Bangla incest stories

i was just on tumblr and i came across this elena / anti-salvatore brothers take. if you’re someone who just sees the show as fun, doesn’t like the criticism then it probably won’t be of interest to you. it also touches on the sire bond
OP

Elena Gilbert stops being boring the moment you stop viewing tvd as romance and start viewing it as a gothic horror of an underage girl groomed into an incestous love triangle between two serial killing brothers.
Her parents are dead and she only finds comfort in graveyards, her thoughts are filled with death. Then she meets these guys who CANNOT DIE and she even canonically says that's what drew her to Stefan (and let's be honest it's exactly the same with Damon). These older men want to protect her and they desire her obsessively and they form a weird, weird little family dynamic where Elena is constantly treated like a child. Elena latches onto these guys who don't only fill the role of boyfriends but also the role of parents. How she acceps the role as daughtelovevictim of the Salvatore brothers could be fascinating if the narrative acknowledged it for what it is - horror.

Response

This is actually very interesting.
I've loved Elena ever since I made a rewatch of the show few years ago. Then, I noticed how the people who didn't like her were usually jealous 14 y/o or "I'm not like other girls" people. Or people who just didn't get her character. It's so interesting to see her develop from numb, wary and weary teenager who lost her parents to numb young adult who's seen so much horror that she's immune to seeing innocent strangers die. It becomes her life: rolling her eyes and scolding everytime Damon crosses a line she would never have accepted him or anyone crossing in the beginning, because Damon (and Stefan) is at least still here and still alive and she's tired of losing people she cares about and she needs a constant.
I think it wasn't treated well, especially from the moment she turns into a vampire, because as you said, it should be horror. Caroline realizes Elena is sired to Damon, then Damon finds out, and it's horrible, it just fuels it, how wrong this all is. But instead of showing us exactly how wrong it is, they chose to use it as a device to explain Elena's choice to leave Stefan for Damon: sire bond only happens when there's already a connection between the two people/Damon chooses to do the right thing and let her go because it isn't right/Elena convinces him it doesn't matter because apparently it's possible for her to draw a line between the sire bond and her real feelings. Which, let's be honest, no she can't.
She's been groomed into thinking this was right when she was just a kid, so now that she's a vampire, albeit a young adult, she behaves like a kid: she's capricious, pretty whimsical and in total denial.
Also explains why in my opinion she became uninteresting after turning: it's kind of like when you watch two characters fall in love and pine over one another, and then in the middle of the show they get together and the rest becomes uninteresting. Elena's plot revolved around that, being groomed, being a fragile human, needing protection. The moment she became an immortal vampire, what does it all become?
This would be such a good plot for a fanfic rewrite of the show tbh.

OP

This is such a good addition, exactly my thoughts as well. I like Elena as a gothic heroine until she becomes a vampire, and even after that I do feel sad for her because as a person she is tragic in how fucking used to it by then she is, how she's so numb to the violence just like you said. She hears that Damon killed her friend and tried to kill her brother and she just listens as if they're just words. Because losing Damon would mean losing the last adult in her life (the last parental figure in a way) and she doesn't see a life beyond the Salvatore brothers. Even though she deserved a Salvatore free life, deserved to know what safe actually felt like.
It's just that as a character she becomes intolerable and the narrative is all over the place. The fact that they first show us the woman who spent years counting bricks for Damon and then glance over the fact that Elena is sired to Damon as if it's suddenly something that just proves they're some kind of soulmates. And her trying to act morally superior to everyone else feels annoying as a viewer when she's dating Damon. Because as I said, the narrative doesn't seem to acknowledge the toxicity at all and instead frames it as Elena growing into herself and letting go. Which is just unbelievable.
Also, actually I've literally been thinking about writing a fic (or even an original work inspired by tvd) about this!! I find the idea of a story starting as a teenage paranormal romance and spiraling into psychological horror so fascinating. I have no idea if I'll end up actually writing it but it's so interesting to think about.

The thread
I know the formatting will be off but I just thought it would be interesting to have a conversation around.
What are your thoughts?

Hello Roleplayers,
Limitless male here, My kinks include anal, receiving and giving riming, golden shower, sweat play, armpits, dirty talk, Interfaith, cuckold, blasphemy, incest, rough.
We can base the roleplay in mordern times or in ancient ones. I prefer a story along with Smut.
I would love to hear about your fantasies, hit me up with your kinks and limits. I love to roleplay with girls who are nasty, depraved and dark
I am a para style player, i usually type 3-4 sentences per response. For the plot we can come with something together based on our mutaul kinks and limits. I have a couple plot of my own which we can tweak as per our kinks.
Thanks for reading Happy Roleplaying

I have seen some interviews of his where he talks about coming up with the story, the characters, the plots, the locations, the history etc etc., and someone in the comments of a video said "where did the inspo for the incest come from?" And it was kinda what I was thinking. I was very young when I got into the fandom, but now that I'm in my twenties I feel like it's kinda weird that this man was writing about 13year olds getting raped so much, their titties etc. The way he talks about them sometimes makes me cringe, it gives like it's some kind of kink for him. Idk, maybe I'm crazy. Does anyone feel like this too?
Edit: cannot believe I'm getting downvoted for saying that it's a bit weird to put this much pedo rape in a story. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but y'all defending incest and rape and pedophilia with this much passion and fervor is kinda...... quirky. Your defensiveness over this makes me think that you are the ones finding sexual pleasure in watching this stuff, not George.

