so basically nozomi and takumi seem (imo) to sort of... keep each other in stasis in certain ways, especially in routes where they're particularly close (coa specifically comes to mind). they like... tidally lock and cement one another into the roles they've been expected / engineered to play. idk it definitely seems relevant to me that nozomi is often at her weirdest and most unfiltered in routes where there's more distance between them, and vice versa. it's really interesting! they have these genuinely sweet interactions but kinda don't push each other to change unless something disruptive happens or some kind of schism has formed.

takumi and eito meanwhile read as kinda the opposite to me. they like, can't come into contact with each other without this wild white phosphorus chemical reaction occurring that irrevocably changes them both in some way. but because there's (usually) only challenge and no support (in addition to the aforementioned lack of understanding from takumi, despite understanding / connection being The Thing That Eito Wants), that change is frequently violent and destructive not only to them but everyone around them. both of them need to change but they often push each other to do so in the worst ways possible.

which is wrong. a regime that's willing to go to those lengths will do the same to anybody perceived as a potential threat, or even just an inconvenience. obedience does not guarantee safety, and achieving a just outcome under unjust circumstances sometimes requires accepting risk to oneself (assuming you even have that choice). acknowledging all that, actually looking it in the face and seeing it for what it is, especially when you're doing the opposite...hurts. badly. if you're not actively at risk, it's easier to just look away. keep your head down. do what you're told.

it's easier, until it isn't. because this is a beast that devours. who's next after those people, the current acceptable targets, are gone?

complacency can become monstrosity.

ironically enough, eito is more or less just literalizing the metaphor. we know he's perfectly capable of forming connections and being around other people without mutilating himself. we see it in rebellion, where he's far more successfully integrated into the group than he is in 2nd scenario without feeling the need to go to those lengths (and he still gets to be a petty little bitch while doing it which. good for him honestly). if that act of self harm is present in 2nd scenario but not rebellion, that suggests thematic relevance. if it happens in one and not the other, there's probably a reason for that. it's a conscious choice that the authors made, so the question now is why? what is that difference saying? the two routes contrast each other in a number of pretty meaningful ways and i'd argue this is one of them.

(and. you know. the idea that self mutilation is in any way a viable coping mechanism is...well, it speaks strongly to me of the ways that, in certain societies, people with disabilities are conditioned to avoid being inconvenient or making people uncomfortable at all costs, even if it means contorting or harming ourselves. because our very existence often makes people uncomfortable. because the harm that might be done to us could be so much worse...which can absolutely contribute to a person developing a misanthropic mindset—or even becoming outright destructive—if they've had to live that way. but if i get into that i'll be here all day.)