Multi Fandoms Mess

Geeky stuff (tv shows/movies etc)....................... Book stuff............ Feminism stuff...... Cute animals stuff....... Proud Ravenclaw ________________________________ https://coldhands-bookworm-sideblog.tumblr.com/ For my ships

[sky-kiss]

Aline being smug about her hot husband. Because she deserves it. A younger Renoir/Aline, because they live in my head rent free right now, cavorting around Paris.

@lethallana was again the loveliest person and didn't run screaming when I asked her to draw me some (younger) hot olds again. Cannot recommend her enough.

Oh. Wait. I guess I should link fic lol. If you get bored and want to read about Renoir and Aline's marriage and pre-game stuff. There's a link.

[tearlessrain]

please help me- i used to be pretty smart but i’m having so much trouble grasping the concept of diegetic vs non-diegetic bdsm!

gfkjldghfd okay first of all I'm sorry for the confusion, if you're not finding anything on the phrase it's because I made it up and absolutely nobody but me ever uses it, but I haven't found a better way to express what I'm trying to say so I keep using it. but now you've given me an excuse to ramble on about some shit that is only relevant to me and my deeply inefficient way of talking and by god I'm going to take it.

SO. the way diegetic and non-diegetic are normally used is to talk about music and sound design in movies/tv shows. in case you aren't familiar with that concept, here's a rundown:

diegetic sound is sound that happens within the world of the movie/show and can be acknowledged by the characters, like a song playing on the stereo during a driving scene, or sung on stage in Phantom of the Opera. it's also most other sounds that happen in a movie, like the sounds of traffic in a city scene, or a thunderclap, or a marching band passing by. or one of the three stock horse sounds they use in every movie with a horse in it even though horses don't really vocalize much in real life, but that's beside the point, the horse is supposed to be actually making that noise within the movie's world and the characters can hear it whinnying.

non-diegetic sound is any sound that doesn't exist in the world of the movie/show and can't be perceived by the characters. this includes things like laugh tracks and most soundtrack music. when Duel of Fates plays in Star Wars during the lightsaber fight for dramatic effect, that's non-diegetic. it exists to the audience, but the characters don't know their fight is being backed by sick ass music and, sadly, can't hear it.

the lines can get blurry between the two, you've probably seen the film trope where the clearly non-diegetic music in the title sequence fades out to the same music, now diegetic and playing from the character's car stereo. and then there are things like Phantom of the Opera as mentioned above, where the soundtrack is also part of the plot, but Phantom of the Opera does also have segments of non-diegetic music: the Phantom probably does not have an entire orchestra and some guy with an electric guitar hiding down in his sewer just waiting for someone to break into song, but both of those show up in the songs they sing down there.

now, on to how I apply this to bdsm in fiction.

if I'm referring to diegetic bdsm what I mean is that the bdsm is acknowledged for what it is in-world. the characters themselves are roleplaying whatever scenarios their scenes involve and are operating with knowledge of real life rules/safety practices. if there's cnc depicted, it will be apparent at some point, usually right away, that both characters actually are fully consenting and it's all just a planned scene, and you'll often see on-screen negotiation and aftercare, and elements of the story may involve the kink community wherever the characters are. Love and Leashes is a great example of this, 50 Shades and Bonding are terrible examples of this, but they all feature characters that know they're doing bdsm and are intentional about it.

if I'm talking about non-diegetic bdsm, I'm referring to a story that portrays certain kinks without the direct acknowledgement that the characters are doing bdsm. this would be something like Captive Prince, or Phantom of the Opera again, or the vast majority of bodice ripper type stories where an innocent woman is kidnapped by a pirate king or something and totally doesn't want to be ravished but then it turns out he's so cool and sexy and good at ravishing that she decides she's into it and becomes his pirate consort or whatever it is that happens at the end of those books. the characters don't know they're playing out a cnc or D/s fantasy, and in-universe it's often straight up noncon or dubcon rather than cnc at all. the thing about entirely non-diegetic bdsm is that it's almost always Problematic™ in some way if you're not willing to meet the story where it's at, but as long as you're not judging it by the standards of diegetic bdsm, it's just providing the reader the same thing that a partner in a scene would: the illusion of whatever risk or taboo floats your boat, sometimes to extremes that can't be replicated in real life due to safety, practicality, physics, the law, vampires not being real, etc. it's consensual by default because it's already pretend; the characters are vehicles for the story and not actually people who can be hurt, and the reader chose to pick up the book and is aware that nothing in it is real, so it's all good.

this difference is where people tend to get hung up in the discourse, from what I've observed. which is why I started using this phrasing, because I think it's very crucial to be able to differentiate which one you're talking about if you try to have a conversation with someone about the portrayal of bdsm in media. it would also, frankly, be useful for tagging, because sometimes when you're in the mood for non-diegetic bodice ripper shit you'd call the police over in real life, it can get really annoying to read paragraphs of negotiation and check-ins that break the illusion of the scene and so on, and the opposite can be jarring too.

it's very possible to blur these together the same way Phantom of the Opera blurs its diegetic and non-diegetic music as well. this leaves you even more open to being misunderstood by people reading in bad faith, but it can also be really fun to play with. @not-poignant writes fantastic fanfic, novels, and original serials on ao3 that pull this off really well, if you're okay with some dark shit in your fiction I would highly recommend their work. some of it does get really fucking dark in places though, just like. be advised. read the tags and all that.

but yeah, spontaneous writer plug aside, that's what I mean.

[reneewalkersknives]

Dream is the perfect male character bc he’s clearly dying from consumption at all times, he cries when someone calls him a friend, he commits acts of hubris he will not survive, his only friends are his bird and his big sister, his biggest opponents are his siblings who hate him for no reason and an insane gay serial killer HE created

[cheshuiniza]

[taisiabelle]

Therapist: Oh, you definitely have daddy issues

Me: no, I don't

Also, me hours later realizing all my favorite fictional characters are older man....

