“In English,” Professor Austin said, “a double negative forms a positive. However, in some languages, such as Russian, a double negative remains a negative. But there isn’t a single language, not one, in which a double positive can express a negative.”
A voice from the back of the room piped up, “Yeah, right.”
This is a topic I’ve been discussing on and off for the past month now with a lot of my friends: the validity of relationships we form online. There is a high chance that you, the reader, have Internet friends, or you probably wouldn’t be reading this post…
…And then there’s Internet relationships, romantic ones. I’ve never experienced one myself, but I’ve watched close friends enter them, successfully. Relationships are first and foremost two people who like each other romantically who want to make it exclusive. And I hear complaints all of the time from people offline about two things: their relationship lacking trust, or their relationship lacking communication. And those are the two things Internet relatjonships need first and foremost. If two people are willing to put in the effort, to communicate, to give each other that trust and not betray it, I don’t think anybody has the right to look down on an Internet relationship.
Internet relationships have been played up for so long as things you can only find on eHarmony or through online predators. I can’t wait for ten years time when Internet relationships and friendships aren’t this awful taboo anymore, and are generally accepted, because this thing called the Internet is really just this hub of people all dying to make a lasting connection. There’s some pornography, too, though.
tl;dr: Internet relationships are awesome and valid and legitimate and if you can’t accept that we can’t be friends. This post is dedicated to Miranda, who inspired me to write it tonight.
This whole post ♥♥♥ Haters can go jump off a cliff, thank you very much.
I’ve fallen in love with a wonderful Scottish boy whom I met through a pen pal website. We made it official on May 28th and will be meeting in person for the first time in less than three weeks. Answering his pen pal request was the best thing I’ve ever done, and I wouldn’t trade him for anything else in the world. No regrets.
Society has allowed rapists to define what resistance is: screaming, crying, scratching, pushing, kicking, biting, punching. I didn’t resist like that. My resistance was to wriggle a bit, turn my head away when he tried to kiss me, try to stop his hand going into my bra and knickers, push him ineffectually, talk about wanting to get my cab; all things which normal men recognise as not being enthusiastic participation when they are engaging with women but pretend it’s a grey area when they talk about rape. Rapists have managed to get society to believe, that what I did, was consent.
Because I didn’t resist in the way rapists - and society - say that women should resist, they define our non-participation as consent.
BOOM, rape culture at work… Can I also add, when you are in a situation that involves rape or you think might involve rape or looks like it might involve rape in a few minutes, its usually pretty scary to scream and kick… Especially if you know this person and sometimes might even care about them and think they care about you too. It is much more likely that you’ll say “No.. Lets stop.. I don’t want to right now..” etc
Even in high school, I could identify that there was an emphasis on their interaction for a reason. There was areason these two, very complex characters have faced off in the past. My little Sophomore thinking brain was like, “Dude, this is going to come and bite us in the ass later,” because the inevitability that they would meet again, under some grave circumstances no doubt, was actually something I was looking forward to not as a shipper but as a person wanting to know what’s going to happen next.
At this point, with zero interest in shipping (and zero understanding of how Zuko x Katara was even a possibilityever), could I really have been considered a “crazy” Zutarian for thinking that this show might actually throw us a curveball?
I think one of the greatest things about Kataang was its subtlety on Katara’s part, but I also think that was also its greatest weakness. After the kiss in DoBS and the confrontation at the end of WAT, the amount of chemistry (that same spark of chemistry that you saw in CoD, whether you looked at it romantically or not) began to overpower the chemistry shared by Katara and Aang—and not because it was inferior at all. No—it was simply because, in the middle of season three, we were being bombarded with the sheer complexity of these two foes again. The unresolved conflict and dissention between them creates a very visible rift that completely overpowers the Kataang storyline and shoves it to the side as though it didn’t exist until EIP.
