Real talk, what did you think about the new movie? I’m curious on what you think.
For a movie featuring Rey going on a long side trip to bring a Jedi (any Jedi, apparently) back to the Resistance, and Finn going on a much shorter side trip with Rose, there was still quite a bit of pro-finnrey material, and I’m pretty happy about it. Still shipping them for fun, and also still thinking they have a decent chance of becoming a canon couple at some point.
Rey wore a beacon/bracelet that would eventually help her get back to the Resistance again. Leia started the film with the other bracelet/beacon; it quickly passed on to Finn, and while we saw it worn/carried by others, it was clearly meant as a reminder of Rey and Finn’s connection.
Plus they had an EPIC hug near the end.
So yeah. It’s good.
They both went on parallel journeys and found something to believe in. For Rey it was learning to take the principles of the Jedi religion and begin the journey of making them her own. For Finn it was seeing the full dimensions of how inequality works in the galaxy and choosing the Resistance for himself as his way of standing against that. If they go for Finnrey endgame, it’s SO IMPORTANT they they both have something to believe in and find self-worth in besides each other!
As we saw with Rey’s journey… the most naked and blunt vision of trying to make just one person your center that she’s offered is really clearly not good!
Their respective causes also are ones that have been so much weaker because they’ve been separate! The Jedi (Luke) without the Resistance (Leia) have both suffered and lost and been diminished. In the end, they are saved because those two forces come back together. In a Finnrey union we’ll have some of the power of that… *particularly* since Rey will have to come up with a new interpretation of her religion that allows for attachment and marriage if they do Finnrey endgame and it would be a lovely symbol of how the new generation has found their own path for Finn(Resistance) and Rey(Jedi) to be a both symbolic and entirely personal union.
I think by having one of the kids Rose, who started out symbolizing the Resistance and shared that with Finn, identified with turn out to have force powers at the end there’s another way that Jedi and Resistance are part of each other that should not be sundered. In a sense, the First Order has had the Dark Siders who are naturally part of their mission, but the Resistance has been without their spiritual/religious heart and Light Side users??
I think it’s significant that they reunite amidst the rocks Rey is floating with her Jedi powers – powers that have saved the Resistance twice over, through both Luke and her, powers that protect and uplift life rather than destroy it.
On both of those journeys, Rey and Finn both met people who… “liked them” and rescued them from death. In Rey’s case, she’s firmly decided that person should EFF OFF lol and in Finn’s case the story probably is about liking Rose but maybe not the way Rose likes him. Though it’s more unclear with FinnRose what Finn’s feelings are exactly I think the kiss felt more like something where you don’t share the romantic feelings of the person doing the kissing. /shrug/ The point is that another life path with another potential person to walk it with opened up for both of them… in Rey’s case it sort of yawned like a huge disturbing galaxy ruling Dark Side chasm (lol) and in Finn’s case it was the more normal experience of maybe not being into someone the same way they’re into you even though you really like them.
That too is important because, if they’re end game, they’re not just choosing each other super young and unaware of other options. They’re actively choosing each other.
Very good points! I also thought it was interesting that Finn and Rey met right as Rey was using her Force powers on a grand scale–and also while the rocks she had lifted were falling, juxtaposed with the force of gravity. I hadn’t thought of the Jedi + Resistance angle and that makes sense, too.
I also thought the ways Finn and Rey had built (and in Rey’s case, ended) relationships with Kylo and Rose were emblematic of the separate journeys they were making and the choices involved. With Rey her relationship was clearly manipulative and unhealthy, and part of her growth was to see through that and realize her self-worth, something she had little of having grown up with nothing and seeing herself as such. With Finn I think it’s going to be about self-awareness and self-assertion, traits that were actively suppressed in him his entire life. If his feelings toward Rose are not romantic, can he say “no” to a friend, trusting in their friendship to survive?
I also really like the idea of Finnrey becoming a couple by actively choosing each other, not because they are each the first (bio) person the other met after a lifetime of isolation.
‘All that you need to know about boars can be summed up in the fact that if you wish to hunt them, you must have a specially made boar spear. This spear has a crosspiece on it to prevent the boar from charging the length of the spear, driving it all the way through his own body, to savage the human holding the other end.’
–Boar and Apples, T. Kingfisher
fuck OFF
Note that pigs are also HUGE. So, yes, they ARE slightly larger pigs.
So I grew up in the city and have never seen a pig in real life and I just googled it and WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS
I thought they were like labrador sized, like, fat labradors, not mini-cows.
every time I see this post there are more people discovering how fuck off huge pigs actually are and I love it I thought this was a thing everyone knew but clearly not and I’m laughing
This is me with our Tamworth boar, a heritage breed closer to their wild cousins than the Yorkshire above. I am a fully grown, average sized human. He was a gentle sweetie who, sadly, is no longer with us. His name was Mr. Big.
FUCK OFF
Forever laffin’ at people who don’t understand how enormous, terrifying, and tenacious wild boar are.
They’re like if bears had knives protruding from their closed mouths and Didn’t Know When To Quit. Their survival instincts when they’re wounded aren’t “run away and minimize injury” it’s “take the thing that hurt you down with you” They also make sounds like someone crossed a pig with an alligator.
Their head and neck alone can be like the size of an entire human torso.
Also forever laffin’ at people who think pigs are tiny, ‘cause we designed those things can get in the neighbourhood of a thousand pounds in ideal circumstances.
It’s like when people assume Tuna must be small because they’ve only ever experienced them in hockey puck form.
Like seriously why the fuck y’all think everyone FREAKED THE HELL OUT when Dorothy fell into the pig pen in Wizard of Oz? It’s because pigs are HUGE and weigh a shitton and would crush her in an instant.
also dont they eat like, basically anything?
YUP. Pigs will eat people, if given the chance. They dgaf.
That’s why boar hunters use a team of very tenacious dogs to hold the boar so they can be speared without fucking you up. The dogs wear body armour.
I’ve heard stories of people shooting boars, and if it didn’t kill them, it just pissed them off.
how the hell did we ever domesticate these things?
…“how the hell did we ever domesticate these things?”
Very carefully, I would imagine.
WIld boar babies are rather cute, like living humbugs…
…but the adults and their ferocity have been associated with warriors for thousands of years, from Mycenaean Greece (a helmet made from sections of boar tusk)…
…through Celtic Europe (reconstructed carnyx war-horns and standards)…
…Ancient Rome (the crest of Legion 20 “Valeria Victrix”). A couple more legions also used a boar as their crest – I wonder did they squabble over which was the “right” one the way a couple of Swiss cantons had a little war over whose bear was best…?
…then Anglo-Saxon and pre-Viking helmet crests…
…right up to the late Middle Ages (here the white boar badge of Richard Duke of Gloucester, later Richard III of England)…
…and the blue boar badge of the Earl of Oxford,
more usually represented by the De Vere arms, quarterly gules and or, in
the first a molet argent.
After Richard was defeated at Bosworth in 1485, there was a run on blue
paint as inn-signs were changed to reflect new loyalties since Oxford
was on the winning side…
It gets mentioned in the movie “Snatch”, the book/movie “Hannibal” and the webcomic “Lackadaisy Cats”, among numerous other fictional sources, and IRL it’s suspected to be the reason why numerous missing persons have stayed missing.