[honkifurhoary]

Prison-Based Animal Programs: Cats, Inmates, and Masculinity

​​by Sophiane Nacer, Metropolitan State University of Denver

I. Introduction 

Prison-based pet programs (PAPs) are a relatively new phenomenon, though interactions between prisoners and animals are anything but (Furst, 2006). PAPs present an opportunity for inmates to engage in meaningful work and give back to the community while also experiencing the therapeutic effects that animal companionship provides (Fournier, 2016). However, there may be more to PAPs than meets the eye. In a prison environment where the inmate code legitimizes the destructive ideals of toxic masculinity, opportunities to practice compassion, empathy, vulnerability, and emotional breadth can be vital to preventing inmates from recidivating upon release (Fournier, 2016). PAPs that use cats may be particularly helpful in inmate resocialization, rehabilitation, and reintegration due to the traditional association between felines and femininity that provides the unique potential to dismantle destructive masculine ideas, ideals, and behaviors in inmates (Fournier, 2016). 

II. Hegemonic Masculinity and Toxic Masculinity 

Hegemonic masculinity is defined as the dominant notion of masculinity in a given context, both historical and geographical, that is comprised of both prosocial and antisocial notions of masculine expectations (Kupers, 2005). Fatherhood, pride in accomplishments, self-reliance, courage, and action-orientation are all examples of masculine attributes that are culturally accepted and valued (Fournier, 2016). Misogyny, ruthless competition, devaluation of feminine attributes, a need to dominate and control others, a readiness towards anger and violence, and hierarchical intermale dominance, are all examples of socially destructive masculine attributes that are perpetuated by the contemporary hegemonic masculine standard (Kupers, 2005). The term toxic masculinity is used to delineate these destructive attributes from the prosocial ones, creating a constellation of socially regressive male traits (Kupers, 2005). 

Toxic masculinity is literally coded into prison life as the “inmate code”, which dictates that a “real man” or a “stand-up con” does not display weakness, does not display emotion other than anger, does not depend on anyone nor display any vulnerabilities, and is quick to violence to defend his place in the prison hierarchy (Kupers, 2005). Men who may not have displayed any overtly toxic masculine behaviors on the outside are forced to adapt to the culture of hypermasculine posturing and violence as a way to survive, through a process known as prisonization (Fournier, 2016). Toxic masculinity within prisons is also reinforced by the institution itself. Both inmates and staff, particularly correctional officers, are expected to be tough, show no vulnerabilities, constantly engage in an intermale struggle for power, and solve problems through brute force (Kupers, 2005). A key example of this is the practice of cell extraction, in which inmates and officers, dressed in riot gear and heavily armed, engage in an acute fight for dominance (Kupers, 2005). Inevitably, cell extractions serve to confirm an inmate’s loss of power and control, two things toxic masculinity requires of a “real man”. With no other acceptable or attainable means of confirming his masculinity, the inmate seeks to overpower and control weaker inmates through acts of violence, such as rape and other forms of physical assault (Fournier, 2016). 

The internalization of and socialization to prison’s culture of toxic masculinity is deeply harmful, both to the inmate himself and to society. Six out of seven inmates will be released back into society after serving their prison sentence, making the need for effective rehabilitation and tools for reintegration critical to decreasing recidivism and social harm (Nellis, 2021). However, the shift from rehabilitation to incapacitation and confinement seen in the 1970s coupled with male resistance to therapy has deeply impaired the ability to counter these devastating effects of prison (Kupers, 2005). 

III. Men, Mental Health, and Prison 

The 1970s not only marked the transition from rehabilitation to incapacitation, but it also marked the beginning of a massive increase in incarceration (Kupers, 2005). As the prison population has quadrupled in the last three decades so has the proportion of inmates needing treatment for significant emotional and psychological problems, a trend attributed to deinstitutionalization, tough-on-crime initiatives, and a shrinking public mental health budget (Kupers, 2005). Prison mental health resources have failed to increase alongside their ever-growing population, meaning that said resources are typically reserved for only the most serious cases, such as prisoners suffering from acute psychosis, suicidal ideation or attempts, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder (Kupers, 2005). This leaves many individuals, including those court-ordered to attend therapy for anger management, sex offenses, and substance abuse, without any recourse (Kupers, 2005).  

Further compounding the limitations of prison mental health treatment is the lack of confidentiality and privacy. Oftentimes, particularly in maximum security units where prisoners are confined to their cells for 23 hours per day, there is inadequate staff to facilitate transport to and from private treatment areas (Kupers, 2005). As such, “cell front” therapy has become increasingly popular (Kupers, 2005). Cell front therapy occurs with the inmate talking to their mental health provider through their cell door, in full view of neighboring inmates and passing correctional officers (Kupers, 2005). This prevents any measure of confidentiality and may put the prisoner at risk depending on the topic being discussed. Institutional rules surrounding mandatory reporting further compromise the privacy of the inmate and any confidentiality cell-front therapy could provide (Kupers, 2005). Lack of resources paired with poor confidentiality serves as external barriers to prisoners obtaining necessary treatments, though these are not the only barriers. 

Men, both outside and inside of prison, tend to underreport emotional and psychological distress, only seeking help when things have reached a point of crisis (Kupers, 2005). This reluctance to seek mental health treatment has been attributed to toxic masculinity, in that it encourages men to repress all emotions other than anger and avoid actions that could be interpreted as dependency or weakness (Woodson, 2019). To succeed in therapy, men must reject a certain amount of the hegemonic masculinity that they have been socialized to since childhood, and in doing so place themselves in a position of rare vulnerability (Kupers, 2005). This is especially difficult for incarcerated men, who are subjected to toxic masculinity at a far greater intensity yet who are also most in need of treatment. Studies have shown that over half of all inmates in US jails and prisons suffer from mental illness, a rate 2-4 times higher than the general population (Satlin, 2013). Suicide rates are also high amongst the incarcerated population at 46 in every 100,000 in US jails (Carson, 2020a) and 21 per every 100,000 in US prisons (Carson, 2020b), compared to 13.4 per every 100,000 in the general population as of 2016 (Suicide, 2021). Men represent 85.7% of jail suicides (Carson, 2020a), 96.2% of prison suicides (Carson, 2020b), and are 3.7 times more likely to commit suicide than women amongst the non-incarcerated US population (Suicide, 2021).  

