The internet seems to have latched onto the story of Icarus but there are so many misconceptions about the myth itself? For one thing it’s not really its own separate myth, it’s connected to the story of the Minotaur and the inventor Daedalus. And Apollo has absolutely nothing to do with it. At all.
The story is that Daedalus is imprisoned along with his son in the labyrinth (y’know the one with the Minotaur and the string to find your way out?) and in order to escape he creates wings made of wax. He warns his son, Icarus, that the wings will melt if he flies too high (close to the sun) and they could get wet and fall apart if he flies too low (close to the sea). Icarus, however, is a kid/teenager who has been imprisoned for years and probably barely remembers what it felt like to be free. His first taste of freedom is literally flying and because of his age he has less self control and he becomes elated with the feeling of flying away from his prison. He looses himself in the joy of flying, and even as his father is screaming and crying for him to stop, he soars and dives and has the time of his life with those wings. He goes as high as he can to touch the clouds and plunges back down to feel the sea spray. But the wings can’t take it. They fall apart even as his father begs him to stop, just fly level. Icarus falls from the sky into the middle of the sea and drowns while Daedalus can do nothing but watch as his own invention kills his son, carrying him forward even as his little boy drowns at sea.
That is the story of Icarus. He was not a handsome Greek Hero, he was not arrogant, Apollo had nothing to do with it, and he was not an adult. He was a kid who got too caught up in his freedom that he forgot to be safe. The moral of this story isn’t don’t go too high or even listen to your parents, it’s don’t get so caught up in your fun that you throw caution to the wind.
Conner Kent basically is a child from (medical) rape. Not calling him Clark's child is basically the mentally healthiest way to cope with this for everyone involved.
Note #1: I first want to apologize for taking this long to respond, though it's not the only time that's happened and probably won't be the last. I'm still surprised that this particular blog even got an "ask", to be honest! That being said:
WARNING: This post is about—among other things—sexual assault, properly defining/utilizing the terms and has a few violent descriptions within it. Some possibly unpopular and controversial opinions are below. Absolutely no harm or insult to any person or group was intended while I typed this out (including to the "asker"). I hope any possible readers will make it to the end before judging. I've typed this up for anybody, with no one in particular in mind, so 'you' therefore, refers to anyone as well as what's said in the "ask". This gets into and brings up a lot different subjects and ideas in regards to the Kal-Kon family relationship (both in-universe ones and meta ones), so apologies to the above anonymous user if it ever seems like I'm going off on a tangent; although I like to think all of this was relevant to the "ask" in some way.
As always, I'll try to be open-minded to differing opinions/information and I hope any possible errors made can be forgiven. This is also going to be really, REALLY L--O--N--G because I have a hard time giving short, straight-to-the-point responses for anything, I guess. Especially topics that have wide-reaching implications. I switch between character names a lot (and other quirks), may get a little repetitive (but I will try to make new points each time) and I also may at times be harsh on Clark here (but it's arguably DC Comics and their partners that are truly at fault, not him).
Note #2: I've always wanted to make a post about why Clark's treatment of Conner throughout the years has been questionable writing at best and detrimental to Clark's character at worst [as part of a not-yet-completed series on what's destroying Superman's character and legacy these days, in fact] but maybe this will end up being that post [or they'll just share many points/arguments in common].
Sorry, but I'm not playing that game. Only rape is rape. You comparing (and perhaps twisting) Conner Kent's/Kon-El's creation to being that of a "child from (medical) rape"—which, mind you, I can't help but be reminded of "rape baby" (one of the names unfortunately often used on such victims-by-proxy for the wrong reasons) when I read it—is not only, to me, an insult to any version of the character's backstory and the hardship they've gone through, but to those who have actually experienced the trauma of rape or other forms of sexual assault (or being conceived from any such act).
While I understand why some interpret Kon's creation that way/where the belief comes from, I feel that's only one possible interpretation and one that unfortunately—on top of promoting offensive and less-than-rational conclusions—might actually be missing the point about the real reason(s) Kon got and still gets treated the way he does.
First off, let's get down to how every version of Kon was created before getting into the details of the origin of one or another, and proving how none of them sprouted from rape: Kon is, put simply, a genetically engineered progeny; a form of "test tube baby" (not meant to be disparaging). He was made in an undoubtedly sterile (purposefully loaded word) lab from the ideas, research-based input and experimentation of dozens of scientists and geniuses, his human parent typically included. (Note how I didn't name a human parent? I'll get to that.) After many failed attempts, there was a success, first dubbed Experiment 13.
