Hmm, okay. Here’s a thought, spurred by a fandom post of all things. I’ve seen arguments to the effect of “romance is not sex” and “sex is not intimacy,” and so on, but how about this: intimacy is not good.
And by that I mean: intimacy is not care. It can be but is not necessarily nurturing, or safe, or nice, or fond.
I need to be able to name the bad or negative intimacies because otherwise that leaves me with a relationship scale from “strangers, no connection” to “best of loves, closest kinship” with nowhere to place the rot and the lousy. There is an unwanted intimacy with witnesses to an embarrassing moment. There is an intimacy with the people who have seen you at your worst because they personally dragged you there. There is an intimacy in the connection between yourself and the ones who have deeply hurt you.
“Intimate” is not the same as “good.”
It can be powerful and electric and full of a yearning to prove something without. being. good.
It’s important to me to be able to recognize a sense of intimacy without always construing it as something positive, and I’d hope that would be important to other people, too.
This is a piece of what I think makes it so difficult to make external (in words) certain negative experiences. You might be able to recount all the moves made and the words used, but it’s sometimes hard to capture how immensely personal it feels. How potent, how close to the bone. That’s intimacy, is what it is. Some intimate interactions are made all the more negative by how intimate they are.
Anyway that’s why I need people not to take the term “intimacy” itself as a ringing endorsement, thanks.
This is a post about a short simple “game”/visual novel called “We Know The Devil,” because Cor has recommended it frequently enough that I actually went and played it myself. Part 1 is the non-spoilers part, and Part 2 is the part with spoilers on everything. In this post, I try to answer a few basic, simple questions: What is it about? What does that title mean? And what the heck was going on with my reaction to that ending?
Okay yeah and branching off that last post, how about this wild idea: Abusers… are… unreasonable. They do unreasonable things. They have unreasonable expectations. They are unreasonable. So I’ve got no clue what some people are on about whenever they say something like “imagine a parent getting mad at their kid for X, that doesn’t happen because that’s just ridiculous.” Hey, real fun fact: “it’s ridiculous” has never been enough to stop humanity from doing cruel and violent things. Holding that expectation at all is ridiculous. And more importantly here, it begs the question: Why are you expecting abusive behavior to be reasonable? Why are you talking like there exists any abuse where you’d look at it and say, “oh, yeah that makes sense”?
Do me a favor and pay attention to that. If someone’s position is that real abuse is “reasonable,” that’s the kind of thing that calls a person’s entire politics into question.
Would have been nice to not start the new year first thing by seeing someone say that “ghosting” is “the worst thing you can do to someone,” because apparently it’s just too much sometimes for people to remember that abusive relationships exist and that picking up and leaving doesn’t make you worse than the people who mistreat you enough to drive you to that. And sure whatever the point was that ‘it hurts to be on the other end of that,’ but this kind of practice of just assuming the people who need it will read an unwritten asterisk into what you say is hands down a Bad Practice and I’m already having a hard enough time sticking to my decision and figuring out the future as it is, thanks.
me: *takes a picture of the card my mom sent me*
me: cursed image
People who say “sincerely believing that ________ is abuse is an insult to real abuse victims” are an insult to real abuse victims.
[text: Instead of saying “There are aces who have been abused for being ace!” what if we started saying “If you don’t believe abuse survivors who are ace, you don’t support abuse survivors.”]