Meowrpheus :3

Do people really not see the appeal of enemies-to-lovers? I keep seeing these ridiculous posts about how Problematic it is that people are shipping people who *gasp* have fought in canon *clutches pearls*. It’s totally fine to not enjoy the trope, but to pretend like it’s some ridiculous new idea that “silly 14 y/o fangirls” have made up and it has no appeal outside of a “bad boy kink” (which is very patronizing and sudetly misogynistic phrase) is extremely disingenuous. ‪Enemies-to-lovers is one of the oldest and most enduring fictional stories of all time, and for good reason. Because many, many people enjoy it for many, many different reasons. I’m going to focus on het enemies-to-lovers and the female gaze because that’s where I see the most controversy happening. Although there certainly is a lot to be said about slash/femslash enemies-to-lovers, especially how it can be used to explore internalized homophobia and the gay experience, and I may make a follow-up post about that.

What baffles me the most is people that accuse enemies-to-lovers of being inherently abusive or abusive when there’s any actual conflict (like, you know, stories have) beyond something boring that no one would write like they stepped on each other’s toes in a movie theater. This extreme purity police attitude shows a lack of any understanding about storytelling and what like...fiction is. But diving even deeper into this claim, enemies-to-lovers is in dynamically the exact opposite of an abusive relationship, and that in of itself is a large part of its appeal for a lot of people. No intimate abuser will announce themselves as your sworn enemy, they will present themselves as everything you have ever wanted and the most perfect partner you could imagine. Instalove, the exact opposite of enemies-to-lovers, is actually the trope that resembles love bombing aka how most abusive relationships start. One of the reasons enemies-to-lovers can be so appealing, especially to women and people who have been in toxic relationships, is because when the enemy becomes your lover - you know they mean it. You know how they behave with their enemies, you know the darkest part of them and you don’t need to worry about what is lurking beneath the surface because you’ve already seen it and battled it and gotten past it.

As far as being misogynistic, enemies-to-lovers is literally a power fantasy for the female gaze. It’s the idea of someone who once opposed you being so enamored by you in your most unfiltered, non-seductive form that they listen to you, see things from your perspective, and ultimately align their strength with yours. Women are told that we need to make ourselves small and inoffensive and perfect to attract men or anyone or anything positive, so of course the idea that someone could become deeply enamored, almost against their will, with you when you are actively fighting them, arguing with them, challenging them etc. that those qualities, that being opinionated and angry and passionate and strong, could be the very thing that attracts them to you is a subversion of that idea. And enemies are equals, for a woman to be considered a worthy adversary to a man (and not by becoming a man to him or a sexual “temptress”) means the woman is being respected as his equal. This is a dynamic entirely based on equality, it relies on both characters being of equal strength, much more so than most romance tropes.

This is not exclusive to the female gaze though, in general it’s a fantasy that many can appreciate. Everyone has insecurities and bad moods, and intimacy is difficult for everyone (to varying degrees). In an enemies-to-lovers ship, the lovers have already seen each other in their most unromantic state. They have seen each other screaming with the rage of battle, have seen each other’s scorn and sneer, have seen each other so intimately that once they enter “lovers” and even “to”, there is nothing new to discover except the good parts. Imagine if you could get into a relationship where you don’t have to worry about what your partner’s hiding or if they will reject you because you always know the worst of each other, have already accepted it, and now get to fall in love discovering only the good parts. It creates a very intimate and intense dynamic.

On the other hand, there’s the appeal from the perceptive of the antagonist. Some people prefer to identify their trauma or pain or insecurities with antagonists rather than protagonists because they don’t see that part of themselves as the hero and/or they don’t want to have to hold that part of themselves up to some pristine standard. Some people want to see the dark part of themselves go full dark and then be loved anyways. The idea that you can always change for the better, that you are always worthy of love no matter how damaged you think you are. The idea that someone bright and good could see the most angry, hurt, ugly part of you and still love you. That is a very hopeful and positive message to a lot of people. I will never understand these types of people’s hateful opposition to redemption and healing, because I truly think that’s one of the most beautiful and powerful messages a story can have when it’s done right. The obsession some people have with punishment and condemnation simply is not healthy or productive.

Also, if people could stop infantalizing women as if we can’t differentiate reality from fiction with our silly girl brains, and also stop demonizing girls/women for exploring their sexuality in fiction by calling every goddamn thing “fetishization” - basically just stop being misogynistic af, yeah that’d be great thanks.

Oscar Isaac on Rey being a well-crafted character

Ben Solo did N O T H I N G wrong!

wip

Tragic romances can work beautifully, so long as the audience gets to see the actual romance before it all goes downhill.

Romeo and Juliet exchanged wedding vows in secret. Anakin and Padme spent time frolicking through the fields of Naboo together. Will and Louisa went to Mauritius for a romantic getaway. Jack and Rose had their iconic "I'm flying!" scene.

But Ben and Rey had none of that. A man who was preyed upon since conception, who wanted nothing more than to be "free of [his] pain," was freed only in death. A woman who spent her entire life longing for a family of her own was finally(!!!) rewarded with one for all of ten seconds, before regressing back to square one, as if her whole journey was a nihilistic game of 'Snakes and Ladders.'

That ending is neither 'hopeful' nor cathartic. And it certainly has no place in a fairytale.

Thor Odinson is the one in MCU, who suffered most.

His world, the Asgard, was destroyed. His hammer was smashed into pieces by his sister, who turned out to be an evil war-obsessed psychopath, also she killed his best friends. He lost his eye. He lost his mother, than the father. All the asgardian people was killed by Thanos.

And, the most sad, he lost his brother. He watched Loki dies three fucking times. And every time he could do nothing.

Why does Marvel hate Thor so much?

- I’ve never felt so alone. - You’re not alone.

- I thought I was alone. - Erik, you’re not alone.

- Rey, I want you to join me. - Don’t do this, Ben, please don’t go this way.

- I want you by my side. - I’m sorry.

… fukc

Reylos:

Stucky

In my brain they are together ༎ຶ⁠‿⁠༎ຶ

Reality...(I love to cry)

Sketches