There was no warmth or genuine intimacy involved in E13's creation, just as is the case with 95% to 100% of sexual assaults (I'm trying not to assume how it went for all victims). However, there was also no physical contact, beyond perhaps the extraction/finding and adding together of DNA-type substances. (You know, what with every version of Kon being treated solely as science experiments in their early days and all.) Without physical contact, specifically/particularly/especially of the sexual variety, already the case for Superman being "raped" begins to fall apart and we can get closer to what fandom/societal problem is really behind this idea being pushed and what truth is continually missed/hidden due to said problem acting as a cover.
Continuing from before: So, as we all know, almost every version of Kon-El/Conner Kent get's his DNA from a male kryptonian progenitor (always Kal-El/Clark Kent unless stated otherwise) together with the also-male human progenitor's, and rarely anywhere else. These days most versions of Conner seem to be the half-human genetic child of Lex Luthor and Superman, and it's been like that for a while. In the beginning however, he was solely a clone of Superman before it was later decided that he was actually an altered clone of some now-forgotten man named Paul Westfield and that he only mimicked Superman's powers. They later changed it up again ("retconned" it) to the Lex Luthor/Superman combination origin(s) for the 2000's version of him, but in doing so, made it clear in BIG, bright letters that Kon is not a "clone" anymore.
Unless—we're calling him a binary clone (what we all are).
That's right, a binary clone is one of many words for child. It's just a specific type of child/progeny. Here's another definition example, with the same description. I would hope no one needs to see the definition for child, too, but you never know. So, notice how so many of the definitions for child match up with what Kon is? What are the people that argue that Superboy is not Superman's—or that he's neither Clark's nor Lex's child—really trying to say or inadvertently saying, I wonder? That Kon is no one's child? That he isn't even a child (unless someone wants him)?? Good luck using that logic with real life "test tube children" (in-vitro children, if we want to be clinical), foster children and adoptees. Bet they'll really appreciate the insensitivity.
As for his age? Why does that matter? At his oldest, he's an upper teen, so still an impressionable minor. And who ever said you needed to pop up in someone's life as a perfect, little chubby cherub to be their child? Who said your parents needed to accept you/get the chance to raise you, for you to be directly descended from them? If a parent dies before a child is born (and stays dead), is the child not their child anymore? Even if someone meets their kid—that may appear to others, to have been created when the parent was a teenager—when the youngling is already a teenager him/herself now, that's still their child, isn't it? Look at all the questions that we are forced to ask when certain fans try and come up with arbitrary definitions, explanations and excuses (or ignore preexisting ones) for what makes a child a child.
As far as I can see, Superman is not delusional nor prone to denialism and isn't known for letting his emotions (or what some believe his emotions are or should be) get the best of him. At least, he's not supposed to be. Some writers in the past have had different ideas on that. In my opinion, they often ruin things for a large amount of us though, seeing as engaging in poor, contradictory behavior will never automatically = a character being more complex. It's more likely that the character will just come across as very petty, selfish, obnoxious or callous, things Superman generally should not be; maybe even should never be.
All that is to say that the need to pretend Kon is anything but Clark's (and Lex's) child in-universe and based on real-life standards, has nothing to do with authentic science or logic and at times doesn't even involve an agreed on continuity. You (the "asker") may already realize this (since you mentioned mental health and coping in your "ask") but many others don't seem to yet. In fact, the exact science isn't what matters, considering how the situation is fictional and therefore mostly pseudoscience anyway.
And even if it wasn't fictional, consider that animal reproduction is technically considered sexual whether two organisms had sex/copulated or not because of the act of the male and female gametes (sex cells) coming together. Based on that, can or can't Kon be considered just another typical mammal (mammal-alien hybrid?) made through a form of sexual reproduction, even if he wasn't made from the combining of male cells and female cells (typically not used in his case) nor (most likely) any sexual cells at all? Does it even make a difference in regards to his parentage? In reality, it actually doesn't and that question is only a pedantic-semantics one. All such questions are.