Taboo concentual incest pics and stories fantasies and real experiences my session I'd is 05d7a0a4c4933335c8d0dc369abfa1751a8a5dedae10d50da7d75058c85ae88773

Hi, im a 26 year old fu/female. That’s looking for a roleplay that’s long term. I want it to be story based, and romance, drama, dark themes. I can write 2-4 sentences to a paragraphs to two paragraphs. It can be detailed but not too detailed. This will be in first person. No one liners. No incest. So don't even ask.
What I’m looking for in a partner, is someone submissive. It will also be a modern type roleplay, which here is one idea, but im also curious on what ideas you have as well. I prefer for my partners to be 21+.
Plot
We dated for a few years but broke up, because our relationship wasn't the best. It's been a few years, and we haven't spoken. Until one day, my work is having a party. It was strange since we only had parties around the holidays. But the next one would be a week away. Which was a Christmas party. We gather around once the lights flicker and a sound of a glass is bit hit with a spoon. Everyone quiets down, and we turn to someone making an announcement.
"Ladies and gentlemen it seems Mr. Smith is stepping down from the company. We are having this party to celebrate and welcome our new boss. So please so some respect for..."
Two men walk in dressed in nice suits. We all look and see a woman walk in going to the center of the room. The men follow her, and we hear you make your small speech. I stand there shocked seeing you. I didn't know what to think. Everyone starts to go back to what they were doing. A few employees walk over to try to get on the good side of the new boss. Her smile and what she says. All seem kind and caring. I stand there watching, them try to suck up to you. I glare thinking "How the hell did she get this job? She must have done something. To get what she wanted." I roll my eyes and walk off to get drunk. To avoid you at all cost because I know it's going to be hell working for the princess.

Currently rewatching the anime and even though it's still as messy and flawed as before, I feel like I now see the "vision" so much more. I never really bought into the "Code Geass clone" and I enjoyed GC for what it was, and I enjoy CG (like, a LOT).
There are stories where the MC is like bad on accident. Stories where you can tell the MC is supposed to be liked and the author is an idiot or made big mistakes. Take the She Hulk scene where she lectures Banner on feeling anger for example.
Then, there are stories like Mushoku Tensei where the MC is meant to be disliked at first so he can grow on you.
Well, I think a lot of people fell into the trap of thinking the story was trying to make Shu the former. The story doesn't depict him as anything more than a socially inepth guy that fumbles his way into powers by accident and then frequently messes things up because he's not the right Gai for the role.
He manages to do great things, but he's not the best equip for it. Compared to someone like Lelouch where he always intended to fight his fight regardless of powers or not.
GC would have been much more different if Gai had been the protag, it would have been a beat-for-beat CG clone then. But GC instead takes the path of giving its powers to the wrong character and I actually like it a lot for that.
The Mana parts of the story is really flawed, the incest is... *sigh* and the depressed-fascist part of the story can be quite annoying, but it's just so... interesting? To see a character who doesn't really want to answer the call to adventure, who fumbles his way into it by being kinda horny and then keeps fumbling until eventually he's pushed into taking huge responsibilities for things he didn't deserve.
Despite his flaws, Shu is a child soldier forced to become a terrorist by circumstance who is deeply traumatized and suffers from PTSD and some for of neurodivergence. He's not equiped to succeed and yet viewers and characters alike are extremely harsh on him because we expect more from a protagonist.
Anyway, ramble over, I just felt like talking about this anime because I really enjoyed it as a teen despite its flaws and I'm enjoying my rewatch more than I do recent animes who never take themselves seriously. (I'd take a thousand GC over yet anothing fucking isekai with game mechanics)