Mental health services in US correctional facilities today are ineffective, unsafe, and in dire need of both reformation and increased funding. Society’s idealization of traditional masculinity, the most destructive traits of which are perpetuated by pervasive toxic masculinity, has created a significant barrier to men seeking the help they need (Kupers, 2005). The exaggerated form of toxic masculinity that exists within prisons, reinforced both by the inmate code and the institution itself, is directly antithetical to the purpose of corrections as prisoners adopt antisocial traits as a survival technique rather than prepare prosocial coping mechanisms for their eventual reentry into society (Woodson, 2019). For as long as the incapacitation model remains favored, it is unlikely that we will see drastic restoration to rehabilitative efforts. However, prison-based animal programs offer some hope of not only facilitating therapeutic efforts but also minimizing the assimilation of toxic masculine traits and preparing inmates for successful reintegration. 

IV. Prison-Based Animal Programs 

Inmates and animals have a centuries-old history of interaction. Whether its pigeons, lizards, mice, or cats, inmates have shown an appreciation for animals that has surpassed that of the non-incarcerated (Furst, 2006). Researchers studying inmate poetry commented that “perhaps the scarcity of opportunities to develop relationships with non-inmates and the difficulties inherent in connecting with fellow prisoners are responsible for the striking number of poems about the importance of animals" (Furst, 2006). One of the most famous displays of animal admiration from an inmate is that of Robert Stroud, the “Birdman of Alcatraz”, whose rearing of canaries in Leavenworth Federal Prison led him to be recognized as a published ornithologist while incarcerated (Strimple, 2003). There are also less famous cases, such as the first successful prison-based animal program that was established accidentally in 1975, when inmates at Lima State Hospital for the Criminally Insane found and cared for an injured sparrow (Strimple, 2003). After noticing an improvement in inmates’ cooperation with each other and staff, the hospital initiated a year-long comparison study between two identical wards, with one allowing pets and the other not (Strimple, 2003). They found that inmates residing in the pet ward required half the amount of medication, had fewer violent incidences, and had no suicide attempts where the non-pet ward had eight (Strimple, 2003). Considering the body of research that exists supporting the use of animal-assisted therapy in individuals with both physical and psychological illnesses, such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, anxiety, PTSD, and depression, these results showed that animals could have the same beneficial effects for a criminal population (Furst, 2006). This prompted other institutions to create their own prison-based animal programs (PAPs), and by 2006 a nationwide survey of PAPs found that there were 159 PAP sites in forty-six participating states (Furst, 2006). Although this number has continued to grow, a more recent survey has not yet been conducted. 

PAPs are generally categorized into eight different models- visitation programs, wildlife rehabilitation programs, livestock care programs, pet adoption programs, service animal socialization programs, vocational programs, community service programs, and multimodal programs (Furst, 2006). The most common PAP design found in the study was the community service model (33.8%), in which participating inmates train and care for companion animals that are then adopted out to the community, followed by the service animal socialization model (21.1%), which typically train dogs to assist individuals with disabilities (Furst, 2006). 66.2% of PAPs used dogs, followed by cattle (12.7%) and horses (12.7%), where only 1.4% used cats (Furst, 2006). The majority of PAPs required interviews prior to participation (71.8%) as well as a history of good behavior or standing within the institution (54.7%) (Furst, 2006). 59.2% excluded inmates charged with certain crimes, most commonly crimes against animals (59.5%) and sex offenses (45.2%) (Furst, 2006). Funding for PAPs was reported to come primarily from fundraising (52.1%) amongst inmates, staff, the public, and privately-owned companies like PetCo, Petsmart, and Walmart, with further donations received through the humane society, shelter, or rescue with whom the prison partnered (Furst, 2006). 

When asked if they would recommend PAPs to other prison administrators, 60 out of the 61 respondents (98.4%) confirmed that they would, with the one exception commenting that although beneficial to the inmates the programs are not revenue-generating (Furst, 2006). In support of their recommendation, respondents noted that PAPs had many benefits for inmates, including instilling a sense of responsibility and heroism, teaching job skills and parenting skills, providing meaningful work, encouraging patience, boosting self-esteem, reducing violent incidents, and decreasing anxiety amongst both inmates and staff (Furst, 2006). These attributes seem to run in direct contradiction with prison’s culture of toxic masculinity, by substituting it with a culture of compassion, community-mindedness, cooperation, and patience. A study that surveyed both program participants and members of the general prison population who interacted with PAP animals found that inmates “were more nurturing than aggressive, more expressive than stoic, and more cooperative than competitive” (Fournier, 2016). Participants also demonstrated an increased range of emotions which they openly expressed in the presence of others- discussing the joy of successes, the patience required for training, and the grief that comes when their dogs got adopted- something quite different than the heavily constricted expressions of emotion dictated by the inmate code and even normative hegemonic masculinity (Fournier, 2016). PAPs provide inmates with the opportunity to practice healthy masculinity through dedicating their time and efforts to the care of PAP animals. In return for their efforts, inmates are given unconditional positive regard and companionship, enabled to receive and give physical affection, and provided a confidant in an isolating, lonely, and treacherous environment (Fournier, 2016). 

When asked, administrators at facilities with PAPs said that there were no downsides to the program (60%), with only 10.1% citing staff resistance as the only negative, rather than a flaw in the program itself (Furst, 2006). Anecdotally, administrators believed that recidivism amongst PAP participants was drastically lower than the general prison population, but no empirical studies have yet been performed to confirm this (Furst, 2006). With more than 2 million people incarcerated in the US and more than 6.5 million pets who become homeless every year the overwhelming support for PAPs presents a promising, life-saving option (Pets by the Numbers, 2020). PAPs, particularly the community service model in which prisons partner with animal shelters and rescues, are an opportunity to help both animals and prisoners by encouraging the unique bond that has long existed between the two and giving a second chance to two populations in dire need of one. 