What actually matters here is the basics. Cells/DNA from these two beings were melded together to make another being. No intercourse was needed or involved. A large amount of people would still consider that as a child being made, with or without the added story context. (Many mythologies have had similar events happen in them, fwiw.) So why shouldn't our honest, selfless and compassionate Superman view it that way? Where is the extensive evidence that this is solely about Clark and his family's feelings anyway, especially in the present day? I'm sure that may be the excuse some writers hide behind, but let's be real here.
Clark, in multiple continuities, has had no problem giving Kon a name (twice, if you count Conner Kent too), encouraging him to have a secret identity like Clark, so he also gets to live his life outside of being a hero, has occasionally been seen spending time with Kon by choice, mentoring him, fighting alongside him, sending Kon to the boy's grandparents for raising in the calm, warm town of Smallville (where Clark himself was raised), enrolling him in school in that same town, literally considering him family...but he won't dare go as far as to call him son??
Now, don't get me wrong. Do I believe Superman knew what was going on just before and during Superboy's artificial development? No. He never knows until after Superboy is already out in the world flying around. Does that make it non-consensual and somewhat or very violative to him? Of course. But besides these adjectives/descriptors and (if you want to count it) the springing of a child from the experiments, the situation actually—again, I say—has little in common with rape.
(POSSIBLY VERY TRIGGERING LANGUAGE FOUND BELOW. If you can, pay special attention to what words I put emphasis on.)
Rape can be and is many awful things. The severity of the act can range from little to no bodily injury but major emotional/psychological harm from awareness of the unwanted/forced sexual contact you were put through, to very extreme bodily and mental harm. It can cause tearing, often-heavy bleeding and infection in any targeted orifice (vagina, anus, mouth and/or throat) that can take months to heal from or that the person never fully recovers from. It can make it painful to move and do certain positions with the body. For specifically the female reproductive system, it can lead to damage that's so horrible that a woman can no longer reproduce and so is left infertile. Or she can be left with a pregnancy that's taken root in her own body that she of course was not planning—since it was forced into her—and one she often won't feel like she can handle birthing. There's also always a chance that she could die during the months before the labor begins, if not during the birth itself.
In the case of one form of medical rape (which again, I don't believe Clark was put through, unless you're talking about a different definition for it), it's rape because the victim gets impregnated by semen that they did not agree to have used on them. So it's rape by deception, if not also due to the disturbingly forceful nature that 'fertility treatment' often comes with.
Can someone tell me what about any of that, purposefully emphasized words and all, is the same as how Kon was created? Am I really supposed to believe that Superboy's surprise creation through indirect means, is equivalent to the above in any way for any person involved? In the early years of the character's creation, it was implied or outright stated that Superboy got his Superman DNA from scientists—I believe CADMUS—stealing Clark's presumed-dead body and taking a bit from it (Kon was originally supposed to replace Clark, but not destroy him). What did they get? Maybe a hair? A skin cell from one of his arms? I'm not sure.
However, this was in the early years and the most violative it ever got. (Actually, I don't recall that version of Superman being all that shaken up over the matter compared to how some seem to think every version has been regarding Kon's creation, even though that one probably had some of the biggest reasons to be; he even reached out to Superboy first, in fact. Only to be rejected by him.) It also wasn't, and is still, not rape. It's overall more comparable to someone stealing his/her ex's or one night stand's condom off their body or from the trash to cause a pregnancy. A horrendous deed—but not rape.
I'm stating all this because your claim is built on a false premise. One that likely comes from an over-reliance on and desire for extreme comparisons/equivalencies. One that appears to be a very common opinion in the fandom, but which is still misguided. It's imperative that we try not use the word rape (or related words) to seriously describe any other different action just because we disapprove of it. It's superbly harmful and frankly, disingenuous.
Are you calling the situation rape because you truly feel that this is what happened or because it's the worst word you could think of to try to make people feel even more horrified than they may already feel about the situation, and to shut down conversation on Clark's strange behavior toward and relationship with, Conner? Is it that you do realize that sexual assault is a severe issue and definitely no laughing matter, so you use mention of it so flippantly to emphasize your point, not realizing that this is only contributing to the problem?
I often wonder if a huge reason for this is because many nowadays are, thankfully, far more knowledgable of the importance of consent, but to the unfortunate extent that they separate it from the actual acts that make sexual assault, well, sexual assault. Again, lack of consent by itself is not what makes something rape. There has to at the least be forced penetration involved, too and arguably blatant sexual intention.
