “Has a temper. I’m always afraid I got that from him.”

They moved closer to the river, stopping to watch where it rushed and boiled over a cluster of rocks.

“If I see him again, I plan on killing him,” they said.

“You what?” Fenrir asked, stumbling over the slick collection of stones on the riverbank.

His dad looked over at him as if it wasn’t common practice to plan to murder your father.

“But why?” he went on.

Loki continued walking along the bank, before stepping up to a worn path on a hillside.

“Took away someone I cared about,” they said, with no expression in their face or voice.

Neither of them said anything until the river was just a gray worm writhing below them.

“What about your mom?” Fenrir eventually asked.

His dad just looked up at the sky with a little smile he had never seen before.

“Had an embrace that could shelter you in a storm. Gave kisses that were cool against your forehead,” they said. “Friends called her Nál, needle, because she was skinny, or so I’m told. To me, she was so tall her head could have been among the treetops.”

Fenrir nodded. All he had ever known about his grandmother was that her name was Laufey, and his dad took her name as a surname instead of their father’s.

“What happened to her?” he asked.

Loki stopped and stared at him, their face still smooth and expressionless.

“She died, Fenrir.”

Hi guys can we send some love totrappedreaper , she has a very difficult / abusive relationship with her parents. And also to screaminggcolorss (her blog is tw. for suicide).

This 1972 movie is about a man using snakes to get revenge on people. It’s not a good movie for a few reasons.

1. The story is lacking

2. The acting is very poor

3. There is a horrible scene of this man going nuts and ACTUALLY killing his own snakes. It’s real and it’s makes my stomach upset even thinking about it.

I would never recommend this to anyone and if I did? I’d be purposely trying to upset them. Uck.

(2015)This dances in the sharknado realm of things but, worse. I would watch it again with someone who hadn’t seen it though. There is a weird abuse storyline within it as well that rubbed me the wrong way when I watched it. I don’t really have much else to say about it.

iamnotawomanimagod:

“Cherry Wine” being referred to as a love song always makes me uncomfortable.

I know it’s a sweet-sounding song, it’s very pretty, and evokes nice, warm feelings sonically. But it’s 100% about an abusive relationship and it’s not even that subtle.

People can interpret things however they want, and can of course create attachments to songs that don’t have much to do with the subject matter.

But I feel like if you’re going to talk about that song and how it makes you feel without bringing up the fact that it’s about abuse, you’re doing it a disservice.

The narrator of the song is asking for everyone to ignore the damage their abuser does because the love seems so sweet and rare to them. It’s kind of ironic to hear this song and then turn around and think of it as being sweet and warm and loving, much like the narrator sees their abuser.

Maybe Hozier did something there, maybe that was intentional. But I think a lot of people are missing the point.

After rereading the manga and looking at Misha’s role in story again, i realized that ‘rewriting the past’ seems to be important theme for the story and characters. (And it was also one of theme in Pandora Hearts too).

I also love that this panel tells a lot about how Misha sees the world. Everything looks shine but it looks like its covering the darkness, as if it looks like escapism from dark reality in a way.

Anyway, here we go.

Jung’s take on the Hero has a twist then. Archetypal heroism is ALWAYS accompanied by darkness. But here’s the real twist. A truly Jungian one. Darkness comes not only from outside the self – from all those trials and tribulations the present themselves through the course of our lives – but also from within The Self. What’s more, this is the most potent test of all. It is our own degenerate nature which above all else, must be exposed, acknowledged, and if not defeated, then certainly fought against. (Source)

In many hero-villain stories, villains are meant to symbolise hero’s biggest flaws. That they are the dark side of heroes, the side they dont want to face. The flaw they dont want to adress.

Heroes of this story is our protoganists, Vanitas and Noe. Vanitas has classic self-sacrificing behavour that heroes has, he is just the more tragic and dark version of it cause of his violent side. Noe is the same cause of his simple desire to help others but just like Vanitas, he is not just pure good, he is gray.