More here (another comment to this same OP) and here (slightly different).
Here’s some boar-hunting armour for dogs, ancient…
…and modern…
…and the modern one looks very like a simple style of ancient…
So when Odysseus’s old nurse recognizes him by the scar he got from the boar-tusk slash that almost killed him… now you get the resonance.
just a not so friendly reminder that both Kylo’s parents are jewish so uh?? maybe consider that idk before you call him a nazi since he’s coded jewish
A not-so-friendly “hey, you’re absolutely wrong, and I’m a Jewish SW fan who calls him a Nazi ABSOLUTELY FOR A REASON AND THAT REASON IS HE’S MEANT TO BE SEEN AS ONE” –
An integral part of Kylo’s entire storyline as a villain is that he is
ethnically Alderaanian (Space Sephardi Jewish, as far as current canon
can be compared to real-life ethnic and cultural groups) and raised by a
mother who both witnessed the genocide of the Alderaanian people AND
had the responsibility of representing their culture on the Galactic
stage so that their presence wouldn’t be forgotten entirely after the (lowercase-h)
holocaust…
But then he, as an adult man, of his own free will, CHOSE
to reject his heritage and join an explicitly neo-Nazi-coded fascist
military/political junta that existed solely to finish the ethnoracial
cleansing the Empire started in the Galaxy and centralize power under
one tyrannical leader who believes that only human beings (all white, in
the films, although there are some Black FO officers in the
novels/comics) is fit to have independent autonomy. The First Order is
literally called The First Order because “the first order of business is begin [the Empire’s reign] again.”
One of the first acts of the FO/final acts of the Empire was to hunt
down and exterminate all surviving Alderaanians, illustrating that it
was NOT solely a political decision on Tarkin’s part – it wasn’t about getting Leia to reveal where the Rebellion HQ was; he was always going to destroy Alderaan because its culture and governing body were antithetical to the Empire’s ideals and goals and Tarkin himself HATED Alderaan and Alderaanians. (In fact, a lot of the antisemitic stereotypes neo-Nazis and antisemites associate with Jews IRL are traits that Tarkin ascribes to Leia, Breha, and Bail, particularly in that he thinks that they’re manipulative wealth-hoarders who have a secret agenda to take over the Galaxy for their own gain [which, of course, is fucking rich coming from a Grand Moff of the Empire, analogous, of course, to a rank of Reich Minister.])
Further, Kylo Ren chooses, as an adult man, of his own free will, to reject his Alderaanian heritage EXPLICITLY BECAUSE HE IS GIVEN A REASON TO BE ABLE TO SHED THAT IDENTITY. He joins the First Order – again, an OVERTLY neo-Nazis-coded illegal fascist junta, in the movie, which IDK if you saw, but is very overtly coded as a neo-Nazi regime – because he finds out that he isn’t actually the biological grandson of Bail Antilles and Breha Organa of Alderaan, but of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. He was not raised as Vader’s OR Anakin’s grandson, but as the grandson of the Organas – he joins the FO very shortly after a statue commemorating the Alderaanian Genocide is erected at the New Republic Senate building (which, btw, Kylo helps to destroy in the FO’s OWN genocide in TFA, because it’s on Hosnian Prime). He violently rejects his Space Jewish identity, and he joins the First Order to prove it.
Honestly, did you watch TFA? Have you read the extended canon materials? I honestly have no idea what the fuck Rian Johnson is doing with his Kylo/FO apologism boner, but Abrams (a Jewish director and writer) and the Kasdans (also Jewish Lucasfilm writers and producers) went out of their way to make the parallels between the First Order/Empire and the Nazis/neo-Nazi movements as nail-on-the-head obvious as they could without literally renaming them. (Someone on here once pointed out that Armitage Hux, the FO’s screamy speechifying figurehead general, even has the initials “A.H.”) Abrams doubled down on making sure that the “Kylo Ren is exulting in being able to disconnect from the Alderaanian genocide” thing by having him KEEP HUMAN ASHES AS A TROPHY, which is OBVIOUSLY rooted in Shoah imagery even if it’s a grandiose departure from reality. (It’s a movie, so of course it is.)
Beyond the fact that their jackbooted stormtroopers are LITERALLY CALLED “stormtroopers,” their film presence as universally White in the upper echelons of power – the dynamics of Rae Sloane, and why she is no longer a part of the FO’s power structure, are something I hope Lucasfilm can explain well, tbh – and Space Racist (their core belief, beyond the radically conservative “central seat of power” form of government they originally advocated for, is that only humans should have power in the Galaxy, as I said above, which is a SUPER common scifi trope for racism), and the fact that Abrams and Kasdan and Lucas have all SAID that they’re meant to be Nazi allegories, there’s the whole “Hux’s FO speech was meant to mirror the Nuremberg Rally, visually and in content” thing, and it succeeds.
Like, basically, Kylo’s parents both being played by Jewish actors – although Driver is not – and Leia and Han being Jewish-coded characters is PART OF Kylo’s characterization as a neo-Nazi. His internal struggle, the Light versus the Dark, his pain of being torn apart, is an extreme hatred of himself. A big part of his canonical anger at his parents is that they never told him that he was not actually genetically Alderaanian, but was raised that way anyway. It’s… like, it’s very much an intentional choice.
I agree with most of your posts, @jewish-mccoy, but you’re not correct on this hot take. Maybe stick to Star Trek meta?
Do y’all ever just chill the fuck out and enjoy something?… Like breathe it’s fiction.
idk can y’all ever shut the fuck up and recognize that fiction both reflects and shapes reality? and that sometimes that means to enjoy something, you have to have a viewpoint and be willing to criticize stuff you love?
@aimmyarrowshigh maybe get off your high horse, since you sent me multiple nasty asks
“A big part of his canonical anger at his parents is that they never told him that he was not actually genetically Alderaanian, but was raised that way anyway.”
This is, to put it simply, bullshit. Kylo canonically knew Anakin and Padmé were his biological grandparents, per Bloodline. He just didn’t know, along with the rest of the galaxy, that Anakin = Vader.
I’m not touching the rest of this with a ten-foot pole, but yeah. If a huge part of your argument relies on bullshit, let’s just say the rest of your argument isn’t going to hold up so great. @aimmyarrowshigh
@kylosky I have to assume you’re referring to (and misreading, or at least interpreting VERY differently) this passage from Chapter 13, which is the only one that mentions both “Anakin” and “Ben” –
Which, granted, I will give you COULD be read as “Ben will learn that Luke and Leia’s father was not only Anakin Skywalker, but also Darth Vader,” but does not say that. It can also be read the way I interpreted it, which was “your grandparents are Bail and Breha Organa of Alderaan [and Han’s parents, if he remembers them/tells Ben about them/etc] {and we’ll tell Ben about the adoption/birth situation/Vader all at a later date, when he’ll be able to understand it}.” For all we know from this passage, Ben assumes that Luke and Leia grew up together on Alderaan and has no idea that either were adopted in the first place. We don’t know whether Ben knows that Anakin Skywalker ever existed.