V. The Evolution and Perception of Cats 

Cats were improbable candidates for domestication. Wild cats are territorial and live a solitary existence outside of mating and rearing young, making them the only domesticated asocial animal, though the extent to which cats are truly domesticated remains up for debate (Driscoll, MacDonald, & O’Brien, 2009). Dog domestication began 27,000 to 40,000 years ago after humans, living as nomadic hunter-gatherers, found utility in less fearful wolves as barking sentinels and began a long process of artificial selection (Driscoll, MacDonald, & O’Brien, 2009). Cats, on the other hand, do not appear to have been artificially selected by humans at all. Instead, approximately 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, they pioneered their own domestication through natural selection after having seen the benefit of hunting near human granaries and settlements (Driscoll, MacDonald, & O’Brien, 2009). In this sense, cats co-evolved alongside humans, where dogs evolved under direct human influence. 

In addition to their asocial origins and relatively short period of self-domestication, cat behavior is shaped by their status as both predator and prey (Dowling, 2020). Renowned for their hunting skills, cats have traditionally been used to deter mice and other pests; however, their small size places them at risk of being hunted by predators such as large canids, birds of prey, larger felines, and other carnivores (Driscoll, MacDonald, & O’Brien, 2009). As such, cats tend to be cautious, especially in new situations, and have developed a sophisticated body language that masks signs of physical and psychological distress in an effort to avoid predation (Dowling, 2020). This leaves many non-cat-savvy people with the impression that cats are unfriendly, unapproachable, and unpredictable, when in fact cats are simply outliers (Dowling, 2020). 

Oftentimes the principal mistake people make when trying to understand cats is to compare them to another very popular pet- dogs. Dogs, who have undergone many years of domestication during which friendliness and obedience were intentionally selected for, are prosocial predator animals who tend to be confident, approachable, and expressive (Dowling, 2020). Over the course of their evolution, dogs even evolved a special orbital muscle that allows them to mimic the facial expressions of human infants; cats, lacking this muscle, are often denigrated as having “blank stares” or “evil eyes” (Dowling, 2020). Research has shown, however, that there is no difference in the strength of bonds that cats and dogs form with their owners, nor is there a difference in the health benefits owning either provides in terms of lower rates of anxiety and depression, better cardiovascular health, and self-esteem (Dowling, 2020). 

VI. Felines and Femininity 

The oldest example of cats and femininity being linked together is found in Bastet, the cat goddess of fertility, domesticity, childbirth, and sexuality (Mark, 2016). Bastet and the cats of ancient Egypt, a relatively egalitarian society, were revered by both men and women (Mark, 2016). As time progressed, however, the association between cats and femininity persisted while the reverence was lost. 

In 1891 F. B. Harrison, a statesman who would later become the Governor-General of the Phillipines, wrote in The Journal of Education: 

"The fiery spirit, the loud bark, the watchful temperament of the dog give him always a male aspect; and the sleek sleepiness, the treble mew, the spiteful deceit of the cat combine to render her female in character." (Gleeson, 2016) 

By the 19th century, a distinct trend could be noticed in English writing where cats were associated with women and the feminine, while dogs were associated with men and the masculine (Gleeson, 2016). Unlike ancient Egypt, cats and women were not elevated through this comparison. Instead, traits such as aloofness, disloyalty, unpredictability, greed, selfishness, hypersexuality, pettiness, and spitefulness were attributed to cats and the women who were said to resemble them (Smith, 2009). Single women with one or more cats were- and still are- derogatorily labeled “crazy cat ladies”, physical altercations between women are called “cat fights”, and sexually aggressive women are “cats in heat” (Smith, 2009). Furthermore, associating a man with cats- and, by extension, women- is used to challenge his masculinity. Calling a man a “pussy” is considered a grave insult for its association with both female genitalia and cats, and is a sure way to start a fight (Smith, 2009). Even just owning a cat can cause a man to be seen as less masculine, gay or, according to a recent study, less datable (Kogan & Volsche, 2020). 

This delineation separating men from cats is an example of toxic masculinity’s drive to separate all things male from all things female, lest a man’s masculinity be degraded by feminine associations (Smith, 2009). Dogs are “man’s best friend”- action-oriented, quick to please, and obedient- one does not usually have to work hard to gain a dog’s affection, or at least not as hard as one might have to work for a cat’s (Gleeson, 2016). This dynamic caters to toxic masculinity, which has taught men that they should not have to work hard for anyone’s affection; instead, women- and animals- should flock to them and vie for their attention (Gleeson, 2016). According to these same standards, both cats and women are small, weak, and difficult to handle (Smith, 2009). This makes them legitimate targets for abuse, which can be used to affirm masculinity when men feel powerless or when he needs to prove his masculinity to his peers (Smith, 2009). 

However, a new movement- prompted by urbanization, apartment living, and social media- is encouraging men to discard this toxic interpretation of masculinity and “embrace a gentler, more thoughtful kind of masculinity” through cat ownership (Gleeson, 2016). Male cat owners in Australia were found to be 24% more likely to vote for liberal candidates, 29% less likely to believe homosexuality is immoral, and more likely overall to read and play boardgames (Gleeson, 2016). This indicates that, in addition to embracing a traditionally feminine pet, they have globalized their disregard for masculine ideas, such as conservativism and homophobia. While we cannot say which one caused the other- if owning a cat prompted them to adopt a non-traditional masculine identity or if adopting a non-traditional masculine identity prompted them to own a cat- the correlation suggests that associating with cats may do more to combat toxic masculinity than with other animals (Gleeson, 2016). 

