I just need some assurance I guess, if anyone has any experience. My husband (36) had an unrelated CT in summer 2022 that showed possible lung fibrosis. So we just repeated in Oct 2023. That one showed stable fibrosis, but mediastinal and hilar lymph node enlargement. So we did a PET. The PET lit up so much. Thyroid, multiple lymph nodes in the chest, opacities in the lung, and a lesion on his hip. Biopsy of the thyroid shows papillary thyroid carcinoma. We have seen a pulmonologist and will be getting the chest lymph nodes and lung nodules biopsied next week via bronchoscopy. MRI of the hip showed “enhancement” of the lesion. It needs biopsied, however radiology said it’s hard to access, so I guess we’re doing another scan? Waiting to hear the plan on that one. All of his Drs are so concerned given the way his PET looks. He has had multiple labs to rule out autoimmune disorders. All were clear. His ENT sent biopsy for genetic mutations and it is BRAF and TERT positive. So it’s “aggressive”. I’m just so confused. Could he really have mets all through his chest lymph nodes, lungs, and bone? Since just summer 2022? So many people have said papillary thyroid cancer isn’t bad. That it’s slow growing. His labs also ruled out other conditions. So then what else could it be? The waiting is agony. My husband is scared, I’m scared. We have a six month old daughter. Even if he survives this now, what does it mean for his quality of life in the next 5-10 years? Does anybody out there have any experience with stage 4 papillary thyroid cancer? Thanks to anyone who can help.

This is a really long story with lots of context so I'll do my best to organize it into current situation, then his backstory and hers. I'm also not using real names or specific locations for any of this to try and keep this private. This also has some contradicting stories and because of how their relationship is structured relies mostly on information I have gotten from my sister, so I'm telling you the story I got from her first and then adding in what I've found out. I'll try to tell this as unbiased as I can but it's been a huge issue in my family for a long time now and that's a little difficult for me to do.
My (20F) sister (Olivia, 24F) has been dating this guy (Trevor, 25M) since 2021. When they started dating, she talked about him fairly often, sent a few pictures of them, ect., but then after a month she stopped mentioning him/ was cagey when we (me and my mom mostly) asked how he was so we assumed it just hadn't worked out. Then two months later she insisted that my parents (54F and 56M) and I all come to visit her college to meet Trevor before he went into the Army (she lived several hours away from my parents and several hours from my college, so I had to get a bus ticket and my parents had to get a hotel room to do this. We only met him once for dinner). Now they've been dating long distance for three years after a three month in-person relationship. She is in nursing school and is planning on moving across the country (literally opposite corners of the map) to live with him and is not applying to any residency programs outside of the Army base area (limiting her choices a LOT from her original goals and narrowing employment opportunities).
Olivia met Trevor on several dating apps, matched with him, but didn't really want to go out with him. He was really persistent, so her friend convinced her to go out with him. She lied about the way they met to our parents and told them they met at the gym through a mutual friend (she lied to me about this at first too and told me the truth about 3 months after they started dating). At the time, Trevor was working as a used car salesman and living at home (~45 min. away from Olivia's school in a rural area) because his sports scholarship had been dropped before his Senior year due to covid at the college he had been attending out of state. The university was unaccredited (I later did some internet stalking and found out it was accredited), so his credits would not transfer and he would have to start over. He was saving up money to attend school in state at the large college Olivia attended so he could go back to school. **Our state has crazy low tuition costs in-state and a full-tuition scholarship program for good high school GPA and SAT scores. There was also a "feeder" community college that had half the cost per credit hour that a lot of people would go to before the larger university if they didn't get in straight out of high school.**
Olivia told me that Trevor had applied to her college and not gotten in (she later told me he HAD gotten in but been unable to afford tuition). Either way, he decided to join the Army because his father had been in the Army. The Army would take his credit hours and he would be able to finish his degree during his 5 year contract or use the GI bill once he got out. **She is comparing the situation to our father, who joined the Army directly out of high school and used the GI bill to go to college after his 2 year contract because his parents wouldn't pay for school. He was a medic in the military, worked as an EMT through college, and then went to nursing school.** The original plan was that Trevor would be a Green Beret (special forces), he completed basic training and and got several months through training and moved to the secondary base in NC before failing the running portion of a physical by about 10 seconds and being dropped from the selection process. He then decided that he wanted to be a Ranger (another elite position). He got sent back to GA, then to the Ranger school base in WA (it took a couple of months before he was sent to WA). Again, he got partway through the training before failing the running portion of a physical by a few seconds. He is now not sure if he will be continuing Ranger school (failing the physical means no, but commanders may pass him anyways if they think he should continue). For a while, Trevor told Olivia that he might not stay at the base in WA if he wasn't in Ranger school and there were a variety of different bases he could be sent to, including somewhere in Italy, so she wasn't sure where to look for jobs. In the past month, Trevor told Olivia that he would likely stay in WA regardless of the Ranger school results.
Through this all, Olivia has visited Trevor at the different military bases countless times, driving from as far as south FL to NC and putting over 30,000 miles on a brand new car over the course of the 1.5 years she's owned it. Before she had the car, she paid for plane tickets to see him and hotels whenever she visited. At the time, she told me that he was paying for all of these trips because he was unable to visit her, was making an income that wasn't being spent, and she was working to save for nursing school and later was living off of student loans and savings during nursing school. She later admitted to me that she had paid for almost all of the expenses except for food when they ate out together and part of a hotel room one weekend.
A few odd things (to me) between Olivia and Trevor over the course of their relationship:
About a month into their relationship, Trevor got Olivia an over $300 christmas gift. He has not gotten her anything nearly that expensive since, and hasn't sent flowers for things like her college graduation or a severe emergency surgery she had last year. I don't care about monetary value or sending flowers, but I do think it is odd that he spent so much before moving away when he ostensibly didn't have much money, but now that he has an income and military sign-on bonus, he has not spent that much again.
Trevor's father left Trevor, his siblings, and his mother, but Trevor has a hat that his father gave him that he wore often. The hat says "Red Man" across the top of a picture of a Native American man wearing a feathered headdress. He has worn this hat several times around Olivia's friends and they told him they didn't like it and that it was racist. They also asked him to not wear it when he was with them and he refused because it was special to him and his father gave it to him. Olivia then told him to stop wearing it and he eventually agreed (Olivia told me that he stopped wearing the hat after this). A few weeks after this, I facetimed Olivia and Trevor was with her. She turned the camera so I could say hello to him, and he was wearing the hat. I talked to Olivia about this later and she told me that that was the first time he'd worn the hat in a while and it wasn't a big deal. Olivia has always been liberal and never racist, and I am uncomfortable that she was okay with him not only wearing the hat, but being with him while he had it on.
They dated for a little over 3 months in person before he joined the military (recently, Olivia told me that they actually met several months before she told everyone about him and that they actually dated for 6 months before he left). For the next two months in basic training, he was only able to use the phone for 15 minutes total once a week to talk to family and her. Throughout the different training programs he has completed he had sporadic and limited access to phones to communicate, and only in the past 6 months he has had access to his phone to facetime, text, and call (but sometimes he goes for a week or two without phone access). Olivia told me that they wrote letters during the time he didn't have consistent phone access. **I don't think that this is odd, I understand the military limits phone usage, etc., but I don't think they have been able to have an "average" long-distance relationship**
Last year, Olivia drove to GA to visit Trevor the weekend before Valentine's day. He had plans for them to take a pottery class, go on a hike, and have dinner at a nice restaurant. The day she got there, Trevor's barracks had their off-base privileges revoked because one of the guys had contraband. She would still be able to visit him on base though. Somehow, Trevor was able to get off base for long periods of time to her hotel, but unable to do the other activities he had planned for them.
In the past year, Olivia told me that she and Trevor were going to immediately marry when she got to WA so that they could move in together because they had to be married to live together anywhere. I and our dad- who was in the military- told her several times that this was not true, but she insisted it was. Then, his barracks were given an allowance to live off base in apartments because the barracks were being renovated/ rebuilt, so she backed off on the idea of getting married immediately after several long conversations with me. She is still insistent on moving in with Trevor, who lives with a roommate, when she moves to WA.
Some background on Olivia:
Olivia has ADHD and anxiety, and struggled particularly badly with the anxiety/ some depression after being broken up with by the boyfriend she dated before Trevor (he broke it off very abruptly, told her he just didn't love her anymore with no previous indications). Olivia is very pretty (objectively, not just because she's my sister), but had bad acne that she ended up going on accutane for at the time she started dating Trevor and was very insecure about it. She had also decided to not go to medical school, and pursue nursing instead around the same time she met Trevor. This was a very upsetting decision for her because she had been taking very hard courses and was burnt out but had told everyone she was going to be a doctor and thought that she would be letting us down by switching paths. Also around the time she started seeing Trevor, Olivia began being very cruel towards our mother (our mother had been borderline emotionally abusive in the past, but Olivia and I were both in college by then and fixing our relationships with her. She has been much better recently and Olivia and I believe that she had some mental health struggles that went unchecked that contributed). Now, several years later, Olivia told our family that she had acted like that because she was rpd by a friend of her ex-boyfriend's after her ex broke up with her. This person also gave her an STD.
I always believe people who say they have been S A'd, and we believed Olivia when she first told us, but some things have come to light that make me and my family question that. Right after Olivia and her ex broke up, Olivia told our cousin that she had gone out with one of his friends and had revenge/ breakup sex with him because he had also been dumped recently. Once my cousin told me this, I remembered that Olivia had told me about a guy she had a one night stand with after she was dumped. She showed me a picture of him, talked about how cute he was, etc. (no distress whatsoever). I know sometimes people behave in ways you wouldn't expect when a traumatic event occurs to them, but I really don't understand how or why Olivia would brag about this guy if he really did S A her.
Three months ago, Olivia was arrested for stealing a set of sheets from Walmart (incidentally, right before Trevor came to visit her on leave). She used the self check-out and only bought a small $5 item and the sheets. She held both in one hand and scanned each side because she had a cut on the other hand and was holding her wallet with it. She saw a 5 in front of the total number and thought it looked right because the total should have been about $50, paid, didn't get a receipt, and walked out. An employee at the door asked to see a receipt, which Olivia didn't have, so she pulled up her transaction history on her phone to show she had paid. At this point, the employee called the police and took Olivia into an office, where she was questioned and charged with shoplifting. (Olivia can get very emotional and probably got upset when the police questioned her, which may have led them to believe she was lying). Luckily, Olivia has managed to get the charges expunged, but the process is still ongoing. Because of her ADHD, if anyone genuinely made this mistake, I would believe it from her, but Olivia has been improving a lot on organization and being more attentive recently. It is extremely uncharacteristic of her to steal- she was honest to a fault as kids- she would break down from guilt and admit things to our parents that we would have gotten away with if she hadn't said anything.
Right now, my parents have met Trevor twice in person, and I've met him once in person and several times in passing over facetime. I personally don't think that Trevor seems to keep up with my sister or that they make each other shine, and that opinion is shared with family friends and family that have met Trevor. Olivia doesn't mention Trevor in front of our parents often because his name has become a topic of contention and argument between them. My parents don't think Trevor is right for Olivia. She has almost 2 college degrees and plans to become a nurse practitioner in the future, and he hasn't finished college and doesn't seem to have any drive to do so. Olivia is also well traveled and enjoys going to museums, concerts, etc., while Trevor has lived in rural FL his whole life (this is not Trevor's fault, and I don't think he is a lesser person because of it, but I don't see a lot of common ground between them). Trevor has not seemed very well spoken when I have talked to him and I just don't see a lot of qualities in him that Olivia values.
If you've gotten this far, I just don't know what to do. Olivia and my parents have a huge rift in their relationship right now and any mention of Trevor, with her around or not, explodes into a huge argument, discussion, or just icy silence. I want Olivia to be able to talk to me about him, and we are able to discuss things much better than she is with our parents. My parents have also started asking me about Olivia and Trevor because they know Olivia shares more with me, and it makes me uncomfortable because I don't want to betray Olivia's trust, but I'm also very worried about her. I know I can't control her actions and I'm having a really hard time trying to balance supporting Olivia but not supporting the relationship (I'm not going to lie to her about how I feel, but I don't want her to feel alienated or unloved by our family, because that is NOT the case). I also think that Olivia is romanticizing the fact that our parents don't like him because my father's parents had a rift with him over our mother when we were very young (this is a whole other story, but basically, his parents always favored his sister, his sister got (I think) jealous when he did well for himself and married my mother, who his parents initially likes, and she made up rumors/lies about my mother that turned his parents against her (this was way before our mother's suspected mental health struggles, which occured when Olivia and I were in middle/high school).
Please share any thoughts you have on the situation (am I reading too into things, is this not as bad as I think it is?), and any advice you have on navigating the relationships.
Tl;dr My sister's boyfriend lied about the circumstances of him dropping out of college and joining the military. Now I think he's lying about not making it through training for two different special/ elite forces. My sister has significantly changed her behavior and I think she may have lied about a significant traumatic event to our family. Now she is planning on moving across the country to him and moving in immediately. Our entire family doesn't like him and we're worried about her. How do I support her but not her relationship?

Hi all! This will be a very long post, but I hope it will be an invaluable resource in parrot care for anyone who is either considering getting a bird or has one already. I am NOT an expert and all provided information I have cited below for your viewing leisure; these are simply tips and educational content I've amassed over months of dedicated research and cobbled together in one convenient package. I will continue to update or make amends to this post as necessary and encourage insights from others so we can all do the very best for our feathered companions as possible.
(I should mention that there will always be exceptions to some of the broad generalizations elucidated here: for example, you might have a cuddly IRN despite the species' known aversiveness to touch).
With that being said, let's start by dismantling some very prevalent myths about parrot husbandry.
Myth #1: Placing your bird on your shoulder or the top of its cage will cause your parrot to think of itself as the "alpha" of the flock and thus, will encourage aggressive or dominant behavior towards the subservient human(s).
The reality is that parrots don't operate within a hierarchal system. Any observation of a "pecking order" among flock members is more than likely individual personality differences clashing or resource-guarding behavior.
Myth #2: All parrots need 12 hours of uninterrupted sleep in total darkness.
This is the myth I see peddled everywhere, and while there are some species less likely to be affected by these nocturnal habits, it can be detrimental to the welfare of others: a study showed that sleeping for more than 8 hours in 24 hours increased the likelihood that African Greys would feather pluck. Keep in mind that artificially decreasing daylight time by increasing the number of hours a parrot sleeps to ward off hormones won’t always work — in old-world parrots (cockatoos, greys) SHORTER daylight corresponds more with the breeding cycle and hormone triggers. The crux of the argument against this widely circulated fallacy is that, at best, parrots don't need 12 hours of sleep in complete darkness and at worst, it posits a significant risk factor for FDB (feather-damaging behavior). Yes, there is a 12/12 day-night cycle in the tropics, but that does not mean that parrots sleep for 12 hours straight and certainly not in what we presume must be deathly still darkness, for the wilderness is neither pitch-black nor soundless at night. Crucial to proper parrot psychosocial functioning is the ability to ROOST before sleeping; this is when birds start to settle down, hang out with and preen one another, an activity which confers numerous benefits to their overall health such as… I want to take a slight detour to discuss the popularity of "sleeper cages" and how replicating parrot breeding conditions in this manner (the only time a wild bird is isolated in darkness is when caring for its young in a nesting hollow) can promote a litany of unwanted hormonal behaviors. Not all birds will be affected by this of course, but it's something to be aware of. Your best bulwark against avoiding problem behaviors associated with avian sleep hygiene is to set up a stand in your bedroom or wherever you sleep and have your bird go to sleep at the same time you do. I understand that this arrangement isn’t feasible for everyone, so do what works best for you and your bird!
Myth #3: Cockatoos are unique among parrots for their “cuddliness.”
This statement is only partially true and for all the wrong reasons. In the wild, cockatoos take UP TO A YEAR OR LONGER to wean. Cockatoo parents are highly involved in the rearing of their offspring, providing feedings and physical comfort even after the young has fledged. Contrast this with the Amazon parrot's relatively neglectful parenting practices, and you'll see why many neotropical parrot species adapt better to captivity than their old-world brethren. Many new-world species can afford to encourage early independence in their young given the (relative) abundance of resources in the regions from which they originate compared to the arid, often harsh geographical range of some of the old-world parrot species like cockatoos. It stands to reason, intuitively, that it would be evolutionarily advantageous for young to enlist the support of their parents for longer to help them navigate their environment's unique challenges. Most breeders won't keep the babies for up to a year to ensure they are appropriately ABUNDANCE-WEANED and ready for their new homes. Consequently, most, if not all, captive-bred cockatoos end up neurotic and demanding due to being deprived of adequate physical and emotional nurturance in the formative period of their development. The psychologically stunted bird’s hunger for nurturance is then reinforced, often by well-intentioned caretakers, through petting and affection which further conditions the cockatoo's excessive reliance on us to meet his or her emotional needs. Though the damage has sadly been done by this point, the best we can do is incentivize parallel and independent play/foraging to create as well-adjusted a bird as we can given the limited resources at our disposal. This is why it is important to be judicious when selecting a breeder, but ideally, adopt cockatoos from your local sanctuaries.
I'm sure most of us know to avoid stroking anywhere but your bird's head to avoid sexually frustrating them, but the truth is that PROXIMITY alone is sufficient to establish a pair bond. In the wild, only mates spend much of their time near one another while maintaining a large personal space bubble with all other members of the flock (conures, a naturally "cuddly" species, are the exception to these observations). It's best to limit close contact and use the "capture" training method to reward desirable, autonomous behavior — more on that later.
Myth #4: Biting is par for the course of bird ownership.
While it is true that as a bird owner you will, if you haven't already, get bitten at least once, if not occasionally, to suggest sustaining bites with any regularity is normal takes away the onus of responsibility we have towards evaluating our contribution to receiving that bite — at least for people new to parrot keeping. Birds in the wild rarely bite, and frequent biting indicates the bird's body language cues have been ignored or overlooked. Once that first real bite happens, it increases the likelihood of biting as that bird's preferred means of communication for all foreseeable interactions. Of course, we all have days where we're not tuned in to our birds' emotional states, and that’s okay, but outside of certain factors (i.e. rescue or adopted parrots with a history of abuse, neglect, improper weaning, or insecurity due to clipped wings) biting should not be a major issue — even during the hormonal season. A survey (referenced below) had roughly half of the participants report no observable differences in behavior (aside from attempts to mate and associated acts) from their birds during their respective species’ breeding season. The surge of hormones merely AMPLIFIES existing problems the bird is having that either go undetected or happen sparingly enough outside of the breeding period.