I’ll give you that the passage is more vague about it than I recalled while angrily writing about how it’s bullshit to say that Jewish artists (Abrams, Kasdan) don’t have the right to create overt neo-Nazi metaphors (which they themselves say are neo-Nazi metaphors) and have them be respected as such by the audience. The argument that only Germans from 1938-1945 can be called Nazis is bullshit and part of how the “alt-Right” goosestepped their way into the mainstream today. Call a spade a spade.
But anyway:
Leia, throughout Bloodline, as a central PART OF Bloodline, makes her identity still – 25 years later or whatever – about being the child of Bail Organa. NOT Anakin Skywalker. At the very end, because she is forced to by a political enemy, she admits to being Anakin|Vader’s daughter, but Bloodline makes it really, really clear that’s not how she sees herself, and it’s not how she would have raised Ben. Whether you’re right, and he knows he’s not GENETICALLY Alderaanian, or I’m right, and he doesn’t, does not matter as much as the fact that Leia raised him to understand the importance of Alderaan and the tragedy of its loss. Leia’s literal job is to remind the Galaxy of Alderaan through her (largely ceremonial) representation of their diasporic community in the New Republic Senate. You can’t seriously claim that Ben didn’t grow up knowing that his grandparents, for all intents and purposes, were Bail and Breha Organa, and that he came from an Alderaanian family.
Which is also a super Jewish POV! And which he also STILL intentionally threw away to join the First Order!
It does not ultimately change Ben’s choice to intentionally throw away the family he was raised with, his mother’s values and identity, and the importance of the people he was raised to help remember. ESPECIALLY SINCE PADME IS ALSO JEWISH, NOT THAT YOU CARE ABOUT ANY STAR WARS CHARACTER EXCEPT FANON BEN.
Ben was raised by the literal Galactic voice for the memory of Alderaan.
He knew he was Alderaanian.
He made the choice to shit on that legacy when he joined the First Order and become Kylo Ren.
Period.
Like, other than cherry-picking for mentions of Ben, did you… read Bloodline? Do you NOT give a shit about Leia and what Alderaan means to her and how it infused her life? And if so, do you REALLY think that wouldn’t make an impact on how she raised Ben? Leia and the story of Alderaan, especially her feelings towards Vader and the Empire and the First Order rising, are a DEEPLY Jewish story, ESPECIALLY in Bloodline. One of the best parts of the New EU is the way that it’s really brought out in the canon text how much the Alderaanian genocide mattered to Leia and how much she was affected by surviving it. To suggest that she wouldn’t have impressed on Ben how his real grandparents – because Bail and Breha were her real parents, biology or not – were the last Queen and Viceroy of Alderaan… is insane???
You don’t come from a family that survived a genocide by the slim margin of a single individual and NOT know about the family who died, and how they lived, and how you have a responsibility to live for them. Come on.
Ben, whether we agree that he knew about the adoption or not, KNEW what he was throwing away. He knew while watching the Hosnian Genocide what he was supporting. He had the choice to leave every day before the Hosnian Genocide and didn’t, and he had the choice to leave with Han. He chose the Dark.
EDIT: So according to Bloodline, Luke- and Leia’s official story is that they were war orphans, and there’s no clarification whether they acknowledged to Ben (or anyone besides Han) that they knew who their birth father was – Leia does say that “many” in the Galaxy know that Padme was their biological mother, but remember that during Padme’s life (and death) the identity of the father of her unborn child(ren) was a total secret.
But anyway, the entire argument really is “it’s not cool to tell Jewish artists that they can’t use metaphor to communicate their anti-Nazi messages or stories of intergenerational trauma and that if they use metaphor instead of exact realism, it doesn’t count and can’t be acknowledged as an intentional artistic choice.”
[Image description: Definition of MURDER 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought – was convicted of murder]
It’s also yet another word that Reylos evidently don’t know the meaning of if they’d say shit like this:
[Image description:
anonymous said: reylos are pathetic. how can you guys like kylo ren? he’s a MURDERER
answer: Hello, anon, I could give you an elaborate answer, but I’ll follow your (lack of) logic and play along. Yes, Kylo Ren kills people.
But so does Finn. (image of Finn stabbing a Stormtrooper with a lightsaber)]
The post goes on with more examples from Poe, Han, and Rey, and ends with:
[Image description: Welcome to Star Wars, where major characters kill other people. Have a lovely day.]
I’m… actually shaking? This person equated Finn’s actions with those of a mass murderer. Literally every single one of the examples she posted–Finn at Takodana, Poe at Tuanul, and Rey at Takodana–were killings done in defense of self and others, thereby justified, therefore, hello, not murder.
This shitty “answer,” whether in ignorance or dishonesty, completely avoided the point of the question and drew a completely false moral equivalence, trying to blur a crucial boundary.
And you know what, I have people in my line who killed in defense of their loved ones and homes when my country was invaded. They were not murderers. Look at that definition again: Killing =/= Murder. How dare you?
Funny, isn’t it, how this group is so quick to cry “It’s just fiction!” when it comes to their ship, but when it comes to defending their murdering fave they’re so quick to change the definitions of real-life words and insult real people.
I remember seeing the full post, and it was an
exaggeration, but so was the ask – that anon had no business asking such
a question. Some people like fictional murderers. I sure do. Ask a
stupid question, get a stupid answer.
And either way, none of your attempt at logic applies – a) this is
fictional fantasy world. b) the galaxy is at war. and war has different
rules.
Oh, I think we can all agree the anon was being an ass. However, where the ask was asinine the answer goes in a direction that is both disingenuous and dangerous. Seriously, equating self-defense with aggressive violence is how atrocities are justified.
For the record I like fictional murderers, too, and I find Kylo Ren fascinating. What I don’t do is equate his actions with those of characters who were defending themselves and others against unjust aggression.
On to your points, a) no, there is no evidence that mass murder is any less wrong in this universe. In fact mass murder is so wrong in this world that even one of the Stormtroopers who, according to your shitty fave, “were programmed (hurk) from birth,” could see how wrong it was. Show me what alternative rules of engagement apply in the SW verse to make annihilating entire planets okay or defensible. Oh, that’s right, you can’t.
Besides, even if SW is fictional the people who create and consume this fiction are human beings on Earth. Fun fact, the directors and writers of The Force Awakens are Jewish and they certainly have a viewpoint on mass murder and the inhumane treatment of prisoners.
To say you don’t read Star Wars in this way so you can keep your fannish obsession guilt-free is one thing; to say Star Wars can’t be read as a message on oppression and war crimes is just being an asshole.
b) Did you seriously try to tell a lawyer with a doctorate in international law what the laws of war are? Fine, here are the laws of war (emphases mine):
Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949
Article 32:
The High Contracting Parties
specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any
measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or
extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition
applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishment, mutilation and
medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical
treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of
brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.
Who are these protected persons who may not be mistreated?
Article 4:
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find
themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party
to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Applying the above, Kylo Ren ordered the murders of civilians in the territory he invaded, which is a clear violation of the laws of war.