VII. Prison-Based Cat Programs 

While still extremely rare, the number of cat PAPs has increased from the solitary program noted in the 2006 PAP survey (Can you have a cat in prison?, 2020). Perhaps the most famous is Indiana State Prison’s cat adoption program where inmates in the maximum-security prison, including those on death row, can apply to adopt a cat from the local animal shelter- a privilege so popular amongst inmates that there is an extensive waitlist (Can you have a cat in prison?, 2020). The program is funded by the inmates themselves, who are expected to keep a job and pay for all associates expenses, with many choosing to make their own cat furniture and toys as well (Can you have a cat in prison?, 2020). With the exception of death row inmates, who are prohibited from interacting with others, cats are permitted to wander the cell block under their owner’s watchful eye to interact with inmates who do not have cats of their own (Can you have a cat in prison?, 2020). This program is one of the few PAPs that are therapeutically focused, in that the element of community service comes secondary to the long-term benefits inmates receive from permanently adopting a cat (Furst, 2006). Maleah Stringer, the executive director of the Animal Protection League, the shelter partner that provides cats to the prison, says: 

“There’s no more risk of the animals being hurt in prison than there is when we adopt to the normal public. The guys stay out of trouble because they know if they get in trouble, they’re going to lose the program. We’ve had more issues with mistreated animals coming back from adoptions than we ever do from the prison program.” (Can you have a cat in prison?, 2020) 

Seeing the success of this program- including a significant decrease in violent incidences and improved mental health among inmates and staff- another cat PAP was established at the Pendleton Correctional Facility, another maximum-security prison in Indiana (Can you have a cat in prison?, 2020). This program operates using a community service model where inmates prepare cats for public adoption (Furst, 2006). The cats remain in a community room rather than in individual cells, and inmates report to the room every morning for their work hours (Can you have a cat in prison?, 2020). Inmates in this PAP along with other cat PAPs focus on socializing cats, building their confidence, addressing any acute behavioral issues, and teaching them basic tricks (O’Conner, 2020). Socialization is particularly important for feral cats, semi-feral cats, and cats who have undergone traumatic events or circumstances, all of whom make up a large percentage of homeless cats (O’Conner, 2020).  

The process of socializing a cat is very rewarding but requires an excess of patience and the understanding that cats will acclimate on their own time rather than yours (O’Conner, 2020). This is one of the attributes that perhaps most differentiates cats from dogs, and may prove even more effective when it comes to socializing inmates towards prosocial behaviors and away from toxic masculinity. Patience, empathy, and compassion are exercised in any PAP, but seem to be especially pronounced in inmate interactions with cats (O’Conner, 2020). Dog PAPs are centered around obedience training and task-completion, which actually reinforces some aspects of toxic masculinity- such as a need for control and dominance over others (Fournier, 2016). Recognizing and adapting to the needs of others is a critical skill for prosocial interactions and reintegration, both of which are necessary when working with cats (Kupers, 2005).  

Cats being a symbol of femininity and their traditional role as “women’s pets” also presents a unique opportunity to overcome toxic masculinity (Gleeson, 2016). Cat PAPs allow inmates to safely embrace a kinder, more compassionate culture of masculinity through their acceptance rather than degradation of a feminine symbol. The value inmates assign to animals, for their nonjudgmental and affectionate companionship, makes cats an ideal form through which to introduce non-hegemonic masculinity into a hypermasculine environment where displays of femininity are traditionally met with violence (Fournier, 2016). In theory, through this introduction, global improvement would occur to the point where the inmate is not influenced by the ideals of toxic masculinity in either choosing his pet, nor in his actions, choices, and opinions (Fournier, 2016). This theory is supported by the aforementioned survey of Australian “cat men”, who showed a global denunciation of toxic masculinity in their rejection of homophobia, conservativism, and stereotypical male hobbies (Gleeson, 2016). This globalized version of healthy masculinity may also remove some of the barriers that prevent successful mental health care within prisons; although cats can do little to increase the funding available to prison mental health services, their promotion of healthy masculinity may leave inmates more open to therapeutic intervention and, if nothing else, can serve as the most confidential of confidants (Kupers, 2005). 

Finally, cats are well-suited to the structural limitations that prisons impose. Cat- more than dogs- can live in cells where space is limited and outdoor exercise may not be guaranteed (Can you have a cat in prison?, 2020). They also do not require frequent outdoor access, which decreases the need for staff involvement and makes them ideal for high-to-maximum security units where PAPs are otherwise difficult to accommodate (Kupers, 2005). While there has not been a survey comparing PAP expenses, it seems likely that cat PAPs incur fewer expenses given the amount the average cat owner spends yearly versus that which a dog, horse, or cattle owner spends (Pet Care Costs, 2017). In a time where prisons are looking for cost-effective methods to reduce recidivism, violent incidents, and mental illness amongst their populations, and animal shelters are looking for ways to save the 860,000 homeless cats euthanized each year, cat PAPs present a unique solution to both (Pets by the Numbers, 2020).  

Conclusion 

The culture of toxic masculinity degrades both women and cats while legitimizing their abuse as a way of affirming one’s masculinity (Smith, 2009). That same culture amplifies the physical and psychological dangers of confinement by creating intermale competition, encouraging violence and anger, and legitimizing the abuse of weaker inmates in the interest of confirming one’s power within prison walls (Kupers, 2005). In this way toxic masculinity serves to both manufacture and perpetuate violence, crime, and societal harm. Finding novel, inexpensive, and prosocial ways to combat the destructive aspects of hegemonic masculinity both within and outside of correctional facilities is critical, particularly in a time where rehabilitation is set aside in favor of incapacitation and funding is being diverted away from mental health resources to pay for an ever-growing prison population (Kupers, 2005). PAPs are on the forefront of innovative therapeutic methods that benefit both the participating inmates and the community at large (Fournier, 2016). Cat programs, although currently rare, should be considered especially effective for their potential to globally dismantle socialized toxic masculinity and prisonization. 

Works Cited 

Can you have a cat in prison? (2020, November 18). Retrieved May 01, 2021, from https://prisoninsight.com/can-you-have-a-cat-in-prison/ 

Carson, E. A., & Cowhig, M. P. (2020a). Mortality in Local Jails, 2000-2016 – Statistical Tables (pp. 1-29, Rep. No. NCJ 251921). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. doi:https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mlj0016st.pdf?utm_content=mci&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery 

Carson, E. A., & Cowhig, M. P. (2020b). Mortality in State and Federal Prisons, 2001-2016 – Statistical Tables (pp. 1-24, Rep. No. NCJ 251920). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. doi:https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/msfp0116st.pdf 

Dowling, S. (2020, May 20). Why do we think cats are unfriendly? Retrieved May 03, 2021, from https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191024-why-do-we-think-cats-are-unfriendly 

Driscoll, C. A., Macdonald, D. W., & O'Brien, S. J. (2009). From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(Supplement 1), 9971-9978. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901586106 

Fournier, A. K. (2016). Pen pals: An examination of human–animal interaction as an outlet for healthy masculinity in prison. Men and Their Dogs, 175-194. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30097-9_9 