Now I’m not that way—this isn’t an argument trying to convince you that Zutara is canon, equal chances, 50/50, etc. No. No. No. No. I think it’s been very clear since the beginning that Bryke had always wanted Kataang to be a thing, and I identify and understand that. That’s not the point of this essay.
The point of this essay is actually to get people to understand how Zutara is not about the sex, or the hot character design, or the entire ideology that opposites attract so they belong together. This has absolutely nothing to do with that. The point of this essay is to allow others a chance to see it from a more rational perspective. Understand that the co-creators have always steered us away from Zutara—have made it clear they don’t like it, and have even gone so far as to say that it would never work because it’s just a dark and intriguing relationship ideal.
Was it because they knew they miscalculated? Not with shipping, not with Kataang at all… But with overpowering one character dynamic with another?
I’m sorry, Bryke, but no. I shouldn’t want one (FANON, guys, FANON) romance over the canon. That was my curveball.
There was no romantic chemistry between them, but the chemistry was there. The character similarities, the complexity, their parallels and their plight—these things define them and define their relationship through the process of redemption and understanding. They stand on equal ground, and have gone through the trials of overt development so that such a thing could last. When you cut it down to the wire and give the audience closure on their journey, is it such a bad thing that they would be cheering for a couple that wasn’t in the initial blueprints?
There is not a single doubt in my mind that if we wanted to say Zutara happened down the line (assuming LOK didn’t exist) it could have. It was not an impossible, dark, scary, sinful route to take, and it’s super irritating that people are still like, “OH IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY WOULD JUST KILL EACH OTHER.”
I’m sorry fandom, but no. You severely misunderstand their companionship if you really honestly think that. And I’m not saying that because I ship Zutara—I’m saying that because I didn’t even start shipping it until we were so late in the game, I didn’t think it was even a possibility at that point.
I don’t get why the fact that texts need to evolve and be constantly re-imagined by new audiences is such a hard concept to grasp? When it comes to the consumption of stories, authorial intent is not sovereign. I mean, just because a story is sacred does not automatically make the hand that penned it sacred as well. Creators are human too and they’re not always going to grasp the full weight their texts carry. The consumption of a story is not a triangular dynamic between author, text and reader, it’s a binary relationship between text and reader. What’s important isn’t what the writer meant, what’s important is what is what the story means to you, your point of connection or entry into any given text, how you interpret it. And…that’s not a bad thing? It’s empowering and it’s refreshing and it encourages freshness of thought, originality of interpretation. Trying to shut it down is not only anathema to the diversity that makes literary discussion interesting, it’s also likely to ensure that your beloved texts sit collecting dust on your shelves for a long time, because no new readers are going to come along to attempt to connect with them.
I’m still collecting my thoughts from the Big Three’s press conferences, so thanks for bearing with me through my horrifically busy schedule this past week. I want to take a short break from the madness of E3 to talk about…
“A woman’s worst nightmare? That’s pretty easy. Novelist Margaret Atwood writes that when she asked a male friend why men feel threatened by women, he answered, “They are afraid women will laugh at them.” When she asked a group of women why they feel threatened by men, they said, “We’re afraid of being killed.”—
This reminds me of a discussion we had in school, and one girl was talking about living in fear of her safety because she is a girl, and this guy chimed in and was all “It’s hard for guys too! I’m so awkward around girls! It’s embarrassing!” Yeah, not the same thing, exactly?
This reminds me of an article about online (heterosexual) dating that I read a while ago. It listed men’s and women’s worst fears about meeting someone from online. The highest ranked fear that men had was that their date would be fat, whereas the highest ranked fear that women had was that their date would turn out to be violent and kill them.
“As fans, sometimes we need to remember that the things we like don’t define our worth as people. So there’s no need to defend them from every single criticism or pretend they are perfect. Really loving something means seeing it as it really is, not as you wish it were. You can still be a good fan while acknowledging the problematic elements of the things you love. In fact, that’s the only way to be a good fan of problematic things.”—How to be a fan of problematic things (via shelloiljunior)