You might argue that the inhabitants of Tuanul were armed. Does that change things? Nope. They were not armed at the time Kylo Ren ordered them killed, and even if we see them as captured combatants these provisions apply:
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1949
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
The inhabitants of Tuanul clearly fit these criteria and are treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Poe’s status should be obvious, but to elaborate he falls under Article 4(A)(2):
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
And what are the protections provided to these prisoners?
Article 17, paragraph 3:
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Article 130:
Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention.
Therefore, if you view the inhabitants of Tuanul village as enemy fighters, Kylo Ren’s order was still a brieach of the laws of war because they were his prisoners at the time and no longer posed a threat. Poe’s torture was similarly a grave breach, that is an especially serious violation, of the laws of war in the treatment of prisoners.
As for the destruction of the Hosnian system, I can’t believe I even have to cite a law for this outside of basic fucking humanity, but if you want chapter and verse here’s one:
Protocol Additional to the
Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of
Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977
Article 48:
In order to ensure respect for and
protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties
to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian
population and combatants and between civilian objects and military
objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against
military objectives.
The entire Hosnian system was not a military objective. Their fleet, shipyards, military bases and so on would qualify, but not the entire system. It’s clear from our view of the city that these were civilians going about their lives, and the First Order wiped out entire populations solely due to the fact that they lived in the territory of a hostile government. That has never been an acceptable method of warfare, not even at Hiroshima and Nagasaki which you lot love to cite. (Me, I like to cite it as an example of victor’s justice. I’m in a country that was actually under Japanese occupation and am happy as anyone they lost, but as a legal scholar and as a goddamned person I still don’t condone the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians. Funny how that works.)
In conclusion, yes, a person may kill in war. But one may kill combatants who are an active threat, not civilians or prisoners. These are still unjustified killing, i.e. murder, even in times of war, and the killing and torture of prisoners is never justifiable, to say nothing of the destruction of entire planets full of civilians.
So tell me again how different laws apply in war. I know the laws of war, honey, and the First Order committed breathtakingly obvious breaches left and right. Also tell me how a Jewish director and Jewish writers created a movie where mass murder is totally okay and in any way the moral equivalent of fighting back against such attacks. Go on, I’ll wait.
Also the Hosnian genocide was the FO’s declaration of war? The “the Galaxy was at war” excuse doesn’t even hold within TFA itself for the Tuanul massacre, Poe’s abduction and torture, the Battle at Takodana (INCLUDING Rey’s abduction), OR the Hosnian genocide *even if* you’re so unethical that you think torture or the mass, systematic murder of civilians could ever be considered ethical – even during wartime. The Galaxy was NOT at war until the third act of TFA. Everything the First Order did up until then was completely unjustifiable, and if the non-Centrist Senators knew about what the FO were doing, they could have arrested every “officer” (which is in quotes because the FO is not a legitimate military, it’s a militia.)
In fact, the REASON the Tuanul Massacre happens is to prevent any witnesses from reporting that the FO took Poe, a New Republic Defense Force officer, prisoner. The FO’s entire engagement policy is based on “this is an illegal act, so leave no witnesses” – until they declare war by destroying the governing body and official military that could hold them accountable. It’s like, key to the entire ST that war isn’t declared until the Hosnian System is destroyed.
The Poe comics go into detail about how the Resistance’s engagement policy with the FO is that they can never shoot first, because the Galaxy is not at war, and even though the Resistance is an unofficial militia as well, Poe’s status as an NRDF officer* (along with many of the other pilots, and I’d have to guess officers/ground crew, too, but IDK for sure) would give the FO just cause to argue before the Senate that the Resistance-allied planets and senators are the aggressors and that the Centrist/FO-aligned planets have a right to defend themselves through warfare. The Resistance, until the Hosnian genocide, is EXPLICITLY IN THE CANON TEXT, a defense-only organization. Poe is a STICKLER about not shooting first.
Which is why it’s actually really interesting, and important, that he does not shoot Kylo Ren at Tuanul until AFTER Kylo killed Lor San Tekka. Kylo and Lor San Tekka are technically both civilians – the Knights of Ren are, shockingly, not a recognized military organization in the Galaxy – and Poe is not.* He can’t engage on a civilian. It seems from BTA that Poe’s position in the NRDF is like a cross between a cop and a military officer, though, so once Kylo has killed and still has an active weapon in use, Poe can engage. And he tries.
HOWEVER, THEY’RE STILL NOT AT WAR, so the FO’s abduction of Poe is STILL ILLEGAL AND UNETHICAL. HE IS NOT A PRISONER OF WAR: HE’S A KIDNAPPED INDIVIDUAL. (Same for Rey, when Kylo abducts Rey – although the FO has declared war at that point, Rey is a civilian. She’s not part of the Resistance when Kylo abducts and tortures her. She’s just a civilian who defended her own life when an illegal militia stormed the non-combat zone she was in.) Since Poe was tortured for at least 14 hours BEFORE Kylo even went in, we can assume this was the FO acting as an organized group, not just Kylo going rogue because he hates that Poe is close to his mom or something. (Which would also, obviously, not be ethical.)
The point is, they’re not at war, and the main reason they would be heading towards killing Poe is so that he can’t report what happened to him either to the Resistance OR to the NRDF/Senate. Finn’s intervention saved Poe’s life, but also probably bumped up the timeline for when Starkiller was going to be fired, because if Finn and Poe survive their TIE crash and make it to Leia, the Senate will know what the FO did to the Tuanul villagers AND to one of the NRDF’s star officers – with proof. (IIRC, isn’t that part of why Korr Sella is on Hosnian Prime during the genocide? She was there as Leia’s emissary giving testimony against the FO? I can’t remember 100%.)
Everything about how the FO comports itself underscores the fact that they KNOW they have no actual grounds to take any of the actions they take. They hide in the Outer Rim so the NRDF patrols are less likely to discover them. They kill all witnesses. They do not declare war through legal/ethical channels (IE: there’s SPECIFICALLY AND POINTEDLY no warning before they engage in hostilities against the standing government body [which arguably makes the FO a coup, but still, they were NOT at war until after Starkiller’s firing], no options are given to negotiate for neutrality or compromise, and the entire point of the Hosnian Genocide, besides eliminating the governing body that could hold the FO accountable, was a show of force to threaten all of the other Systems into compliance/submission).
I would honestly wager that part of why Hux hates Kylo is that Kylo doesn’t care about not drawing attention to himself, and he could get them ALL caught and tried for treason. (Maybe that’s why Phasma and the troopers are sent with him to Tuanul in the first place? ‘Clean up after Kylo.’)
ANYWAY, that’s all to say that the Galaxy is absolutely NOT in a state of war, and yes, every single murder committed by Kylo, Phasma, and Hux during the TFA is murder, and every killing committed by Finn, Poe, the Resistance, and Rey is self-defense and the defense of others; thus, not murder.**
*There’s mixed canon about Poe’s status in the NRDF. The comic states that he is an active officer on leave, the Logbook states that he resigned, and iirc another one of the books says that he’s AWOL, but I’m not sure which one that is or if I’m remembering that part correctly. Either way, the canon status of Poe’s NRDF enlistment is not 100% clear.