Furst, G. (2006). Prison-based animal programs. The Prison Journal, 86(4), 407-430. doi:10.1177/0032885506293242 

Gleeson, H. (2016, December 11). Hail the rise of cat men, an antidote to toxic masculinity. Retrieved May 01, 2021, from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-11/the-rise-of-cat-men-antidote-to-toxic-masculinity/8082618?nw=0 

Kogan, L., & Volsche, S. (2020). Not the cat’s Meow? The impact of posing with cats on Female perceptions of Male Dateability. Animals, 10(6), 1007. doi:10.3390/ani10061007 

Kupers, T. A. (2005). Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 713-724. doi:10.1002/jclp.20105 

Mark, J. J. (2016, July 24). Bastet. Retrieved May 8, 2021, from https://www.worldhistory.org/Bastet/#:~:text=Bastet%20is%20the%20Egyptian%20goddess,associated%20with%20women%20and%20children. 

Nellis, A. (2021). No End in Sight: America's Enduring Reliance on Life Imprisonment (pp. 1-45, Rep.). Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project. doi:https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/no-end-in-sight-americas-enduring-reliance-on-life-imprisonment/ 

O'Connor, G. (Director). (2020, November 19). The Cats that Rule the World: Prison Cat, Galileo [Video file]. Retrieved May 1, 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqGvJlDO5Vo&t=14s 

Pet Care Costs. (2017, May 17). Retrieved May 8, 2021, from https://www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/pet_care_costs.pdf 

Pets by the numbers. (2020, December 26). Retrieved May 07, 2021, from https://humanepro.org/page/pets-by-the-numbers 

Satlin, A. (2013, February 04). Mental illness soars in prisons, jails while inmates suffer. Retrieved May 9, 2021, from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mental-illness-prisons-jails-inmates_n_2610062 

Smith, S. E. (2009, September 26). Felinity and Femininity [Web log post]. Retrieved May 01, 2021, from http://meloukhia.net/2009/09/felinity_and_femininity/#:~:text=Today%2C%20of%20course%2C%20cats%20are,who%20like%20cats%20are%20emasculated.&text=Cats%20and%20female%20sexuality%20are,they%20are%20objectified%20and%20sexualized. 

Strimple, E. O. (2003). A history of prison inmate-animal interaction programs. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(1), 70-78. doi:10.1177/0002764203255212 

Suicide. (2021, May 2). Retrieved May 9, 2021, from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide 

Woodson, M. (2019). The Best We Can Be: How Toxic Masculinity Creates a Second Inescapable Situation for Inmates. Public Interest Law Reporter, 24(2). 

[sarahs-delights]

Off to see Dracula, A Comedy of Terrors in the West End today and I cannot wait!!

[daydreamer11587]

Since there are people demanding for Dong Mae’s head to roll because of the hair cutting scene and making looooooooong paragraphs of rants out of it (and judging people too, mind you), mostly depending on assumptions and speculations when in fact there is no further explanation on it yet, I feel like there’s no harm for me to list down the possibilities and speculations shared online on why he did what he did too, right? 

1. “ 1. [+6012, -148] The reason he cut her hair is because Takashi asked Lee Wan Ik what he thinks the children of those who were in the Righteous Army in 1895 are doing right now and if Ae Shin is the child of those soldiers in the Righteous Army then he’s suspecting that it’s also possible that she’s participating in the Righteous Army activities so that’s why he (Lee Wan Ik) did a background check on her parents’ names - Dong Mae cut her hair because if Ae Shin cuts her hair, it means that she gave up on Joseon’s spirit and she won’t be suspected of being in the Righteous Army” - Naver article comment via ddo_boja translation;

2.  I believe Dong-mae cut her hair to keep her in her house, to keep her away from the dangerous situation. Dong-mae knew that Wan-ik will soon finds Ae-shin is the child of Righteous Army member, and he tried to protect her in his own way. While Gojong and Eugene “imprisoned” their people to protect, Dong-mae cut Ae-shin’s hair since he doesn’t really has governmental authority to keep Ae-shin in captivity. 

Thus I think he cutted her hair to be entangled in scandal instead of Ae-shin, who just broke the engagement with Hee sung. Since almost every people in the streets saw the incident, they will keep look at their precious lady, Ae-shin to protect from further conflicts. Hence, even if Wan-ik finds out that Ae-shin is the child of the Righteous army, it would be not easy for him to do something to Ae-shin because there will lots of eyes watching her. Ae-shin can be the complete victim and cover up her scandal, and it will also keeps Ae-shin to move - holding a gun. - Yurim Kim on Dramabeans comments;

3. (This one is just a summary from the post, not a direct translation plus a bit of my comments echoing :P).  Dong Mae truly meant it when he was saying that he doesn’t care even if the whole world becoming his enemy including Ae Shin and then deliberately cut her hair in front of a lot of people (me: with tears brimming in his eyes too!). When doing this, the public will see that he is a Japanese gangster doing harm towards Ae Shin who is the granddaughter of the respected Lord Go Sa Hong (Me: the public were mad when Lord Go was detained by their /King/, what more Dong Mae?). When seeing a lowly Japanese gangster like Dong Mae harming their precious Young Lady, it will make the public so shocked and so angry. How dare he cut our precious Young Lady Ae Shin’s hair? Their anger at the Japanese will be even more extreme and Lee Wan Ik wouldn’t be able to do anything to harm Ae Shin because the public will stand by her. The public’s gossips about Ae Shin’s broken engagement scandal will be replaced by their sympathy towards her for her hair being forcefully cut by a Japanese gangster. Dong Mae is purposely making the public, including Ae Shin, becoming his enemy this way as it could help protecting Ae Shin. - from The Qoo discussion post

[avelera]

Viktor and Jayce both need to take some non-STEM classes

I'm joking but also a little not-joking that this is in fact, a theme in the show.

In Season 1.08, Ambessa meets Jayce for the first time after he's become a councilor. One of the first questions she asks him is, "Do they teach military history at your Academy, Mr. Talis?"

