#takes

- alana was only into Will precisely because she sensed the gay vibes (but subconsciously). as a bi girl myself I know we rarely like conventionally straight men. it's usually the kinda gay ones we're into. or golden retriever boys but Will is certainly not that. he's almost a black cat bi girly.

- if hannibal had kissed Will at any point after the first half of season one, Will would've reciprocated. wouldn't even be shocked cause he was well aware that Hannibal was attracted to him. season 1 Will would've kissed back but not take anything further and s2 Will would've definitely taken it further then say to himself it was part of the plan cause he's that much of an idiot.

- margot's baby was not a boy and all of it was kind of useless.

- Will would not have bonded with the baby, Hannibal would've. It'd be a weird ass dynamic.

- Will had sex dreams about Hannibal since they met and it's why he was so weird about him combined with everything else.

- after Hannibal left in Mizumono Will realized he was down bad because what do you mean I still want him? hence the attempt to kill Hannibal bc he just couldn't accept that he was that pathetic and insane.

Right? I've seen GREENAPPLE or POISONAPPLE going around lately, right?

I love the ship, the dynamic is awesome, and the lore is already inbuilt so I get the hype.

But lord god and the power of NEKOBOYDREAMS am I thankful, that Greenapple/Poisonapple is not canon. AHAHAHHAA

I do not think I could handle, two polygamous yanderes, GANGING up on you because they both take a fancy to you.

See because they're not on good terms in canon you can escape them.

Literally on day one after the introduction, Pierrot was so distracted with Harlequin that we manage to slip away.

If they were on good terms, we're cooked. Harlequin and Pierrot work well together because they know eachother since childhood, they will find a way to work together to keep us/mc

See there's going to be a poly ending right???

Now I do not know how that poly ending is gonna happen, but I am speculating that Pierrot and Harlequin will do a custody over mc, typa jist

But if they actually fix their problems and get together romantically WITH MC we are cooked.

There is absolutely not escape

First of all, why are you so intent on defending the moral standards of iron age priest-kings? Do you think they were woke? Do you think they were woke in the land of Canaan? In 800 BC? In the society where the penalty for rape was paying 40 silver pieces to the father and then being required to marry your victim, but the penalty for cursing your parents was death? Do you think the morals those people wrote down would be fine and dandy if only it wasn't for one dastardly mistranslation?

It is not very hard to understand why ancient Israelite patriarchs didn't like homosexuality. They were a bunch of conniving, inbred aristocrats who cared more than anything about maintaining their land and property, and keeping it in their family forever. How the hell are you gonna do that if your firstborn son doesn't like girls? Obviously these people wanted absolute control over their kids and who they married, and that's what they had, and that's what they wanted to maintain, and that's what they wanted to justify ideologically when they wrote the Pentateuch. Fork found in kitchen.

And the condemnation of homosexuality isn't one errant line either. The condemnations in Leviticus have gotten the most attention, and these are the ones that you may have heard were "mistranslations and actually about pedophilia". There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that they were, though. There are a few notable translations that have been made that translate it with pedophilic implications, including Martin Luther's German translation, but there is no reason to assume he had special access to knowledge (plenty of reason to assume we have better copies of the original text than he did, in fact), and the word in the original Hebrew is zakar, which means male, not boy or child.

With no skin in the game (as I consider Leviticus to be made up by ancient wealthy men and not a transcription of Yahweh the Thunder God's ludicrously long-winded speech to Moses on Sinai) I judge the mistranslation narrative to be little more than motivated reasoning. There is no real basis for it. The narrative that it was actually just a condemnation of Canaanite temple prostitution is even more speculative.

Even if it is, though, what about the other parts? Consider Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which has this to say in its first chapter.

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Paul also explicitly condemns arsenokoites in Corinthians and Timothy. This greek term means "male-bedders" and intentionally calls back to the wording in Leviticus, albeit in Greek instead of Hebrew.

These passages are so strong that defenders tend to bite the bullet and just say "Yeah, Paul was homophobic, but he was a fallible human."

To that, I can do little more than agree. Yes, the Bible is homophobic trash (as well as monstrously patriarchal, abusive, racist, and outright genocidal trash), because it was written by people whose opinions don't have to be taken seriously. It is nothing but an ancient book, and it contains no keys to the divine, which doesn't even exist anyway.

The way Alicent is, in my opinion, often mischaracterised in fanfiction boils down to three traits:

1. self-sacrificial religious devotion

2. conservatism

3. "prudishness" — meaning, in this context, aversion to all-things sexual.

The thing that irks me about this characterisation is that, if you look at both the book and the show, these traits are essentially nowhere to be found. Let me explain.