And when it comes to villains, well, we have characters like Doctor Moreu, Teacher, Ruthven, Faustina who became cursed and steal names etc etc. Just like any other story, vthere are different kind of villains. Most of them is still a mystery to us but anyway. There are just cruel-natured villains like Teacher and Dr Moreou. Ruthven is mystery but he is meant to be parallels with Noe. (They both wanted vampires-humans war to stop). And Faustina is most likely tragic victim who end up loosing herself but her story is mystery too.

There are also characters like Mikhail and Astolfo who is on the wrong side and doing wrong things but not because they are evil but because of their tragic backstories. They are villains too in a way. Astolfo is parallel with Vanitas, he symbolise the old self of him, they only choose different paths cause of destiny in a way. Meanwhile, Mikhail is both parallel with Noe and Vanitas, as i and other people already mentioned.

The Shadow is not so much the hero’s nemesis, as his evil twin. It is that irrational, unpleasant and unpalatable side of our nature that we all possess. It is our own internal and unincorporated darkness which must be encountered and assimilated. According to Jung, it is precisely because the shadow is an integral part of our whole self, that it becomes imperative for us to know that it exists. In fact, it is impossible for it not to exists. And this knowledge seems to be entirely lacking in most of us. (Source)

As villain, Mikhail’s purpose in story is rewritting the past and this is exactly why i think he is the shadow of heroes. The dark side, the flaw of heroes that they dont want to face or adress because we know that Vanitas and Noe try to rewrite the past why projecting that past onto people around them. Even though, Mikhail is the antagonist for them, that they dont agree with his purpose and actions, they do exactly same thing in a way. (Not just rewriting the past, Vanitas and Noe act violent too and doing wrong things too so.)

Repetition compulsion is a psychological phenomenon in which a person repeats an event or its circumstances over and over again. This includes re-enacting the event or putting oneself in situations where the event is likely to happen again. This “re-living” can also take the form of dreams in which memories and feelings of what happened are repeated, and even hallucinated.(Source)

As an example;

Vanitas putting himself onto dangerous situtions for no logical reason. Just like when he admitted that he is the kin of blue moon to the all vampires. He is putting himself onto danger cause he is used ti living his life in danger. (+ Him pushing people is also cause of fear of loosing those people).

Or even the scene where Misha forced Noe to drink his blood. Drinking blood thing is sexual activity in a way so forcing Noe to harass himself is because thats what happenned to him when he was child. “Then, here, you can take my blood”. Offering himself as if he is some kind of “object”. He is sexual abuse victim and this is how he was treated and he unconciously repeats his trauma.

Or even the reason Misha is choosing an adult (teacher) even though he uses him. But unlike their past, this time they choose those awfull situtions to feel more powerfull but in the end, they repeat their trauma.

“We repeat what we do not repair.” —Christine Langley Obaugh (Source)

So i would like to focus on Vanitas projecting his past onto Jeanne and Noe and a little Noe projecting his past onto Vanitas.

Main reason why Vanitas chose Noe and Jeanne is because he thought he was so sure they wouldnt like him and he unconciously saw the traces of pasts in them.

First, with Jeanne.

The reason he found her interesting is because ‘she became weak cause she found someone to protect’. Jeanne’s desire to protect Luna is similar to Vanitas’s desire to protect Misha. He saw his past self in her and found her interesting.

- (Chloe-Vanitas parallels too.)

He also said he found her pretty attractive, he is right but its kinda weird that he is attractive to someone who is similar to his brother. A woman who exactly look like Mikhail, even their aura, their cute behavours, expresions seems to be identical.

Mikhail-Jeanne panels looks so identical, its hard to differentiate.

They both idolise Vanitas. And the way Vanitas try to look cool and impress them is similar.

(Actually similarities between those two and other things made me write this analysis.)

Compulsive repetition of the trauma may provide a temporary sense of mastery or even pleasure (but ultimately leads to chronic feelings of helplessness and a sense of being bad and out of control). (Source)

And he also made a promise to her, that he will kill her, before she hurted someone she cares about (Luca). Vanitas was so familiar with that emotion. Theory, whether Luna or he hurt someone they love (maybe Misha), thats why Vanitas thinks he should kill ‘that person’ before they become something monstrious and hurt someone they love. He projects what happenned to him, Luna and Misha on her issues. Vanitas most likely failed to kill ‘that person’ before the whatever happenned so he is trying to fix that mistake by helping Jeanne. By rewriting the past.