Jayce takes this as a set up for an insult against him. He's rattled by the bathhouse and braced for a fight. He's so riled, in fact, that he completely misses what Ambessa is probing him for there.

Ambessa wasn't setting him up to make him feel small, like Jayce feared, she wanted to know if he had a military history background or even the beginnings of the skills needed as an engineer to understand or counter some of the political manipulations she's about to pull on him.

Jayce answers: I'm not sure.

Not only has Jayce never taken a military class, he as a scientist doesn't even know if his school offers it.

That made him easy pickings for Ambessa. She wouldn't even need to be subtle, she could use the most basic tricks in the book against a proud young man with only a scientific background and know he wouldn't even begin to have the tools to pick up let alone counter what she's doing to him.

And then we get to Viktor in S2. Now, I think "How much of Cult Leader Viktor is even Viktor?" is a fair question. But the whole Machine Herald ethos he seems to be working towards in his inner monologue in 2.06 is yet another example of "Won't someone PLEASE make these boys take some sort of liberal arts class? An ethics course? SOMETHING?"

Viktor is working his way (Hexcore influence or no) to the conclusion that many frustrated young activists have hit upon when their activism doesn't work.

He tried to help people. But people didn't want to be helped or didn't cooperate with the way he wanted to help them.

His conclusion? Clearly it's the people who are wrong. It's the people who need to be changed.

To quote Pratchett, "“People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn't that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people.”

And of course, once you start to see people as the problem, that people need to be fundamentally changed, added, or subtracted from, when you treat people as things, that is when the real evil begins.

You have to accept people as they are and work within those bounds, because otherwise you have to change people and that pretty much always leads to the sort of atrocities that the Machine Herald seems gearing up to do. Namely, add and subtract away the people, or the characteristics of people, that don't fit his vision for the world.

And all I can think is: won't Piltover Academy please for the love of god make your tech bros take some goddamn history and philosophy classes please??

[avelera]

So, wild enough, I think this meta was confirmed in the finale?

Jayce and Viktor are both smart but they're not wise.

Much of the Arcane finale episodes was a deep dive into what Jayce and Viktor needed to learn.

Jayce got an absolutely brutal graduation from the school of hard knocks.

While he's trapped in that pit, you can see him reviewing all the events that brought him there and while doing so, he makes some important conclusions:

He's been manipulated by the Medardas in order to gain access to his and Viktor's research, as well as to further Hextech. While Jayce still cares about Mel as a person after this, he calls her out and effectively breaks up with her and I would say this soul searching where he gained a lot of wisdom and did a ton of self-reflection was part of that. It led him to the conclusion that he can't trust her and he was deeply hurt by her manipulations, though of course he still cares for her as a person and wishes her well in life.

Meanwhile, Viktor the disappointed activist got a lesson from his future self.

He was directly shown the ultimate results of his philosophically simplistic worldview. An older, wiser Viktor showed him that the Machine Herald would make a desert and call it a peace.

So I was kind of joking by saying that Jayce and Viktor's arcs were an indictment of a STEM educations failures to expand their students' worldviews with things like 1) an understanding of rhetoric and manipulation (Jayce) and 2) philosophy and ethics enough to understand when their simplistic solution to the world's ills would lead to horrors. But I think in the process of analyzing these, I may have accidentally hit on two of the flaws the show specifically set out to address in them, which is their lack of wisdom and experience despite their very high intelligence.

[kateknowsdramas]

So without being too obvious, I will do it. The proposal.

[kateknowsdramas]

I will stay by your side. Even if you push me away, I will stay right here.

[zaruba-needslove]

Ngl I feel like some of the reactions regarding Gilchae in episode 17 was a bit unfair and biased, to just over simplify it to just Gilchae still being 'prideful'

I mean... the ONLY reason Gilchae returned to Joseon was because Janghyun told her to do so. Because Janghyun told her that he had grown sick and tired of HER. She LEFT because it's what Janghyun WANTS!

And the whole thing about her living a 'flashy and fashionable' life? That was because Janghyun told her that she should reclaim back her life and live her life the way she used to live. And THAT caused her grievance because she can no longer live that kind of life and show THAT to Janghyun to show that she was living 'well'. THAT should be the reason why she didn't want to show her current state to Janghyun.

Heck, the only reason why she did that trick about still being married and pregnant was because Ryang-eum TOLD her to meet with Janghyun and show him that she was 'doing well' and to make Janghyun give up on her. Gilchae did that because she thought that was what Ryang-eum wanted her to do. Because Ryang-eum told her that Janghyun always gets hurt whenever she was involved. Yet after all of that, Ryang-eum still BLAMES her for so 'easily' letting Janghyun go and for still being 'prideful'. Even when she's doing it for him because Gilchae knows that Ryang-eum didn't like her to see Janghyun!

And THIS is coming from Gilchae who used to LOVE listening to Ryang-eum singing!

It's like people forget that as much as Gilchae do carry herself with confidence, she do still have her own insecurities and fears. I mean, her dad had almost killed her just because he thought that doing that would prove her 'innocence'. Her own sister, ex-husband and other people around her kept asking her if she really had been taken advantage of by the foreign intruders as if that was the only worth that she have and probably wouldn't believe her anyway if she said she fought hard to protect her chastity. Even if nothing really happened to her (as in her being violated sexually and penetratively) people will still see her as 'dirty' just because she had been kidnapped and taken out of Joseon or as much as had her hands or bare skin touched by the foreign intruder. No one would bother to listen to her reasoning as to why she hurt herself and create a scar on her head just to avoid serving someone in bed, much less believe that she fought for her life to protect herself. People would just assume she had been violated already.

Like seriously, how dare Ryang-eum assumed it was so 'easy' for her to let Janghyun go?

She had been abandoned by her ex-husband JUST for that reason alone! Won't Gilchae worry that Janghyun would do the same? The same Janghyun who even caught the interest of a Qing princess? Of course she'd feel that she no longer had any right to pursue Janghyun anymore. Of course she won't think she could still be with Janghyun again as much as she was able to divorce her husband after knowing who was it that she truly love. And Janghyun did say that he'd grown tired and sick of her!

If there was any other pride left in her, it's that she didn't want Janghyun to come for her out of pity. To which Janghyun's confession of love just dispel that last bit of doubt in her.