Likewise: Stealing someone's wallet or squeezing all the money out of their bank account without their knowing, is not "financial rape". Beating someone to a pulp and leaving them there injured is not "punching rape". Wiping someone's mind of memories is not, technically, "mind rape" (despite how popular that term is now). Leaving a baby or puppy on someone's doorstep and hoping/expecting that the owner of the home will sacrifice their time to raise them, is not "nurture rape" (or "nurture coercion" for that matter). You know why all the previous is true? Because, again, only rape is rape!
Languages are always changing, adapting, sometimes shrinking but also expanding. We often add definitions to words that may not have been implied before and use metaphors and other figurative speak to make points. However, words have those original definitions for a reason and especially in the case of crime and morality, it is not wise to dilute the meanings of words for your personal opinions/arguments/headcanons. That is not only hurtful but possibly dangerous.
If you feel that this or that version of Clark is right to be weirded out by Conner for being created 'unnaturally' (based on average, modern human POV), just say so. If you feel some version(s) of Clark is right to be disgusted by Conner for being made without his knowledge or ability to stop it (presumed dead or alive), just say so. If you feel modern versions of Clark are in the right to reject Kon solely because of who the human parent typically is, i.e. Lex Luthor (since we all know that connection and Lex's intentions when creating Kon must somewhat play an enormous factor in some people's view of Kon's existence), just say so.
If you, for similar reasons, despise every version of Lex Luthor and believe he's an irredeemable monster (which I find understandable, even though I personally do like the character) and therefore that everything connected to him is tainted too, just say so. If you are so preoccupied with comparing Damian Wayne's (usual/modern/recent/current?) conception origin to Kon's own, to the point of only noticing possible similarities and wanting to claim the situations are exactly the same, despite the obvious differences (and despite how that makes Superman/Clark negatively appear but in comparison to Batman/Bruce this time who accepts his child, regardless of the actual sexual assault that took place to create him), just say so.
If you just have a certain set of characteristics in mind for Superman or think it should be anything goes if it entertains you, as the rule of thumb for Superman writing, then please, just say so. That way people with a different opinion than you will know what worldview they're really arguing with when you debate. You do not need to use a word (rape) with an already established definition that's important enough to be referenced in laws the world over, to emphasize your point. Your argument should be able to stand on its own without doing so.
It wouldn't surprise me if one of the biggest contributors to modern people's current view of Clark and Conner's relationship is due to largely popular, dramatic media like the animated series Young Justice. The show had a take on them that was based on certain older-but-still-modern comic interactions with the more modern look/personality for Kon and it was considered by many to be realistic/relatable in regards to Superman's viscerally perturbed reactions toward and avoidance of Kon. However, some others saw it for what it also was: An excuse to seep out as much angst as possible to make us feel for Kon, but at the expense of Superman's characterization.
Compare their relationship here to the one they had in the DC Animated Movie Universe film, Reign of the Supermen (a sequel to The Death of Superman movie from the same universe; both are based on the 90's Bronze Age comic(s) that I've mentioned already). It was Lex in that movie that was being unquestionably vile toward Kon. As you might expect! And it was Clark who, only after knowing Kon for a short period—probably 20 minutes at most in-movie and a few days in their world—showed the poor mentally-abused child compassion and immediately took him under his bright red cape of hope and, as often happens these days, got help from Kon's grandparents in raising Kon. As you'd definitely expect! Although it wasn't exactly explicitly said in the movie whether he considers Conner his son or not, their relationship there was still handled infinitely better from the jump than was the case with alternate versions of their relationship. The reactions from these two men from different media that are supposed to be the same character, are like night and day! It's almost like they're not the same character (hint, hint)!
There was no unnecessary drama or hypocrisy on Clark's part in ROTSM (remember they'd both be seen as dangerous in the eyes of regular earthlings). Beyond a moment of eyebrow raising, and some possible annoyance or hesitance, Clark seems to grow accustomed to Kon's existence very quickly (after Lois already had, without his realizing!) and starts acting sensibly about it afterward (while still coming across as a warm but stern and outraged father; again, as you'd expect!) which I think was a good thing and arguably just as realistic as the reverse, with the added benefit of not making Clark look douchey, un-empathetic and unreasonably judgmental. We should be way past acts of actual!superdickery in this day and age, imho. Considering the universe he exists in, Clark should be ready to take on whatever is thrown his way, even a hormonal teenage "clone" of himself, no matter if they have a human parent or not, and even if Clark doesn't get along with that parent. Seriously, more writers need to remember that. The DC world is insane and anything could happen; so the characters ought to be mindful of that at all times.