**The Galaxy is also not at war when the Empire commits the Alderaanian Genocide, which was another show of threat meant to cow other Systems into submission. The difference there is that it WAS committed by the official military, but like, you’re still not allowed to commit genocide. That’s the whole… Nazi parallel… rearing its head again…
^^^^Holy shit, this is such a magnificent breakdown and exposes the utter bankruptcy of the argument that the laws of engagement as we know them don’t apply to the GFFA.
And yes, Korr Sella was on Hosnian Prime as Leia’s emissary to inform the Senate of what the FO was doing so the New Republic could take action. I’m pretty sure that was why Snoke & Hux fired the weapon when they did, so they could gain the upper hand in the coming war.
Pedophilic attraction is not a sexual orientation, it is an urge to rape. I’ve seen people compare it to orientations like being straight or gay, and that’s a… really misleading comparison. Same-gender attraction, for instance, is capable of being expressed in a consensual way and usually is. So can heterosexual attraction.
But say you are a woman attracted to adult men and you gain sexual satisfaction by raping them or fantasizing about raping them. This part of your attraction, if expressed, can only result in the pain and suffering of the people you are attracted to, or may be steps toward ingratiating yourself to them and undermining their will to say no. In this case YES, I would have huge issues with this straight woman’s sexuality, and would urge her to get help and stay away from men.
The real parallel to being attracted to children is not any straight or queer orientation capable of consensual expression, but rather an urge that leads to rape or emotional abuse. Because that is what attraction to minors is, the urge to rape children, and that is not an okay thing or an identity to celebrate. It is a condition to be managed so that people won’t be hurt.
Also, it’s not “MAPS” and “NOMAPS.” Or any of that garbage.
It’s pedophiles and…pedophiles.
I’ve seen pedophiles claim that, because they are “NOMAPS,” children should be left alone with them.
That the label “pedophile” could be an obstacle between them and children.
Fuck that.
They’re pedophiles.
I don’t have an urge to rape!
or maybe….
THE FUCK.
You’re not a nomap. You interact with Children AND WANT TO RAPE THEM. FOR FUCKS SAKE.
And this, children of Tumblr, is why I want “ Nomaps ” and “ maps ” to die.
It’s partly satire my friend. I just love seeing you guys get so hot headed over words with no meaning
Please do not joke about wanting to rape children. It detracts from our message that we 100% do not want to do that.
Is that the message or the reality, though? A lot of so-called “nomaps” seem perfectly fine with openly lusting after children. I love how the “respectable” pedophiles on this thread are more concerned about message and image than, you know, how fucked up it is to act like pedophilic attraction is OK and something to be normalized on an open site.
yes, the fact that we do not want to rape children is 100% reality. hence why we do not approve of those conducting themselves in a manner contradictory to this fact.
You’re using an unsupported assertion here, that no one who identifies as non-offending would want to rape a child. You don’t know that. You may know that about yourself, but you can’t vouch for the desire and behavior of people you don’t know. Non-offending is a behavior, not an identity or orientation.
So instead of assuming that no self-identified “nomap” could or could ever want to offend and that these gross statements about child rape are just an image problem that doesn’t reflect the reality, maybe you should be more concerned about the effects of normalizing pedophilia online and how pedophiles are talking about their attraction like it’s any other attraction. It’s not, as I discussed in the op.
I never made that assertion. Yes, unfortunately there self-asserted “nomaps” who are actually pro-contact. however, truth is more than just self-assertion. my assertion is that no true anti-contact wants to hurt a child.
One, that’s called a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Two, it doesn’t even make sense in the framework you propose. If the “we” in the assertion that “we do not want to rape children” refers to “true” no-contact pedophiles, then the logical answer to @flyloverdove would be “you’re not actually no-contact” as @garchomp-anti said, instead of “it detracts from our message” and that it is “contradictory to this [purported] fact [that true no-contact ‘nomaps’ do not want to rape children]” as you said.
As you yourself admit, some self-identified non-offenders are in fact pro-contact because, surprise, non-offending and no-contact are behaviors, not identities. If flyloverdove is pro-contact as they appear to be, then their conduct cannot contradict your assertion that true no-contact pedophiles do not want to rape children, since they are not a true no-contact pedophile.
calling it a “no true scotsman” fallacy ignores the fact that there is a strict definition of anti-contact; being outside of that definition excludes one from actual membership of the ideology. It’s the same with any other ideology. if you call yourself progressive but don’t have progressive views, you’re not a progressive. if you call yourself conservative but don’t have conservative views, you’re not a conservative. if you call yourself anti-contact but don’t have anti-contact views, you’re not anti-contact.
If @flyloverdove actually believes it is acceptable to rape children, then yes, he is pro-contact, and therefore not among us. Otherwise he is anti-contact, in which case it remains true that he must be conscientious of how he represents himself among us.
Non-offending is the behavior of not committing any sexual offense against children. anti-contact is the ideology that it is wrong to do so because of children’s inability to meaningfully consent to anything sexual.
Anyone who believes that it is okay to rape children does not meet the definition of anti-contact and therefore is not anti-contact. if flyloverdove meets the definition of anti-contact, he is misconducting himself; if not, he is conducting himself consistently as pro-contact.
So under the no-contact view is it wrong for people to talk openly about how sexually attractive children are and how one would like to take them home and snuggle with them? Or is it only wrong if the person talking this way is pro-contact, or is no-contact and creates an image problem for other no-contact pedophiles?
I ask because the person in question doesn’t behave like a no-contact pedophile, and your disapproval of their behavior doesn’t address the fact that they appear to be pro-contact, and also doesn’t discuss whether it’s okay to talk about children this way.
Pedophilic attraction is not a sexual orientation, it is an urge to rape. I’ve seen people compare it to orientations like being straight or gay, and that’s a… really misleading comparison. Same-gender attraction, for instance, is capable of being expressed in a consensual way and usually is. So can heterosexual attraction.
But say you are a woman attracted to adult men and you gain sexual satisfaction by raping them or fantasizing about raping them. This part of your attraction, if expressed, can only result in the pain and suffering of the people you are attracted to, or may be steps toward ingratiating yourself to them and undermining their will to say no. In this case YES, I would have huge issues with this straight woman’s sexuality, and would urge her to get help and stay away from men.
The real parallel to being attracted to children is not any straight or queer orientation capable of consensual expression, but rather an urge that leads to rape or emotional abuse. Because that is what attraction to minors is, the urge to rape children, and that is not an okay thing or an identity to celebrate. It is a condition to be managed so that people won’t be hurt.
Also, it’s not “MAPS” and “NOMAPS.” Or any of that garbage.
It’s pedophiles and…pedophiles.
I’ve seen pedophiles claim that, because they are “NOMAPS,” children should be left alone with them.
That the label “pedophile” could be an obstacle between them and children.
Fuck that.
They’re pedophiles.
I don’t have an urge to rape!
or maybe….
THE FUCK.
You’re not a nomap. You interact with Children AND WANT TO RAPE THEM. FOR FUCKS SAKE.
And this, children of Tumblr, is why I want “ Nomaps ” and “ maps ” to die.
It’s partly satire my friend. I just love seeing you guys get so hot headed over words with no meaning
Please do not joke about wanting to rape children. It detracts from our message that we 100% do not want to do that.