Thus, wounded, and less victorious than they might have preferred, but victorious nonetheless, the royal three returned to the Macedonian capital. The army returned to Philopolis in triumph, the trio at their head. Leonidas on a replacement for his slain mare, Cassandra astride a titanic black stallion which was exclusively used for parades, and Seramis in her full diluvian glory. Cassandra might have been disappointed that the battle hadn’t been as decisive as she preferred, but she wasn’t about to miss an opportunity for propaganda.
So the group returned to the cheers of their people, the cavalry shining in the summer sun, and the army marching in strict formation. Trumpets heralded their return. Banners flew from the corners of houses. The men sang bawdy songs, as is the tradition of soldiers. Not a spec of blood or rust nor dust was allowed, presenting the image of a spotless, unconquered army. It was all a magnificent production. It was all a lovely welcome home.
When Seramis had first seen Philopolis and Macedon, it had been a very different place. The realm had struck her as grey, very grey, and a place without much beauty. Then, under the rule of the wicked regent Tyndareus, it was a place of iron and blood, a totalitarian state dedicated primarily to a massive conscript army. The hills had been torn open by great pit mines for iron and copper. The forests had been cut down to fuel the fires of industry. The fields were endless, uniform masses of oats, grain, and hay, worked by uncounted slaves, or landless peasants just a bit better than slaves. Over it all, the ancient fortress of the Alexandrian dynasty had loomed as a great edifice; a leviathan of hewn stone and barred windows representing the absolute military power that held all of it in place.
Now, two years hence, it was more alike to how she had first found it than she would have preferred. But transforming a society was hardly a swift process, and the work done was already substantial. Once the place had been a land of iron and blood, and though industry remained, now the smell of olive oil, the sound of potters wheels, and the hawking of merchants filled the air. The monolithic collective farms had shattered into a patchwork quilt of small holdings. The men working them might still have brands, but they and the lands were their own.
Of course, there were still some great expanses of oats and wheat. Those were Cassandra’s lands. She’d been generous with the lands she’d confiscated from the nobility, and in turn with their wealth which now filled her treasury. But she hadn’t given up any of her own family’s territory, and had expanded them substantially. Something like a quarter of the land in the country was the Queen’s personal fief, and she managed it very carefully. The economies of scale she alone had access to provided much needed stability for staple food prices during the transition from a slave-based command economy to a citizen market economy. Beyond that, the lands also provided a substantial portion of government income.
Said income was further complimented by a wide-scale reform to the tax structure. Rather than outsourcing the work to tax farmers, or to any nobility, as that had been liquidated, taxes were collected from a variety of small, but inescapable requirements. The primary tax was simply the surplus tax, an in-kind tax taken from all production. Farmers gave a share of their produce, potters a certain number of pots for each produced, blacksmiths a certain number of finished goods, and so on and so forth. Only the merchants would return hard currency from the surplus tax, the rest a great cross-section of produced goods. These in turn went into great warehouses, which the government might release from to control prices, or sell abroad to bring in further profits. The majority of currency entering the coffers either came from selling such produce, Cassandra’s personal lands, or a variety of import and consumption taxes. No less than a tenth of the entire bureaucracy was funded by the consumption taxes on oil and salt.
Of course managing all this was a good lead more complicated, not least of which because Cassandra had liquidated the aristocracy. This required a rather extensive increase in the bureaucracy, which brought in quite the expense of its own. Overall revenue was vastly increased from the reign of Tyndareus, and indeed all former kings of Macedon. The problem was that expenses had increased in turn. Macdeon was a military stratocracy, and Cassandra was in the process of trying to reform that into a sort of enlightened bureaucratic autocracy. The amount spent on papyrus alone nearly rivaled the payments to the many new government servants, which were not cheap. Educated men and women, able to read, understand the laws, and understand mathematics were not common, and commanded higher prices.
Cassandra had responded both by working to increase the supply of educated citizens, and cut costs in other areas. Firstly, she enacted a massive increase in education, beginning with the orphans of Macedon’s many wars and educating them. Secondly, she had begun offering to pay for the education of the children of public servants as part of their compensation. This allowed her to cut down on salaries and ensure a future educated workforce. Third and finally, she had begun to subsidize educators throughout the kingdom, and begun work to gather and copy many books and tomes to further improve the kingdom’s educational outcomes. Unfortunately, this was work that would take years to bear fruit.
The second arm of this had been to cut costs in other areas, most notably the military. Under Tyndareus, the Macedonian army had grown to a terrifying, if bloated, leviathan. Between the use of conscription, and counting reserves, the former army could have raised nearly thirty thousand men under arms. Cassandra had slashed that, and abolished conscription for the regular army. After intensive cuts, purging Tyndareus’s loyalists, and serious reforms including the near complete reconstruction of the Macedonian Cavalry Corps, the Macedonian Army now numbered a mere nine thousand, with the ability to call upon a further ten thousand former soldiers, now spread out to create a variety of local militias.
Leonidas had taken charge of many of these reforms, bringing in military advisors from Marathon and Achaea. The young prince, in his role as Minister of War, set to work with vigor to refine the Macedonian army down to its purest and strongest form. His high standards might have earned him ire, if not for the personal virtue and discipline he showed to meet those standards. He demanded the best not only from himself and his soldiers, but even from his suppliers and quartermasters. Most of the Macedonian military exports were those arms and armor he found below standard, though many less discerning customers would gladly accept them.