Well, this year had been very tough for me especially that i moved out and started like in England from an overseas country and study in Scotland which was also another miserable story but it happened by some miracle as well, so yea i go to skl there as I live in on the borders between Scotland and England. Sometimes, you just wish things could’ve been clear in the beginning in some sort of ways in your life, so you could’ve prepared for your future in a more manageable and better way, but since we have no clue what the future holds for us, we have to cope with it that way. For me, when I first moved to the UK, I solemnly wanted to have a degree in medicine (till now but through a whole different, realistic route for now) in a very unrealistic and insane way before. my family and I currently live in England as I said, and since the Scottish government has issued a rule for people being eligible to study in scotland for free if they have lived for 3 years continuously and either they or their parents have ILR (permanent residency) they can apply for fee wavier for uni, so I was on hope for doing an odd plan where we’d move before a certain date, 1st of August, to Scotland and stay in college in Glasgow or Edinburgh for a year and then look for another college which is the only available one that offers advanced highers for medical school and take a gap year and work (as if i were the grandson of queen Elizabeth or smt like everything could be that easy), yet life doesn’t work that way and it never will. I learnt it the hard way tho anyways, turned out after emailing unis, that i can’t be eligible and i became hopeless cuz i will be 19 by that time and won’t be eligible to attend this college as i wouldn’t be connected to a school since this is a rule to be enrolled there. So, I didn’t give up and looked for other routes and stuff (not for medicine tho). I then decided to do physiotherapy and applied to 5 unis (got 2 conditional offers thankfully) one which is very far away and the student accommodation is very expensive and the other is where I live actually so basically, local uni but the local uni requires high grades from me (not very high tho according to what i have already equip from level 3 qualifications) so like I did Alevel Biology before (not in England tho) so yea that stands for 40UCAS points according to the grade i got in this subject. so im literally 88 UCAS points short. However, since I am doing some scottish highers this year (4 subjects), i said to myself yeaaa that’s ezzz who the hell can’t achieve BCCC? and yea turns out that im a big-shot clown LOL i am way too concerned of not even passing like tff!! but yea anyways, this is not really my fault cuz i started skl in November, took me a month to cope with stuff (studies, new life, school, and uni stuff like preparations and interviews and thing like that ofc yk what i mean) so it was a huge shot for me all at once including that i had several fam issues that disturbed my life frr and i was even in a worse state of mind before all of that, so i was completely burnt out ( i couldn’t study, socialise, or even js get out of bed) everything was too stressful and like my whole future is literally relying on lame nonsense subjects like PE and geography PE didn’t make sense at allll especially that i had no resources and for anyone who has previously attained PE in scotland, they will know how much it’s a suffer to study from past papers cuz marking scheme was way too irrelevant with diff answers everytime, and it’s all literally about subjective answers from different candidates as I have observed and not based on curriculum or any sort of model answer 70% of the time, and literally school teachers especially the PE was the worst of all the time. she never helped me with anything even when she tried to, she used to tell me to come to her after school which is literally at 4 and I had to take the train which would arrive at 5:20 if i ever wait for that time and go back home at 6? like sorry mate i aint doing that. she never gave me any resources to study from or any guidance or advice about the whole thingy. her classes were very boring and useless i swear. So yea typically i had to self study “everythinggggg” and by everything i mean everything except for English but yea unless i had all of these previous info about writing aspects and stuff, i swear i could’ve not even made into stepping inside the class. Lol so it’s been basically only me working hard as i already had background about stuff which helped me to some extent cope with the change and not drastically drown. this is attributed to the fact that i used to be in an international british system in my home country so thank god i was or else i would have been cooked. i already got cooked tho so yeah i found that website 3 days before the exam i think it’s called STAPE which quite helped me and it’s my only hope for now, but like brooooo 3 dayss??💀💀 even though i had been searching for monthsssssss i dont know why it appeared to 3 days before the exam this is an argumenet the other argumenet is geography like can u plzz tell me who tf made this syllabus?💀💀 and why are questions worth 8-12 marks on average? and yea like one mark is like a whole line and can sometimes be 2 lines in the marking scheme not to mention that many questions are verryyy similar in answer “marking scheme” even when they are different questions i remember that in the Physical geography section
so yea in a nutshell, SQA is shit asf i mean when it comes to the british system for PE, you basically study pure Human Physiology and Biomechanics. like why the hell isn’t it that way for SQA? why does it no make sense?? like frr doesn’t make sense at all and it’s such a crap subject i see. No offense, but like im very glad SQA is going to be scrapped forever and the next generations dont have to go through this.
so yea guys this us my short-long story LMFAO im js so desperate and devasted rn cuz i can’t believe that PE is now deciding on whether or not i will have a future oh and let’s add geo to the latter
whomever’s reached this point, i beg u not to do those two subjs ever, drop out school easier now guys all i want from u is to wish me luck or death cuz im dead either ways after what sqa did to me ik this whole thread was too random speaking abt diff aspects and stuff but yea it’s js my miserable life story LOL

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

This is a really long story with lots of context so I'll do my best to organize it into current situation, then his backstory and hers. I'm also not using real names or specific locations for any of this to try and keep this private. This also has some contradicting stories and because of how their relationship is structured relies mostly on information I have gotten from my sister, so I'm telling you the story I got from her first and then adding in what I've found out. I'll try to tell this as unbiased as I can but it's been a huge issue in my family for a long time now and that's a little difficult for me to do.
My sister (Olivia, 24F) has been dating this guy (Trevor, 25M) since 2021. When they started dating, she talked about him fairly often, sent a few pictures of them, ect., but then after a month she stopped mentioning him/ was cagey when we (me and my mom mostly) asked how he was so we assumed it just hadn't worked out. Then two months later she insisted that my parents and I all come to visit her college to meet Trevor before he went into the Army (she lived several hours away from my parents and several hours from my college, so I had to get a bus ticket and my parents had to get a hotel room to do this. We only met him once for dinner). Now they've been dating long distance for three years after a three month in-person relationship. She is in nursing school and is planning on moving across the country (literally opposite corners of the map) to live with him and is not applying to any residency programs outside of the Army base area (limiting her choices a LOT from her original goals and narrowing employment opportunities).
Olivia met Trevor on several dating apps, matched with him, but didn't really want to go out with him. He was really persistent, so her friend convinced her to go out with him. She lied about the way they met to our parents and told them they met at the gym through a mutual friend (she lied to me about this at first too and told me the truth about 3 months after they started dating). At the time, Trevor was working as a used car salesman and living at home (~45 min. away from Olivia's school in a rural area) because his sports scholarship had been dropped before his Senior year due to covid at the college he had been attending out of state. The university was unaccredited (I later did some internet stalking and found out it was accredited), so his credits would not transfer and he would have to start over. He was saving up money to attend school in state at the large college Olivia attended so he could go back to school. **Our state has crazy low tuition costs in-state and a full-tuition scholarship program for good high school GPA and SAT scores. There was also a "feeder" community college that had half the cost per credit hour that a lot of people would go to before the larger university if they didn't get in straight out of high school.**
Olivia told me that Trevor had applied to her college and not gotten in (she later told me he HAD gotten in but been unable to afford tuition). Either way, he decided to join the Army because his father had been in the Army. The Army would take his credit hours and he would be able to finish his degree during his 5 year contract or use the GI bill once he got out. **She is comparing the situation to our father, who joined the Army directly out of high school and used the GI bill to go to college after his 2 year contract because his parents wouldn't pay for school. He was a medic in the military, worked as an EMT through college, and then went to nursing school.** The original plan was that Trevor would be a Green Beret (special forces, linking the training pipeline here: https://www.reddit.com/greenberets/comments/xwdbta/current_sf_pipeline_correct_me_if_im_wrong/ ), he completed basic training and and got several months through the NC training before failing the running portion of a physical by about 10 seconds and being dropped from the selection process. He then decided that he wanted to be a Ranger (another elite position). He got sent back to GA, then to the Ranger school base in WA (it took a couple of months before he was sent to WA). Again, he got partway through the training before failing the running portion of a physical by a few seconds. He is now not sure if he will be continuing Ranger school (failing the physical means no, but commanders may pass him anyways if they think he should continue). For a while, Trevor told Olivia that he might not stay at the base in WA if he wasn't in Ranger school and there were a variety of different bases he could be sent to, including somewhere in Italy, so she wasn't sure where to look for jobs. In the past month, Trevor told Olivia that he would likely stay in WA regardless of the Ranger school results.
Through this all, Olivia has visited Trevor at the different military bases countless times, driving from as far as south FL to NC and putting over 30,000 miles on a brand new car over the course of the 1.5 years she's owned it. Before she had the car, she paid for plane tickets to see him and hotels whenever she visited. At the time, she told me that he was paying for all of these trips because he was unable to visit her, was making an income that wasn't being spent, and she was working to save for nursing school and later was living off of student loans and savings during nursing school. She later admitted to me that she had paid for almost all of the expenses except for food when they ate out together and part of a hotel room one weekend.
A few odd things (to me) between Olivia and Trevor over the course of their relationship:
About a month into their relationship, Trevor got Olivia an over $300 christmas gift. He has not gotten her anything nearly that expensive since, and hasn't sent flowers for things like her college graduation or a severe emergency surgery she had last year. I don't care about monetary value or sending flowers, but I do think it is odd that he spent so much before moving away when he ostensibly didn't have much money, but now that he has an income and military sign-on bonus, he has not spent that much again.
Trevor's father left Trevor, his siblings, and his mother, but Trevor has a hat that his father gave him that he wore often. The hat says "Red Man" across the top of a picture of a Native American man wearing a feathered headdress. He has worn this hat several times around Olivia's friends and they told him they didn't like it and that it was racist. They also asked him to not wear it when he was with them and he refused because it was special to him and his father gave it to him. Olivia then told him to stop wearing it and he eventually agreed (Olivia told me that he stopped wearing the hat after this). A few weeks after this, I facetimed Olivia and Trevor was with her. She turned the camera so I could say hello to him, and he was wearing the hat. I talked to Olivia about this later and she told me that that was the first time he'd worn the hat in a while and it wasn't a big deal. Olivia has always been liberal and never racist, and I am uncomfortable that she was okay with him not only wearing the hat, but being with him while he had it on.
They dated for a little over 3 months in person before he joined the military (recently, Olivia told me that they actually met several months before she told everyone about him and that they actually dated for 6 months before he left). For the next two months in basic training, he was only able to use the phone for 15 minutes total once a week to talk to family and her. Throughout the different training programs he has completed he had sporadic and limited access to phones to communicate, and only in the past 6 months he has had access to his phone to facetime, text, and call (but sometimes he goes for a week or two without phone access). Olivia told me that they wrote letters during the time he didn't have consistent phone access. **I don't think that this is odd, I understand the military limits phone usage, etc., but I don't think they have been able to have an "average" long-distance relationship**
Last year, Olivia drove to GA to visit Trevor the weekend before Valentine's day. He had plans for them to take a pottery class, go on a hike, and have dinner at a nice restaurant. The day she got there, Trevor's barracks had their off-base privileges revoked because one of the guys had contraband. She would still be able to visit him on base though. Somehow, Trevor was able to get off base for long periods of time to her hotel, but unable to do the other activities he had planned for them.
In the past year, Olivia told me that she and Trevor were going to immediately marry when she got to WA so that they could move in together because they had to be married to live together anywhere. I and our dad- who was in the military- told her several times that this was not true, but she insisted it was. Then, his barracks were given an allowance to live off base in apartments because the barracks were being renovated/ rebuilt, so she backed off on the idea of getting married immediately after several long conversations with me. She is still insistent on moving in with Trevor, who lives with a roommate, when she moves to WA.
Some background on Olivia:
Olivia has ADHD and anxiety, and struggled particularly badly with the anxiety/ some depression after being broken up with by the boyfriend she dated before Trevor (he broke it off very abruptly, told her he just didn't love her anymore with no previous indications). Olivia is very pretty (objectively, not just because she's my sister), but had bad acne that she ended up going on accutane for at the time she started dating Trevor and was very insecure about it. She had also decided to not go to medical school, and pursue nursing instead around the same time she met Trevor. This was a very upsetting decision for her because she had been taking very hard courses and was burnt out but had told everyone she was going to be a doctor and thought that she would be letting us down by switching paths. Also around the time she started seeing Trevor, Olivia began being very cruel towards our mother (our mother had been borderline emotionally abusive in the past, but Olivia and I were both in college by then and fixing our relationships with her. She has been much better recently and Olivia and I believe that she had some mental health struggles that went unchecked that contributed). Now, several years later, Olivia told our family that she had acted like that because she was rpd by a friend of her ex-boyfriend's after her ex broke up with her. This person also gave her an STD.
I always believe people who say they have been S A'd, and we believed Olivia when she first told us, but some things have come to light that make me and my family question that. Right after Olivia and her ex broke up, Olivia told our cousin that she had gone out with one of his friends and had revenge/ breakup sex with him because he had also been dumped recently. Once my cousin told me this, I remembered that Olivia had told me about a guy she had a one night stand with after she was dumped. She showed me a picture of him, talked about how cute he was, etc. (no distress whatsoever). I know sometimes people behave in ways you wouldn't expect when a traumatic event occurs to them, but I really don't understand how or why Olivia would brag about this guy if he really did S A her.
Three months ago, Olivia was arrested for stealing a set of sheets from Walmart (incidentally, right before Trevor came to visit her on leave). She used the self check-out and only bought a small $5 item and the sheets. She held both in one hand and scanned each side because she had a cut on the other hand and was holding her wallet with it. She saw a 5 in front of the total number and thought it looked right because the total should have been about $50, paid, didn't get a receipt, and walked out. An employee at the door asked to see a receipt, which Olivia didn't have, so she pulled up her transaction history on her phone to show she had paid. At this point, the employee called the police and took Olivia into an office, where she was questioned and charged with shoplifting. (Olivia can get very emotional and probably got upset when the police questioned her, which may have led them to believe she was lying). Luckily, Olivia has managed to get the charges expunged, but the process is still ongoing. Because of her ADHD, if anyone genuinely made this mistake, I would believe it from her, but Olivia has been improving a lot on organization and being more attentive recently. It is extremely uncharacteristic of her to steal- she was honest to a fault as kids- she would break down from guilt and admit things to our parents that we would have gotten away with if she hadn't said anything.
Right now, my parents have met Trevor twice in person, and I've met him once in person and several times in passing over facetime. I personally don't think that Trevor seems to keep up with my sister or that they make each other shine, and that opinion is shared with family friends and family that have met Trevor. Olivia doesn't mention Trevor in front of our parents often because his name has become a topic of contention and argument between them. My parents don't think Trevor is right for Olivia. She has almost 2 college degrees and plans to become a nurse practitioner in the future, and he hasn't finished college and doesn't seem to have any drive to do so. Olivia is also well traveled and enjoys going to museums, concerts, etc., while Trevor has lived in rural FL his whole life (this is not Trevor's fault, and I don't think he is a lesser person because of it, but I don't see a lot of common ground between them). Trevor has not seemed very well spoken when I have talked to him and I just don't see a lot of qualities in him that Olivia values.
If you've gotten this far, I just don't know what to do. Olivia and my parents have a huge rift in their relationship right now and any mention of Trevor, with her around or not, explodes into a huge argument, discussion, or just icy silence. I want Olivia to be able to talk to me about him, and we are able to discuss things much better than she is with our parents. My parents have also started asking me about Olivia and Trevor because they know Olivia shares more with me, and it makes me uncomfortable because I don't want to betray Olivia's trust, but I'm also very worried about her. I know I can't control her actions and I'm having a really hard time trying to balance supporting Olivia but not supporting the relationship (I'm not going to lie to her about how I feel, but I don't want her to feel alienated or unloved by our family, because that is NOT the case). I also think that Olivia is romanticizing the fact that our parents don't like him because my father's parents had a rift with him over our mother when we were very young (this is a whole other story, but basically, his parents always favored his sister, his sister got (I think) jealous when he did well for himself and married my mother, who his parents initially likes, and she made up rumors/lies about my mother that turned his parents against her (this was way before our mother's suspected mental health struggles, which occured when Olivia and I were in middle/high school).
Please share any thoughts you have on the situation (am I reading too into things, is this not as bad as I think it is?), and any advice you have on navigating the relationships.