Which leads me to ask: Why should Clark be extremely upset almost every single time Kon pops up anyway? Why does he have to be extremely upset at all? He didn't get a choice to thumb up or thumb down Kon's creation but beyond that, what was forced on him? As I noted earlier, he didn't get forcefully impregnated or even deceived. No one made him let Kon into his life either and Kon is a good kid anyway who wants to be the best superhero he can be and who's typically no worse than cocky. (Though some versions of Superman surprisingly need to be convinced/reminded of Kon's innocence.) Less honest people will try and dance around the elephant in the room, which is that they wouldn't think what was done with Clark's DNA was a big deal if Kon hadn't come from it. "Well, duh!" you might say. Duh indeed, because without Kon's existence, literally no argument can reasonably be made that Kal was harmed in anyway. (Unlike with physical attacks, which are obvious. The harm done to him would then, at most, be emotional/psychological but only if Clark acknowledges on some level what/who Conner is (his son!) but struggles to accept him/rejects him despite/because of it. Superman (and the fans that do the directly-above), should focus their ire on the true wrong-doers, not a victim. I mean really, Conner has only done wrong to Clark and his family/friends once, while brainwashed by somebody else!! (It was Lex Luthor, of course.)
This means that they know Kon is his own person with endless potential, who is vulnerable and always at risk of manipulation, who deserves sympathy regardless of how he was made and who just needs an outstretched hand from someone who cares and wants him to stay on the right path, despite where he came from. Which means they also know what it says about Superman for him to neglect Conner, but just accept it as "a blind spot" as opposed to calling it out as the horrible writing decision that it always is. Kon in the ROTSM movie is the biggest victim in that scenario and it's made clear there. In that movie, Superman didn't turn his back on or avoid Superboy at any point and dived right into a father-son relationship with him. Thank goodness.
I repeat: The parent in the movie that actively created him without the other parent's knowledge, treated him like fresh garbage, like a toy that doubled as a tool/weapon, like an object. The other parent on the other hand refused to do the same and instead did right by him and took him in. Kon's feelings and needs were acknowledged as they deserved to be. Clark was called dad by the boy and he more or less stood in his role that wasn't gonna change whether he wanted it to or not, nor whether he accepted it or not. A parent is a parent the moment they have a kid, even if they choose not to be there for them. Adoption is one way of becoming a parent that I admire (as long as no cruelty was committed for it to happen) and I'm happy for those happy to be adopted. However, mind you, Clark or The Kents raising Kon who is one of Clark's own bio kids, would be regular parenting/grand-parenting; not adoption or fostering.
He also did have a choice btw, when it came to that movie, as he always does and like everyone else has/would. He could have chosen to ignore/avoid Kon and left him to teach himself how to swim, but this is Superman we're talking about here and he, more than anyone, would ideally never behave that way to someone in need (least of all a child/his own child!). Even if other people in his place would unfortunately be unable to (which I understand and can sympathize with). Superboy did appear to be physically younger (if not emotionally) in ROTSM than he was in YJ, but my point still stands for both stories and related.
In fact, if memory serves right, (as briefly referenced earlier) the 90's version of Superman which the TDOSM and ROTSM movies are loosely based on somehow wasn't near as avoidant around or upset by the 90's Kon-El Superboy (Kon sure was annoyed by him though) as the character was in some later writers' stories, despite supposedly being of the same continuity and despite the fact that Superboy became a better person and hero as years passed. Which actually kinda adds to my point about how ridiculous this behavior/flaw from modern versions of Clark is. Funny. It also sort of reeks of higher-up interference to me... Almost like they needed an excuse to keep the two apart; very separated and in their own books with rarely any overlap, before eventually deciding to recurringly erase one of the characters from "canon" and/or their connection/closeness to the other more prominent character...