More than simply focusing on the logistics, Leonidas sought to infuse in his army a certain esprit de corps and moral focus. He drew heavily on the legendary philosopher Aristotle, particularly regarding that philosopher’s education of Iskandar, the famed conqueror king who had defined Macedon for the past two centuries. Outside the direct military applications, the young prince kept an eye on the future, sponsoring the growth of sports leagues throughout the kingdom, particularly a great hunting association. The Hunter’s Guild was a particular passion project of his, and he worked tirelessly not only to cultivate skilled hunters to recruit for his scouts, but also to preserve what remained of Macedon’s wild lands, ensuring game populations remained stable, and dangerous animals were quickly eliminated. The prince’s skill at the hunt had even earned him the right to attend the games at Olympus, though it was his mastery of wrestling that had seen him returned crowned with the ultimate honor of the laurels.
Such participation with the rest of the Hellene world had been part of Sera’s work. The young dragonness had held no official position at first, as Cassandra worked to develop her talents. Seramis had loathed etiquette as taught as a set of rules to be followed, but Cassandra revealed their nature as tools and tricks as part of the great game of politics. Allowed to treat the illusion of statecraft as just that, Seramis thrived. Soon appointed as Minister of State, her talent for gathering information, forming schemes, and comprehending languages saw her unleashed as Macedon’s greatest diplomat. All the while, her true title was one that delighted her greatly. Master of Shadows, she wielded the diplomatic corps and her own personal stable of agents like a scythe, harvesting a hoard of secrets she feasted upon. They became as arrows in her quiver, aiding her as she stood alongside Cassandra to carefully guide the ship of state.
On a much less sinister note, Seramis had engaged in quite public work to revitalize Macedon’s stagnating cultural sphere. The dragoness was chiefly known not even as a diplomat, let alone a spymaster, but rather as a patron of the arts. She courted and drew playwrights, actors, bards, conductors, and composers from across the world, placing a great deal of personal effort into producing a cosmopolitan cultural sphere. Though diplomacy, culture, and her eternal scheming, she worked to put the sword of Iskandar in a flowered sheath, in hopes it would never need to be drawn.
The peak of her work in that regard was a mere week away, a grand festival of the arts such as had not been seen in Macedon before. It would be a great festival as if that of the Athenians, now long brought to ruin. For the first time since the wars of the Diadochi, Hellas would come together to celebrate the arts. Naturally, Macedon would be participating, represented by Sera’s own personal theater company: The Mount Ararat Company.
Seramis quickly moved through her remaining business for the day. She met with the Master of Investigations and also her deputy, who had been working to manage her department while she had departed on campaign. Pleasantries were exchanged, and reports given. There was little new, but there was confirmation that the Latins, a curious people from across the western sea, would come to attend the festival. This would have been of little concern, if not for how they were coming.
A long-standing problem of the western coast had been the pirates of Illyria. These seafaring brigands proved a routine nuisance for not only Hellene trade, but all throughout the seas. Achaea and Macedon had both extended offer to the king of Illyria to come and help remove the pirates, but had been rejected. However when the Latins offered, the king accepted. So, the Latins came in force, bringing with them a four mighty legions of men, and crushed the pirate havens by attacking from the land. The problem was, they didn’t leave. While three of the legions returned to Italia, the fourth remained to protect against the return of the pirates, and to protect their Illyrian allies from Achaean or Macedonian aggression.
This was already a provocative move, as the barbarian army now sat on Hellene soil, diplomatically shielded by the cowardly Illyrian king. However, now the Latins made a further move. They had informed the court at Macedon previously that they wished to send a delegation to observe the festival and improve relations. All this was well and good, and naturally they did request to send bodyguards to protect the delegates. This was agreed, but the unscrupulous Latins had interpreted the mention of bodyguards broadly, and deployed a third of the legion infantry as “bodyguards”. Seramis’s reports indicated that these were in fact the Triarii, the third and strongest line, composed of veterans. The remainder of the legion remained encamped alongside the Ilyrian-Macedonian border.
The presence of the legion was concerning, to say the least. It numbered some four thousand five hundred men, about the size of a Macedonian army. The Macedonians held a local advantage, as they maintained two armies. One was directed northwards, towards the barbarians, and the other towards the east, to ward off their Selucid rivals. So they outnumbered the legion present two to one. However, the problem arose with the Latin’s ability to deploy a further three legions, which would reverse that advantage. With aid from Marathon, the Hellenes could match the Latin’s numbers, and with Achaean aid, they would outnumber them. Unfortunately, the Latins had spent much of their recent war with the Phoenicians of Carthage demonstrating an ability to raise new forces frighteningly quickly. Sera’s analysis suggested that if they wished to, they might be able to triple the might of their armies to twelve legions. The sheer military mass of the Latins would be enough to equal all Hellas, but Hellas was still divided, and some, such as the Illyrians, preferred them as allies to their fellow Hellenes.
The simple arithmetic of war indicated that if the Latins wished to conquer Hellas, they probably could. The simple arithmetic of war neglected to account for the power of dragons. But, Sera had observed, it was rare to lose money betting on the arrogance and avarice of humans. The fortunate side of dealing with the Latins was that for all their military might, they had a peculiar custom. They were permitted by ancient law and religious principle from launching a war of aggression, and so only declared war when they or their allies were threatened. This iron law of ancient Roman kings aught to have kept their swords sheathed, but in practice it often meant that an ambitious man of that city would seek to provoke an attack or aggression, that they might have reason for war. This incident with the “bodyguards” was likely such an attempt at provocation by a glory hound.