Is that the message or the reality, though? A lot of so-called “nomaps” seem perfectly fine with openly lusting after children. I love how the “respectable” pedophiles on this thread are more concerned about message and image than, you know, how fucked up it is to act like pedophilic attraction is OK and something to be normalized on an open site.
yes, the fact that we do not want to rape children is 100% reality. hence why we do not approve of those conducting themselves in a manner contradictory to this fact.
You’re using an unsupported assertion here, that no one who identifies as non-offending would want to rape a child. You don’t know that. You may know that about yourself, but you can’t vouch for the desire and behavior of people you don’t know. Non-offending is a behavior, not an identity or orientation.
So instead of assuming that no self-identified “nomap” could or could ever want to offend and that these gross statements about child rape are just an image problem that doesn’t reflect the reality, maybe you should be more concerned about the effects of normalizing pedophilia online and how pedophiles are talking about their attraction like it’s any other attraction. It’s not, as I discussed in the op.
I never made that assertion. Yes, unfortunately there self-asserted “nomaps” who are actually pro-contact. however, truth is more than just self-assertion. my assertion is that no true anti-contact wants to hurt a child.
One, that’s called a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Two, it doesn’t even make sense in the framework you propose. If the “we” in the assertion that “we do not want to rape children” refers to “true” no-contact pedophiles, then the logical answer to @flyloverdove would be “you’re not actually no-contact” as @garchomp-anti said, instead of “it detracts from our message” and that it is “contradictory to this [purported] fact [that true no-contact ‘nomaps’ do not want to rape children]” as you said.
As you yourself admit, some self-identified non-offenders are in fact pro-contact because, surprise, non-offending and no-contact are behaviors, not identities. If flyloverdove is pro-contact as they appear to be, then their conduct cannot contradict your assertion that true no-contact pedophiles do not want to rape children, since they are not a true no-contact pedophile.
Pedophilic attraction is not a sexual orientation, it is an urge to rape. I’ve seen people compare it to orientations like being straight or gay, and that’s a… really misleading comparison. Same-gender attraction, for instance, is capable of being expressed in a consensual way and usually is. So can heterosexual attraction.
But say you are a woman attracted to adult men and you gain sexual satisfaction by raping them or fantasizing about raping them. This part of your attraction, if expressed, can only result in the pain and suffering of the people you are attracted to, or may be steps toward ingratiating yourself to them and undermining their will to say no. In this case YES, I would have huge issues with this straight woman’s sexuality, and would urge her to get help and stay away from men.
The real parallel to being attracted to children is not any straight or queer orientation capable of consensual expression, but rather an urge that leads to rape or emotional abuse. Because that is what attraction to minors is, the urge to rape children, and that is not an okay thing or an identity to celebrate. It is a condition to be managed so that people won’t be hurt.
Also, it’s not “MAPS” and “NOMAPS.” Or any of that garbage.
It’s pedophiles and…pedophiles.
I’ve seen pedophiles claim that, because they are “NOMAPS,” children should be left alone with them.
That the label “pedophile” could be an obstacle between them and children.
Fuck that.
They’re pedophiles.
I don’t have an urge to rape!
or maybe….
THE FUCK.
You’re not a nomap. You interact with Children AND WANT TO RAPE THEM. FOR FUCKS SAKE.
And this, children of Tumblr, is why I want “ Nomaps ” and “ maps ” to die.
It’s partly satire my friend. I just love seeing you guys get so hot headed over words with no meaning
Please do not joke about wanting to rape children. It detracts from our message that we 100% do not want to do that.
Is that the message or the reality, though? A lot of so-called “nomaps” seem perfectly fine with openly lusting after children. I love how the “respectable” pedophiles on this thread are more concerned about message and image than, you know, how fucked up it is to act like pedophilic attraction is OK and something to be normalized on an open site.
yes, the fact that we do not want to rape children is 100% reality. hence why we do not approve of those conducting themselves in a manner contradictory to this fact.
You’re using an unsupported assertion here, that no one who identifies as non-offending would want to rape a child. You don’t know that. You may know that about yourself, but you can’t vouch for the desire and behavior of people you don’t know. Non-offending is a behavior, not an identity or orientation.
So instead of assuming that no self-identified “nomap” could or could ever want to offend and that these gross statements about child rape are just an image problem that doesn’t reflect the reality, maybe you should be more concerned about the effects of normalizing pedophilia online and how pedophiles are talking about their attraction like it’s any other attraction. It’s not, as I discussed in the op.
Cultural appropriation and cultural sharing in Avatar: The Last Airbender compared.
Reblogging myself to talk about the ‘Disrespectful’ gif because Mai and Ty Lee’s disrespect in that scene is toward not only the Kyoshi Warriors’ culture but to the Warriors themselves as well. But that’s always the case, isn’t it? Cultural disrespect always goes with personal disrespect. Always.
Mai and Ty Lee’s attitude here plays into a really pernicious stereotype about women in colonialized cultures, that they are hypersexual seductresses out to sink their claws into men, especially men of the colonializing group. Of course the reality is that men of the colonizing group, and often women as well, hypersexualize and prey on the colonized people.
I mean, the Kyoshi Warriors were foraging in the middle of nowhere. They weren’t dressed up to look pretty: their clothes and war paint were their uniforms and ties to their heritage, not look-at-me-I’m-so-beautiful decorations. Yet so ingrained were the stereotypes Mai and Ty Lee had been taught about Earth Kingdom women, they took one look at the Kyoshi Warriors and dismissed them as exotic, sexualized creatures. The Fire Nation girls even seem to take OFFENSE at how the Warriors are dressed, as though their clothes are somehow demeaning or a provocation.
In the process Mai and Ty Lee subtly set themselves up as the more liberated women, the serious fighters as oppsed to these frivolous foreign girls. And I’m willing to bet a lot that the Fire Nation used its comparative gender equality for propaganda purposes, harping on the need to save the oppressed Water Tribe and Earth Kingdom women from Water Tribe and Earth Kingdom men. Sozin’s own stated motivation for starting the war was exactly what we would call a white savior complex if he were white. This is how white feminism and the white savior complex work to reinforce colonialism in our world.
While all the characters in ATLA are coded as POC, mostly Asians, these dynamics of colonialism and supremacy apply across culture and race. In fact I’m quite happy that ATLA depicts these issues between nonwhite peoples. Though colonialism by European and European-descended cultures is the most dominant currently in our world (hence the descriptor ‘white’), it has never been solely a European issue. Just look at how the Air Nomads are explicitly based on Tibet, which is suffering from decades of Chinese colonialism. China and other nonwhite colonializing powers have used their lack of European descent as a shield, but it’s not a defense. Just because European colonization has been massively destructive doesn’t mean other peoples can’t be oppressive as well.
I’d like to add to this idea that Earth Kingdom women are treated to a gendered form of racial or ethnic prejudice, because it runs though more than just the interactions Azula and her minions have with the Kyoshi Warriors. In “Zuko Alone,” for example, when Iroh sends Azula an Earth Kingdom doll, he writes, “And for Azula, a new friend. She wears the latest fashion for Earth Kingdom girls.“ What’s stressed are the aesthetics of her dress, and a hobby that Azula, and later Mai and Ty Lee, plainly associates with girlyness, not only femininity, but a childish, useless femininity.