Although Alicent is a devout follower of the Faith of the Seven, religion is far from her first priority. Time after time, she puts her family and her children first, often making morally questionable decisions to drive forth her agenda, which is driven by her need to keep her children safe. While she finds comfort in septs, we don't actually see her engage very deeply with the Faith — at least not more deeply than the average medieval practitioner would.

She wears religious symbols, prays, and speaks of the gods every now and then, but usually to make sense of something to herself or to others. Remember "The gods punish us. They punish me" after Jaehaerys was murdered, or "The Stranger comes for us all ... Queen and commoner." In my opinion, these are more cultural expressions than anything, and don't strike me as meaningfully different from what any religious person (or person brought up in a religious society) might say. Her faith doesn't appear fanatic or extremist in the slightest — quite on the contrary.

In House of the Dragon, Alicent views the power struggle between Aegon and Rhaenyra mainly as a question of legitimacy, Viserys's supposed will, and what is the safest option for her children — not through reasoning ”well, the gods intended my son to ascend the throne, and so he must." In Fire and Blood, Alicent acts in a way that is politically understandable of a woman of her status who is primarily motivated by family, duty, law, and to a degree, personal desire for power. Faith doesn't play a large part.

Furthermore, nowhere in the show or book is it shown or implied that Alicent punishes herself out of faith. When she harms herself — like when she rips her cuticles — that's a nervous habit or trauma response, depending on how you interpret it. She doesn't enjoy pain or seek it out. And when faced with a difficult or chaotic situation, she relies on her intelligence and experience, not The Seven-Pointed Star, to guide her judgment. Therefore, portraying Alicent as a fanatic, self-sacrifing devotee seems absurd to me.

De Zurbarán, Francisco. 1635-1640. Agnus Dei (Lamb of God).

The second common mischaracterisation, conservatism, is trickier. The issue here is that people tend to view "conservatism" through a very modern lens, which erases the realities of a medieval society. In a sense, all the major characters in HotD and F&B are conservative, since they inhabit an older, feudal world and operate within its power structures. Still, in certain areas, some characters are undoubtedly more conservative than others, for example, in their views on sexuality (Alicent's and Criston's remarks about Laenor's orientation vs. Rhaenyra's indifference).

But what exactly makes Alicent more conservative than any other noblewoman or person of this time? Her faith? Well, most of the smallfolk practice the Faith of the Seven to some degree. And again, there's no evidence that Alicent practices it in an "extremist" or outdated way. Her politics? While medieval monarchist politics are certainly conservative and archaic, belief in the legitimacy of monarchy is the default for most people in Westeros — not a unique trait of Alicent's. In the book, she's even described as beloved by the smallfolk, suggesting that whatever she was doing during Viserys's reign resonated with the people.

So if it isn't religion or politics, what is it?

That brings us to the third mischaracterisation: "prudishness". Alicent, as a medieval, religious woman advocating for her son's lawful inheritance, is perceived as conservative and traditional, which is then projected onto her views on sex and sexuality.

In fanfiction, Alicent is frequently written as a goody-two-shoes turned close-minded step mother who abhors all outward expressions of sexuality and desire, even the erotic tapestries displayed in the Red Keep. But why? Where does this characterisation come from? The answer lies in two things: first, the association between piety and sexual repression, and second, how Alicent reacts to finding out about Rhaenyra and Daemon, and later Rhaenyra's affair with Harwin Strong.

When Alicent confronts Rhaenyra about Daemon in s1, she says: "You Targaryens do have queer customs." That line has taken on a life of its own, often used as proof that she's a puritan, when in reality, she's saying what any sane person would think: that incest is morally wrong. The fact that Targaryens remain objectively attractive despite generational inbreeding doesn't erase the emotional and physical abuse and grooming involved. And the fact that Alicent is disgusted by it shouldn't be considered a conservative or prudish view.

It's also worth noting that Alicent isn't by any means squeamish or "delicate". Though she certainly doesn't enjoy violence in HotD (though F&B implies otherwise), she's hardly someone who faints at the sight of blood or turns dormant when something shocking happens. When Daemon kills Vaemond, for example, Alicent immediately protects Helaena, always acting with both heart and rationale to protect her children. When Jaehaerys is murdered, she's also distraught, but is able to twist the situation to the Greens' advantage by making the funeral political. So while she's affected by violence, it doesn't paralyse her.

Fundamentally, the reason Alicent is so often pushed into these boxes lies, in my view, in fandom misogyny. Because many fans and writers seem unwilling to explore her complexities, they default to a stereotypical and simplified reading — one that erases her motivations and distorts her morals.