This is a really long story with lots of context so I'll do my best to organize it into current situation, then his backstory and hers. I'm also not using real names or specific locations for any of this to try and keep this private. This also has some contradicting stories and because of how their relationship is structured relies mostly on information I have gotten from my sister, so I'm telling you the story I got from her first and then adding in what I've found out. I'll try to tell this as unbiased as I can but it's been a huge issue in my family for a long time now and that's a little difficult for me to do.
My sister (Olivia, 24F) has been dating this guy (Trevor, 25M) since 2021. When they started dating, she talked about him fairly often, sent a few pictures of them, ect., but then after a month she stopped mentioning him/ was cagey when we (me and my mom mostly) asked how he was so we assumed it just hadn't worked out. Then two months later she insisted that my parents and I all come to visit her college to meet Trevor before he went into the Army (she lived several hours away from my parents and several hours from my college, so I had to get a bus ticket and my parents had to get a hotel room to do this. We only met him once for dinner). Now they've been dating long distance for three years after a three month in-person relationship. She is in nursing school and is planning on moving across the country (literally opposite corners of the map) to live with him and is not applying to any residency programs outside of the Army base area (limiting her choices a LOT from her original goals and narrowing employment opportunities).
Olivia met Trevor on several dating apps, matched with him, but didn't really want to go out with him. He was really persistent, so her friend convinced her to go out with him. She lied about the way they met to our parents and told them they met at the gym through a mutual friend (she lied to me about this at first too and told me the truth about 3 months after they started dating). At the time, Trevor was working as a used car salesman and living at home (~45 min. away from Olivia's school in a rural area) because his sports scholarship had been dropped before his Senior year due to covid at the college he had been attending out of state. The university was unaccredited (I later did some internet stalking and found out it was accredited), so his credits would not transfer and he would have to start over. He was saving up money to attend school in state at the large college Olivia attended so he could go back to school. **Our state has crazy low tuition costs in-state and a full-tuition scholarship program for good high school GPA and SAT scores. There was also a "feeder" community college that had half the cost per credit hour that a lot of people would go to before the larger university if they didn't get in straight out of high school.**
Olivia told me that Trevor had applied to her college and not gotten in (she later told me he HAD gotten in but been unable to afford tuition). Either way, he decided to join the Army because his father had been in the Army. The Army would take his credit hours and he would be able to finish his degree during his 5 year contract or use the GI bill once he got out. **She is comparing the situation to our father, who joined the Army directly out of high school and used the GI bill to go to college after his 2 year contract because his parents wouldn't pay for school. He was a medic in the military, worked as an EMT through college, and then went to nursing school.** The original plan was that Trevor would be a Green Beret (special forces, linking the training pipeline here: https://www.reddit.com/greenberets/comments/xwdbta/current_sf_pipeline_correct_me_if_im_wrong/ ), he completed basic training and and got several months through the NC training before failing the running portion of a physical by about 10 seconds and being dropped from the selection process. He then decided that he wanted to be a Ranger (another elite position). He got sent back to GA, then to the Ranger school base in WA (it took a couple of months before he was sent to WA). Again, he got partway through the training before failing the running portion of a physical by a few seconds. He is now not sure if he will be continuing Ranger school (failing the physical means no, but commanders may pass him anyways if they think he should continue). For a while, Trevor told Olivia that he might not stay at the base in WA if he wasn't in Ranger school and there were a variety of different bases he could be sent to, including somewhere in Italy, so she wasn't sure where to look for jobs. In the past month, Trevor told Olivia that he would likely stay in WA regardless of the Ranger school results.
Through this all, Olivia has visited Trevor at the different military bases countless times, driving from as far as south FL to NC and putting over 30,000 miles on a brand new car over the course of the 1.5 years she's owned it. Before she had the car, she paid for plane tickets to see him and hotels whenever she visited. At the time, she told me that he was paying for all of these trips because he was unable to visit her, was making an income that wasn't being spent, and she was working to save for nursing school and later was living off of student loans and savings during nursing school. She later admitted to me that she had paid for almost all of the expenses except for food when they ate out together and part of a hotel room one weekend.
A few odd things (to me) between Olivia and Trevor over the course of their relationship:
About a month into their relationship, Trevor got Olivia an over $300 christmas gift. He has not gotten her anything nearly that expensive since, and hasn't sent flowers for things like her college graduation or a severe emergency surgery she had last year. I don't care about monetary value or sending flowers, but I do think it is odd that he spent so much before moving away when he ostensibly didn't have much money, but now that he has an income and military sign-on bonus, he has not spent that much again.
Trevor's father left Trevor, his siblings, and his mother, but Trevor has a hat that his father gave him that he wore often. The hat says "Red Man" across the top of a picture of a Native American man wearing a feathered headdress. He has worn this hat several times around Olivia's friends and they told him they didn't like it and that it was racist. They also asked him to not wear it when he was with them and he refused because it was special to him and his father gave it to him. Olivia then told him to stop wearing it and he eventually agreed (Olivia told me that he stopped wearing the hat after this). A few weeks after this, I facetimed Olivia and Trevor was with her. She turned the camera so I could say hello to him, and he was wearing the hat. I talked to Olivia about this later and she told me that that was the first time he'd worn the hat in a while and it wasn't a big deal. Olivia has always been liberal and never racist, and I am uncomfortable that she was okay with him not only wearing the hat, but being with him while he had it on.
They dated for a little over 3 months in person before he joined the military (recently, Olivia told me that they actually met several months before she told everyone about him and that they actually dated for 6 months before he left). For the next two months in basic training, he was only able to use the phone for 15 minutes total once a week to talk to family and her. Throughout the different training programs he has completed he had sporadic and limited access to phones to communicate, and only in the past 6 months he has had access to his phone to facetime, text, and call (but sometimes he goes for a week or two without phone access). Olivia told me that they wrote letters during the time he didn't have consistent phone access. **I don't think that this is odd, I understand the military limits phone usage, etc., but I don't think they have been able to have an "average" long-distance relationship**
Last year, Olivia drove to GA to visit Trevor the weekend before Valentine's day. He had plans for them to take a pottery class, go on a hike, and have dinner at a nice restaurant. The day she got there, Trevor's barracks had their off-base privileges revoked because one of the guys had contraband. She would still be able to visit him on base though. Somehow, Trevor was able to get off base for long periods of time to her hotel, but unable to do the other activities he had planned for them.
In the past year, Olivia told me that she and Trevor were going to immediately marry when she got to WA so that they could move in together because they had to be married to live together anywhere. I and our dad- who was in the military- told her several times that this was not true, but she insisted it was. Then, his barracks were given an allowance to live off base in apartments because the barracks were being renovated/ rebuilt, so she backed off on the idea of getting married immediately after several long conversations with me. She is still insistent on moving in with Trevor, who lives with a roommate, when she moves to WA.
Some background on Olivia:
Olivia has ADHD and anxiety, and struggled particularly badly with the anxiety/ some depression after being broken up with by the boyfriend she dated before Trevor (he broke it off very abruptly, told her he just didn't love her anymore with no previous indications). Olivia is very pretty (objectively, not just because she's my sister), but had bad acne that she ended up going on accutane for at the time she started dating Trevor and was very insecure about it. She had also decided to not go to medical school, and pursue nursing instead around the same time she met Trevor. This was a very upsetting decision for her because she had been taking very hard courses and was burnt out but had told everyone she was going to be a doctor and thought that she would be letting us down by switching paths. Also around the time she started seeing Trevor, Olivia began being very cruel towards our mother (our mother had been borderline emotionally abusive in the past, but Olivia and I were both in college by then and fixing our relationships with her. She has been much better recently and Olivia and I believe that she had some mental health struggles that went unchecked that contributed). Now, several years later, Olivia told our family that she had acted like that because she was raped by a friend of her ex-boyfriend's after her ex broke up with her. This person also gave her an STD.
I always believe people who say they have been sexually assaulted, abused, or harassed, and we believed Olivia when she first told us, but some things have come to light that make me and my family question that. Right after Olivia and her ex broke up, Olivia told our cousin that she had gone out with one of his friends and had revenge/ breakup sex with him because he had also been dumped recently. Once my cousin told me this, I remembered that Olivia had told me about a guy she had a one night stand with after she was dumped. She showed me a picture of him, talked about how cute he was, etc. (no distress whatsoever). I know sometimes people behave in ways you wouldn't expect when a traumatic event occurs to them, but I really don't understand how or why Olivia would brag about this guy if he really did sexually assault her.
Three months ago, Olivia was arrested for stealing a set of sheets from Walmart. She used the self check-out and only bought a small $5 item and the sheets. She held both in one hand and scanned each side because she had a cut on the other hand and was holding her wallet with it. She saw a 5 in front of the total number and thought it looked right because the total should have been about $50, paid, didn't get a receipt, and walked out. An employee at the door asked to see a receipt, which Olivia didn't have, so she pulled up her transaction history on her phone to show she had paid. At this point, the employee called the police and took Olivia into an office, where she was questioned and charged with shoplifting. (Olivia can get very emotional and probably got upset when the police questioned her, which may have led them to believe she was lying). Luckily, Olivia has managed to get the charges expunged, but the process is still ongoing. Because of her ADHD, if anyone genuinely made this mistake, I would believe it from her, but Olivia has been improving a lot on organization and being more attentive recently. It is extremely uncharacteristic of her to steal- she was honest to a fault as kids- she would break down from guilt and admit things to our parents that we would have gotten away with if she hadn't said anything.
Right now, my parents have met Trevor twice in person, and I've met him once in person and several times in passing over facetime. I personally don't think that Trevor seems to keep up with my sister or that they make each other shine, and that opinion is shared with family friends and family that have met Trevor. Olivia doesn't mention Trevor in front of our parents often because his name has become a topic of contention and argument between them. My parents don't think Trevor is right for Olivia. She has almost 2 college degrees and plans to become a nurse practitioner in the future, and he hasn't finished college and doesn't seem to have any drive to do so. Olivia is also well traveled and enjoys going to museums, concerts, etc., while Trevor has lived in rural FL his whole life (this is not Trevor's fault, and I don't think he is a lesser person because of it, but I don't see a lot of common ground between them). Trevor has not seemed very well spoken when I have talked to him and I just don't see a lot of qualities in him that Olivia values.
If you've gotten this far, I just don't know what to do. Olivia and my parents have a huge rift in their relationship right now and any mention of Trevor, with her around or not, explodes into a huge argument, discussion, or just icy silence. I want Olivia to be able to talk to me about him, and we are able to discuss things much better than she is with our parents. My parents have also started asking me about Olivia and Trevor because they know Olivia shares more with me, and it makes me uncomfortable because I don't want to betray Olivia's trust, but I'm also very worried about her. I know I can't control her actions and I'm having a really hard time trying to balance supporting Olivia but not supporting the relationship (I'm not going to lie to her about how I feel, but I don't want her to feel alienated or unloved by our family, because that is NOT the case). I also think that Olivia is romanticizing the fact that our parents don't like him because my father's parents had a rift with him over our mother when we were very young (this is a whole other story, but basically, his parents always favored his sister, his sister got (I think) jealous when he did well for himself and married my mother, who his parents initially likes, and she made up rumors/lies about my mother that turned his parents against her (this was way before our mother's suspected mental health struggles, which occured when Olivia and I were in middle/high school).
Please share any thoughts you have on the situation (am I reading too into things, is this not as bad as I think it is?), and any advice you have on navigating the relationships.

A week ago, someone asked why “divestment from IDF contracts is so difficult.” After the actions, suspensions, and arrests of last week, I have also wondered why protestors and MIT’s administration did not reach an agreement. Here’s an effort to explain it.
I’m looking to read the protest demands carefully and generously, then consider MIT’s constraints generously. My conclusion is that if the core demands had broad support on campus—and I can't say whether they do or do not—I still think there are principled and consistent reasons MIT could not meet them as stated.
Please add anything I’ve missed about the SAGE and MIT positions in the comments. Factual corrections or additional details are appreciated!
(If you’re here for hot takes, you’re in the wrong thread. I’m not asserting what MIT should do about the demands, sharing opinions about student protests, or MIT's response. Please feel welcome to share your opinions about these in other posts about these topics.)
The demands
The core demands of the Scientists against the Genocide Encampment (SAGE) are:

1. The immediate termination of two active faculty contracts with the Israel Ministry of Defense (IMoD)
2. A ban on future faculty contracts with IMoD.[1]

The protestors identified these contracts in the MIT Brown Books, which provide detailed information about all sponsored research projects on campus. SAGE states specific concerns about an active research project on “autonomous robotic swarms,” which they say can be used to “target Gazan citizens or American protestors.”[1] I have not found specific stated concerns about the other project, “Field-capable Bacterial Biosensors with Hyperspectral Reporters for Remote Detection of Analytes of Interest.”[3]
The demands propose to terminate current funding, but would not stop the existing projects themselves. SAGE states the two active projects can proceed with alternative funding.[2] SAGE negotiators have said a process to limit human rights risks or restrict foreign military research would only be satisfactory if it terminated these contracts with immediate effect.[2]
Two pieces of information about these demands have been widely misreported. First, the contracts appear to be funded by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), not IMoD.[4] As the “direct sponsor,” IMoD chooses which research proposals to fund at U.S. universities. DoD involvement does not appear to be an important consideration to SAGE. I suspect, but don't know for certain, that ending contracts with a primary government funder could have material complications for MIT.
Second, SAGE has said that “more than $11M” has been funded through DoD/IMoD since 2015.[1][3] But once multi-year awards are deduplicated in the data they have published, they amount since 2015 is closer to $3.4 million.[4] The cost of SAGE’s core demands—which is the unspent balance of the two remaining grants—is not publicly reported by SAGE or MIT. However, this direct cost does not seem to be a material issue for either side.
Conflict between the core demands and MIT’s research policy
Meeting protestors’ central demands would require MIT to do something it has not done before: electively ban faculty from collaborating with a specific sponsor. Doing so conflicts with the MIT faculty’s longstanding position on “research freedom,” which A) lets faculty freely choose collaborators and topics and B) limits university intervention when researchers face criticism of their work.[5][6]
Consistent with research freedom, MIT has not previously banned sponsors or terminated research contracts except when required by U.S. law. For example, when many MIT faculty demanded that MIT sever ties with the Saudi kingdom after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, MIT did not terminate Saudi government-affiliated research contracts.[5] MIT has similarly rejected calls to stop faculty research contracts with fossil fuel industry partners.
MIT’s faculty and administration have taken analogous public positions favoring “research openness,” including with sponsor countries criticized for human rights concerns like Russia and China.[5][6] These positions assert that science requires open collaboration even during foreign policy conflicts. MIT recently reaffirmed its position on openness as Congress considered limitations on U.S.-China research collaboration.[7]
SAGE argues that academic freedom was disregarded in February 2022, when MIT terminated a $100M/year collaboration agreement with Russia’s Skoltech after the Russian army invaded Ukraine.[1][8] However, as a corporate partnership between MIT and Skoltech, the agreement did not implicate research freedom principles as SAGE’s demands do.[8] MIT continues to allow faculty to work with Russian sponsors and collaborators, although U.S. State Department sanctions now restrict research collaborations with many Russian institutions, including Skoltech.[9]
The Saudi and Skoltech decisions show MIT's stubborn commitment to faculty research freedom, even when human rights concerns are broadly held in the MIT community. MIT exercises more discretion over non-research funding, like direct support and gifts. But unless required by U.S. law or foreign policy, MIT seems unlikely to create tailored bans on research sponsors.
Existing restrictions on campus research
MIT’s existing rules for campus research limit how military-sponsored research can be conducted. All projects must be basic research and publishable without restriction. They cannot require students to participate in classified research and cannot exclude researchers by country of origin.[10] These limits functionally limit the military projects MIT can host on campus, but not the collaborators or subjects faculty can choose. (See [11] for similar reasoning made during 1970s student movements against military research.)
For sponsors in some countries, MIT applies an “elevated-risk review” to the content of faculty research proposals when sponsors could present “human rights risks, U.S. national security risks, and economic competitiveness risks.”[12] MIT publishes limited information about these reviews, but they can apparently result in project modifications, contract limitations, or a refusal of MIT support.[4][12] Risk reviews are not applied to approved research contracts, for which “the bar for administrative intervention to terminate such projects should be set very high.”[4]
A content-independent ban on IMOD contracts does not seem compatible with a process focused on content-specific risks.
Since broadening these reviews would inherently limit research freedom, doing so would normally involve faculty consultation. But getting faculty governance involved means that changes could not occur with immediate effect.
Sources and further reading
[1] SAGE website
[2] SAGE final proposal to MIT administration
[3] MIT Graduate Students for Palestine, “No more MIT research for Israel’s Ministry of Defense,” The Tech, 10 May 2024
[4] SAGE data extracts of MIT Brown Book research contracts
[5] Richard Lester, "Review and Reassessment of MIT’s Relationship to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" (2019)
[6] MIT Faculty, "MIT Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom" (2022)
[7] Maria Zuber, “Written Testimony to House Committee on Science, Space and Technology” (2021)
[8] Phillip Martin, “MIT abandons Russian high-tech campus partnership in light of Ukraine invasion” WGBH News (2022)
[9] “Information Regarding Informal Research Collaborations with Peers at Russian Institutions” MIT VPR website (2022)
[10] MIT Policy & Procedures 14.2 (“Open Research and Free Interchange of Information”)
[11] Harvey Brooks on research freedom, protests, and military contracts at MIT (1973)
[12] MIT VPR, “Elevated risk project review process” (2019)

This weekend, Ajax Budokan invited Kodokan 9th dan and former head of the Tokyo Police dojo, Michio Fukushima Sensei, to conduct a 4 hour clinic for Kodokan Goshin Jutsu. It was open to yellow belt and higher, though the majority consisted of Yudansha. My senseis had the honour of demoing the kata, as Fukushima Sensei's health did not permit presenting each technique multiple times, though he did show some of the finer details, demo mechanics, and gave comments as to what was good and displayed what could be fixed. He also talked about older versions of the techniques and how/ why they have been changed. Regretfully, it totally slipped my mind to film during the seminar, as there was a lot of good information, translated (and left untranslated) by the interpreter.
Some General Notes on Fukushima Sensei Fukushima Sensei on multiple occasions mentioned how one should carry themselves and move, more specifically he talked about how he usually sees toris get away with bad shisei as uke's attacks are generally to kind or passive, and that if they genuinely attacked, most toris would be off balance. Additionally he mentioned that a lot of IFJ competition now is power judo, where the technical aspects are replaced for brute force and speed.
The main note he makes is to keep the knees alive (slightly bent and bouncy like a spring), and that most novices have a tendency to straight leg their kata. He also made it a great point to explain the logic of the waza in the kata and how the kuzushi is created. Other important details he talked about were that uke shouldn't be a limp noodle once his attack is over, that tori should keep good sabaki (unclear if sabaki was short hand for tai sabaki as he also stated tai sabaki on different occasions (the details were paraphrased by the translator)), and the usage of rotation from the hips to maintain proper balance (tai sabaki). Additionally, he talked about things relating to karada (the body) and some anecdotes (such as stories about judoka such as Michigami, Isao Okano, and Nagaoka if I was hearing correctly, though I don't speak Japanese, only somewhat familiar with it), which were left untranslated or paraphrased sadly.
Emphasised details in the kata (not explanations or descriptions of how to do a technique) and my experiences (FYI Sensei mostly used the Tomiki names for the waza Tori applied)
Attacks when held

1. Ryote dori - my partner and I (both new to this kata for the most part) went in on this one and struggled as we didn't see the detail of thumb in hand for the lock (blind leading the blind, though we later worked near a kind pair after this who helped check more closely as they were experienced in the kata)
   1. Yahazu (hook shape for hand) is very important to direct uke's arm
   2. You aren't pulling the arm away to free it, you are pushing your elbow forward which pressures uke's arm
   3. Te gatana to the uto (point between uke's eyes)
   4. When applying the lock (te gatame), make sure to rotate uke's hand such that the fingers are pointing up
   5. When applying the lock, take the uke's arm in the direction perpendicular to the line made by his feet
2. Hidari eri dori - I particularly liked this one, though my uke was confused the first few times as he kept trying to apply waki gatame.
   1. Tori must grab underneath uke's hand on the lapel when stepping back
   2. When grabbing uke's hand to break the grip and apply the lock (kote hineri), tori should have his thumb in between uke's thumb and fingers, and to take the uke's arm in the direction perpendicular to the line made by his feet
   3. Uke should try to maintain jigo tai rather than lean so the lock is applied cleanly
   4. Tori's hand should not be limp when delivering the strike
3. Migi eri dori - I couldn't get kote gaeshi to work properly, will have to practice and ask my sensei about it later, same with my partner
   1. Tori should maintain a upright posture as uke pulls him forward, and use the landing of his foot to drive his hand for the uppercut to uke
   2. Tori should try to keep uke's hand attached to his centerline as he makes tai sabaki
4. Kata ude dori - My uke was very stiff, so applying the initial lock to him proved difficult, though he claims he felt it. I found this kata easy to remember as the legs go left right left right (step, step, tai sabaki, kick, then lead with the right for the lock)
   1. You are kicking with the side of the foot
   2. The step before the kick pivot around so your feet are almost parallel
   3. For waki gatame, you should be standing inside his feet, near parallel to the line perpendicular to his feet
5. Ushiro eri dori - I had experience with this one as sensei had taught during some free time a while back
   1. The parry with the arm was stated to also be the preferred way to receive punches, though take that as you will (though it is a common method in karate as well)
   2. The strike should be to the suigetsu (solar plexus)
   3. Trap uke's hand with your head so that it can't wiggle all over the place when applying the lock
6. Ushiro jime - My partner and I both had a tendency to lift the shoulder off after spinning out, will have to work on that. I will be honest, had I known this escape, I probably would have come out of an incident a few years back (before I started Judo) rather unscathed as I was jumped and then kicked on the ground by a person who was quite a pain.
   1. The attack and initial defence are identical to that of katame no kata, following which tori rotates out
   2. Keep pressure with your shoulder until your grip has been changed
7. Kakae dori - We didn't have enough mat space to finish the throw without running into other groups, but the technique is surprisingly effective. Though I couldn't initially find out how to do the armlock and had to ask my sensei about it, now it's pretty easy.
   1. Rotate the arm away from you (clockwise from your perspective) and pull uke's arm into you
   2. During the initial stomp, straighten up and raise your arms to loosen uke's grip

Attacks when at a distance - I got less time to try these in general as I wanted my partner to get a feel for them as they are a bit more complicated and he is less experienced

1. Naname uchi - this was a fun situation, it shows how a little bit of atemi can be used to setup a randori waza, and Fukushima Sensei complimented my senseis' performance saying that it was better than the current text book
   1. Te gatana is used to redirect the strike
   2. Osoto otoshi is performed
   3. Pushing the arm through is important to create the kuzushi necessary for the waza
2. Ago tsuki - I didn't actually get a chance to try this one more than once as my partner struggled with it, he kept applying a shoulder lock by pushing on the elbow without the redirect with the thumb up (shoulder is still sore)
   1. when directing uke's attack up and away, do not lean back as then you are unstable
   2. Use yahazu to direct uke's elbow toward his ear
   3. As uke will not like this use the moment after releasing the elbow lock to throw him forward in the direction perpendicular to his feet.
3. Gammen Tsuki - My partner really liked this one, I can see the uses as I've used similar entries when messing around with strikes + judo with this partner as I have a bit of karate experience
   1. Uke is meant to do a break fall, thus tori needs to get out of the way after releasing the choke
   2. Uke should realistically be aiming for where tori's uto would be if he did not evade
4. Mae Geri - this was a relatively easy one to grasp, but quite a bit of practice is needed before a full force kick can be considered
   1. Rotate ukes foot outwards so that it is not easy for him to rotate in to escape
   2. In the original, tori would lift uke's leg high but many ukes ended up injured from hitting their heads, so now tori just pushes back
5. Yoko geri - My sensei has introduced this one at the dojo before as well, though he prefaced it with about a minute of just practicing a side kick. My partner (who suffers from light knee pain) couldn't kneel during the finish
   1. The use of the te gatana to redirect the kick in the direction it is going, very similar to karates low block
   2. During the finish tori creates a void for uke to be thrown but in real life tori would throw uke onto his knee

Attacks with weapons - I understand people dislike these (reasonably in some cases), but I've found them to be useful points to explore
Attacks with a knife - Sensei Fukushima mentioned how despite my senseis making it look easy
Both my partner and I have practiced these quite a lot (I was the only one who was taught it by sensei but we practiced it on our own time), so not as many personal notes. Though I don't have a good experience so my brain switches to serious and my heart rate increases despite the fact that I know these are fake weapons.