And even he is giving her a promise, just like how he promised Misha in the past. The promise Vanitas failed to keep. So this time he is making a promise that he thinks he can keep.

Later, the scene when Vanitas fell in love with Jeanne, the moment he felt warmth. That smile of Jeanne is exactly look like Misha’s smile with Luna and Vanitas, the panel where Misha said he likes warm things.

And with Noe.

He found him interesting with his cute expressive personality, (Just like Luna and Misha).

Jeanne is a character who is identical to Mikhail while Noe is more identical to Luna. Noe has black skin, white hair with mature, tall, big body just like Luna. He looks like the male version of Luna. (Yeah, Luna doesnt have gender but still, she looks like female).

They both airhead, adults with manchild personality, they cant handle things by theirselves so other people need to take care of them. + Mikhail’s past, worldview, positvitism is parallel with Noe too.

Also both Luna and Noe are the first people who really gave a choice to Vanitas and understand him. Also Vanitas show his vulnerable side to them and open up. Vanitas rely on him, the way he uses to rely on Luna.

The scene when Noe gave blanket to Vanitas to make him warm is also similar how Luna gave him blanket too, again to keep him warm, showing that he is loved.

And again, just like Jeanne case, Vanitas wants to be killed by Noe, before he become something monstrious. This time, he takes the opposite role. Just like how he killed Luna before its too late, he wants Noe to kill him.

Even the Tarte Tarin scene, Vanitas making sweets for Noe is parallel with the times he did for Luna and Misha.

+ Mikhail wasnt wrong when he thought his brother is kinda replacing him :’))).

We know Noe too. How he projects his failure to save Louis onto Vanitas. By protecting Domi and by trying to reaching out to Vanitas. Louis and Vanitas also looks identical, not by apperances but characters. They both suicidal kids who is full of self hatred, secrets, desire to be saved but wont ask for help, they both jerks who push other people away.

Even the way Noe meets them is similar. They both acted like jerks and Noe become violent agaisnt them but only to eventually be fond of them. + Also Noe is projecting his relationship with teacher on Vanitas cause of slave mentality. Noe was slave and he was bought bu teacher, thats why he tends to obey and idolize his master, this is what he does with Vanitas too, sometimes. He also acts extreme, just like the time he violently hurt Misha, just because of what Vanitas said to Noe in Gevaudan Arc and his possesive feelings of Vanitas, i think. I really hope eventually he realize how much messed up this is.

I am sure that there is more, the more we look it more, the more we will find out.

(I wanted to use more pics to show similarities between panels and scenes but you get the point and its tiring).

Humans seek comfort in the familiar. Freud called this repetition compulsion, which he famously defined as “the desire to return to an earlier state of things.” (Source)

As much as its looks messed up, its actually realistic. People in real life tend to choose situtions and people that they are familiar. People might (often) choose partner who is similar to their family members (parental figure, sibling figure) or ex partners/companion. Just Noe’s feeling familiar with Vanitas cause of his childhood companion. And both Jeanne and Noe are meant to be Vanitas’s partners. He chose them cause of the familiar feeling he had for his found family but of course, Vanitas doesnt see Noe as parental figure, the way Luna became for him. Jeanne is not sister-brother figure the way Misha was/is for him. They are meant to be his partners (maybe more equal relationship). Even though its good thing that Vanitas found more people he can connect, his relationship with both Jeanne and Noe are toxic, unlike the healthy relationship he had with Luna and Misha, before the accident.

Of course, besides all that ‘projecting their issues thing’, they had other moments. After all, Vanitas, Louis, Mikhail, Noe, Luna, Jeanne, despite their similarities, they are different people. And i think they grown to each others by knowing each others after some time. With Noe too. He is learning to pay attention to the person in front of him. They still learn. They still lack of self awareness. I think Vanitas has the some/a little self awareness but he still does it anyway while Noe doesnt seem to has that self awareness yet. They still try to rewrite the past with each others but at the same time, the more story goes, they learn to let go of it. As example, Vanitas’s saying to give up on forcing Noe to what he wants him to do.