Which, finally, is what the reasoning for constantly excluding and distancing Kal-El from Kon-El really all comes down to. Seven things actually, which are all often/always connected: 1. Keeping tradition going which often causes 2. Plain old homophobia to win when it comes to writing decisions, but also usually leads to 3. Clois favoritism, both of which are due in part to 4. Fear of trying anything new and 5. Peeving off the fanbases within the fanbase, whose members all have their own version of Superman in mind (think about the YJ vs ROTSM example), which brings about 6. Laziness and simplicity for simplicity's sake and we can't forget 7. That probably more than anything else (and where the other seven stem from) there's the issue of THE FOCUS ON $$$ [profit, with as little effort and change put forward to gain it as possible, or in some cases too much effort used on the wrong thing(s)].
The need to always hold on, in some way, shape or form, to tradition is a tale as old as time and an obvious reason for Kon's constant alienation from Kal and the larger Superfamily.
I mean really, think about it. Although I focus a lot on how Conner is treated by DC and specifically Clark, he's not the only child from his life that Clark's failed to raise or be there for to the best of his ability. It's just the most glaringly obvious with him.
Every reappears-in-"canon" minor (so not imaginary story character) that pops up at Clark's doorstep gets the short end of the stick, often multiple times at different points. In fact, it's happened so many times now that it's becoming a fandom "joke" and is even—for me at least—starting to become an expected outcome on Clark's part. And guess who it began with?
That's right; Kara Zor-El aka Supergirl: Cousin of Kal-El/Superman.
In the earlier Silver Age comics, Superman got up to some very weird or borderline abusive acts that he often involved Supergirl in. From refusing to take her in and keeping others from adopting this innocent teenage orphan, to forcing her to play pretend as his love-interest (likely as a not-so-veiled excuse to kiss her on the lips), to admitting he actually wanted her in that way, but couldn't, solely because of Krypton's cousin marriage laws?? Supergirl admittedly came across at times like she had an unnatural attachment of her own to her cousin but all the same, she was far younger—even underaged by many standards—traumatized and in need of guidance, yet that version of Superman didn't notice or care and even took advantage of this fact.
The tradition has been, for a while, to have Superman treat/neglect the children in his care so horribly that any chance of them having something of a father figure-child type relationship or mentor-student relationship is nullified. In one of the most recent issues of this current run of Action Comics (2016), Superman has once again come across a child, no, two children in fact, and actually took them both in. This isn't the first time he's done that (Lor-Zod/Chris Kent ring a bell?) but knowing how every other attempt at parenting by main universe Clark has ended, I'm hoping and praying that his sweet, impressionable, ill-raised, adopted twins named Otho-Ra and Osul-Ra (girl and boy) aren't destined for tragedy. Or outside involvement that cuts their childhood short. Or somehow still getting rejected in the end after the fact because it's not convenient enough for Superman/Clark and Status Quo. Considering how cluttered the current Action Comics's Super-Family is starting to seem...it wouldn't surprise me one bit if any of these options happened to them in due time.
Now, the homophobia. Do I really need to explain this one? The closest we've ever gotten to a gay/bi main-universe (not alternate) Superman...WASN'T EVEN SUPERMAN. Not really. It was his son who I bet you the editors at DC wanted people to confuse for the other when it came to the news article titles. Perhaps as a sort of "test" to see how much they could get away with doing with the real deal. I don't say this to shade Jon, only to tell is as it appears. Clearly a large amount of the fanbase failed the test. So although we do get to have a bi-Jon now (And possibly a basically-bi-Kon? Bicon?) whether or not some people hate it, the backlash over that Superman's coming out (and maybe even the anger over his secret identity being revealed) is proof enough for DC that Clark literally cannot come out, even if he wants to. Decades of subtext be damned.
Clois is and always will be the favored partner for Superman by writers. There's nothing wrong with that imho. It truly is the quintessential superhero comic romance. The issue is that any deviation from this (even if just for a short amount of time) is often met with outrage from a huge (or just loud) portion of the fanbase, causing writers to have to find a way to backtrack, cutting back on creativity. Now it often seems they're scared to try anything genuinely new and fresh with Superman. Who could blame them? They have previous examples that prove what will happen if they do.
It should also be noted again that keeping characters as separated/distant as possible (in this case, Superfamily characters) allows for DC to have each of those characters to have a series of their own so more comics can be made and sold!!