1. Tsukkake
   1. The elbow should be pushed forward (I've actually experimented with this in the past by asking uke to try to stab me as I applied the defence, and we've found after the initial push and strike, tori is in a relatively good position, be it to run away or finish the kata)
   2. Push the locked up arm up and towards uke, then guide him to the ground
2. Choku zuki - I struggled to apply the waki gatame, I'm guessing it was control of the wrist that was the problem, this form is relatively straight forward and makes sense
   1. The strike should not be a boxer style punch, but more like the first punch in szkt
   2. uke should not go limp
   3. when moving away from uke, take him perpendicular to the line between his feet
3. Naname Zuki - Personally I think this form is cutting it close in many regards, but the control tori has is quite surprising
   1. Don't grab the blade from the sharp edge

Attacks with a jo - PSA, no matter how much you trust your uke, mistakes happen (especially with such a solid weapon) so remain vigilant to mitigate damage

1. Furi age - this was a relatively easy technique to grasp as it is an application of O soto gari setup with a palm strike to the chind
   1. Tori should enter as soon as uke begins to raise his arm, almost a preemptive entry
   2. Tori strikes at the ago (chin) with a palm strike, then places his hand on the throat for the throw
2. Furi oroshi - My partner leant into the swing and wacked me on the forehead, it could've been worse but it just grazed the outer layer as I saw the jo come closer after my initial retreat and attempted to turn out of the way. Both a PSA for tori and uke. Tori do not keep your eyes off uke, and uke please don't lean into a swing, you are horribly off balance, and you make it harder for tori to read. Also uke don't speed up when you 2 are learning (I don't know why my partner chose too...)
   1. Do not hop back onto one leg and then towards uke with the other, it leads you to have bad posture
   2. Better to make a big retreat than get hit
   3. 2 strike, one ura ken (back fist), followed by knife hand push
   4. Uke's swing should be at a diagonal
3. Morote zuki - I didn't get to practice this one as my partner was taken a bit aback after the previous incident and couldn't get the steps right for this one. Fukushima Sensei mentioned something along the lines of how a judoka was faced with a juken and couldn't figure out what to do, and thus this form was created to address that.
   1. Tori shouldn't be rowing the jow away to shake throw uke
   2. The arm puts pressure on uke's arm forward
   3. Tori should be trying to angle the jo down towards himself after the initial grab

Attacks with a gun - I struggled with all of these, but I think the principles are relatively sound. Though in real life, I'd most likely give up my valuables. Fukushima Sensei emphasised hip rotation in these movements, as he says that you want to direct the gun away without moving your feet, which is what uke would be seeing when looking at your pocket.
Always make sure to begin your defence after uke is clearly focused on checking your pockets, never when his focus is directly on you

1. Shomen Zuke
   1. Grab the barrel of the gun thumb up
   2. During the disarm, push the gun's muzzle to face towards him
2. Koshi Gamae - I kept getting the second hand wrong and thus the barallel was pointed towards me in the final attack, will need to work on that
   1. Grab the barrel of gun initially with the thumb down with your right hand, and push the gun so that it is horizontal after turning left, then grab the gun from below with your right
   2. make sure to not point the gun at yourself when hitting with the butt
3. Haimen Zuke - this is quite a dangerous move in theory, but also one of the more likely ones
   1. Wrap uke's arm with your arm, but make sure to direct the muzzle up with the free arm
   2. [uke] should let go of gun, as this is a hard breakfall

Overarching and repeated themes in the kata

• The use of yahazu to direct the arm rather than grips
• Keeping uke's hand connected to your centerline when applying kansetsu waza
• te gatana is a useful tool to redirect and or strike the opponent quickly
• During the gun portion, always rotate the gun off your centerline, so that even if it does fire, it doesn't penetrate too deep
• Control the gun by the muzzle
• most finishes are done by guiding uke perpendicular to the line in between his feet
• Do not directly oppose an opponents force
• Maintanence of balance at all times and moving from the hips is key
• Uke should attack meaningfully
• Action reaction is used quite a lot to first lock uke up towards his face, so that when he pushes back he is easily lead away

Overall, it was quite a good event, and I learned a lot. This kata isn't the most realistic with the attacks (though apparently a few people I know have used the ryote dori attack shockingly), but what I've learned so far is relatively sound, hopefully some time soon I can convince my partner to do some live resistance sparring with some gear on (which I have done with the knife portion with a plastic knife). Fukushima Sensei had a lot to say, as he was actively discussing his experiences and koshiki no kata after the seminar with another Japanese speaker, and I hope to be able to attend another one of his classes again someday.
Here are some videos featuring Michio Fukushima from a few years back, both where he was actively demoing, and where he had a slightly more corrective position.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1253474818155243
https://youtu.be/VKgdMJS9eck?si=bGMemLfG9aquAHr1

Right, good day everyone,
23M/81-82kg/6'0"
So long story short- have ran 3 steroid cycle. First was 2 years ago, last one ended 6 months ago. Not above a gram. No 19nors. Just test + DHTs. Longest cycle 16 weeks, using HCG @1500iu weekly each time.
Pre cycle bloods had me at around 400ng/dL/14-16nmol.
After first cycle (Test @ 350, tapered up 500mg) I pct'd to 800ng/dL (28nmol?). Used Nolvadex @ 40/20/20/20. Also Clomid @ 12.5/12.5/12.5/0.0
Bloods taken 6 weeks after stopping PCT- doubled my Test levels (increased muscle, better diet + sleep) which was awesome! Should have stopped here. Didn't.
After the second cycle, came back at 200ng/dL (7nmol) used same PCT protocol. I was training very hard so I expected this- I actually got way leaner and kept 90% of the strength- despite having this low level (was obviously in a calorie defecit) doing MMA + gym.
PCT'd 3 more times after this:
Nolva only. 20mg/4 weeks. 2 months break- still 7nmol. Still kept same bodyweight so maintenance calories (4.5k)
Clomid only. 25mg/4 weeks. 2 months break- still 7nmol.
Jumped back on Test for 4 months after this.
Then PCT'd again. Enclomiphene only. 12.5mg/4 weeks, followed by a 2 weeks break, then 10mg of Nolva for 4 weeks.
That was the last PCT i've done- still 7nmol following this.
I assumed I was underfuelling- so since then i've gained ~8kg+. My appetite is also insane right now- I never feel full.
Almost entirely fat. No strength increase.
My physique looks like shit, I feel like shit. Have gone so far backwards.
So, I took 3 whole weeks off training pretty much. Did 3 weight sessions, 45 mins each. Nothing else.
Stopped tracking food, but was consuming well over 5000+ calories of almost entirely meat, eggs, cheeses, saturated fats and oils. Yes I know it's hard to say 5000+ calories but remember i've tracked food for 2 years +, I know it was at LEAST 5000 calories.
My appetite is insane.
It's was quite an extreme diet, very high fat, high protein, low carb.
Just re-tested at 4.5nmol-100ng/dL after this rest and refeed and gaining 3kg+ alone during this period. Obviously all fat. No muscle, wasn't training.
I was overtraining and underfuelling for quite some time but i've gained significant weight over the past 4-5 months, but look and feel like shit.
Had abs, veins, strength for 2 years- no matter my test levels, but now it's caught up and it's all gone. Literally back to square 1.
I'm probably going to pin some test P @140mg per week (within the next week), as well as some Tirzepatide @ 2.5mg to shed the shit weight.
Does anyone have any other suggestions before I jump back on TRT+GLP?
Am I stuffed?
I kept between 8-10% bodyfat the whole time I was cycling on/off.
Did lots of MMA, lots of running, lots of weights. Was eating 4000+ calories the whole time, but lost/gained randomly. Usually weight was between 73-77kg.
I wasn't massive, but strong and lean the whole time. Got heaviest at 88kg on cycle (1st) and peaked at 80kg last cycle.
Lost a few KG during PCT down to 73-74kg- but now back into 81-82kg range.
Now i'm likely 20%+ bodyfat at lower strength and i'm suffering a lot.
What's the smart/logical next step to take here? I have got a script for TRT now. But i'm not sure what to do. I'm 23!
Cheers all

I just thought of this theory and doing some research, I realized other people realized this but It needs more attention. And the theory is that Yoriichi and Upper Moon 1 are the same person. Their eyes seem to be somewhat similar, and their hair are long and dark red with curves at the end of their hair. And the hilt on their swords also look similar. I know this is really the only proof we have right now, especially since the first episode of the Hashira Training Arc just came out. But i've been seeing some stuff about Giyu Tomioka (the water hashira) could possibly join Muzan and become a demon himself in the future. Which there have been some hints to it like with him saying "I'm different from all of you" to the other Hashira in the new episode and the fact that hes not helping train the new demon slayers to fight against Muzan and his demons. So if Giyu could become a demon then it is a high possibiltiy that Yoriichi became a demon. I mean, if Muzan himself almost died to the first demon slayer and then somehow made him a demon, it would explain his speed we saw in the upper moon meeting and seems like no other demon has close to surpassing him. I know besides these few thing, theres really no answer these theories yet but it does seem like a possibilty. Let me know what you all think about this.

Hello again everybody!
Before we get started on today's post the current voting for Carbink currently has Abstaining votes with a bit of a lead over the next highest amount of votes (which is C tier). There is still time to vote however, if you haven't voted on that one yet you can find a link to the post in the comments on the post linked below or by sorting the SubReddit by the Tiering/Voting tag!
Unless something changes however it looks like Carbink will likely go back on to the radar list for a future vote. Like with all previous votes I'll continue to check the numbers and if anything changes I'll update it on tomorrow's post.
(Please note that this voting/tiering is centered around Classic mode as after a certain point in Endless only about 5 Pokemon and 2 abilities are truly viable.)
So current tiers are:
S tier - Garganacl, Cloyster, Skeledirge, Gholdengo, Tinkaton
A tier - Gyarados/Mega, VenusauMega/Dyna, Aegislash, Corviknight/Dyna, Excadrill, GardevoiMega, Toxapex
B tier - Kanto-Persian/Dynamax Kanto-Meowth, Weavile, Starmie, Rhyperior, Quagsire, Mamoswine
C tier - Linoone
F tier - Dustox
With that being said let's get to today's vote!
Today is day 27 of tier voting and today we'll be talking about the funky rock 'n' roll lizard from Generation 8 that was the signature Pokemon of the gym leader who was part of a band and said no words during his solo lol. Toxtricity is fairly popular and well-known for its signature ability which synergizes very well with its moveset. Toxtricity has an interesting and unique typing that only it and its pre-evolution have claim to. While it does have a 4x weakness to Ground both of its types are strong types offensively and give it immunity to 2 status conditions which means it certainly can find ways to fit onto a team. It has a pretty solid stat spread in its base form and it also has the benefit of most of its strongest moves being spread moves making it a strong choice for double battles. This game gives it several gifts including a very good passive to go along with one of its strongest moves, as well as some really good egg moves that synergize with its signature ability even further and a super good stat spread for its Dynamax form.
(Please note that Pokemon with Mega/Dynamax evolutions will be tiered as one Pokemon and not tiered separately for their Mega/Dynamax form. Different variants such as Alolan Persian vs. Kanto Persian will be tiered separately however.)
(Also here is the post with rules for voting/tiering posts and a little more explanation about them in general: https://www.reddit.com/pokerogue/s/0LNZhPPzR9 Links to past votes can all be found here as well in comments added to the OP with each new vote)
And here is a quick reminder of what each tier generally means:
S tier: Top tier, can make or break your entire run, essentially the cream of the crop
A tier: really strong but not quite top tier, maybe slightly outclassed or has a slight weakness holding it back
B tier: solid choices that can make it to your endgame team, might be reliant on team composition to truly function well or might just be outclassed as well
C tier: usually early-mid game Mons, ones you don't really want to take to end game if you can avoid it, usually pretty decently glaring weakness but something redeeming enough to keep from F tier
F tier: no reason to use in end game unless you're doing it for a meme/joke
Abstain/No Opinion: this will be a voting option mostly just in case someone accidentally votes and then can't remove their vote (I've noticed that happens on Reddit sometimes) or for Pokemon people haven't unlocked/used to their full potential yet. If Abstaining votes outvote each individual tier then the Pokemon will be tabled for the time being and another vote will open up for it later (can mostly see this happening with Legendaries).
(Data in parentheses is for the Dynamax form)
[Also worth noting Toxtricity base form has 2 different forms it evolves into based on its nature. The only difference between these forms is its secondary ability and one of the moves it learns by level-up though, so I will put these brackets around the 2 moves and abilities. Both forms have the same Dynamax form]
*
Toxtricity (Dynamax)
Type: Electric/Poison
Mega: No
Dynamax: Yes
Starter cost {Toxel}: 3
Possible Egg moves: Nasty Plot, Baneful Bunker, Sparkling Aria, Torch Song
Abilities: Punk Rock or [Plus or Minus]
Hidden Ability: Technician
Passive Ability: Galvanize - Turns this Pokemon's Normal-type attacks into Electric-type attacks and boosts the power of Electric type attacks by 20%
Evolution: Toxel evolves into either Amped form or Low-Key form Toxtricity at level 30 depending on its nature. Toxtricity can Dynamax with Dynamax bracelet and Max Mushrooms
Base stats:
HP - 75 (95)
Attack - 98 (118)
Defense - 70 (80)
Sp. Attack - 114 (144)
Sp. Defense - 70 (80)
Speed - 75 (85)
Learnset by level up: Acid, Acid Spray, Belch, Flail, Growl, Leer, Noble Roar, Nuzzle, Tearful Look, Thunder Shock, Charge, Shock Wave, Scary Face, Taunt, Screech, Swagger, Discharge, Poison Jab, Overdrive, Boomburst, Spark, [Shift Gear or Magnetic Flux]
Notable TMs: Protect, Metal Sound, Thief, Trailblaze, Charge Beam, Facade, Swift, Hex, Snarl, Stored Power, Venoshock, Volt Switch, Sunny Day, Rain Dance, Brick Break, Fire Punch, Thunder Punch, Rest, Sleep Talk, Drain Punch, Thunder Wave, Toxic Spikes, Eerie Impulse, Gunk Shot, Hyper Voice, Thunderbolt, Wild Charge, Sludge Bomb, Thunder, Power-Up Punch, Screech, Sludge Wave, Throat Chop
*
Tomorrow's vote: GengaMega GengaDynamax Gengar!
Pokemon on the radar for voting very soon: Aggron/Mega, Comfey, Crobat, Ferrothorn, Gliscor, Delphox, Roserade, Vileplume, Minior, Hitmonchan, Bibarel, Whimsicott, Chandelure, Archaludon/Dynamax Duraludon, Alakazam/Mega, Infernape, Flamigo, Volcarona, Alolan-Decidueye, Barbaracle, Butterfree/Dyna, Beedrill/Mega, Mawile/Mega, Drednaw/Dyna, Annihilape, Cramorant, Aerodactyl/Mega, Glimmora, Heatran, Tapu Koko, Dialga/Primal, Galarian-Zapdos, Regieleki, Regidrago, Zacian, Zamazenta, Rayquaza/Mega, Latias/Mega, Latios/Mega, Ho-Oh, Volcanion, Cinccino, Snorlax/Dyna, Wishiwashi
(Other requests will be added to this list and this list is not necessarily in order)
Happy voting!
View Poll