Like I get it people had feelings for Ryang-eum after the reveal about his past. But that doesn't mean that twit don't still do some selfish things. It doesn't justify the lies that he made as well thinking that Gilchae was the only one that causes bad things to happen to Janghyun.

If not because Janghyun had to care about all of the other captives (because Ryang-eum kept whining abt it; and Ryang-eum don't do anything much afterwards ANYWAY to help those captives go home or even take care of them, he just left that to Janghyun to deal with), Gak-hwa wouldn't have HAD that other leverage to hold on to Janghyun! Who was it actually being a 'curse' to Janghyun?

[stickypearl]

Just based on the first episode My Dearest seems like it’s gonna have my fav dynamic which is two leads who are insufferable separately and even worse together

[bitacrytic]

We love a consistent man in this household

I usually hate it when characters only change their perspective when it directly concerns them or someone they love. It's realistic but so heartbreaking.

But Janghyun has been consistent in one thing: rape doesn't ruin a woman.

He's said this about strangers. He's said this to the little gisaeng that grew up. Which was why his reaction to Gilchae was magical.

He wasn't just suddenly realizing it. He wasn't just changing his mind because the woman he loved had been violated. He wasn't making an accommodation just for her.

He was just stating a fact that he believes: she deserves hugs not insults.

[kateknowsdramas]

I never wished for you to die in my place. What I want is...

[migumii]

I think it's interesting that in the first half of My Dearest, Lee Jang Hyun was constantly portrayed as this greedy merchant who only cared about money. There was this entire narrative about him that he bought his way into this privileged life and people looked down on him because he was very vocal about his refusal to throw himself onto a sword for a king who didn't even care for his people. He was thought to be spoiled and shallow and everything that was the opposite of honorable. And yet, the entire second half of the drama shows us just how honorable and steadfast this man is.

We are shown examples of true greed in this drama. We see it in the king and his ever growing paranoia that stops at nothing to keep him at the top. We see it in Jang Hyun's father who sends his daughter off to die for loving a boy that threatened his power. Then we see it again when his father gives the command to kill Jang Hyun because Jang Hyun threatened to shatter everything that's precious to him. We see greed in Guk Hwa and her need to have everything she desires, even when they're vocal about not wanting to be with her. We see so many more examples of what greed is and the consequences of greed for more power. And yet, Jang Hyun is none of those examples. He dedicates his life to protecting his people, and those people are strangers who were just unlucky in their imprisonment by the enemy. He literally gives up his wealth to free the captured and give them the dignity of walking back home to their own country.

He's also dedicated to one woman and he refuses to let anything get between them. He fought off armies to go back to his hometown. His hometown, which isn't a location, but a woman. How beautiful is it that despite his memory loss his body feels the longing and loss for Gil Chae as he looks up at the moon. He might not have remembered her face or name but he remembers every single moment they had together, starting from the very beginning all the way to the end. Unknowingly, he retraces his steps back home with the memories he had of the woman he loves. Lee Jang Hyun had their entire life set up for them and was waiting for her without even realizing who he was waiting for. I can't stop thinking about how a love like that is a love meant to survive anything and everything. There's no man like Lee Jang Hyun. His "greed" was just a front. His true self is a man of integrity and loyalty. He loves so hard and protects so fiercely.

It truly was an honor watching his story and it's a story I'll be thinking about for a very long time.

[migumii]

My Dearest ep. 17

god, that entire confession scene at the end of ep 17 has to be one of the most beautiful confession scenes ever and for so many reasons too. It was beautiful because Jang Hyun's finally clearly putting into words how he feels about her. He lets her know how sincere his love for her is because the only thing that matters to him is her, just Gil Chae. It makes no difference to him if she's poor or rich, if she's rude or obedient, if she loves him or not. Because nothing will change his feelings for her. And this directly reassures a lot of her insecurities.

She's always had the advantage of being a noble and the privilege that comes with it. Now she has nothing but he still loves her. She's stated in an earlier episode that she is who she is, whether it's arrogant and loud or just beautiful and nice to be around and she wouldn't be changing that for anyone. Jang hyun appreciates every aspect of her personality. And her biggest issue with Jang hyun has always been his past history with other woman and this reputation of him being a player. She always worried that he'd lose interest or wasn't serious about her, but here he is standing in front of her letting her know that his feelings will not waver. He will continue to love her. He also drops the bombshell of how much she affected him from the first moment he laid eyes on her. It was love at first sight for this "player" and he knew that everyone else before Gil Chae was insignificant because he had never felt the way he feels about her about any other person.

The other absolutely beautiful part about this ending scene (and my personal favorite) was the comfort he provides her. Because after being abandoned and blamed by her husband for being violated by intruders, her mistrust/hesitance is completely understandable. She asks him 'what about a Gil Chae who's been violated by an intruder?' And at first you can kinda see the anger/stoicism in his eyes because he's angry. Not angry at her. But angry that she was violated in the first place and that she was hurt again by the world for being a victim. Then he softens and says what I think Gil Chae's been wanting to hear for a very long time. He comforts her and offers his warmth because he knows she's in pain. He knows she went through hell and back. She's had to be so strong for literally everyone around her in order to survive. And now, here's her man holding her and telling her that she did such an amazing job at holding on and not giving up. He tells her she no longer needs to worry because he's here and he'll protect her and because now she knows the whole truth and the amount of times he's already saved her, she can rely on him. She knows she's safe now.

I think those words were just as impactful as his confession of his love because we have to remember that as the audience we got to see everything Gil Chae went through. Every single heartbreaking decision she had to make to survive. The strain it put on her mind and body. Jang Hyun did not see those moments but because he knows her and understands the brutality of war he has a very good idea of what she must have went through. Gil Chae doesn't need to explain herself to him. She doesn't need to convince him that it was her fault. He tells her that if she would like to tell him, he would listen. And yet, he basically tells her he's proud of her and holds her, allowing her to lean on someone else for a moment. I cried watching this scene just because I couldn't help but think of the relief she must have felt in that moment. I was happy she had the love of her life back and she could take refuge in his arms for the time being.