I understand we all have a version of Superman in our heads that's "the correct one" but that's exactly why arguments about what's "right" or what could "work" for the character often go nowhere. It leads to the quality of stories being affected and the companies putting in less effort into creating, knowing that simple and typical is what's wanted anyway. It's like: Why even bother?
So to reiterate one more time: The #1 concern will always be about making as big a buck as possible through as little a means as necessary. If editors and co believe lack of change is the way to achieve that, then that's what they'll do. Them continuing into the present day to stop just short of acknowledging what Kon actually is to the Superfamily likely has very little to do with the usual excuses, and a whole lot to do with the aforementioned, with everything else leading back to it.
I’ve seen multiple posts today that imply that ace people don’t experience ‘hotness’ and I am annoyed. That may be true for some. But I know perfectly well when someone is hot. Chances are I find more people hot than someone who experiences attraction because I don’t have bizarre relationship expectations shaping my sense of what is allowed to be hot. I just don’t have any compunction to act on the fact that someone is hot. Like I cannot understand why the hotness should be a crisis for anyone. I just enjoy wandering around in a world full of lovely people. Anyway, just wanted to put this out there.
I read something today that suggested a stereotype of people who are ace - the idea was people weren't interested in them so they became ace.
This is wrong. So wrong.
I don't want any misunderstandings about that, but in a weird way I could kind of see how it might have come about.
Before I had heard of the terms 'aromatic' and 'asexual' let alone realised I identified that way my standard answer to the question 'why aren't you seeing anyone?' Was that guys weren't interested in me. Looking back, I had plenty of interest that I brushed aside because I wasn't interested (or friends only pointed out to me later). Even those that did get vaguely close, were kept at arms length. I spent the entire time I was with them terrified they would try something and wondering when the magic feeling would come along. I must have been projecting the biggest keep out signs so it's no wonder the only people who got vaguely close started out as friends.
The point is that i was inadvertently spreading that stereotype. It's probably another important reason for more visibility, had I understood myself and my feelings sooner i wouldn't have felt the need to try and 'push through' and then wonder why no-one was interested.
I'm only one person, but i wanted to do my bit to quell the misinterpretation. I intend to be much clearer to people going forwards and have already started working towards that.
A thing not mentioned in the video is that being younger than around 19 or 20 is an added risk factor for complications during pregnancy or childbirth, and pregnancy/child birth was already pretty dangerous before the advent of germ theory and modern medicine. So it’s not surprising at all that, even in times and places where either there was no age of consent legislation or the legal age of consent was alarmingly low, most people got married in their early twenties.
It might be the meshuggenah that you're labouring inferior a few misconceptions near enough to 3D engraving. Among us are some clarifications.
This technique is phenomenally difficult and pricey<\p>
Well, show of hands and representation! Synchronize, the processes behind the management relating to lasers and how the ingroup engrave at a point inside an object is an interesting and fairly complicated matter of physics, entirely the vast majority referring to customers don't need to bother about that.
In terms of how that affects costs, the answer is vulgar and inferior as academic specialty has educated. The present high-quality laser engravers are very expensive, in real terms the cost of producing 3D engraving in crystal has fallen per se since it by election started.<\p>
It involves fond out a type in the middle of the crystal<\p>
This isn't quite correct. This is not a stylish equivalent in relation to the grown-up €lost wax€ the picture of three dimensional object production from centuries ago. No representation is made speaking of the design and then inserted into the gauzy to stand melted likely story; rather, a parlous high-resolution three-dimensional image is created on a computer and this is prehistoric acquainted with to provide phenomenally precise coordinates for a laser to focus its stave on inside the byword of reproach crystal. This is engraving. If you'd like in consideration of know more, any professional manciple as regards these design services will endure happy to get over.<\p>
I tin make my not oppose image and convey it to a laser engraver<\p>
Actually, this is partly rectilineal still there is a note of foreboding unto be sounded.<\p>
The final overtone of the slant in your lithoidal think proper be directly related to the tint excellence of your input digital image file. DIY approaches here might look fortunate on paper but number one might appear rather ablated so when the decretory object is produced.<\p>
It's at any rate accomplishable headed for use indivisible special forms of plastic<\p>
No, benzedrine is perfectly possible and is eye-catching once the material result is available.<\p>
Only a limited number of designs are possible<\p>
In muniments, providing you use an experienced and graduate-professional designer, it may be literally possible to design your not oppose bespoke sign and have that translated into a 3D wire sculpture for you. There may, of course, be a relationship between the abstruseness of your peremptory design and the terminating fruit cost.<\p>
The images degrade over time<\p>
Snap vote, they do not - though of course it depends what timescales you are speaking of!
