the mushroom jester

my presence is foretold by merry jingling and growing moss

[jamcoffee]

it is time

[jamcoffee]

the true multifandom fiction podcast experience is realizing the sheer amount of nickels you have

[crimrosenberry]

"omgg there's NO platonic explanation for this, I can't imagine doing [typical and completely neutral act of human affection] with my friends!!" Skill issue

[jamcoffee]

not that there’s anything wrong with krusie. i have no ill will towards krusie shippers

but this is what you guys sound like sometimes

[derinthescarletpescatarian]

Sasha “let’s staple these archived documents together” James losing out on a promotion to Jon “archiving is basically the same as research science” Sims:

[Image: parody news article from The Hard Times titled “Man With Half The Facts in Heated Debate with Man With Zero Facts” ]

[derinthescarletpescatarian]

#sasha if youve been doing this for a decade you should have been around for the take out every staple vs leave in existing staples debate#at no point was it add more staples

[clockwork-comets]

The Cradle

[cdigoddess]

[anistarrose]

i'm begging you, you cannot use "sex positive" to mean "enjoys having sex." sex positivity is a pro-sexual liberation political stance, emphasizing sexual autonomy, and freedom from the stigmatization and criminalization of consensual activities. it is good to be sex positive, and everyone should learn to be sex positive. but YOU DO NOT HAVE TO LIKE SEX TO BE SEX POSITIVE. if some people are saying "everyone should be sex positive, being sex negative is wrong," and some people are also saying "sex positive refers to people who like sex," do you understand how dangerously that muddles the message? it makes it sound like the message is "everyone should have and enjoy sex, and not doing so is wrong." which is actually the complete opposite of promoting sexual autonomy. you can't have sexual liberation if sex is something you HAVE to have to be a good person. i genuinely don't want to go nuclear rage on people for making what's often an innocent mistake, but as a person who is politically sex positive, and personally sex-repulsed/averse, it sounds like you're implying i'm actually sex negative, just for not wanting to have sex personally. people on this godforsaken planet constantly get pressured into sex as is, we can't let "having sex is politically good and saying no to sex is politically regressive" gain any more traction

[anistarrose]

to my surprise as much as anyone's, I somehow got through this post without mentioning what the actual term for liking sex is, so a refresher:

sex-favorable: likes having sex. obviously still reserves a right to say no to sex, but enjoys it in the right circumstances

sex-indifferent: covers a wide range of "neither favorable nor averse to sex." a frequent theme, though, is "it's just meh." such a person might genuinely not mind doing it for a partner, but should not be automatically expected to do so.

sex-repulsed: does not want to have sex, and potentially, is also uncomfortable seeing sexual content in general. some people (like me) use the variation sex-averse, meaning we're not repulsed by sex in the context of other people or fictional characters, but are repulsed by sex involving ourselves. you can be sex-repulsed and/or sex-averse, and still respect and support other people's sexual autonomy.

also, you don't have to be asexual to identify with any of these terms. and it's worth noting that some people, both asexual and otherwise, don't really position themselves on the favorable-repulsed spectrum as an identity, and mostly reserve those descriptors for emotions: "i feel favorable towards sex with this person because x & y conditions are met," or "my sex repulsion flares up the most when z happens," for example. a single person can also experience each emotion of favorability, indifference, aversion, and repulsion, or any combination thereof, over their lifetime.

but regardless, for completeness and for contrast:

sex positivity: movement for sexual destigmatization, sexual liberation, and sexual autonomy. emphasis on consent, on normalized queer bodies & relationships, and on decriminalized sex work are crucial. does not mean that "sex is morally good and necessary." that's not at all what sex positivity says about sex — you may have mixed it up with what conservative christians say about sex for reproduction and for pleasing cishet men. speaking of which, our last definition...

sex negativity: belief that sex is morally bad outside of very specific conditions. queer sex is a sin, kink is inherently abusive, porn rots the brain, and as a bonus, asexual people talking about sex in order to actually explain asexuality is corrupting the children. sex is only justifiable under strict, cishet, marital, reproductive conditions (but specifically only white reproduction) (and if a white cishet man rapes someone of a marginalized gender, his victim is the one who gets blamed for it), and any deviation must be punished. sex negativity is not systemically caused by sex repulsion. it is systemically caused by patriarchy, white supremacy, and the entailed religious purity culture. people of any personal favorability (or lack thereof) towards sex can be sex negative.

[prokopetz]

Going on HRT and it makes me look like your mom, which raises several pressing questions.

[wingedcatgirl]

[arowitharrows]

Talking about aromanticism to other people sometimes feels like taking their understanding of romance, love, relationships, marriage and life in general and dumping it all onto the floor to create an absolute mess, then walking away to sit quietly and watch how they react.

By this I mean that a lot of people go through life without ever having to confront or question these topics. You try to explain to them that relationships don’t have to be hierarchical in nature, that one does not have inherently more value than another. You take their neat understanding of romantic vs platonic relationships and destroy it by introducing relationships that don’t fit into either category.

You try to explain that what makes something romantic is the intention behind it and not the action itself. Yes this includes going on dates, kissing, and holding hands. It includes living together.

You try to explain that living alone is something you actually enjoy while also mentioning the isolation caused by societies structure and priorities, about amatonormativity and how it effects everyone. You explain about the way society views unmarried people, about the assumed instability and perceived failure, the financial disadvantages and the costs of living alone. About how you wish the offered solution to these problems was something other than ‘find a partner’.