So, the trio met, and considered how to deal with this. It was decided that they would monitor the Latins closely, and place forces in such a way that they could not be aggressive, but would certainly be ready. The Army of the North was still recuperating from their recent battle with the Scythians, and would remain on standby in the capital to respond to any moves from the Latins or Scythians. At the same time, the northern militias would be stood up, and reinforced by militias from the south. These southern reinforcements would travel along the roads that would place them directly between the two parts of the Roman Legion, ensuring that if hostilities began, the separated legion would be able to be dealt with in parts. Unfortunately, Leon was unable to deploy as many of his scouts to that region as he would prefer, and Sera’s own intelligence assets were likewise pointed northwards. Better to deal with the actively aggressive barbarians, and then the imminently aggressive ones.
So, it was with great care, and no small amount of tension, that the Latin delegates arrived, joined by some three hundred of their Triarii. This was the first that Sera had seen of the Latins, and her initial impressions were somewhat mixed. They moved with distinct discipline, and were in all senses quite well ordered. The Triarii were older, veteran soldiers, generally more in their thirties. As such, they were somewhat more moderate, and avoided the wicked behavior common to many young soldiers. However, this rendered them with an increased air of unmistakable danger. Be wary of old men, even relatively old ones, in professions where men die young, and particularly of a soldier without an obvious vice.
The leader of the Latin delegation introduced himself to the court with a somewhat imperious nature. It likely would have been more imperious had Seramis not taken on her true form. It is difficult, even for a roman, to remain arrogant when there is a fourteen-foot-tall (measured at the shoulder) dragoness looking down at you. He declared himself as Military Tribune Gaius Mummius, representing the Praetor Lucius Cornelius in command of the IV Legion. Though the head of the delegation, he was simply that by right of his military rank. The actual diplomacy was handled by diplomats, not soldiers, though by their attitudes, Seramis might have taken them for sergeants in fancy togas. However, one who did catch her interest was distinct among the delegation, an old man, and truly old, dressed as a seer. He remained close by the ear of Gaius, and the tribune heeded him. Sera watched him warily, for she smelled magic on him, an old magician, and that would be trouble.
Despite her concerns, the Latins did not cause trouble, not even their old magician. They established a small camp for themselves outside the walls of the city, and largely kept to themselves. They came into the city only in small groups based around some member of their number who spoke Greek. They paid with honest coin, and seemed intrigued by the preparations for the festival. They seemed unusually preoccupied with finding barbers, as they were each clean-shaven, in contrast to the bearded Hellenes. Leonidas found this utterly hilarious, as he had spent more time than he would ever admit trying to find ways of improving his own facial hair. Now that it had finally come in, he spent more time managing his admittedly impressive beard than he ever had dealing with his actual hair. Sera, lacking any hair whatsoever, found the human preoccupation with it utterly confusing.
Bearded or otherwise, Hellene, Latin, and miscellaneous others soon came to attend the great drama festival. The idea of cancelling was briefly considered, and summarily rejected. Continuing to have a great celebration in the face of Latin provocation and Scythian Assault showed not only the power of the kingdom, that its people could act without concern, but also its prestige through mastery of the arts. The fact that many of the participants in the festival were from elsewhere in Hellas was politely overlooked. After all, Macedon had gathered them, and thus got credit.
The festival went on for three days, and proved to be a generally joyous, if somewhat chaotic time. Even the dour Latins eventually became swept up in the atmosphere. While this wasn’t technically a Bacchanalian festival, mostly due to the fact that Bacchus was very dead, it certainly carried some of that legacy. Of course the highlight, at least for men who considered them cultured, was the great drama productions. All manner of productions were put on display, from great recreations of the Athenian classics, to new twists, foreign productions, historical plays, retellings of myths, and of course many a comedic tragedy and initially tragic comedy.
Seramis’s own company had three productions, set into place over three days. The first two were well known, and practiced. Sera’s company had begun expediting the revitalization of the cultural scene with regular performances. Some of these had been well-worn classics, but the Mount Ararat Company would bring none of these to this stage. Instead, they brought two original, but already tested plays, and one of excellent ambition.
The first was a Satire, in the style of The Clouds which Sera had dubbed Tartarus. This piece was set in the depths of the underworld, that darkest pit where wicked men and monsters alike were tormented. These tormented souls took on the role of the choir, being intensely irritated by the antics of the four main players. Those four were of course the three great Greek philosophers: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and their own tormentor; Diogenes. The play largely consisted of the main three wandering through Tartarus, further tormenting the tormented souls with long winded and pedantic arguments about the torments they witnessed. All the while, Diogenes routinely appeared to torment them in turn. The play as a whole made light of philosophies, and generally teased out the problems with focusing overmuch on the world of the mind while actual suffering could be addressed.
This play was well received, for it was humorous and mocked philosophers, which few people cared for. The humor wavered between high and low brow, with both clever jokes sprinkled in amongst the arguments of the philosophers, and cruder humor delivered by the tormented souls and Diogenes. A certain degree of slapstick was involved as well, often involving a great paper-Mache boulder being rolled by Sisyphus.
The second of Sera’s plays was a somewhat grander production, though was likewise satirical. It turned the classic play Oedipus Rex somewhat on its head with The Choir’s Apologia. The original play was an archetypical tragedy, following the story of Oedipus, son of the King of Thebes. Due to a prophecy, his father cast him out to be slain, but he would live, and later unknowingly slay his father, and wed his mother. The play detailed how the gods smote the city with a plague as a result of this kinslaying and incest. Oedipus sought the answer to this, and in doing so discovered the terrible truth, and blinded himself for shame.