I am NOT OOP, OOP is u/AdhesivenessMurky204
Originally posted to AITAH
AITAH for separating from my husband because he refused to get a vasectomy?
Thanks to u/queenlegolas and u/Direct-Caterpillar77 for suggesting this BoRU
Editor’s Note: added paragraph breaks for readability
Trigger Warnings: PTSD, mentions of abortion, domestic abuse, verbal abuse, sexual assault, rape
Original Post: April 28, 2024
My husband (28M, who I will call Jack) and I (27F) have been together for 4 years, we have 2 young children and I am pregnant again. I have been pregnant for what feels like most of our relationship. I got pregnant 4 months into our relationship. We got married a month before our daughter’s 1st birthday and ended up with a honeymoon baby. After our son was born, I talked to my OB and she put me on birth control and I have been taking it militantly.
My daughter is now 3 and my son is 2. A little over a month ago I discovered I am pregnant again, despite taking my birth control religiously. Abortion is banned in my state, and the pregnancy was discovered too far along to attempt to obtain one out of state. While Jack and I were nervous, we also love being parents and decided that 3 young kids would be a challenge, but 3 was a good number for us. Then we went in for the first ultrasound and got some unexpected news - it’s twins.
Things have been tough financially, and while we were stressed but excited for a third child, we were not expecting a third and fourth child. Beyond the finances, I am the primary caretaker and I know that twins is going to be a lot, three children under 5 is already a lot, but 4 children under 5 is going to be really really difficult for me. Physically, I am tired of being pregnant. I’ve been pregnant or breastfeeding the majority of our relationship. It’s exhausting, it feels awful, and I don’t recognize my body anymore.
Four children is enough. I don’t want more. I told Jack that I was done with pregnancy, I’ve been pregnant enough, I’ve been experimenting with different types of birth control for over a decade and I still can’t stop getting pregnant, abortion isn’t a valid option where we live, we need something more permanent. He agreed, and suggested an IUD, I told him no - if it did fail then it could cause an ectopic pregnancy which could kill me, especially where we live. I’ve had both control fail me multiple times already and I’m not taking the chance, so I suggested a vasectomy. He was not open to the idea, and was even upset that I suggested it and told me I should get my tubes tied. I told him a tubal ligation is a much bigger surgery and I could be recovering for weeks during which time I wouldn’t be able to work or take care of our 4 young children, but he could ice his balls for a day or two and be done with it. He told me that not getting pregnant was ultimately my responsibility, and topped it off by saying “that’s what your body your choice means, YOUR body, so YOU choose.” That’s when it went from a discussion to a full blown fight.
See, when I was 19 I had another birth control failure with my boyfriend at the time (who I will call Tom). I wanted an abortion, Tom did not because he was opposed. I told him I was getting the abortion since it was my body and my choice, and Tom said some horrible things to me, including threatening me. I broke up with him and got the abortion. In response, Tom ended up following me one night and attacking me. I don’t want to go into detail but it was horrible, and he ended up going to prison for a number of charges related to the attack. Not only do I have a number of scars and some long lasting physical effects, but I have PTSD as well.
Jack knows about my history and diagnosis, and has known from the beginning. I have a pretty prominent facial scar so I was upfront about it early on in our dating. Jack always presented himself as very pro-choice, so I was shocked that he would say that. I got really emotional and started crying and shouting, and it turned into a full-blown fight.
Eventually I said that birth control is a two-way street and so far I’ve been the only one managing it and he said “and now we have 2 kids and 2 more coming, great job.” I told him he sounded like Tom and he got super pissed, basically said how dare you compare me to him, and maybe he might want kids one day with someone who doesn’t compare him to her felon ex-boyfriend. I was stunned and horrified. I said “well then let’s not waste any fucking time,”then packed up myself and the kids and drove to my parents place.
It’s been about a week since the fight. I’ve spoken with Jack a few times and he has since apologized and said he was out of line and was speaking from a place of anxiety after finding out about the twins, but also that I said things that were out of line and it was wrong of me to insist he undergo a medical procedure. He said that can move on from the things I said and that he wants to see his children and be a family again. I told him no, that I didn’t want to “move on” from the things he said to me. I can’t just get over that and I think we need space apart. Jack was upset by this and while we talked I brought up getting a separation agreement to manage custody and finances while we figure things out. He did not like this suggestion, said we didn’t need to pull the courts into this.
I haven’t told a lot of people about what’s happening but my family and a couple close friends. My sister and best friend both think I should throw the whole man away, but my brother (who is the only other one married with kids) thinks that I’m being extreme for what sums up to a fight between two scared people who both said nasty things. My mom is trying to be supportive but is occasionally reminding me that I “don’t want to be a single mother of 4” and telling me not to let my PTSD drive my decisions, while my dad is being completely unhelpful (he thinks jokes are helpful - like calling me Doorknob because I “can’t stop getting knocked up”, telling me to let the oven cool down, real knee-slappers). I don’t know what to do. My kids are happy to be at grandma and grandpas house but they miss their daddy, I’m 4 months pregnant and already uncomfortable as hell, I wish I could go back to being a happy little family but I’m so hung up on the things he said in that fight. Am I destroying my family over one bad night? Am I being unreasonable for asking my husband to get a vasectomy?
Edit: I've noticed a lot of people recommending condoms. I have gotten pregnant with condoms twice. Our second child and my first pregnancy were both conceived using condoms properly (correct fit, put on correctly, single use, not expired, no breaks, etc). I do not trust condoms enough to not fail a third time. I know the failure rate is supposedly small, but it's not personally small enough for me. Edit to the edit: I'm sorry, I didn't expect so many comments so fast and I can't keep up with them. By the first pregnancy I mean the pregnancy with Tom. With Jack I was on the patch when I got pregnant with our daughter, condoms with our son, and the pill with the twins. So far I haven't ever suspected that Jack has tampered with our birth control and always presumed that I'm a fertile Myrtle.
I recognize the comments and just want people to know I'm seeing the suggestion. I'm not dismissing it, but the thought of it is deeply upsetting and has provoked a lot of anxiety. I just wanted to make it clear that if the suggestion is only based on the condoms, that the condom pregnancies were with two different partners. While I know I always used condoms properly with Tom, I do believe that Tom could have been fully capable of sabotaging the condoms.
AITAH has no consensus bot, OOP received mixed reactions of NTAs and YTAs
Relevant Comments
deepsleepsheepmeep: NTA. Your husband is though. Your body has already been through A LOT. A tubal ligation is a serious surgery and you are right about being out of commission for a while when recovering. If he is more concerned with an imaginary future wife than he is for you, I don’t think there is much hope for this marriage.
We have 4 close friends who all got vasectomies. None of them bitched about it like your wimp of a husband. We actually had fun vasectomy themed parties for them.
On the off chance he does end up getting a vasectomy, make sure to do the follow up appointments. One of the vasectomy fab 4 did not follow through and ended up with a post-vasectomy baby.

OOP: Thank you, I feel like this is a lot of what has been so upsetting has been that he's thinking about some imaginary future wife when I'm right here, his actual wife, the mother of his children. It's like he's already imagining a future without me.

 
Update: AITAH for separating from my husband because he refused to get a vasectomy?: May 3, 2024
I didn’t expect so many comments and literally couldn’t go through them all. It seemed like the majority of people said I was NTA but I did get a lot of YTAs telling me I was trying to force him to get a medical procedure and telling me to get one instead. Besides already addressing my reasonings why I made my request in the original post (which I want you to read with real "per my last email" energy), I in no way am *forcing* him to have a medical procedure, but I am saying that I do not want to be with a partner who is not willing to be snipped. This is an issue of compatibility. The number of children you want, the methods of birth control you’re willing to use, those are issues of compatibility and a reason relationships end all the time. If he doesn’t want to be sterilized that’s fine, but then that means that we’re not compatible anymore, since it means he wants more children and I don’t. Beyond that there were some YTA comments and some DMs that were just nasty, calling me a murderer and saying my body is a cemetery. Sadly enough, I expected those types of comments, because I know there are a lot of Toms out in the world.
First I wanted to address a couple things that kept coming up, because last post turned into thousands of comments that all said about 5 different things, so to avoid my inbox becoming another echo chamber:

You’re 100% going to have a C-section anyway so just get a tubal while giving birth.

No, I’m not 100% going to have a C-section anyway. Twins are not an automatic C-section. With my birth history there is no reason to presume that a C-section is in my future. My OB agrees, and has discussed the possibility as doctors have to do but also said that based on my past two birth experiences, I'm a "perfect candidate" for vaginal delivery.
I also am not going to mince words: tubal ligations are *less* effective than vasectomies with a *much higher* likelihood of an ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy can *kill me*. In fact I got a PM from a woman who is a fellow fertile Myrtle who had an ectopic after a tubal. I am rejecting birth control options that, if they fail, would lead to my likely death. I don’t want to be pregnant again but I also don’t want to die and leave my children motherless, and in no way should anyone assume that traveling to another state to obtain an emergency abortion will continue to be an option in the future - we live in scary times, and Gilead is a real possibility. The comments seemed to have the vibe that people think that ligations are magically more effective than vasectomies and vasectomies are more of a whisper of sterility than an actual sterilization method so for those in the back VASECTOMIES ARE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN TUBAL LIGATIONS, FULL STOP. So I really need y’all to shut up about it.

Go to another state and obtain an abortion anyway.

I appreciate the personal offers to help I received in DMs deeply, but no. I’m in my 2nd trimester, which I know is still legal in some places, however I am at a point in my pregnancy where I personally as an individual do not feel comfortable obtaining an abortion, considering I would be *even farther* along by the time I could travel (which is not only finances, but logistics as well). I am 16 weeks pregnant now, these babies aren’t just clusters of cells to me anymore, and I’m not going to expand on that since it’s not up for debate.

Why not adoption?

With love and respect to everyone who has gone through adoption in all its aspects, adoption is absolutely not for me. This is a thought process I already went through 8 years ago, and now that I’m a mother and not a scared teenager I know it’s even less for me. I personally could not go through with it and come out the other side intact. Going through a full pregnancy, having my babies, and then being separated from them would break me.

Leave him and give him full custody of the twins

No. Because going through a full pregnancy, having my babies, and then being separated from them would break me. Jesus, some of y’all.

Just have a sexless marriage.

No. I love banging my husband, obviously lol. I don't want to be in a sexless marriage and anyone who has been to an abstinence-only high school knows that abstinence is not the way lol. There were a lot of comments assuming I would be perfectly fine withholding sex from my husband and having na dead bedroom, and I wouldn't. I have a sex drive. I'm going to want to bang my husband. Wanting to have sex with your spouse is *normal*.

What you would do about birth control if you divorced and dated in the future?

I’m not thinking of dating anyone else right now, because I’m thinking more about saving my actual marriage instead of an imaginary relationship. And if theoretically I did, I would probably seek out a partner who was snipped or was ready to be to be honestly, or a woman. I’m bisexual so there’s a very good chance that my future partner wouldn’t have the right parts to knock me up anyway lol.

Jack is sabotaging your birth control

I clarified my methods in the original post (as per my last email), but I did want to address this because it came up a LOT. I don’t have reason to believe that Jack sabotaged my birth control. A number of other fertile Myrtles showed up and brought up they or their family members repeated pregnancies in the face of birth control, including tubals. Accusing my husband of reproductive coercion for no reason other than I keep getting pregnant is a big leap and a weighty accusation. I am not the only fertile Myrtle out there, there's a reason there's a whole term for it.

Your husband is a narcissist, abuser, psychopath, and he does no childcare

My husband and I historically have a really healthy and loving relationship outside of this fight. In fact, this fight is the first time we’ve really had a fight, we’ve only ever had little arguments that we’ve been able to talk through. He’s an active father, the reason that I do the majority of childcare is due to circumstance between maternity leaves, our job schedules and the fact that I breastfed my babies. Someone also presumed I’m the breadwinner, which isn’t quite true. Jack makes more than me, but we do not have deeply significant differences in our incomes. When he is home he does his fair share of cleaning and cooking (arguably more than me at times), and parenting. That being said, the things he said in the heat of the moment were deeply concerning, and we’re addressing that together.
So to get down to the nitty gritty of the real update: since the last time I posted, Jack and I have sat down together and had a real come to Jesus talk. I’m not going to go through the whole breakdown, but it basically boiled down to this: it’s the vasectomy, but it’s more than the vasectomy. It was wrong of me to compare him to Tom but it was wronger of him to weaponize my trauma against me in a very malicious way. The way he intentionally used the same language my abuser used in an effort to hurt me was not acceptable and damaged the trust between us. He agreed it was not acceptable and said that in the aftermath he was horrified and ashamed his own words, and that he (as an explanation and not an excuse) kind of snapped under the stress. Oh and what he said about his “next wife” was not an indication of him not being committed to me but was because he felt hurt and wanted to hurt me back. He has apologized numerous times and seems to feel genuinely bad about it.
As for the separation, I am still going forward with it. I need space and time and I need to take that before the babies come. I am still staying with my parents who, for the record, are not sick of me or the kids. We’re a tight knit family, I only moved out when I moved in with Jack, and my sister moved out about a year ago so they have been empty nesting, and my mom doesn’t like that we live “too far” (an hour) away. What I have realized with space and time is how deeply triggering it was, in a way that I cannot explain to those without PTSD from DV, those who know will know. It’s deeply unsettled me and I’m having a hard time “getting over it” so to speak. There is now a lot of fear of my husband that was never there before and it’s going to take a lot to repair that trust and sense of safety. I cannot make a decision while I’m in this space, and I am addressing this with my personal therapist. Overall, I told him that if he wanted to stay married to me I needed two things from him: marriage counseling and a vasectomy, and even then I still cannot guarantee him anything. He understands, but I do not know what will happen with the vasectomy right now, we focused more on talking about the fight, but he is very aware that it's now a dealbreaker. And we have a marriage counseling appointment set up for next week. I'm hoping that counseling will bring some clarity to the situation, and in the mean time for the next couple months I'm focusing on giving my kids lots of cuddles and preparing myself for two new babies to come into my world, with or without Jack.
Additional information from OOP on her relationships

OOP: I've been through a trial to convict my ex-boyfriend of trying to kill me because of an abortion in a deep red, deeply religious area. I've definitely heard worse things, and I typically have pretty thick skin. That being said, I am pregnant and pretty emotional, so it's not the best experience. That being said, I do appreciate the level-headed comments when I see them through the sea of comments kind of saying the same stuff over and over. I'm not reading a lot of them if what I can see in the comment notification starts off nasty, so a lot of it is just inbox white noise. My favorites are the ones that start off with "I'm not going to read that BUT..." and I just think lol same. Like you don't want to read my post but expect me to read your comment that was made without even reading the situation? lol nope. And there are a lot of people conflating "providing someone with a hard choice" with "forcing someone into a medical procedure" and it just makes wading through for the actually helpful comments more tiring. Thank you though, I very much appreciate the kindness. Sorry, I've gotten so much of the same nonsense I guess I needed a little vent lol.

OOP on wanting her husband to make a decision and be on the same page

OOP: I want to be honest with him about where I am emotionally because I want him to make an informed decision. While the vasectomy is a deal breaker, it's really my secondary concern. My primary concern is the way he acted during the fight and his intention exploitation of my trauma because he was mad and scared. I think that telling him "get the snip to stay with me" and then deciding to leave anyway because there are deeper issues and/or I don't feel safe anymore would be cruel. He deserves to have the full picture before he makes a choice, doesn't he?
If he doesn't want the vasectomy, that's his choice. It's not what I want, but it is what it is. If he wants to call it quits at 4 kids, then it is what it is and if he secretly wants to be the next Nick Cannon then it is what it is he should be free to do that. That is part of why I don't know where he is on the vasectomy right now and we didn't really discuss it much when we talked, I'm focusing on discussing the bigger issue for me which is trust and safety within the relationship. The only way for him to make an informed decision about whether or not he get a vasectomy is for him to have all the information about the situation. If that makes him want a vasectomy less, then it is what it is. It's not about making him want to have a vasectomy. It's about being on the same page.

 

DO NOT COMMENT IN LINKED POSTS OR MESSAGE OOPs – BoRU Rule #7

THIS IS A REPOST SUB - I AM NOT OOP

I've been playing with my sample spreadsheet and was reminded that I literally relegated Sucreabeille to its own tab away from everyone else because I felt so negatively! They were my intro to indies, when I didn't know how to research scents or houses yet. I was hesitant to purchase because their marketing vibe didn't mesh with me, but I was convinced by the fawning reviews on almost every scent (on their website). At the time, I also didn't realize how expensive Suc is compared to many other brands!
I figured I could post these as a counterpoint to the mostly positive reviews that showed up when I searched for Suc scents. I'm sure the house works really well for some, but it REALLY didn't for me. Their pure gourmands worked better, but I haven't worn my top rated scent from this batch since I tried it out. I rested all of these for two weeks before testing, and I haven't revisited them since I got through all of them a few weeks after that.
My tastes: I really like rich resins and non-nag incense, as well as a spectrum of flormands and gourmands. I don't love fruits, green/aquatic scents or many dirt/dead leaf scents. Top houses: Olympic Orchids, Mythpunk Olfactive, Solstice Scents. Mid houses: Nui Cobalt, Cocoa Pink. Low hit rates: Suc, Alkemia, Possets, Haus of Gloi, BPAL GC
With that, I hope you enjoy my record of bewilderment.
BELSNICKEL Hot espresso with juniper berries and brown sugar.

• In the jar, tutti fruitti jelly beans, maaaybe coffee jelly bean if I smell hard enough to get a headache. On skin, very sweet, easier to see the brown sugar now and it's THICK. Syrupy. There's a little bitter note that could be juniper, sure, but it's toying with soapiness. After 15 min, already almost gone. The sweetness plus green now smells like a bathroom air freshener, plus the bathroom; not good. By an hour: gone! Weirdly getting more wafts of it around 4 hrs, and it's back to tutti fruitti? MAYBE brown sugar but god, just cloying. Erratic and synthetic, big disappointment. 1/10

CHAOS WITCH Freshly cut magnolias and moonflowers play with nutmeg cream.

• Very sweet pale floral with a cool spice, not identifiable as nutmeg. No clear magnolia. I didn't pay close enough attention to review this one well, but I was very disappointed by the complete lack of magnolia (a scent I love) and the vaguely unpleasant Suc DNA 3/10

DO NO HARM, TAKE NO SHIT Plums, nectarines, apricots, and blackberries sparkle on a bed of sage and fallen leaves deep in the autumnal forest.

• In jar: Fairly pleasant candy fruit smell (plum, berries) with a little cool herbaceous back to it. On skin: Fruits disappear to general sweetness over a damp earth and burnt rubber scent, maybe burnt leaves? Confusing. At 15 min, sort of a fruity sweetness? Over a sour off-note that could be the rotten leaves, but it comes off as sort of... poopy? I actually washed this off before leaving for work (less than an hour) bc I didn't want to smell like it - scrubbing didn't totally work, so I can say it's vaguely sweet with a dirty-herby soap base that I don't care for but isn't making me yak 1/10

AFTERGLOW Dark chocolate, amber, honey.

• Definitely get dark chocolate and honey in the jar! Not creamy but still rich and warm. On skin it loses power and sweetness very fast, it's a very faint borderline-musty borderline-burnt rubber smell with a baby powder. After a few minutes, thank god it's back to the bottle smell! Not as chocolatey which is too bad, but a pleasant sweet amber with a hint of chocolate. Something of the wet scent is still sneaking around? But then it turned into a cocoa butter lotion smell. Stays similar over the next 4 or 5 hrs, growing fainter. I think I like this? Maybe a bit synthetic though, but then again I don't always love the sharpness of honey 6/10

CREAM TEA A warm mug of creamy, frothy, caffeine-injected tea. A blend of chai tea, burnt sugar, white musk, warm milk, and hot scones slathered with raspberry jam and honey.

• More like an iced chai, not a warm scent in the jar. There's a sharp zingy berry in the background which might be what's cooling it down. On skin, the cool note is more dry loose leaf black tea, with a big sweet raspberry jam in front - not the most natural but nice. As it starts to dry, the closer I get to my skin the more it smells like a scented lotion. I don't get milk or pastry, or any of the chai spice at this point. At an hour, a sweet, creamy raspberry; still reminds me of a scented lotion, a bit bath-producty for me. At 4 hrs, a very faint sweet raspberry. Creamy in the sense that it's not sharp at all. Barely there but very pleasant. 6/10

YOUR SKELETON IS ALWAYS WET Pistachio and almond with exotic spices.

• In jar: Nutty! Close to what I hoped for, definitely pistachio/almond extract with a little hint of spice. Wet on skin, like huffing an extract bottle ach! That's a plus for me haha. Dries down to be very faint, mostly spices. This reminds me more of some chai blends I've had than Cream Tea does. At an hour, mostly dry spices, like a spice cabinet for only sweet bakes. I think the nuts are presenting as bottles of extract in that same cabinet, but definitely not the stars. 4 hrs: very faint, more of the nuts now but it's a generic non-spice sweetness, only vaguely nutty and kind of black peppery 5/10

COVEN A cauldron of herbs float in black, golden, and white ambers. Fir needles, cedarwood, and autumn leaves against a backdrop of pumpkin spice and sassafras.

• Definitely get a dark green foresty scent with a soft herbal element; a vague sweetness that is nondescript light spice, maybe the sassafras. Started promisingly dark-wet-forest but then turns into a barely-there high end/sexy soap, maybe that's ambecedar. Maybe good for soapy folk, not for me! 4/10

AMAZONIA Pear, fig, blueberry, ylang ylang.

• So so sweet, almost like one of those shark or frog gummy candies, gummy life savers, chewy gummy bears. No specific fruits identifiable. On skin, there's something musty to the fruitiness, maybe like a plasticky scent. I could almost pretend to smell pear, but it's not good 1/10

SMOKE AND DECAY Warm snickerdoodle cookies dipped in buttercream frosting, campfire wood smoke, crisp red apple, Indian sandalwood, a freshly poured oatmeal stout, orange spiced chai tea.

• Yummm sweet baking spices, definitely like a dark molasses spice cake in the jar (but the carrier smell is bleh). Wet on skin it's immediately a more realistic foody spice, but with a warm wood. After a minute the spice blooms off and there's something almost floral about it? Definitely get a bit of the orange, maybe cookie dough. 8/10

VENOM Oud wood, smoked patchouli, coal, freshly paved tar, cedarwood.

• WOW!! Smells like a sweet burning tire?? Maybe in a good way?? I want to smell it on a boy. Hmm but not good after all. Disappears almost entirely, fades to a hard to detect sun-sweet fresh asphalt. So hard to pick up though. 1/10

HOCUS POCUS Wormwood, bitter almond, figs, violets, nicotina, sparkling aldehyde.