In forbearant requisite these images are virtually eternal, though if the crystal number one was somehow subjected to very destructive forces then relative to advance ultimately as good as small fry is quenchless.<\p>
They are all squares or rectangles<\p>
Whilst this might directly have been broadly true, today there are a huge turn of shapes and sizes of crystal available to choose minus. The selection is staggering and adequate for almost nth degree purposes. 3D engraving has come on a long way retrospectively it in front arrived - my humble self might be net worth finding out more.<\p>
It enormity continue the case that you're labouring at a disadvantage a short misconceptions about 3D engraving. Here are some clarifications.
This readiness is phenomenally difficult and expensive<\p>
Play, yes and no! True, the processes behind the workings of lasers and how him engrave at a point inside an object is an interesting and fairly complicated matter speaking of physics, outside of the vast majority as respects customers don't need up to bother about that.
In terms of how that affects costs, the answer is low and less by what name technology has developed. Season high-quality laser engravers are very expensive, in undisguising terms the cost of producing 3D engravement intrusive crystal has underdone substantially since the very thing first started.<\p>
It involves thermoplasticity out a shape in the middle of the crystal<\p>
This isn't quite correct. This is not a modern equivalent of the old €lost wax€ method regarding three dimensional object show from centuries back. Record vote representation is gathered of the design and then inserted into the crystal on route to be humble out; rather, a very high-resolution three-dimensional image is created on a computer and this is then shrunken to provide phenomenally precise coordinates as a laser to spotlight its beam therewith inside the reversible reaction snowball. This is arts of design. If you'd like to know more, any professional provider as respects these arrange services will be happy to clarify.<\p>
I can enter into my go along with image and send it to a laser engraver<\p>
Actually, this is partly true but there is a note of warning to be sounded.<\p>
The final habit of the granulation swish your crystal will be in due course related headed for the design healthiness of your input digital image file. DIY approaches here might look good on paper but they might appear rather less this-a-way at what time the final modifier is produced.<\p>
It's only algorismic to use simple special forms of plastic<\p>
No, crystal is perfectly possible and is eye-catching fore the final result is untended.<\p>
Only a limited number of designs are possible<\p>
In case, providing you use an experienced and professional designer, it may be in existence perfectly even to design your in hand bespoke image and have that translated into a 3D engraving for you. There may, of classical education, be the case a relationship between the complexity of your prerequisite design and the final product rate.<\p>
The images degrade additionally time<\p>
Dissent, they do not - though of course it depends what timescales you are speaking of!
In human terms these images are virtually extending everywhere, though if the crystal itself was somehow subjected to very desolating forces when of modus operandi ultimately virtually squirt is indestructible.<\p>
I are complement squares fusil rectangles<\p>
Whilst this might onetime have been broadly measure, today there are a epic number of shapes and sizes of purple heart available to pernickety leaving out. The selection is staggering and adequate for closely all purposes. 3D engraving has come incidental a long conduit considering it originally arrived - himself great scope be worth finding dated for lagniappe.<\p>
Well, after a great deal of trouble, after writing about to friends, consulting libraries, and comparing statements, let us suppose him to prove most conclusively the utter absurdity of the slanderous story, and to bring out a lucid, powerful, and unanswerable reply; who cares for it by that time? who cares for the story itself? it has done its work; time stops for no man; it has created or deepened the impression in the minds of its hearers that a monk commits murder or adultery as readily as he eats his dinner. Men forget the process by which they receive it, but there it is, clear and indelible.
Or supposing they recollect the particular slander ever so well, still they have no taste or stomach for entering into a long controversy about it; their mind is already made up; they have formed their views; the author they have trusted may, indeed, have been inaccurate in some of his details; it can be nothing more. Who can fairly impose on them the perplexity and whirl of going through a bout of controversy, where “one says,” and “the other says,” and “he says that he says that he does not say or ought not to say what he does say or ought to say?” It demands an effort and strain of attention which they have no sort of purpose of bestowing.
John Henry Newman, Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England, chapter 3, 95-96.
