Confused Gobling

See the chap with glasses and an incredible moustache in the bottom right? that's Magnus Hirschfeld, the gay Jewish doctor who ran the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for Sexual Research) in Berlin. It was largely his books, his research that the Nazis burned.

If that sounds familiar, it's because it is the EXACT same rhetoric being rolled out by prominent TERFs for the last few years including, yes, The Wizard Lady.

So, if you dump Astarion early and tell him that that night with him was a one-time thing, he gets genuinely sad and admits that it was special and memorable.

So idk, that opens up some interesting implications and tells me that, at least starting that first night with Tav, sex isn't just transactional. At the very least, Tav is the first time he's fully consenting to sex, regardless of his motives. That alone is going to make it special. But that special-ness wouldn't be so noteworthy if he was completely sex-averse. This was a new experience and he found himself enjoying it to some degree when it happened--HOWEVER the reason for that enjoyment could be any number of things. The "transaction" may have been more pleasurable than he expected, he could have been enjoying the novelty of being free and playful with sex, Tav was someone actually attractive to him, or he could have just simply felt cared for and treated with the tenderness he never knew he needed.

Don't get me wrong, his view on sex was still warped and damaged/damaging, and based on survival. And he absolutely did need to step back from having sex and reevaluate his views, feelings, and boundaries. But I also think that his first time with Tav planted the seed of "oh shit, this is different!" and he slowly realizes that sex is not supposed to be what it's always been for him, finally culminating in his confession in Act 2. (And if you fail to fully gain his trust by Act 3, that seed never grows and you get dumped when he no longer "needs" you.)

So at least for me, I can't get behind the "he's just pretending to enjoy it" or "it's just a transaction to him"or "hes in it for blood." Like sure, *before* he sleeps with Tav he sees it that way, but he's not that great an actor, either, and the shift is obvious to me.

Astarion is allowed to enthusiastically and knowingly consent to polyamory with Halsin, and yet be insecure and unsure of his own sexual role in his relationship with Tav.

He is allowed to be ready to try having sex again, but also scared and unsure where it may lead.

He is allowed to want something, but also feel vulnerable when asking for it.

He is allowed to enjoy polyamory in one instance (with Halsin and Tav), and not enjoy it in another (with the drow twins).

He is allowed to change his mind, or to learn more about his likes dislikes, wants and fears further down the line. That does not make his former given consent nor his former feelings any less valid.

If you go into a relationship thinking you'll like the sex, and then find out you don't, that is fine and you are valid.

If you think you're ready, but then find out you're not, that's fine and you are valid.

If you later decide to try again, that's fine and you are valid.

You owe others nothing.

Surviving sexual trauma does not make us children, or broken birds, or objects.

It makes us complicated, but we are still human (so to speak)

"But he doesn't enjoy having sex with the Drow twins." My dear sweet child, he explicitly says he's not ready for that yet. At no point does he pretend to be okay with it only to secretly not be. He clearly and firmly says he is not okay with it, and you only get the narration about him seeming empty if you pressure him into it. This does not happen with Halsin. I repeat. This does not happen with Halsin! Astarion never, I repeat NEVER says anything akin to "not being sure" or "I don't know", or "I'm not ready for this" in regards to Halsin's proposition, while he CLEARLY says that about the Drow twins.

Why, you may then ask, is he uncomfortable with the Drow twins but not Halsin? Well, for one, the Drow twins are sex workers. And while in this house we 100% respect love and support all sex workers, they were unfortunately likely targets during his thrall days, and they almost certainly open up some wounds he's not ready to explore yet. Secondly, with the Drow twins he is pressured to participate. Again, Astarion is uncomfortable participating in sex, not with polyamory as a whole. Astarion would be uncomfortable being pressured into basic vanilla christian one on one sex with Tav just as much as he would be uncomfortable being pressured into sex with the Drow twins. That has nothing to do with polyamory. He would not be and is not uncomfortable with Tav having sex with, kissing or flirting with Halsin, as long as he is at no point forced to or pressured to physically participate himself.

Consider why every other character who is against a relationship with Halsin explicitly says so (for those of you who compare Astarion to Karlach, Karlach does explicitly say she is against it.) Consider how every single time Astarion is against something, with the exception of some events in Act 1, he explicitly says so. Consider how Astarion literally does bring up something that concerns him in that very conversation, and clearly states his concerns regarding his own sexual availability, but at no point even hints at being uncomfortable with Tav's romantic/sexual interests. And perhaps consider why you are so intent on having characters be "secretly against polyamory".