• The wormwood is giving thin and clean-sweet like a not-quite almond extract. However, once this dries it's straight up Dove soap. It's so spot on idk what else to say! Another one for the soap lovers. 3/10

I am NOT OOP. OOP is u/justathrowaway282641
Originally posted to TwoHotTakes + her own page
Previous BoRU #1, BoRU #2, BoRU #3, BoRU #4, BoRU #5, BoRU 6
Editor’s Note: removed all relevant comments from older posts to make space for new updates. To see all older relevant comments, check out the previous BoRUs above
NEW UPDATE MARKED WITH ----
[New Update]: My family forgot to invite me to my grandparents funeral, but they are convinced I was there.
Trigger Warnings: death of loved ones, emotional manipulation, gaslighting, harassment
RECAP
Original Post: November 14, 2023**
I’m 30s F and caused a major blowup in my family and now none of them are talking to me. For background, my hometown is tiny (500pop) and when I went 2 hrs away to “the city” (15,000pop) for college, I loved it. I ended up staying after graduation, got married, and am happy here for a decade. I visit my home town every few weeks or so, call/text my family near daily, and thought we were all good. My family’s pretty small. Just my brother, mom, step dad, dad, step mom, and an aunt and uncle (mom’s siblings, never married, no kids). My mother's grandparents moved to my home town when I was in high school and were just down the street from us. My family has always been pretty drama free (aside from my parent’s divorce when I was a kid) and we’ve been happy. The step-parents were blended in perfectly and we share holidays and celebrations together. We’re all super close and just the perfect little group.
Ever since I moved away, the topic of “when am I moving back?” is constant, and I’ve always laughed it off. My home town has nothing. You have to drive 30 minutes for milk and bread. 60-90 minute one-way commutes to work. And floods shut down the main road every Easter. I love the town, but I love here more. I have parks, stores, community events, a library! The “city” is great. My family grumbles that I need to move back, but I refuse. I've been trying to encourage them to come here, especially since it's not an hour drive to the nearest medical facility.
Now to the meat and potatoes: both my grandparents passed over COVID times. They were both old and their health had been failing for a while so it was only a matter of time. Thankfully they didn’t catch it, but it made visiting them impossible and we survived mostly through FaceTime. They both passed in their sleep months apart. Both were cremated and kept securely under the kitchen sink for safe keeping while the pandemic blew over. That was 2021.
Well, I just found out my family held a funeral for them and scattered the ashes in my uncle’s maple grove over the summer. No one said a word to me about it. I’ve visited numerous times before and after and not one word. I only found out because my great uncle from California posted on Facebook a few weeks ago that he is entering hospice and was so thankful his health stayed strong enough for him to see his little sister (my grandma) to her final resting place. I was confused and called my mom. She was all “Yeah, the funeral we had in July, remember?” Ya’ll, I visited them for the 4th of July. They did the funeral the 8th. Not a word about it to me. They had planned this for months. Long enough to arrange for my infirm great uncle to be brought over from the other side of the country. Apparently, they talked about it “all the time”.
Everyone is convinced I was at the funeral. They SWEAR I was there. I can prove I wasn’t because Google’s got my location history. My hubby is baffled because he was supposedly there, too, but he had to work every weekend in June and July. Time clock doesn’t lie. My family straight up forgot about me. I’m hurt. I’m sad. And they’re pissed at me “for lying”. They think I’m causing drama over nothing. Nothing I say can convince them I wasn’t there. My family is united in this. And they’ve all put me “on read” until I admit I’m wrong. They think I’ve gone nuts. Either there’s a doppelganger of me attending events, or my family doesn’t want to admit they screwed up. I’m not backing down.
Thanksgiving is coming up, and my family’s been vague posting on Facebook about “forgetful kids” and mental health. It’s so freaking weird and I don’t know if I’m in bizzaro world or what’s going on. My mom’s best friend reached out and said I should just admit I was wrong and apologize, that I’m causing my mom so much unnecessary stress. I asked her if she’s checked everyone’s home for CO2. She hung up on me. (We checked our CO2, and our testers are running just fine.) I have reached out to a few people in my home town to check in on my folks, and they all say they're fine. I even spoke with the local volunteer fire fighter group to see if they could check for gas leaks. Not sure if they were able to.
I don’t know what to do. I’ve shown them the proof I wasn’t there, but they know I’m tech savvy and just assume I’ve Photoshopped it. Hubby says we need a break, and we’re going to be staying home this holiday season.
Edit: I don't know the update rules, so I'll post updates to my profile should anyone want them.  
Update #1: November 27, 2023
Not sure how to do updates on posts, so figured I'd post anything on my profile. Folks have private messaged me and this will be easier I think?
It's 11/27 and Thanksgiving just happened. Hubby and I stayed home. We got a small turkey and made our own little thanksgiving. It was nice. We ate around noon, then watched a movie, and later sat outside with a bottle of wine to watch the sun set behind the trees and neighbor houses.
We usually take the day before off, drive to my folks, stay the night, and help with the Thanksgiving Day cooking. So it wasn't until Wednesday night that my mom broke the silence. Mom called and asked when I was showing up, and I told her we were staying home this year, but for them to have a happy Thanksgiving, and to give the rest of the family my love. She was quiet for a long time after I said that, and I think she eventually mumbled an "okay", or something, and hung up. It wasn't an angry hang up. Just a hang up. On Thanksgiving day, I sent a group "Happy Thanksgiving!" gif to our family group chat. I received a few "happy Thanksgiving"'s back. No one's said anything else. There's been no posts on Facebook.  
Update #2: December 12, 2023
So, I think I mentioned in one of my comments that my dad and I usually talk on the phone every Sunday morning. We're both early risers so we'd chat over our morning coffees and watch the sunrise. Him and I haven't really spoken since this all went down and it's been tough. I'm used to talking to him, you know?
Well, I was sitting outside in my usual spot, watching the sun rise and freezing my butt off, and he called me. I'm not entirely sure how to describe the emotions I felt. It was a mix of panic, hope, terror, happiness, and dread. I ended up answering because I just had to know what he wanted. It was an awkward conversation. He didn't address the current "drama", but instead tiptoed around the situation with all the grace of an cow on stilts. For instance, a simple "How are you doing?" Type question was answered with a "Not good." And the whole conversation would stall out for a bit because he knew why I wasn't doing well. So we ended up talking about the weather, the various winter birds we'd seen in our feeders, and the Christmas decorations around town. Things like that.
Eventually he asked if we were coming out for Christmas, and sounded sad when I told him we weren't. He asked if him and step mom could come visit us instead, and I told him it wasn't a good idea this year. That hubby and I were going to spend a quiet holiday together. I let him know he should be receiving some gifts at his PO Box any day now, so to please pick them up from the post office and put them under the family tree for everyone. He said he'd ship ours to us as well.
And that was pretty much it. No crazy drama to report. The only posts on Facebook have been the usual Christmas excitement ones, countdowns, photos of Santa, silly gift ideas, photos of company Christmas parties.
On a personal note: Hubby and I are doing alright. Our health is good, our spirits high, and we're as solid as ever. We each got Christmas bonus' at our jobs, so we're excited about that. They're not large, but we're happy to have them. We have also done advent calendars for the first time ever. I got him a Lego one, and he got me a hot chocolate one. We're going to do the calendars again next year. Maybe make a tradition out of it.
Everyone please have a safe and happy holidays.  
Inheritance: December 16, 2023
I've received a lot - A LOT - of messages and private DMs urging me to check into inheritance and such. I'm really touched a lot of Internet strangers are worried about me and I wanted to ensure everyone that inheritance is most likely not an issue here. I'd almost be relieved if it was, because then it would at least make some sense. Money does weird things to people, you know?
No one in my family is wealthy by any means. After my grandparents' passed, their small estate was used to pay for their end of life expenses and remaining assets split up. Everyone directly related got an equal split (so excluded my dad and the step parents). I don't remember the exact amount I received, but it was around $5k if I recall. My brother gave me his share, too, so I could finish paying off my college debt while the interest freeze was active.
The great uncle from California has kids and grand kids, and great grandkids of his own, and also isn't wealthy. I think one of his kids makes good money doing something in finance, but I'm not entirely sure. I can't imagine he left us anything, as we hardly knew him. My mom, aunt, and uncle only met him a few times in their lives, and my brother and I even less. Grandma and him were close, but I don't think he liked my grandpa much.  
Christmas: December 25, 2023
I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas. I've received a lot of support through my posts and I'm really grateful. Writing these updates have had a therapeutic effect.
Yesterday was Sunday, but I didn't answer my dad when he called. I just really didn't feel up to a pointless chat, so let it go to voicemail. He tried to reach me a few times throughout the day, but I didn't answer.
Our bestie last minute invited us over to his house for Christmas day lunch (today), so husband and I were busy all Christmas Eve making cookies, peanut brittle, and homemade suckers/hard candies for his kids. Mom tried to reach out as well, but I also ignored her calls.
We had a BLAST at lunch! Our friend's kids are a lot of fun to be around. They got some techy presents from their grandparents (Quest vr headset and steam decks, lucky little rascals) Friend and his wife aren't good with tech, while hubby and I are, so we helped get them set up while our friend played a good host to his folks and inlaws. The grandparents didn't realize that a Steam deck required a Steam account, so we got the kids all their own accounts set up, added them to our steam friends lists, and gifted them some games. We also bought them a few VR games for their headset, and they were off to the races with Beat Saber in no time.
As for my folks: My brother texted and asked if we could talk sometime tomorrow. I think me ignoring mom and dad has caused some kind of upset. Which they deserve.  
Brother’s call: December 26, 2023
Spoke with my brother over the phone this morning.
For starters, he apologized for everything. Him and I are good (for now). For a bit of background, my brother and I are only 2 years apart. There weren't a lot of kids around growing up, so the two of us were often stuck doing stuff together. So we have a lot of shared interests and passions. He's been pretty silent on this whole matter, but still "part of the group", if you know what I mean. I think the thought of losing him out of my life was probably the most painful, because he's always been there. He was my rock until I met my husband. He's definitely a Mama's boy, though, so anything mom wanted, he made sure she got. I'm happy to have him back.
Without further ado, here's the story from the horse's mouth:
Mom apparently had a cancer scare late last year (which no one told me about, go figure), and dad had a stint put in his heart back in January (which I did know about). This "sense of mortality" has apparently lit a fire under Mom's ass to get me back home. But since I wasn't reacting to her passive aggressive hinting, she and step mom decided to go full crazy. My great uncle's health was bad, and he'd been asking about funeral arrangements for his sister (my grandma) for a while, so the moms decided to plan it. And use the event as a giant middle finger to me. They kept all the planning pretty hush-hush between the two of them, so no one on our side of the family actually knew about the funeral until like 2 weeks before. The moms said they'd invited hubby and I. No one thought anything about it. No one thought to mention, confirm, or check with me.
The plan was to scatter the ashes, say a few words, and maybe head to town for lunch. It was a small affair. The mom's didn't even tell the family that our great uncle was coming for it. Like I said, it was a small thing. Barely a footnote. No one thought it was odd because we're pretty chill people.
4th of July happens. Hubby and I are out. No one thought to mention it, as we were all busy celebrating and having a great time. Any time the topic of "this weekend" would start, the conversation would be quickly shifted by one of the moms. We went back home.
8th of July happens. Great uncle rolls into town with a few of his kids, grandkids, and great grandkids, and it's a surprise to everyone (but the moms). Everyone drives to the maple grove and the moms have brought a ton of food and stuff. It's a full blown party. No one on my side noticed I wasn't there, because there were so many extra faces outside the usual group. They did the spreading of the ashes, they said their words, they ate, they had a great time. It wasn't until our great uncle left, and all his side left with him, that they realized I wasn't there. And hadn't been there.
And this is where the crazy went up a notch. My brother says the moms were happy no one noticed I wasn't there. And that this was proof to everyone that I needed to move back because I was so easily forgotten about. Because none of them thought to reach out, right? They basically did a ton of guilt tripping manipulation bullshit and it made everyone upset at me for not showing up. Somehow it was my fault for being excluded. So suddenly everyone was on their side with "sticking it to me".
But then a few months went by, and tempers cooled, and then I guess the horror of it set in. Followed by the shame, but by then they were "in too deep". How do you undo something like this? And since I hadn't brought it up, I guess they figured they would all just stay quiet about it and hope I never asked about a funeral.
That's when I discovered the situation from my great uncle's Facebook and called my mom, who panicked and went with the stupidest solution. Claiming I was there. Don't I remember?
I ended up talking with a few friends from high school, mentioning the situation, and word got back to those in town. So suddenly town gossip and little old church ladies got involved. Was I, or wasn't I at the funeral? Did my family forget to invite me to the funeral of the only grandparents I'd ever know? Or am I just causing a ruckus? My brother said they all just went with mom's answer. Of course they wouldn't forget me. Of course I was there. Of course they're good people. And it just snowballed.
The family expected me to eventually fold. I'm usually a nonconfrontational person, so me sticking to my guns was unexpected. And then I missed Thanksgiving. And now Christmas. With no sign of backing down. And I guess the realization that I could just stop being part of their lives is setting in and my parents are panicking. He's tried just getting them to apologize and explain, but stubbornness prevails. They want to rug sweep, but I'm not letting them.
My brother is upset with everything that's happened. He's realized just how crappy it all has been and he wants nothing to do with it anymore. But since he lives with my mom, he can't "get away from it".
He has asked if he can come stay with us for a little bit. I spoke with hubby, and he's in agreement with me that my brother can come crash in our spare bedroom for as long as he wants. Brother works remotely, so it's no trouble for him to pick up and go. I believe he's making the trip today or tomorrow. Not entirely sure, but I expect crap to hit the fan when he arrives.
On a side note, hubby's stoked that my brother and I made up. The two usually game together, but haven't due to "the situation". He's downstairs right now setting up his man cave in preparation for my brother's arrival. I'm happy to see him so excited.  
Brother's Here: December 27, 2023
My brother rolled in late last night. He'd obviously been crying and when I opened the door, he just held me and sobbed. I'd never seen him like that before and soon both of us were just standing in the doorway crying into one another. He kept apologizing. Over and over again. Said he wasn't sure why he went with it. Just kept saying sorry. Hubby got him all set up in the spare bedroom while brother and I talked. My brother's a wreck. He's always been a big guy, but he's lost a lot of weight and his clothes just hang off him. If I didn't know better, I'd think he was on drugs. We talked for a little bit before bed and he re-explained everything for my husband. I'd told hubby the story, but it was just so weird that hearing it again helped.
This morning my brother was up at dawn making some coffee and getting his work day going. Hubby's off all week (lucky) so hubby made us working folk some pancakes and bacon. So far everything's peaceful. We've decided not to answer any calls from our family. They've been made aware that he arrived safely, and that we are going to spend the New Years together, and that we're not answering any calls until January 1st. They may text if they wish. I'm sure they're losing their minds. Serves them right.
Everyone, have a safe and happy new years! Don't drink and drive!  
Happy 2024!: January 2, 2024
I hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable holidays, and may the new year be full of joy and happiness!
Not too much of an update. Things here have been quiet. My brother's settled in nicely and he's a great housemate. Our place isn't very big, but we have full basement and a nice outside patio/porch area so it doesn't feel crowded at all with the extra addition. He's a quiet and clean guy. No hassle at all. He got some fresh clothes from the Walmart, a haircut, and trimmed his beard, so he's more "presentable" now. He's a lady killer when he gets cleaned up. He's made nice with the (very nosy, but kind) retired couple next door and is adapting to "city living" nicely.
Folks back home have been mostly well behaved. There's been a few texts back and forth, as we're not answering calls. Mom mainly wants to know when brother's coming back, but he's keen on staying here for a while. Mom said I can't "keep him" and I told her he's a grown ass man and can do what he wants. Brother says he has her blocked after she ORDERED him to return home.
Brother has tentatively asked if he could stay long term, should he decide to, or at least longer than a usual visitor would stay. Which we're fine with. He has a good paying job and could afford an apartment, but he's never lived on his own and I would guess he has some anxiety about it. Should that be the case, he'll start paying us some rent and we'd probably adjust to give him the basement as his own space.  
Had to change the locks: January 17, 2024
My brother is officially staying with us for the long haul. Hubby and him spent all Sunday organizing the basement and shifting things around so he now has his own area to be comfortable in. He's pretty handy and has also started fixing little things around our house. Our windows and doors have never closed and locked/unlocked smoother. He even fixed one of the closets we never use because we can never get the darn door open. Sadly, he also had to change the locks on our house and get us all new keys.
This is because while hubby and I were out this Saturday, the moms showed up. They'd been calling and texting us all week, but we weren't really answering them, so I guess the two decided to drive over and hash it out in person. They have emergency keys to my place, and just let themselves in. Brother told them to leave, they argued, and my nosy (but kind) neighbors called the police when they noticed the commotion. So, we get a call from neighbor's wife, return home to some cops in our yard, all the neighbors out "vacuuming their trees", and my nosy (but kind) neighbors standing on my porch with my brother behind them, doing their best Gandalf "You shall not pass" impression.
Had to talk with the cops, explain that we were having a family dispute and word vomited. I don't really remember what all I said, and was shaking a lot. Our local cops are really great. Fantastic guys and gals in blue, and took it all in stride. It's really cold here, so one had me join him in his cruiser with the heat on, and gave me a bottle of water to calm down while we talked. They asked if we wanted the moms trespassed but I wasn't sure if that counted as a criminal charge so just asked the cops if they could just make them leave, which the cops did with no fuss. I think the moms were shocked we were taking this so seriously. They didn't fight or scream at us. Just left quietly.
My dad promised me he'd make sure his wife left us alone. "Or else". He said he'd also have a stern talk with my mom. Him and I talked Sunday morning, and he seemed absolutely at the end of his rope. Husband jokingly told my dad he could move in, too. To which he declined.
Not sure where to go from here, but we're getting some ring cameras installed once they arrive. And everyone but my dad is blocked. Hopefully they all just leave us alone.  
Nothing New To Report: February 2, 2024
Had a lot of DMs for updates, but don't have much anything to report on. The moms are behaving themselves. All's quiet on the western front. Felt weird ignoring or copy/pasting "no updates" to everyone, so here's what we've been doing, should anyone care.
Dad got a new bird/squirrel feeder from Amazon (looks like a little picnic table for a child's dolly but has a mesh top for the bird seed. I think it's supposed to be for chickens?) It's totes adorbs. To his horror, it also works as a Cooper hawk feeder, so now he's "fortifying his defenses" and putting up some trellises around it. He'll have to wait till warmer weather before planting anything to grow on them.
We had some ring cameras installed and put in a motion-activated camera that double functions as a light bulb. It goes in the light fixture outside the front door and is pretty cool. Video quality isn't all that great, but it's a nice addition I guess. It does overlook the bird feeders, so I've been watching it on my lunch breaks on the days I have to go into the office.
Hubby and brother are feuding. They started a coop farm in Stardew Valley a few days ago and they both want to romance Leah. My husband confided in me that he's also been romancing Sebastian as a backup. I'm not sure why he's keeping this a secret, but he's pretty smug about it.
RELEVANT COMMENTS
fractal_frog I hope your dad can outsmart the hawks!

OOP: He'll be able to, I just know it. He's used to dealing with the wildlife and having hawks about, but he just wasn't expecting one to snag a meal right from his new feeder.
I told him it was "technically" still a bird feeder. Just....for bigger birds. Which he thought was funny. He said he might make a little "no hawks allowed" sign to put up next to it.