This derision of Earth Kingdom girls and women as “girly” and overly feminine comes up again not only during the battle with the Kyoshi Warriors, but after as well. Mai for example talks about wanting to get out of the girly disguise she has to wear, i. e., dressing as a Kyoshi Warrior, and when Ty Lee suggests that the Kyoshi Warriors have less depressing make up than Mai.
We can contrast this with what Suki says about her uniform: “It’s a warrior’s uniform. You should be proud. The silk threads symbolizes the brave blood that flows through our
veins. The gold insignia represents the honor of the warrior’s heart.”
Later, in the Comic “Going Home Again,” Azula puts a brainwashed Joo Dee in nominal charge of Ba Sing Se because she is so pliable. If the subjugation of Earth Kingdom girls is a rallying cry for public support for the war in the Fire Nation, it certainly does not trickle down to what happens on the ground. Just as normally happens in real life, Azula is perfectly happy to take over exploiting Earth Kingdom women in a gendered way similar to the way Long Feng did. There isn’t any enlightened spreading of feminist values here, not when gendered exploitation is so useful to the new colonial government.
The implied view that all Earth Kingdom women are oppressed also shows a cultural flattening of the Earth Kingdom. It’s pretty clear from the series that Kyoshi Island culturally distinct from Ba Sing Se or Gaoling. They have different gender roles and norms, and this is entirely ignored by Azula, Mai, and Ty Lee. This is also common to colonial powers historically, and still common today. Think of the way so many white western people treat East Asian ethnicities as interchangeable, especially with regards to and fetishization. In many ways, the implied attitudes of the Fire Nation people toward Earth Kingdom women and girls functions as a G-rated version of that same fetishization process.
Yup, the thing about the colonialist savior complex is that there’s no actual saving involved. These women are exploited in rhetoric to justify colonialism, and also in reality as well. It’s no wonder the Dai Li switched allegiance to Azula–she perpetuated the same system they were part of and benefited from, she just played the game better than Long Feng did.
One of the things I really liked about ATLA was how it showed the Fire Nation’s distorted perception of other cultures compared to their perceptions of themselves. The Kyoshi Warriors are a good example of this as you point out, as is what Earthbending means for Haru vs. the prison warden’s contempt for Earthbenders in the episode “Imprisoned.” The Earth Kingdom and Water Tribe characters have prejudices against Fire Nation people, too, with nearly deadly results when Jet tries to wipe out a village, but it’s also clear that the harm isn’t equal when the Water Tribes and the Earth Kingdoms are undergoing systematic genocide while the Fire Nation is facing, at its outskirts, insurgent pushback–some of it terrorist in nature, as in Jet’s case–from its aggression.
I like how the show’s response to all these complex issues was showing the diversity not only between common groupings but within them. Some Earth Kingdom women, like the Ba Sing Se upper crust, really are pampered and hyperfeminine, and that in itself isn’t a bad thing (though the system of economic exploitation underlying their luxury certainly is), the show’s subtle devaluation of girliness as bad notwithstanding. Katara, Toph, and Sokka all find something to enjoy in the Ba Sing Se high culture that caters to and is shaped by noblewomen. Some Earth Kingdom women are warriors and healers, others are everyday working class people like Jin. That kind of variety is a great antidote to the flattening view the Fire Nation imposed on other cultures, and in a way the whole show gives the lie to the idea of Asian interchangeability. (I mean it’s not perfect–it still follows the trope of “Asia” being primarily East Asia, with what could be a Southeast Asia analogue played largely as a joke and the Tibet stand-in presented as already dead and gone. But one story can’t do everything, and I can still enjoy it while seeing where it falls into common traps of thought.)
Let’s not forget Azula’s rant about how she was born to rule and is inherently better than Long Feng because of that. It reeks of a colonizational mindset.
Yes, absolutely Azula was speaking out of a colonialist mindset. I mean she did try to make it about class, referencing LF’s humble origins in contrast to her own royal heritage and I’m sure she believes that too. But she has absolute conviction in the “Fire Man’s Burden” and I think she purposefully toned down that part in that scene because she wanted the Dai Li on her side. Her harping on royal blood rings pretty hollow anyway when she deposed and imprisoned the Earth King whose blood is just as royal as her own. Clearly Earth Kingdom royalty, to her, means nothing.
To be clear Long Feng is a repressive, cruel, power-hungry man who could rise so far because he played into, and further corrupted, a corrupt system. I have no interest in excusing him or the ruling system of Ba Sing Se, and in fact I love that whole arc precisely because of the complexities involved. Colonialism is awful but the governments they replace can be terrible, too. In fact it might not even be much of a replacement, with the worst elements of the old regime, in this case the Dai Li, actively colluding with colonial rule.
Anyone remember the time The Doctor bridal carried Martha Jones to save her life? And how fans were like, it’s not romantic, he’s just helping her, nothing more?
And yet Kylo Ren force knocks out Rey, picks her up and kidnaps her and it 100% must be romantic foreshadowing.
Fandom, man.
The Doctor ‘*bridal carrying’ Martha was the first thing I thought of when I saw a rey/l0 arguing that if a man ‘bridal carries’ a women they are 100% guaranteed to be in a romantic relationship down the line.
*was the term ‘bridal carry’ a thing before rey/l0?? I mean I know that ‘carry a bride over the threshold’ is a an age old tradition but I’d never seen the term ‘bridal carry’ used to describe anytime a man carries a women in his arms until rey/l0.
As long as we’re talking Doctor Who, the Doctor once carried Amy Pond the same way.
Monster carry would be a better phrase for reylo; bridal carry implies consciousness and willingness to be carried. Relatedly, here’s @monsterscarry for all your “pictures of movie monsters carrying women” needs! (Occasionally nsfw-ish.)
The visual references for having Kylo Ren pick up Rey were connected to the “terrible monster carries away fainting woman” idea. This is reinforced when we see Finn reacting so strongly to it. That was the point: to have Finn see Rey carried off in the arms of a monster.
I’ve never seen that monstercarry blog before, thanks for the link!
Yes, it’s a classic monstercarry. A bridal carry, of course, is consentual and the person being carried is conscious and, you know, wants to be carried.
With Doctor Who, they’re not really bridal carries either, since the women are unconscious, but he’s saving them. Not sure what the term for that is, but it’s not a monstercarry.
Seriously, this is a great observation. It was so obvious once I read it, but somehow I hadn’t connected it to the classic movie monster trope.
Monster carry, omg that is perfect for reylo. Perfect.
When I first read that meta (yup I read it, ugh, back when I was trying to figure out how the hell reylo had become such a thing) I can remember being confused by a the pictures of happy (and conscious) brides being carried by their grooms right above a gif of Kylo knocking Rey unconscious and picking her up and the argument that that was clearly meant to reference a ‘bridal carry’. I’m not an expert on tropes, clearly, and I don’t have a degree in English lit but I’ve got damn EYES and could plainly SEE that its not the same thing at all. And no we aren’t meant to think its the same thing just because Rey is dressed in light colours not even white ffs, find me a bride who would be okay with a dress in the colour of Rey’s costume and Kylo is in black.