People have also claimed that if you didn't make him bite Arja in act 2, and then ask for sex during his confession scene, while tonedeaf he does not say no. I can confirm that he does not use the word "no", however, I think anyone talking about consent should read this:

as a "no".

and your only option to actually proceed to have sex with him, is to: Accuse him of not liking you Tell him you're different. Or ignore him and tell him to just do it and he'll feel better.

I, personally, would call that pressuring.

Note, this is not meant as an attack, only as a counter point to the claim that he does not voice his discomfort in the above mentioned scenario. Also note, patches have been known to change the dialogue from time to time, EA dialogue will be different from full release dialogue for example. It's very possible that some people may have seen dialogue which is no longer canon and available in game in the newer patches. With that in mind however, my argument stands, and if I can confirm the example with the drow twins, I will update my post to reflect that.

Added bonus, here is astarion's reaction to you kissing Halsin in front of him.

"But he doesn't enjoy having sex with the Drow twins." My dear sweet child, he explicitly says he's not ready for that yet. At no point does he pretend to be okay with it only to secretly not be. He clearly and firmly says he is not okay with it, and you only get the narration about him seeming empty if you pressure him into it. This does not happen with Halsin. I repeat. This does not happen with Halsin! Astarion never, I repeat NEVER says anything akin to "not being sure" or "I don't know", or "I'm not ready for this" in regards to Halsin's proposition, while he CLEARLY says that about the Drow twins.

Why, you may then ask, is he uncomfortable with the Drow twins but not Halsin? Well, for one, the Drow twins are sex workers. And while in this house we 100% respect love and support all sex workers, they were unfortunately likely targets during his thrall days, and they almost certainly open up some wounds he's not ready to explore yet. Secondly, with the Drow twins he is pressured to participate. Again, Astarion is uncomfortable participating in sex, not with polyamory as a whole. Astarion would be uncomfortable being pressured into basic vanilla christian one on one sex with Tav just as much as he would be uncomfortable being pressured into sex with the Drow twins. That has nothing to do with polyamory. He would not be and is not uncomfortable with Tav having sex with, kissing or flirting with Halsin, as long as he is at no point forced to or pressured to physically participate himself.

Consider why every other character who is against a relationship with Halsin explicitly says so (for those of you who compare Astarion to Karlach, Karlach does explicitly say she is against it.) Consider how every single time Astarion is against something, with the exception of some events in Act 1, he explicitly says so. Consider how Astarion literally does bring up something that concerns him in that very conversation, and clearly states his concerns regarding his own sexual availability, but at no point even hints at being uncomfortable with Tav's romantic/sexual interests. And perhaps consider why you are so intent on having characters be "secretly against polyamory".

Let's assume a decent farming situation, as is the intent of a lot of activism to ensure is universal - if that animal lived a content life and was slaughtered in the most painless way we can manage, I'm fine with eating it. In that situation, and hell even in many not-ideal farming situations, that animal had an exponentially better life than it would have had in the wild. It was fed and watered well, protected from predators and disease, and its death was hopefully peaceful, quick, and painless - in the wild, that animal would have lived in a state of constant stress trying to make sure it gets its next meal without becoming something else's next meal, not to mention the prevalence of disease and parasites, and it would likely have died violently or from sickness. Nature is not some uwu pretty Arcadian archetype like some people seem to think.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not unethical to eat that animal and use its hide, or indeed other parts of it. It's been extracted from the violence of nature to the point of having a downright idyllic lifestyle by humans, and I am perfectly okay with the humans in return getting food and clothing. I'm as much for reducing cruelty with lab-grown meat or plant-based fake meat as the next ethical human, but it's not unethical to eat meat. That's an absolutist stance that is fundamentally incompatible with, in my opinion, reality. Frankly, there are plenty of humans who need it - I know someone who actually is required by their dietician to eat meat because a plant-based alternative wouldn't sustain them and they'd become severely anaemic without it. I'm gluten free, a vegan diet would either leave severe deficiencies in my own diet or give me regular stomach issues. If I need meat, as many if not most humans do since we're omnivores, and I get that meat in the absolute least amount of cruelty-per-meat I can humanly manage, I'm cool with that.

This is of course why I am opposed to cruel farming practices, despite eating meat. That's not a contradiction.

And that's just the situations where slaughter is required. The takes I've seen on wool are asinine. Sheep need to be sheared. It is bad for them to just let them be. We have bred them over millennia to need shearing. The wool gets too heavy for them to survive falling in water, too warm and dense for them to survive hot weather or clean themselves, and it is a fucking breeding ground for parasites and shit when it gets dirty. You want the sheep to get flystrike? Stop shearing them and that's what happens. We don't dock lambs' tails for no reason, we do it because they get fuckin necrotic infection from flies if you don't. It would be cruel not to shear them. The only people who badly injure sheep when shearing them are incompetents nobody invites back, but a few nicks are inevitable because, funnily enough, sheep don't really understand the phrase "sit still please while I give you a glorified haircut."