Anyway, i hope they realize how much they project past onto each others, stop doing it and looking at the people in front of them. I hope Vanitas doesnt leave Misha behind while doing this too. Also they should realize that this is what Mikhail is trying to do and realize him, empathize with him and trying to help him (to move on) too. Its interesting that at least Misha is more honest about what he wants and what he does with his desire to live, with his desire to literally rewritting the past and with his desire to be happy. Well, usually, shadows are honest so they all should do.  Misha is more associated with life than Vanitas who just wants to die, i love how their trauma push them to opposite ways but at the same time, Misha always somehow keeps giving Vanitas a reason to live, even its force and he brings the kindness inside of him. This is what Vanitas should learn too.

dapperrokyuu:

Man, this chapter really has me thinking.

Im caught between thinking what Noe did was understandable and feeling that Misha wasnt as large of a threat to have necessitated that. Like, ultimately, Misha was just a kid with a knife at that point, Vanitas certainly has gone through worse and has exceptional healing abilities. And why would Misha want to gravely maim Vanitas anyways?

Honestly, Im wondering if the Misha in this chapter was just Noe’s perception of him and he was in no way trying to do what was portrayed at all.

On another note, I feel like Vanitas couldve been sending Noe away so he could reason/deal with Misha, because I cannot fathom why hed ask to be left behind when Noes literally carried him multiple times throughout the series and could take them both to safety. Maybe Vanitas couldve reversed what was happening to Misha with some fomula revision?

I personally dont find it understandable, it was so, unnecessary violent and unnecessary for no real logical reason. It was also weird for Noe to act this way who is famous with holding back buti agree about the portrayal and perspective.

cishetsbeingcishet:

genuinely so fucking tired of people leveraging the “groomer” argument against people who support sex ed because scientific literature over decades shows that comprehensive sex education starting around kindergarten actually prevents children from being sexually abused and groomed because it teaches children the correct words for their body parts and also teaches them concepts of privacy, personal space, bodily autonomy, the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching, and the fact that sex is something that only adults do. children with this knowledge are not only better equipped to identify abuse and predatory behavior and communicate that its happening to a trusted adult, but also prevent it from happening in the first place by recognizing when something is happening that shouldn’t.

sex education does not sexualize children, it prevents children from being sexualized. anyone who is against early foundational sex education and claims they are doing it to protect children is a fucking liar.

Completely agreed. I think healthy sex education is so important, people shouldnt avoid it and acting as sex is something to be shamed. Its part of life, instead of repressing it, we need to teach it in a right way.

irondad-defensesquad:

so i’ll definitely get hate for this but why do none of you acknowledge that steve practically gaslighted and belittled tony since they first fucking met

this btw comes from someone who’s been gaslighted since i was child, believe me, this shit is really damaging. watching steve looking down on tony is honestly triggering to me when i think about it for too long.

steve hates tony for some goddamn reason in the first avengers, he acts entitled every fucking time tony speaks or breathes. “oooh you’re so egotistical, you think you’re so fucking good huh”, “god tony every time i think you’ll understand you just prove me wrong” like tony isn’t the one trying to talk to steve to reach a common ground

steve acts like tony is the arrogant guy here which ironically enough it’s the complete opposite. everyone in canon and fanon acts like tony is the unreasonable one like steve didn’t spit at the face of 100+ countries for not wanting more ppl to die by the avengers without any consequences. yes steve does belittle tony every time they share a scene, and we’re supposed to be on steve’s side all the time

steve is always right and tony is always wrong that’s what they want to convince you

Can I also point out that when Steve found the missiles in Avengers 1 he never tells Tony “yo, you were right for being suspicious, sorry for acting like a dick.”

Also in the same movie he criticized Tony for being part of the military industrial complex despite espousing a soldier’s ideology, saying nothing about Howard’s contribution, and completely ignoring Tony’s efforts to redirect his company toward sustainable energy instead.