MissOP: keep the updates coming. the moms are so close to folding it's just a little bit more. LMAO also, the bro mance between your husband and brother is so cute. lol Honestly, I think your husband making sure he has a side piece of Sebastian is absolutely the play.

OOP: So far still no word from the moms, but I hope you're right. I would love an apology and for us to begin moving past this. But I NEED that apology. I feel selfish saying that, but I refuse to "be the bigger person" on this. I just won't.
As for my brother and husband, yeah, they're basically soul mates. The two hit it off immediately when they first met, and they've been thick as thieves for years.  

Update: February 27, 2024
My dad came out for a visit over the weekend. We had a good time and the weather was lovely for some grilling and beers. It was really nice to see him again and he seemed healthy and in good spirits.
Here's his report from back home: Step mom (dad's wife) has started to realize she's screwed up. I credit her change of mindset to the fact that my dad sat her down and laid it out for her: she leaves his kids alone, or she's getting divorce papers. That apparently shut her up right quick, because they had a prenup done when they married and I'm not sure the details of it, but it wouldn't end favorably for her. She hasn't worked in years, so I imagine she'd be eligible for alimony? But I'm not versed in any of that legal mumbojumbo. Dad didn't seem too worried about it, so I'm not gonna worry about it.
Step dad was pissed the police were involved in the last "mom visit" (despite no one getting arrested or anything) and was in a "the kids are out of control and need to be reigned back in" mindset. When my dad pointed out that "the kids" in question were all in their mid-30s, it took some of the steam out of stepdad's sails. According to my dad, even my mom looked a little surprised when he said that. So, part of me is wondering if a good chunk of this whole thing is my mom not truly realizing that her kids were grown, and no longer children she could make demands of. Both of the moms have left us alone. I expected my mom to continue to kick up a fuss, but I think the cops spooked her.
There was a wonderful suggestion by a comment or to get their pastor involved, which I passed along to my dad. Dad has since spoken to their pastor about everything. He's a young guy, relatively new to their church, and joked that his first month on the job he had to do 3 funerals in a row and his new "flock" were just dying to get away from him, so he's got a sense of humor which is nice. The new pastor agreed to sit down with everyone and help the family hash it all out in a true "Come to Jesus" type moment next month, so that maybe we could celebrate Easter together as our first holiday as a family. Dad said the pastor was aware our family was having some troubles, but unsure of exactly what was going on, and since he was new, the pastor didn't want to pry. He has also agreed to do a small service down at my uncle's maple grove later in the summer, as it usually floods and is a muddy mess all spring. According to my dad, my aunt and uncle are so over all the drama and just ready to move on, so I expect hugs and apologies from them when we next meet.
Stardew Valley Update: My brother was victorious in the grand fight for Leah. It was a hard battle. Well fought. When my husband exposed his plans to woo Sebastian all this time, it was quite the betrayal. Dramatics aside, their farm is really cute and I'm so happy they're enjoying the game!  
Update 4/1 - Final one I think - April 1, 2024
Happy April Fools everyone! I hope you all check your caramel apples for stray onions before taking a bite! I also hope your Easter weekend was a delightful one.
It is with great joy that I tell you all about our most recent update! Possibly even a conclusion to this whole ordeal.
The entire family (aunt, uncle, moms, dads, brother, me, husband) and pastor met at my dad's house and we all sat down to hash the situation out. As expected from what my dad said, my aunt and uncle greeted us all with apologies and hugs, which was nice. My uncle usually helps host the Easter egg hunts with the church and he brought our Easter baskets to give to us in case us kids weren't sticking around the for the weekend. I'm not sure why but seeing it made me tear up and feel stupid, because it was just a basket of candy but it meant a lot to me for some reason.
The pastor led us in a prayer and talked about forgiveness and such. He then asked us all to talk one at a time about how we're feeling and what we want the end result of today to be. No one was allowed to interrupt so everyone got to talk. It was nice. The consensus for the group was that most everyone wanted things to go back to "normal". The only ones who had any variance off this was my mom and step dad. They both wanted all us kids to move back to the area.
The pastor asked them why they wanted us back, and neither could give a good reason other than "because family", and the pastor asked us if we were thriving where we were. And we said we were. He asked if we were happy there. Which we were. He then asked my mom and step dad if they wanted us to give up our happiness to make them happy.
And Mom broke down and said no. We all had a good cry. The pastor then asked about the funeral and lies that led up to it and followed it and how it made us all feel and what we wished we'd done differently if we had the chance. It was all very emotional, but in a good way, you know? Everyone apologized and admitted they f-ed up and did a really crappy thing.
We all talked for a long, long time and the pastor was a great mediator. Eventually we all reached some sort of resolution and I think we're good now. Emotions are still high and a little raw in areas, but we stayed for Easter weekend and had a nice time. We're going to keep moving forward slowly and try to repair the relationship, but I believe we're well and truly out of the woods.
As for my brother, he's still staying with us, and mom will stop trying to guilt trip him back home. He's thinking about renting a small apartment in our area but we're not pushing him to make a decision. He knows he's welcome to stay as long as he wants. I think he wants to try dating (he's had a few girlfriends but never anything serious) and is embarrassed to bring any girls around our place, lol. He's been going to a few random classes/bookclubs at the local library for something free to do and hitting it off with all the little old ladies who attend, and they keep trying to hook him up with girls his age who they know. He has been on a few lunches/coffee dates with a couple girls, but I think he's too embarrassed by the attention to give it a real try at "dating" any of them. He's happy, though, which is all I could ask for.
I'm not sure if there will be any more updates, as I think it's all be resolved about as much as it can be at the moment. I wanted to thank you all for your words of advice and giving me a place to vent and scream into the void. Please be kind to one another and to yourselves. Thank you.
Relevant Comments
emjkr: What a nice and hopeful update, I’m really glad you stuck to your guns when everyone threw sanity out the window!
But, could your mother explain how she thought this would work out in her favour?

OOP: I don't think mom thought too far ahead. I believe she assumed it would all just magically work out the way she wanted it to. She said she wasn't sure what she was expecting to happen (which I think was a lie, but I wasn't going to push it).

mak_zaddy: This was a great update! But ummmmmm no stardew valley update? What gives? Has Sebastian been woo’ed? How’s Leah? What’s happening?

OOP: Sebastian has indeed been wooed (and whoohooed) There's kids and cows and chickens. The two are still having a wonderful time at the game. They're working on completing the community center but it's slow going as they aren't trying to speedrun and just doing things as they want. I believe they're thinking about going into the desert mines once they complete that bundle, but they're both super chicken shit about it!

-my-cabbages: I don't really understand what you had to apologize for ... but I'm glad you're happy and the situation seems to be settling down

OOP: There wasn't much of an apology on my end, as everyone agreed I had done nothing wrong. Mine was more of a "I'm sorry you didn't feel as though I would listen." Type apology, which I don't really believe is a proper apology because apologies like that push the blame back on another. I mostly expressed my feelings and the shock of it all, and how betrayed I felt.  

----NEW UPDATE----

Small, happy update: May 7, 2024 (1 month later)
Things as wonderful as the moment. Still doing baby steps with The Moms. We're texting and talking on the phones more, which is nice. Very civil.
Dad "accidentally" bought a bunch of hand crafted bird feeders at a craft fair. By accidentally, I mean: he had a little too much fun in the beer tent, went for a stroll while step mom wasn't looking, and stumbled upon a guy's booth and bought "one of each". He wouldn't tell me how MANY "one of each" was, but he cackled like a witch when I asked. Step mom said she's forcing him to give a few to me, so I'm expecting a delivery or a Dad-visit any day now.
My brother is officially "going steady" with a girl. We've met her a few times and she seems like a real sweetheart. She's our age and has a little boy (5-6 years old, I haven't asked) from a previous relationship (The dad's not in the picture from what I can gather). She's the granddaughter of one of his Book Club members, so the old ladies made good match makers in the end. The relationship is still very new and I'm routing for them.
No new Stardew Valley updates. Work has been a little crazy lately and I haven't been able to play much of anything, and brother has been distracted by his new lady friend. So, husband finally started Baldur's Gate 3, and fell for Gale's "magic trick" so now those two are a thing. I expect him to be sufficiently distracted from reality for the next few weeks.
 

DO NOT COMMENT IN LINKED POSTS OR MESSAGE OOPs – BoRU Rule #7

THIS IS A REPOST SUB - I AM NOT OOP

Anblitonoimz has four or five tongues, four mouths & five or em.
Th's firstsnd mouth urinaes fortso does "Coffee of a lifetime" Hes sputters, slurping up a cup of that good mud. "Splots dreams in thirty of our microwaves".
Ambipzonnzi doesn't cipher. "Let 's get born & roll down the hill, We get born & roll down the hill" His fourth one shoots ,in south-east yardings
"yearlong coffee beans, coffee plant. papa nu guineaa. Honduras. Lofty without a saddle". a third mouth wisses out sorta westishly through heavy phlegm
He twists to explore "Learn to drive, learn to walk. Crawl from town to town Babe. Crawl on all four wheel & kKaww like a Bird" anbipozond's mouth smacks on
"No point in crying over spillt milk"
"You keep saying that!". his northeast mote swirls in southwestard recounts
Eeps
from elswhere "Every auction is just the loudest, Heather". else now mutters a funnel with propose. "houses are birds with fourty wheels on a similar day". Insteebchlo raises his hand with a smile eager to answer the daily question. he starts to wave as he catches the attensions.
Noesteeblichavl has houses for heads, he sstarts jittering. "Your eyes are windows, someone needs to clean your windows. Your house is a head. Clean your windows off annd surprise the neighbors dog!" ... "hello"
"you're not driving to my off-grid parasite with that attitude". Ampliurpoznenzi shuffles his gums ,Crawling down the asphalt road on his hands & knees proudly. He might think he is an entrepreneur for a while or aprehend himselgf as an connoisseur forwhile.
"oh drink gasoline lika subaru" oensteeblih tweeks
"I've an appotite to put my teeth to the curb!" Ambeplerznz snaps & gnashes at houses
his foldy gob norths "One step at a time! Learn to crawl, Learn to walk, Buy some land babe, heyhow does much a hotel cost hahh".
"CAWWW" Apmliurpozoenzi's mouth makes a bird noise. having a bite yer own ear off & spit it at the coroner day.
"I think you will drink gasoline like my aunties subaru" houses heads repeats.
"Bvrruuuummmm" Ampliurpoznenzi's mouth does the car noise now. He's going somewhere, past the speed limit ,another four kilometers & he is gonna need his diaper change. Better get his wallet ready.
"You slurp gasoline, like ants in a subaru" Noesteeblo 'peats. Amblurdozinnzi pops into more civilized bucket. the house curls into a smile now. "look at youu!, you've become such a confident driver now!".
"C'mon, don't be so hard on yourself" Abemlurdozonz mremarks vaclantly. "So I could wear your face? Is it losing it's grisps on reality in here or me?"
Nostlible smeoes to him "Bro you okay?"
.....
"Ye get born into like machine & fall through like pachinko scottlander" . "Offered five things strange for new emergant traditions"
"Third tape recorder to the rotting egg translates the scripture, we're all just pachinko machines rolling down a hill arn't we?"
sorta just sautering around, peaking in through all the windows in the neighborhood, he's a freak tapping on the glass. Abmlorznonza is trying to climb into the garbage disposal, he wants to become ground beef or he wants to arrive to a wedding.
"Hey Do ies Yoeur Reaelity Okaey?". he mutters himself
Abamorbzonenz's large nose covers the porch in snot. He is smashed in through the windows. everything covered in snot. Dissassembles Th' Constructiom. "everything is covered in snot!!" He complains! "I SAID SEASAW. I SAID". Seasaw
...
"Highly Functional we are. Violences with the earthly gravitations ,Maneuvers to gnaw your tongue away at the glory hole ssir". Houses for heads whispers easy to his parole officer
.....
Ablimurzozna is inside the building, meeting all the wacky charicatures, really looking for something to snack on
"snooze on the cheesblock wiyhth a thousant feet of square areah". Zimberly's gonna need to fester up if she's gonna make it out of here alive.
-"come into my villa? withyer 6,000 foot long arms? I'll teach you the mannerisms" she stand combative with a toaster under her arm, holding the plug in her other hand.
The kitchen fatefuly occupied, Ablimzundz rushes square around & through down hallway, he drips the sweat "round nor square corners, I'm deduction points" his bin echoes offa chair in the passing.
... "I'm not just a petting zoo, I'm also a boarding school for chiropractory on the week-ends". Chochizialule snides from a toilet room "I pay money here"
Ambliuoznenzai screams, he begins to shrivel up & become hairy. "lettuce beef union, where did you go? lettuce beef onion. ".
"Let Us ..decode your one dimensoinal braine". presences Noestivbyuchevlo
another charicature interrups "I PLACED THE EYE INSIDE OF TJE HEAD & THE HEAD ON TOP OF THE BODY". Martin chimes over the loudspeaker. feeling like an eyeball inside of the tube today. just like all other days. an irreversible sense of time "I think I'll industrial my furnishments enjoy & pass out" He obviously has the plans.
"Do Not Touch Me". the subaru won't calm down.
"ellen my knuckle jelly is swearing. Juxtapose penguin my knuckle. Whatever fucking. My justice system swears at me."
Garvezetozald nouts at he,
"I can't relax. I'm on chameleon because my eyes move on their own. Indipendently from one anobther. " Amprulpozanzi won't shut up or he wouldn't
Nestavloblica tries to comprehend or understand "Autism is also a bell of god? Hey! Slow Down! Howhy are you aging so rapidly , in this metal bucket over here?"
Ampeliuropoznnz's wheels berate" DONN'T TOUCH MEE. I SAAID DONN'T TOUCHH MEE". He revs it!
"Hold it! Give your skin prison!" Windows for eyes shudders urgently. "Take me to your northern hemisphere! okay? okay?!"
Theres multiples of them
"No you No youKnow what You know you could Use?" they all say in unison
"AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" Ambluboznecviblo screams in whemchever direction heis headed ?
windows for nostrils speaks out loud "wel A well balanced curriculum would be dandy for starters".
Garvezetozald escorts ambinzopnonzor back to the pave "aluminum foil, very shiny in your bank deposit you know, But don't listen to me. Why would I fucking say anything ". He grumbles the offput as retreating it back inside.
ambilurbonznenance isnot having it. He's murking off in the anger pavement shoes. "Don't change the subject, I know you're hiding things from me".
Ambilerbeentsli "shiny aluminum foil heaps in my bank deposit". out of a different mouth or head after that whatever it said
.............................
intrusion layering dish. splattered withe batter. "Undetermined. loosely your own imagines, or yourself into they inretrospective periphany? who are you defying here? I did I hear (that right)?"
"I said build your little hhouse outthere, and& record yourf fairy shit, I stabbed you really hard with the fork" sends the not know says "yeah buddy, nascar teeth better be stoppin in to be stoppin tobe takina pittstop stop inn" Heaps he "STOP IT ,STOPP STIP. STOP IN THEs PIT FOR A STOP NOWW"
"are you been taking all oyour supplements skin-jaw pirate attorney?". eyuunNoesteblijhavwl Creoaks to the fiend
Pramblestabhon starts talk about lands all sorts and Louis Vuitton" We drop him off atthe nearest station
Scubs scenfen fenhinit. The cold touch of a stranger.
"Shd diedent mean to sdo that withe her subaru" "make the fuzzy worls ceawl owt but were notbhgoana takklk to you. Beat toyojar head with thea hmmm
The dufuzzys crawl out of the brain spot "COFFEEE AND TORTILLA CHIPS" Ambliubyonzunzi blares. He is crying the tears. "COFFEEE AND TORTILLA CHIPS" A second mouth of he shouts as well joins in.
"eyebrows, eyebrows jaws & toes, heavy finger-slips. uprightnowyou. Our gene pool is speaking~ (????) & having remained focused on the road this whole time"
...
"ofcourse We want gimberly to fall asleep at the wheel, make it look like it was an accident" Ampliunornzi agrees with himself "We want this we want that we want nothing more for ourselves" He's done & settled but restless & jiving. He keeps on driving, he worrys somedaybody will cut his brakes for him.
"No I think You betetetetter get onto bed on time " Noestelevblilpo bleyowabs abashed "sleep onfor more decades?, crawl on this earth, listen to the musics of the centuries?" nietstravlo attemptates their reconciel
Ampliupzinzunzi agleams unto the sedatiea. relloxed . enloungicated Dormitoitory. Parked something or other an a benchpt he rwests "If we don't chop uff all of the limbs then don'T throW uP on TimE." it complains. something seperate &.. he produces a small thermos from his (cupholder)
Ambliornuunzi Takes another sip of this coffee. He rolls the liquid around his tongue & swishes it in his mouth before hes swellow. "Brazil, Ecuador" He feels the longitude, He feeles the latitude, the coordinates of the bean. "South america, central america, yeah, You can taste it". The bitter wash is guzzled before it's swallowe. Amiburzobowenzanzha Licks it's teeth and gums. Functional piss distillery. With gusto he announce "Brazil, we need go to Brrazziill eyah". starts he runningh & He trips & smashes one of his mouths into the curb, If had he a tongue from there off bitten would it have been but lucky him, only smashing his teeth to scream & writhe.