But no, because PETA and shits like them are performative fucking absolutists who misrepresent shearing as skinning, wool is becoming so hard to sell that farmers are having to just dispose of it because it'd cost more to sell it than the money they'd make. And instead, people are making clothes out of FUCKING PLASTIC.

That's what your fucking vegan leather is. Plastic. Polyester is a kind of plastic. None of this shit will be good for the environment when it inevitably breaks down, and it breaks down exponentially faster than actual leather, wool, etc. Leather and wool are better materials and better for the environment especially when they're farmed ethically, but because it doesn't suit a pretentious fucking performative absolutism about using animal products, people think it's evil. Even that fucking supposedly good pineapple leather, Piñatex, is plastic. I was so fucking disappointed to learn that when I googled it. But because people hear "pineapple leather" they think it's a good vegan alternative to leather, when it just isn't, and you really don't need an alternative to leather. If you're slaughtering a cow who's lived a content and happy life ethically, there's no reason not to use the skin aside from it not being economically viable, which it is becoming because this performative bullshit sells the idea that leather is evil, despite the fact it's better for the environment and you need less of it because it doesn't break down into unbiodegradable bits into nature where it can fuck up anything it gets into and doesn't deteriorate as quickly. An actual leather jacket will last decades. Plastic leather, that won't be worth wearing in less than one decade.

I would much rather wear the wool of a few healthily-shorn sheep and the leather of maybe half a cow and have that last half a lifetime or longer than keep buying more and more shitty plastic clothes that release microplastics into the ocean and soil for just as long. But because of Vimes' Boots Theory, I kinda have to wear the shitty plastic for now, at least until I get to a point in making my own clothes where I've made them all out of better materials... read, wool, leather, and natural textiles like cotton and linen.

And then there's the shits who think it's inherently cruel because of consent or whatever. That's insane. If you try to anthropomorphise animals to the point of trying to apply consent to them you end up classifying nearly all of them as serial fucking rapists. You can't apply that argument to animals who fundamentally don't understand the concept. Have you met sheep. There is absolutely nothing behind those eyes. Categorically stupid animals. Especially when, as before, they've been bred to need our help. You can harangue over the ethicality of doing that millennia ago, but it's a pointless thought experiment when the best thing to do is just take care of the damn sheep and cows and whatever. Plus, if we stopped taking care of them, where the hell are they supposed to go? Go free and wreak havoc on the ecosystem? Wild deer and goats and shit are already damaging the environment, we don't need to add a bajillion cows and sheep and everything to that. Better to just keep taking care of 'em and harvesting what we get from them as ethically as possible.

I can't afford to drop an extra $40 a week on food. Most of my friends can't afford to drop an extra $40 a week on food. "Just spend $40 more" is by definition not a budget option.

10h

And while everyone's reaction is usually "haha they're so stupid lol!!" Let's not forget that this is one of the ways they transparently demonize addicts in order to keep the populace convinced that they are evil, horrible people that deserve to be locked up. They know that citizens will eventually start thinking "hey, they're really only hurting themselves, shouldn't they get help instead of being punished?" so in order to keep everyone comfortable with criminalizing drug addiction, they spread the idea that addicts have a secret agenda to turn EVERYONE into addicts, so they just *NEED* to keep them locked up.

"They're coming after our children! They're trying to turn our children into _____!" (Does that sound familiar?)

It’s ludicrous that we have like five online spaces owned by three corporations where adults and children are shoved in together and everything is sanitised for advertisers and nothing is safe or enjoyable.

It's a constant balance, right? You want the parents to be able to trust a website to let their kids on it and not be monitored 24/7 because as much as we say it's the parents' responsibility (and it really is) it's not feasible for a human being to spend 100% of their time taking care of another human being. Parents will eventually leave their child unattended online and when that happens they want their child to be safe. But if a parent trusts a website too much (eg. Club Penguin) then you have the risk of the child being left unmonitored in an environment where adults can pose as children/friends and use that trust to prey on children.

You cannot realistically have any website where users can interact with each other marketed to kids which will not be used by predators for malicious reasons. As a result, all forms of content websites (Youtube, Tiktok, Wattpad, Twitch but for kids) and social media (tumblr, twitter etc but for kid) is by default a danger zone.

Musk bought Twitter because he fucked around and found out. He wanted to fuck with Twitter's stock price by feigning interest in buying it. Since that's illegal, he was then cornered into actually buying it for an insanely inflated price.