You try to explain about the definition of love and how it varies from person to person, about how some people don’t feel like they relate to it at all, about how love isn’t a reflection of morality and how not feeling love isn’t synonymous with being evil or inhumane. You try to explain your own complex view of love, how it has been used against you, why you might feel uncomfortable with the way society uses the term, why it’s not exempt of criticism.

But like, you can’t dump all this on someone all at once so you do it gradually and after each step you back off and wait to see how they react and if it goes well and they accept the mess you just made of seemingly simple topics you wait until they come to you and you repeat the process. It takes years sometimes. But it took me years to get here too so. I’m thankful for every person I can still have these conversations with and I’m thankful for every time they actually listen to my point of view and say ‘I never thought of it that way’. And then I just hope that they’ll continue thinking about it.

[jamcoffee]

IS ANYONE GOING TO POINT OUT THAT SKARRSINGER KARMELITA AND THE COGWORK/CLOVER DANCERS HAVE THE SAME MOTIF????

they share their main melody, but that’s not something we see in the other memory bosses. my headcanon is that the dancers taught or trained karmelita to some extent. no evidence for this, they have completely different fighting and dancing styles. it’s just what i wanna believe

the only correlation i can even think of is the similarity between cloverstags in verdania and the hardbones in far fields, but that’s a stretch especially considering that they’re found in other areas too. and i don’t feel like they’d have any reason to lose their leafyness and turn into bone creatures, since karmelita was the source of the greenness in far fields

side note: i ALMOST feel like the main string melody of lost verdania sounds similar to that one section in greymoor, but i think i’m onto nothing there. the two areas are connected though, so i thought i’d mention it. we don’t know what greymoor was like when verdania existed

anyway i haven’t seen anyone else talk about any of this ever. i know technically chris received less lore-based direction for this soundtrack. but there’s no way you can convince me the guy who put the white palace motif in hornet’s memory sequence just happened to give two dancing bosses who existed before pharloom the same melody. nuh uh no way

[jamcoffee]

baccano au where bartolo runorata is a twitch streamer and his goons are the mods

[jamcoffee]

“hey i, did this guy just call the boss bad at games?”

“looks like it, me. and this other guy’s backseating…”

“let’s ban these chumps, i.”

[jamcoffee]

baccano au where bartolo runorata is a twitch streamer and his goons are the mods

[gooseworx]

hap hal

[jamcoffee]

HOW THE WHAT THE MAMA WHAT THE HECK THE WOH MAMMA WOH MAMMA MA WHAT’S WOAH MAMA MIA WHAT’S WHAT’S WHAT THE MAMA MIA WHAT’S WHOA MAMA MIA MAMA MIA

[jamcoffee]

ok uhhhh malevolent 56 spoilers + i have some words so

GOD

they love each other SO MUCH

their relationship is so genuinely beautiful and i could not be happier with how their final moments together were. they had so much to say with so little time (yorick’s a real one for letting them do their thing while still keeping pressure on) but they summarized it so well

john’s come so far as a person, as a human being, and yes. arthur was the catalyst for john’s change, but he still did all the changing himself. he started out as a hateful, superior elder god. and while that’ll always be a part of him, while he’ll always have to recognize that whether he likes it or not, he’s become so much more than that. he’s struggled, and lied, and felt angry, and happy, and jealous, and stupid, and loving, and has cried tears of sadness and mourning and joy and he has become a person. he might attribute all of that to arthur, and i won’t say arthur didn’t help (because he DEFINITELY did), but he’s still the one who changed.

and arthur changed too!! a man who could do almost nothing but beat himself up for everything that’s ever gone wrong in his life. a man who clung to every mistake like it was his daughter. a man who dragged himself through every single day thinking he didn’t deserve to keep going. through the horrors, the perils, the friends, the losses, the pain. he stupidly, stubbornly, held onto life, sometimes without even understanding why. but he learned to love himself. he learned to accept what was gone, what he’d given away, even the parts of himself he thought he’d hate forever.

they grew individually, and they grew together. they made up after every argument. they mended every broken promise. they said stupid things and did stupid things and HATED each other sometimes (i mean just look at the bone church). but that hatred, in the end, only led to more understanding. they were stuck together, and just in time for them to completely accept that, they were presented with the opportunity that both of them would have killed for at the start of this podcast. what they once would have seen as freedom was turned into an inevitability.

but then that inevitability only came for one of them. the other? there was less than nothing waiting for him. and while john fought that at first, he had grown enough to understand that there was only one way.

so they just talked about how much they care for each other.

and that conversation was just so beautiful in every way. arthur telling john how much he’s changed him and influenced him. reassuring him he can do it alone. even john getting mad and throwing around accusations he knew weren’t true, and arthur shooting them down. he didn’t want to die. it wasn’t a transfer of the burden, it wasn’t a copout, it wasn’t him him giving up. it was one of the few moments in arthur’s whole existence where he didn’t want to die.

but he had to. and they both knew that. so he spent his last moments doing everything he could to remind his best fucking friend that life is worth living because you’re alive. it’s everything they’ve experienced together. it’s joy, and suffering, and everything in between and all the little things you can’t even put into words, and it’s all worth it because you’re alive.

i genuinely can’t even explain how much this episode meant to me

jesus fuck

good job harlan

all this for arthur to turn out fine because lilith can’t let her little dude leave

[milksparrow]

[gooseinsoup]

SILKSONG TOMORROW IM SO EXCITED IM SILKING IT IM SILKING IT

[jamcoffee]

holy shaw this is peak

[moodymuu]