The Choir’s Apologia put a twist on this, as the Choir itself determines to get involved. This broke their usual role as mere background singers, and saw them take the stage to try and prevent the tragedy. The play played out as usual, but regularly, the mortal actors would freeze in place before a great event. The Choir would then step to center stage, and petition the gods for redress. First they asked Apollo, bidding him not deliver the ruinous prophecy, for without it nothing would come, but he rejected them. Next they implored Hermes to warn Oedipus against his folly, but Hermes declared he was helpless before Zeus. Finally, the Choir dared to approach Zeus himself, demanding that he cease to punish all Thebes for Oedipus’s mistake.
This proved a failure in the end, as Zeus rebuked them and struck the choir down one by one. The message was clear, that the gods were cruel and arbitrary, delivering unjust judgements. They did what they would, for they were strong, and the choir suffered what it must, for it was weak. At last only Oedipus remained, able now to see Zeus and his murder of the choir. Oedipus and Zeus contested one another in song, and while Zeus struck down the king, it was not before the hero doomed by prophecy delivered a defense and a prophecy of his own. Oedipus defended his record as king of Thebes, how he had overthrown a tyrant, protected his people, improved their lives, and sought their good even at terrible cost to himself. He, the one the gods judged, had been a better ruler than the gods. If indeed the gods would persist in their arbitrary wickedness, then one day this would be their doom, for the world would not abide such tyrants. Zeus struck him down, but went in dread because of the prophecy.
This production produced some degree of controversy. It always had, and such was the intent. It was well understood that the gods were dead, and Olympus was silent, but this play indicated such was not a bad thing. Given it was written by a dragoness, a natural enemy of the gods, the take was not unexpected. Beyond this, its use of another play as a framing device gave it a rather meta feel, and some found it pretentious. Others, by contrast, found the reframing of a classic play refreshing, and enjoyed the novelty of the choir acting as a major character.
The third play was a new production, and meant to be the one to blow the sandals off the audience. It was a bigger, grander, and of much more spectacular production values. All of this was in theory. In practice, it was put on at the end of three days of performances and partying, and became more of a farce than an epic. The Davidiad told the story of the legendary Hebrew king David, of both his rise to power and fall from grace. It was told in three acts, and all three had some manner of disaster.
The first act told of the heroic youth of David before he was king, and how he defeated the giant Goliath. Goliath himself was a complicated costume made by having three already tall men standing on one another’s shoulders. When struck by a sling, he was to topple over onto his army, which would catch the performers and prevent any harm. Unfortunately, due to an earlier scene involving David being anointed with oil, there was a slick patch on stage. Goliath’s lower third slipped, and the towering giant fell flat on his face and collapsed into himself in the middle of a monologue. This was considered absolutely hilarious by the audience, and Seramis, upon seeing this, physically shrank from embarrassment.
The second act saw the conflict between the good future king David and the wicked king Saul. Saul was meant to begin more coherent, but gradually jealousy and fear would twist him into wickedness. Unfortunately, Saul’s actor had been out late, and showed up to the production very hung over. This made Saul’s descent far more predictable and robbed the second act of much of its drama. Unfortunately, the actor in question attempted to remedy this by using a hangover cure involving undiluted wine. This made him less hungover, and more drunk, so Saul went from being scowling and sickly to very obviously drunk. This became a minor peril during a later scene where Saul threw his spear at David. Not only did Saul miss, as intended, but he proceeded to hurl the (thankfully fake) spear into the audience, where it proceeded to hit a man in the chest. He was unharmed, but believed he had been slain and fainted, causing a minor panic.
The third act was nearly canceled, but went ahead anyways. The cursed production continued to be cursed, as a major set piece exploded earlier. The third act was meant to show how the throne gradually corrupted David, and led him to murder a man to cover up an affair with his wife Bethsheba. This would climax with the death of a son produced from that affair, and the collapse of a great temple edifice David had been constructing. The play would end with David weeping, but repentant, and turning to begin rebuilding the ruined temple, representing his disgraced morality. Instead of this, the temple collapsed immediately the moment David and Bethsheba locked eyes, which somewhat gave the game away.
Sera did not bother to see the audience’s reaction when the curtain closed. She’d already left from sheer embarrassment. She was helping the troupe pack up, so the lot of them could scatter to cope with this catastrophe in their own way. Once the curtain closed and the actors departed the stage, she handed Saul his last payment, a polite, if curt, farewell, and departed. She avoided the rest of the festival, marinating in her disappointment at the bottom of a nearby lake.
Eventually, evening did come, and Sera slunk her way back into the city. She spoke briefly with her troupe, congratulating them on the work they did, and laboring to encourage their spirits. The production of the Davidiad had gone horribly wrong, but these were technical and production errors, not fundamental flaws. They would try again, after taking time to rest, recover, and focus on building back up to such a grand production with greater skill and experience. Their reach had, quite simply, exceeded their grasp, and ruin had come because of hubris. They would recover from this, and move forwards.
Much as she managed the speech, she felt like she was having to put on her own performance to manage that. Privately, the failure on such a massive stage hung over the young dragoness. She quietly made her way into the palace, and made her way to where Leon and Cassandra were. Unfortunately for her, the pair were currently in the process of discussing the festival. Glumly, she sat silently, nursing a large bowl of wine as Casandra and Leon deliberated a victor.
“The first step is that we can scratch off any troupes that simply re-enacted an existing play. Those were simply derivative, and giving a victory to that in our first festival sets an unfortunate precedent.” Cassandra remarked, working off a clay tablet listing the various performances. Lines went through about a third of the participants. “We can also do away with anything that tried to relate to Iskandar or my own dynasty, and especially that gods-awful recreation of our little scheme to destroy Tyndareus.”