The listener accidentally calls on a surprisingly polite spirit, and the listener tries to help him pass on
Monetization is okay! No major changes to the script though, if you are wondering about something in that regard please feel free to message me! Let me know if you intend to fill this script and leave me your channel so I can keep an eye out, or post the video and send me a link! Always super happy to see people's hard work! ^-^
Enjoy!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Scene opens with some ambient spooky music, and the sound of a ouija board piece scratching on the board, writing something out. Some sort of sound like a phasing in or out of energy or something as the ghost appears]
Ghost: Oh- uh, hello there!
[Sound of the board and piece falling on the floor, followed by a thud]
Ghost: Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to scare you! Are you alright? You didn’t hit your head, did you?
Listener: ….
Ghost: Huh? What do you mean who am I? You already asked if anyone was here! I said yes, and then spelled out my name for you! Remember? This just happened! Maybe you did hit your head…
Listener: ….
Ghost: Oh- well how did you think it was moving on its own then?
Listener: ….
Ghost: Magnets…? Sorry, no. There are probably some spirit boards that are fake, but this one is genuine! It was mine, a long time ago. I was hoping you’d find it eventually when you first moved in here.
Listener: ….
Ghost: Yes, this was my apartment. This was my room, in fact. I was glad you were the one to end up sleeping in here and not your roommate. You seem more in tune with the other side. By the way, love the decor! Some of it is definitely mine, I was glad you put it back up! Most people don’t decorate their rooms with the possessions of long deceased inhabitants that they found in storage boxes in the back of a walk-in closet, haha. I used to live here with my mom, I’m guessing when I died, she couldn’t stand to take some of my things with her. She was superstitious, so she never liked ‘occult’ related things. Although turns out she was right, so I guess she earned an I told you so. Too bad she left before I could get her to notice me. Most people can’t perceive me at all, and well, no one lived in this unit for a long time.
Listener: ….
Ghost: How did I die? My my, that’s an awfully forward question. To tell you the truth though, I don’t remember. The last thing I remember is watching tv in the living room, but I don’t know how much time passed between my last memory, and my death. I know for sure I died here though, I haven’t been able to leave this place. I haven’t even been able to go out into the main hall.
Listener: ….
Ghost: Ah, it’s not all bad! I can still turn the tv on, so there’s that at least! Uh- sorry, a-about your power bill… Ahem anyway, I seem to have this weird… attunement I want to say, to certain things. I don’t know how it works, electromagnetic waves maybe? I didn’t pay much attention in high school science. Or- high school in general, really.
Listener: ….
Ghost: Oh, I don’t know why I’m still here. Unfinished business, I guess? I don’t know, most spirits are angry, vengeful psychos because they got murdered or something. I don’t even know how I died, and life wasn’t all that great either, so I don’t really have anything to be angry about. I mean I miss my mom, sure, but I know my grandparents would take care of her, and she has some brothers and sisters and really great friends.
Listener: ….
Ghost: Aha, no, no girlfriends. No boyfriends, either. No friends, at least not close ones. No one to really miss me, besides my mom. I’ll admit, it does get a bit lonely from time to time.
Listener: ….
Ghost: You… want to help me? Well- that’s really sweet and all, but I don’t even know why I’m still here… where would we even start?
Listener: ….
Ghost: When did I die… I’m not totally sure. My sense of time isn’t great anymore, maybe twenty years ago or so? Things have changed so much, at least what I can see from the window. I’d say a long time.
Listener: ….
Ghost: Obituaries… that’s not a bad idea! At least gives you a place to start! Are you-... sure you want to help me with this? I feel like I’m putting you out, I only wanted to talk to you and say hello, but you’re going out of your way to do something kind for me.
Listener: ….
Ghost: Well, okay, if you’re sure then, thank you! Just one question- how long are you going to leave the creepy music playing? I’m not spooky enough to warrant that. Am I?
[Music stops abruptly]
Ghost: [The ghost laughs] You totally forgot about your mood ambience, huh? Do you like music? I did too. Not too many good ghostly radio stations these days though, haha… but anyway! I think you’ll be able to see me from now on, I sense some sort of… connection with you now through the spirit board. As long as nothing happens to it, I think you’ll be able to see and hear me from now on! I don’t think your roommate will though, so that probably works out for the best.
Listener: ….
Ghost: Thank you, so much… I actually feel kind of hopeful about not being trapped in this tiny apartment for the rest of… well, forever. I finally have a chance. That means a lot to me. I thought you might not be afraid of me, given your apparent interest in spirits, but this is even better than I could have hoped for.
Listener: ….
Ghost: I’m glad to see you’re so enthusiastic, but don’t you think you should be getting to bed? Your schedule on the fridge says you work at 7 tomorrow, and it’s past 11.
Listener: ….
Ghost: Of course! I’m dead, not blind! I can check your schedule just as easily as you can! It was nice knowing when people were going to be here and when they weren’t. I… actually paid really close attention to it. Alright, no more distractions! Get to sleep, or you’ll be totally exhausted for the first day of our investigation tomorrow!
[Listener turns off a lamp and gets into bed]
Ghost: Goodnight. And again… thank you. You’re committing more time to me than I deserve.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Part 2 coming soon!

This is where I (25F) am mentally with him (32M) . - I enjoy spending time with him, he’s a sweet guy. - I am attracted to him, he has a beautiful smile - I enjoy conversing with him. - We have a crazy amount of interests in common and seem to value the same things. - He’s very smart - We are both child-free which is hard to find. - Ultimately If I had written someone with the interests, intelligence, and physical appearance I would want in a partner, it would be him. But there are things I would not have written…and I find myself confused much of the time. The negative: - He is a bit inconsistent in that he says many things, but does not act in line with his words. - Calling me dear, saying he misses me, I really enjoy your company, etc. all very nice things to hear (read through text). He says he hopes he can do something for me for my birthday which is either him being nice or him actually hoping that we continue on with each other but in that case, why make such little effort to actually make plans with me and talk to me? He’s big on sporadic texting convos throughout the day. I understand having a job, so do I lol and I’m studying everyday but…I am used to dating people who diligently make time for me as I do for them. He works from home 9-6 M-F. No pets or other responsibilities that I know of at least. He doesn’t ask me what my schedule is like so that he can plan even a phone call (which I have done, and yesterday I also asked him if he wanted to do something with me and the answer was just essentially “oh no I can’t I’m sorry,” no offer of an alternative). He cancelled our second date and didn’t even try to plan a new one. When I asked him later that week if he wanted to get together again, it was “I was going to ask but…” I don’t even remember what his reasoning was, I think something about being “nervous”. He says he’s shy. He is a bit awkward I suppose. That is also inconsistent (he touched me on our first date and asked me for a hug both of which I was fine with, saying he misses me a day after our first date etc. don’t seem to be shy things), but idk I’ve never dated a shy or reserved person so I am a bit out of my depth to determine what is normal/a symptom of that and what is a red flag. - As much as we have in common, would I be throwing it away if I didn’t want to go into a relationship with someone with whom I have to initiate everything? and I’m not sure if I have to patience to teach a 32 year old how to date/ show clear interest/ put in effort. This will probably sound petty lol but also he doesn’t seem the least bit concerned with trying to impress me (and I just mean effort wise, at least at the beginning!?). I stay casual but do get all dolled up when we get together and on our second date (farmer’s market/breakfast) he wore sweatpants and an ill-fitting t-shirt. This, of course, is small but in addition to the other low efforts it makes me wonder.

Hey folks -
I know I said I was done posting FV content, but as much as I was intending to step away, theorizing about stuff helps order my mind so I am back to posting. My retirement lasted all of a week 😂😂
I want to explore some of the concepts and inspirations of the Fractalverse from Marathon.
For those who don't know, Marathon is a video game series from Bungie (yes, that Bungie)... The series is often regarded as a spiritual predecessor of Bungie's Halo series.
Significantly for us, it is one of Chris' favorite games of all time, and a lot of the content from Marathon is used as inspiration in the Eragon/Fractalverse series.
https://twitter.com/paolini/status/1661742366028623874
Man, I hope the new #Marathon game is good. The original three were a huge, huge influence on me. Some of the best sci-fi writing out there.
One

If it's a game that doesn't use a mouse, like the old Marathon games, then I use 8426 (with 7 &9 for strafing) for movement and left-hand keys like space, command, option, etc. for shooting, swapping weapons, activating, etc.

Two

Hey, big Marathon fan, which is how I found your work. Been listening to your Leela cover a lot while writing.

Three

Marathon series, Halo, Mass Effect, and the Myst series (although those might be counted as fantasy).

Four

Myst (and sequels), the Marathon trilogy, Escape Velocity, Mass Effect 1-3, Halo 1-4, Skyrim, Oblivion, Portal 1&2, and more.

Five

Since no one guessed it, the sketch I posted earlier was from the end-screen of Marathon Infinity, last game in an awesome trilogy.

Six

@TheDragonUniver Ha! I beat the Vidmaster challenges in the old Marathon games, in the Total Carnage setting no less!

Seven!

@ndemordaunt Awesome. Glad to hear it. I've been playing Halo since it was called Marathon. 🙂 Hope you enjoy my future books!

Alright, I think I've proven my point. Let's get started.
First things first, let's talk about the Jjaro:

The Jjaro were an extremely advanced species--or an extremely advanced individual--which vanished from the Milky Way galaxy... The Jjaro possessed high-quality cyborg technology, such as that used to create the S'pht, as well as a star-destroying weapon known as the trih xeem, the ability to move entire planets by warping space around them as was used by the S'pht'Kr, some sort of time manipulation technology, and various ways of dealing with the W'rkncacnter

Sound familiar? Let's take it line by line with a few tangents along the way.

The Jjaro were an extremely advanced species--or an extremely advanced individual--which vanished from the Milky Way galaxy...

Hmm. Extremely advanced species. Who mysteriously Vanished. Check.

The Jjaro possessed high-quality cyborg technology, such as that used to create the S'pht

We'll get into this a bit later, but there is evidence that the Old Ones created/manipulated the Wraunai. Specifically from the Terminology section:

WRANAUI: sentient, space-faring race originating from the planet Pelagius... Some evidence indicates they may have been genetically modified by the Old Ones at some point in their distant past (Appendix III, TSIASOS).

Not a perfect fit, but lines up well enough. This next bit is extremely curious though -

The Jjaro possessed high-quality cyborg technology, such as that used to create the S'pht, as well as a star-destroying weapon known as the trih xeem

A star-destroying weapon. We haven't seen anything like that before... Or have we?
I've speculated on this in one of my previous posts; I think the "star-destroying weapon" is the black ball in this picture, which was some early concept art for TSIASOS.
You see the Black Ball heading for the sun? Check this out -
Compare it to the picture of the Trih Xeem.
Black ball with a trailing cloud, heading right for the sun? It's a perfect match with the concept art.
This is also significant for the World of Eragon, because:
MURTAGH SPOILERS BELOW
The visions from Azlagur all have him "rise" from the ground to "eat the sun"
Which is SUPER significant, because of the implications of the Marathon Infinity backstory:

In Marathon Infinity, a W'rkncacnter is imprisoned in the sun of planet Lh'owon. It is theorized by some that the W'rkncacnter's powerfully chaotic nature may be responsible for the jumps between realities seen in the game. When the Pfhor use a trih xeem device to send the star into early nova, the creature is released, to the horror and destruction of the Pfhor.

We will touch back on the reality jumping in a bit, but for now I want to focus on the "sun imprisonment" theme.
A cosmic-level baddie imprisoned in the sun. THAT is the endgame for Azlagur. Either he is a planetary-level villain, who will "rise" due to the Trih Xeem and Eat the Sun, releasing the equivalent W'rkncacnter, or he IS the equivalent W'rkncacnter, and will rise when the Trih Xeem is released. It all fits in with the concept art above.
And from this, we can deduce the overarching concepts of Angela's storyline.

Q: Will we get Angela lore? I feel like she could have killed Galbatorix and just didn't feel like it.
A: For those who don't know Angela is based on my sister Angela, because she breaks the fourth wall to a degree she has. Not only does she have plot armor, she knows she's in a story and can break the story itself. So, yes, she could have killed Galbatorix, but that would have made for a very bad story. That said, I do have an entire book planned around Angela, and it's very high on my list of books to write because it takes place before some of these other big stories I want to write. And that's also the difficult thing. I have my big storylines, and then I have a couple of one off side books I want to write, and it's just a question of time, energy and effort.

Given her appearance in TSIASOS, we can interpret that Angela is a "cosmic"-level character, who can cross time and space.
So... what's actually going on behind the scenes? We know she's been in/around Nal Gorgoth, and Tronjheim. She's definitely affiliated with the Draumar, and Tenga in some fashion. So... what's the actual story going on?
Let's take a look at the story of Marathon infinity:

Marathon Infinity begins as the Pfhor destroy Lh'owon using a Jjaro-derived doomsday weapon known as the Trih Xeem or "early nova". Unfortunately, the weapon also releases a powerful chaotic being: The W’rkncacnter, which threatens to destroy the entire galaxy. Because of the W’rkncacnter's chaos or by means of some Jjaro tech of his own, the player is transported back and forward in time, finding himself jumping between timelines and fighting for various sides in a desperate attempt to prevent the chaotic being's release.

So the weapon releases a powerful cosmic-level entity, which threatens to destroy the galaxy. And as a result, the "player" jumps around in time, jumping between timelines and fighting for various sides to prevent the being's release.
Sound familiar?
Jumping around in time and between timelines - that's what she's doing with the portals, the non-standard torque gates.
There are a ton of parallels with Angela and time (such as the references to her being a time lord), so for lack of better information, the most informed guess we can make is that she is trying to prevent the rise of Azlagur himself, or the creature freed by the death of the sun from Az "eating" the sun.
For lack of a better answer, Angela IS the player character from Marathon Infinity.
Alrighty, I could make several posts about the above, but for the sake of space and time, let's get back to the original passage.

the ability to move entire planets by warping space around them

Move planets by warping the space around them eh? That sounds familiar:

Then she was soaring through a nebula, and for a moment, she beheld a patch of twisted space. She could see it was twisted by the way it warped the surrounding gas. And from the patch, she felt a warped sensation, a feeling of utter wrongness, and it terrified her, for she knew its meaning. Chaos. Evil. Hunger.

Warping space around a planet. And Chaos... Sure sounds like the W’rkncacnter.
The last piece here also parallels with what we know about the series:

some sort of time manipulation technology,

Time manipulation - We know, based on various clues left throughout the series, that the Old Ones had the ability to manipulate time. Chris indicates as much here:

Right now no matter what way you swing it, we have issues in terms of time.

Correct.

Moving along, let's keep pulling the Jjaro thread together. The paragraph on Technology reads:

Jjaro technology is incredibly advanced and they have made many discoveries about the secrets of the universe. One of their ships, the Manus Celer Dei, was able to survive the closure of the universe, they uplifted the S'pht, defeated the W'rkncacnter, had mastered time control, had a station capable of compressing the mass and energy of a supernova into a black hole millennia beyond reckoning after it was decommissioned and abandoned, and a few of their artefacts were able to create a cyborg who could also survive the closure of the universe and escape it all together.

A station capable of compressing the mass and energy of a supernova into a black hole. And then it was decommissioned and abandoned.
Sound familiar, anyone?
The Great Beacons. That's what they are. The energy of a supernova in the form of a black hole, which were then decommissioned and abandoned.
We know the Great Beacons are no longer functioning. And it sure sounds like the description of a black hole (both in spacetime format, as a "whirlpool", and also visually)

and a few of their artefacts were able to create a cyborg who could also survive the closure of the universe and escape it all together.

Seeker? I'm not sure, but it sure has a lot of durability.
Alright, we're getting up there in word-count so I want to cut this short.
The last piece I want to talk about here are the parallels betwen the Wranaui and S'pht. It's not a perfect match, but there are a lot of overlaps between the two races.
First, the Wranaui:

WRANAUI: sentient, space-faring race originating from the planet Pelagius. Highly complex life cycle, with an equally complicated, hierarchical social structure dominated by Arms and a ruling form. Wranaui are naturally an ocean-based species, but through extensive use of artificial bodies, have adapted themselves to nearly every possible environment. Aggressive and expansionist, they have little regard for individual rights or safety, given their reliance on replacement bodies. Their scent-based language is exceedingly difficult for humans to translate. Even without technological augmentation, Wranaui are biologically immortal; their genetic-base bodies are always able to revert to an immature form in order to renew their flesh and stave off senescence. Some evidence indicates they may have been genetically modified by the Old Ones at some point in their distant past.

So, to summarize:

• Grew up in water
  
• Advanced scientifically due to the discovery of Vanished technology
  
• Complex hierarchical social structures.
  
• Forms & Use of artificial bodies.
  
• Genetically modified by the Vanished/Old Ones.
  

Let's compare that with the S'phet:

The S'pht were brought to Lh'owon by the Jjarro and Pthia as servants. The S'pht terraformed the planet from a barren desert into "marsh and sea, rivers and forests." When the Jjaro left Lh'owon after the death of "Pthia," the S'pht were released from their servitude, split into eleven clans, and leadership of the race was given to the S'pht royals.[6]

Genetically modified. Check.

The Pfhor forced them out of their typical forms, (as seen used by the S'pht'Kr) and into the strange garb of the Compilers and the armor of the Cyborgs.

Usage of "Forms". Check

After Pthia's death, Yrro scattered the S'pht across Lh'owon, separated them into eleven clans

Hierarchical society with different clans (Arms). Check.
The main two differences here are the usage of smell as a language, and the grew up in water.
Other than that, there are a TON of parallels.
Well, we're getting up there in word count and I've just started to ponder and fully understand the connections between the two series.
A few other random connections I noticed (I will add as time goes on):
Nmarhl and Narhl)
L'phet and S'pht
Alright, we are getting up there in word count, so I think that's it from me now. There are a lot more Eragon-specific relationships I've left out of here; I'll cover these in another post over on that subreddit.
Curious to see if anyone else has found other connections - Let me know what you think in the comments!

I’m going to try to start from the beginning and not leave a lot out and hopefully I get some feedback on what to do or how I can move forward with my situation.
So me and my girlfriend me(22m) her (24f) have been dating for almost 2 years and have a 3 month old daughter. Our relationship was perfect in the beginning couldn’t complain about anything she was perfect we were perfect. Well a couple months into our relationship I noticed her getting distant and not wanting to cuddle or touch me in general(this was before she was pregnant) so I brought it up to her and she said she just doesn’t like physical touch, but in the beginning it was like she couldn’t get her hands off me and I love physical touch or just being in the same vicinity as her so I was clueless as to why all of a sudden she didn’t want to touch or even hug me anymore. When we first started dating I moved in her apartment and she was almost 2 months behind in rent, she was a 1099 self employed cna, well her shifts kept getting denied and she didn’t have money to pay for rent or any bills, so I took some money out of my saving and helped heus out and got us back on our feet and in a good position atleast I had thought so, she finally found a job that was full time and it was a cna job but she quit after 2 days because she didn’t like it, meanwhile I was working a low paying job and couldn’t pay all our bills by myself and I asked her on more than one occasion to try and get a job that way she could help out and she finally got a job and she helped for maybe one month but she didn’t work, she cheated the system and would clock in then come home and then drive back to work before her shift was supposed to end and clock out and would forge a signature on paperwork to get paid, she did this for maybe 2 weeks before they took the gig down, she didn’t get into trouble but she was now out of a job. Well shortly afterwards we found out she was pregnant and this is when I would beg her to get a job. I ended up getting hurt at work and lost my job, so now we were both jobless and near eviction. We got evicted from our apartment and we lied and somehow got a bigger apartment than our old one and of course was more expensive. I asked her multiple times to get a job and she couldn’t/wouldn’t. She used the excuse “high risk pregnancy” which she wasn’t at all high risk, I went to every appointment with her and held her hand the whole way but I wasn’t being rude or mean to her because however she felt the baby felt aswell(least that’s what I thought). So I got job after job each job being a better paying job and tried to support the 2 of us with my daughter on the way. Well I eventually got a decent job and my girlfriend was still jobless and she decided on her own to sell her car to help pay rent/bills because we were behind 2 months again, she paid one month and used the rest of the money roughly $2,000 on our daughters nursery and small things for herself. She was 9months pregnant and we had to move back into my parents house, I had a very unreliable truck at the time and used it to move all our stuff in 19 trips with each trip being 2hr drives, me being the only one to lift things because she was pregnant, we finally got everything settled and my daughter was born shortly after that. I ended up getting a very good job where we used to live an hour away, and I needed a more reliable vehicle to get back and forth to work and my daughters appointments. Tried finding my girlfriend a vehicle but how the whole situation at the dealership went was not how I expected nor how I wanted but I ended up getting a truck. It’s more reliable than my other one, anyways she was upset I didn’t get her a vehicle and constantly blames me for her having to sell her car. We are always arguing about money/my truck/my job/still not getting any attention from her physically. I slept on our couch and the floor in our bedroom for 8months in total. She co slept with our daughter for the longest and didn’t want me on the bed because I am a heavy sleeper, understandable. Didn’t argue about it but now we sleep together same bed and we still don’t cuddle or touch each other in general. I love this girl I really do but she makes it so difficult because I crave this physical affection and I don’t receive it so I have an attitude a lot, I still do everything she asks but I do it with an attitude. Im finally to a point where I think about what life would be like without her and catch myself thinking about this a lot. I hate that I do because deep down I just want to love this girl with everything in me but she makes it so hard and I’m stuck wondering if things will get better if I stay or if I should leave. So my question is what should I do ?
P.s. she won’t let my mother hold our daughter because the stories I have told my girlfriend from when I was growing up but my mother has taken responsibility for her actions and has done better but my girlfriend doesn’t care. My mom has come to terms she will never know her granddaughter and they live in the same house…. There’s a lot more stuff that could be said but I’m leaving somethings out. but i don’t think this post will even get any attention if it does I’ll give the full story from start till now.