And yes the Doctor carrying his companions (I’d completely forgotten about Amy and he carried Clara too) is another thing altogether.
All of this is exactly why I’ve been so confused by the term bridal carry being used any time a man carries a women in his arms. Yes sometimes its meant to foreshadow romance but not always.
I think I’ll go with bridal carry for this:
That’s one of the final scenes (I believe) in An Officer and a Gentleman, and the romance is meant to be there.
Damsel carry for this kind of scene (”in distress” is implied, yeah?):
At this point in their storyline, anyone who chooses to read this as sexual or romantic is definitely fooling themselves. (Amy is, well, his mother-in-law… which sounds weird now that I’ve typed it. Nonetheless, that does put a bit of a damper on that whole sex & romance thing.)
And here’s our monster carry:
The classic monster carry doesn’t foreshadow mutual love with a happy ending, but it does often come with the implication (or direct message) of one-sided attraction and romantic feeling. Poor sad monster just wants to rape love the human woman.
Using the monster carry in TFA is almost certainly one reason some people think of reylo in sexual terms. I didn’t see any sexual or romantic chemistry between Kylo and Rey in the film, and I do think that some people are casting about for an appropriate white guy to pair her with (fandom is utterly predictable in that way), but having Kylo carry her like that? It sends a message, whether intended or not.
(Which might have been part of what the-meta-that-just-goes-on-and-on was saying, but they also said that Rey “friend-zoned” Finn, which is plenty of reason to side-eye the whole thing.)
Yeah, An Officer and a Gentleman is what I think of when I think of the “bridal carry” in film.
An ironic thing about the monstercarry is that the monster carrying off the white woman is a stand-in for a “threatening” minority (think King Kong with its racist Black Brute coding or Dracula who is heavily coded as an Eastern European Jewish man). The monstercarry is not meant to be something desirable. Sure, The Blonde in the various King Kong movies has empathy for him, but she’s never going to be his love. She watches him die and is sad about it, but her endgame is never to be with him.
In that context, it’s fair to say that Kylo monstercarrying Rey is an inversion of a trope, because he’s white and (based on fandom reaction to him) desirable. But he’s never going to be Rey’s love any more than Kong is going to be The Blonde’s love. Even if she finds empathy for him (and I don’t doubt she will). The man she loves is a Black man. And, in that context, with the racist overtones of many past monstercarrys, that’s actually pretty cool, IMO.
Spot the difference! (Hint: there isn’t one.)
It also seems like TFA based a lot of the Rey and Kylo interaction imagery before she successfully rejects his mental penetration on Christopher Lee as Dracula, which makes sense since he also played a Sith of royal lineage (Count Dooku). If they were going to reference any one specific classic movie monster’s monstercarry and intentionally rapist-coded demeanor, I could absolutely see Abrams putting in a nod to Lee as a Super Nerdy Easter Egg (like his Beastie Boys references or the masked celebrity cameos. TFA, thy middle name is Super Nerdy Easter Eggs).
I can’t believe I didn’t know there was a term for the monstercarry before now!
WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK THAT THE INTENTION OF SHOWING A BLACK-CAPED MURDERER (“A CREATURE IN A MASK,” NATCH) CARRYING AN UNCONSCIOUS WOMAN IN DRAPING WHITE (ok beige) HARKENS TO ANYTHING ELSE?
I hadn’t thought of it as a Christopher Lee homage, but it makes sense. Lee died in 2015, too.
something to note is that the artist who drew the kylo and rey celebration piece that @aimmyarrowshigh referenced said himself that it WAS meant to be a parallel to those old 50’s/60’s monster movie posters with the monster carrying the unconscious heroine (“monster carry” as other people in the thread have called it). if he (and the folks at LF he said he worked with) drew that comparison, i don’t think it’s a stretch to say that was the original intention in the film
Well isn’t that an interesting detail the reyl0s choose to ignore. I’ve seen so many of them claim that there is NO WAY Disney would have approved that celebration piece unless the ‘bridal carry’ was meant to foreshadow romance.
They know. I remember an argument I had on Reddit with them. They insulted the original intentions by the artist, and even went to the point of questioning him all the way on Instagram. The author was flabbergasted about their interpretation and specified that was never the intention. No official employees from LucasFilm communicated to him a “secret agenda”, not even a romantic or sexual connection between these characters. He said that he was trying to interpret the monster carry in a different angle of the scene.
Unfortunately, some antis were disrespectful towards the artist as well because they thought he was favoring Reylo when he specified the opposite. It was a gigantic mess.
here’s (part of, unfortunately this is the only screen cap i have) the actual apology since unfortunately he’s deleted it so the link on that reddit post doesn’t work
when are male celebs gonna stop wearing boring ass plain black and white tuxedos and suits to award shows like step it up they all look the same I don’t care who made it. I wanna see some hunger games Capitol style fashion
They need to take a page from John Boyega’s book. That purple suit. Hot damn.
Not forgetting the all red, and the one with the blue blazer…….
In case people missed the red suit and his blue look:
And then the gorgeous purple Decepticon one:
damn son
I see your John Boyega and would also like to add Michael B. Jordan
also, it’s not red carpet but I refuse to ignore these beauties:
Man I almost get personally offended when I see posts about dope ass red carpet suits and I don’t see anyone mention Nick Cannon:
….and its not just the suit, he rocks the iconic shoes and hats too.
May I add NHL defenceman P.K. Subban to this list?
Because daaaaannnngggg
im pretty sure the reason they wear boring suits is that they dont want to overshadow their dates. Or maybe they arent supposed to overshadow them? its stupid either way
Gotta add Riz into the mix because he looks so good always.
Honestly it’s just white guys who dress boring. Black dudes out here dressing flashy as fuck and y’all just ain’t seeing them
^^^
also:
Every single one of these looks is flawless omg
You guys put in Donnie Yen without THESE lovely outfits?
Or how about these that i call Donnie wearing a Couch:
OH COME ON NOW YOU’RE STILL MISSING THE BEST ONE.
MOC dress best
y’all seen my boy rami?
I hate when men only wears the same black suit. THIS IS GOLD!
MOC have been wearing gorgeous and colorful suits to red carpet events for years. white men wear mildly different cuts of the same shit. “male celebs” already did all that. pay attention to something besides white men.
every year I tell y’all to watch the NFL draft even if you don’t know anything about football because it’s full of enormous young men of color playing for the Best Dinner Jacket trophy (while the white dudes are wearing gray, black, or navy blue, because they suck and get drafted by stupid teams)
Malik McDowell, 2017
Laquon Treadwell, 2016
oh, and the family gets into it too sometimes
Takkarist McKinley (right) with parents upstaging the hell out of him, rude
Hold up only one picture of Daveed?!
What even is that one? Who knows! Who cares! He looks amazing!
How do you make patterns work this well together?!
?????
!!!!!!!!
Honestly? What a wow. What a fucking statement. Holy fuck.
OUTSHINE ME ALL U LIKE IDGAF JUST LEMME BE YOUR DATE PLEEEEEASE
L.J.'s Obsessions 