“I personally found that one funny.” Sera piped up, remembering the comically inaccurate play. “Though they did manage quite the trick with their costume for me, I’ll need to get in touch with their costume department to see how the internals worked.”
“It was funny, mostly because it was inaccurate enough we could probably bring a suit for slander, libel, and slanderous libel against them.” Leon grumbled with arms folded. He had been made the butt of many a joke in that production, with the comedy of the valiant warrior being utterly surpassed by two women being a common refrain. “Beyond that, we don’t want to give the wrong impression about what exactly is acceptable to say about a queen.”
“The Corinthians have something of an irreverent streak, that much is for certain. Unfortunately we can only bring slander, libel, and slanderous libel and not treason, as they are presently foreigners.” Cassandra demurred. “Still, delivering sanctions on the Ember Island Company could be an effective way to get the message across to Corinth that a more peaceful Macedon is not a pushover.”
“With regard to the reproductions, what about The Choir’s Apologia?” Leon asked, throwing Sera a metaphorical bone. She ate literal bones as well, but if Leon threw her one he’d soon find out what it was like to skydive before the invention of a parachute.
“Disqualified as well. It deviates from the standard formula, but relies on you already understanding it. Really, if you didn’t know much about theatre to begin with, at lot of it would be lost on you. It ultimately came off as pretentious, and despite its inherently kind of ridiculous premise, was more depressing than anything. This sort of meta-commentary might work better for the sake of humor rather than trying for serious drama. Trying it here simply made the play exhausting and the sort of thing Tartarus really felt like it was mocking. That said, its pretention and grim character could give a good impression that the Macedonian theatre scene is serious and educated, but then I’d have to watch so many more like it. I don’t have enough absinthe to get through more than about one of those in a single festival.” Cassandra replied to that, and drew a second line through Apologia to emphasize her point. Seramis shrank into her cushions.
“Ah, so you enjoyed Tartarus then?” Leonidas asked in turn, trying to navigate the conversation to something less liable to torment the dragoness.
“Oh I most certainly did, but we can’t give it the win. As amusing as it is, it’s ultimately a very limited production. I like it, but giving it the victory would indicate a degree of “small scale” theatre in Macedon. I don’t want to give anyone else opportunity to degrade the work that’s been done here by suggesting that the Macedonian theatre lacks ambition.” Cassandra said with a sigh, and began crossing out any plays of similar scale.
“Which would be possessed by the Davidiad, but we all know how catastrophically wrong that went, so pray spare me whatever salt you were going to pour into that wound. I know that with all the bacchanalian delights available, you probably have managed to find someone who enjoys being tormented, but I am not that someone. So please, if you’re going to continue trying to murder me with words, use the ones that summon that lightning ball that nearly splattered me across the wall. It was a gentler execution.” Seramis grumbled, finally speaking up for herself.
Cassandra realized she’d gone to far, and put down the tablet. “I’m sorry Sera, I meant to tease, but not be cruel. I actually would agree that the Davidiad’s ambition was most impressive, and if not for some production hiccups, I think it might have had a chance at winning. I do tease, but I really do appreciate all the work you’ve put in to this, not just your company, but allowing this whole festival to go off. So, please forgive me if I’ve stepped too far from jest into mockery.”
“It’s fine, simply a very fresh disappointment. I’m afraid I missed most of the festival as I was busy running things or, well, pouting in a lake.” Seramis replied, waving away the problem with her tail. “So aside from everything you’ve disqualified, what do you think actually won?”
“I do have a personal preference.” Cass admitted, though she seemed a touch embarrassed by it. “The Court of Autumn.” The other two looked at her carefully with that. The Court of Autumn had been a much more romantic retelling of the story of Hades and Persephone, focused on the courtship of the pair, and the conflict that arose from a disapproving and overbearing Demeter. Neither of the pair had expected Cass to favor a romance, and their expressions showed it plainly. Cassandra merely shrugged. “We all desire what we cannot have, and it comes to a question of character whether we become envious of those lucky enough to have it, or delight sorrowfully that another is so blessed, even if they might not realize it.”
“I mean, I can’t deny that it was very well done. If I didn’t know better then I’d say that the two leads actually were a couple.” Leon replied with a nod. “It certainly doesn’t lack for ambition either, nor courage to speak the names of the Dread Queen and Lord With Many Guests so commonly.”
Cass smiled at that. “The fact that they do so is also part of why I like it. Persephone and Hades are dead, all the Olympians are. The reverence shown to corpses is illogical.”
Seramis processed this information, and considered her memory banks. “The company behind it, they’re one of the Theban companies, the Men of the Muses, correct?” She asked, and Cass checked, then nodded. “Ah, then yes, the two leads are actually husband and wife, they’ve got something of a specialty for romances as a result.”
“Write, or as the case may be, act, what you know.” Cassandra said with a shrug. “So we concur, The Court of Autumn is the victor?”
“I can’t argue against it.” Leon replied.
“Nor can I, but that’s more due to the aforementioned lack of context. One can make arguments without information, but I have a bit too much respect for the pair of you to engage in full sophistry.” Seramis admitted begrudgingly.
“Well, that absence may actually work to our advantage, returning from these pleasant distractions to the business of rule.” Cassandra said with a smile. “The Latins were particularly delighted with Tartarus, and actually wished to see the director. Said director was currently indisposed, but they have extended something of an open invitation. I think that accepting would provide quite the opportunity. It isn’t often one has a chance to walk right into the midst of a potentially hostile camp and see what they’re up to under guest-right.”
Seramis rose in interest at the idea, and cracked her neck. Cracking such a long neck was a process, creating a rippling crackling sound as vertebrae popped along the serpentine trunk. She grinned in anticipation. “I’ll melt myself a new dress.”

Im looking for a manhwa i found in asurascans back then to read now (i couldnt find it in asurascans now though).
Its about a protagonist who has nothing to return to in earth and becomes a hero in a fantasy world summoned by the emperor with his (emperor), blood. The protagonist was a genius in this world and followed the usual routine and eventually defeated the demon lord (am not sure here if it was the corrupt emperor or the demon lord who was defeated.) with his party.
The protagonist had a lover that was a thief.
Then when the demon lord (or corrupt emperor) died he was kick into a portal and returned to earth naked in public. I cant remember much in this part but he studied how to back into this fantasy world for 10 years and when he manage to came back he was like a meteor butt naked again infront of the princess who was living out in the field, exiled.
The emperor had the ability with his blood to summon from the earth, and his daughter the princess had this ability too but i think she was not as powerfull as him. The princess became a comrade of the protagonist because she wasnt in cahoots with the currupt emperor and was just a bystander that was a victim when the emperor was dethroned.
He then learned that his comrades formed their own kingdoms after getting rid of him and the emperor.
There was this side story when he was defeating the barbaric comrade that became a king, the kings son the prince, liked the queen. (I dont think it was incest.) And when the protagonist took down the king, the prince and the queen got together.(?)
Anyway, this is all i can remember, please help me, i have searched asurascans for it for a long time and if you know which manhwa it is, tell me here, im going crazy trying to find it. T—T)

I'm 52, gay and Black, and my mom is 84. I have two older siblings, however our parents were divorced when I was eight and so they were out of the house or about to head to college.
I grew up in a big college town, excelled in school, studied violin. My parents were both professionals and fairly well-known in our community, particularly in the Black and educational parts of it. I think from the outside we looked pretty "normal."
My mother was diagnosed with delusional disorder roughly five years ago as part of the ongoing drama of trying to stabilize her living situation (long story). Previous to this, I don't think that she had seen a mental health professional much less a psychiatrist. My parents were religious and like many Blacks (I think this is changing now, slightly...) didn't seek out this type of healthcare but would, you know, pray...
So I have a new context for my childhood and the crazy things that she did and said. She was often fixated on family members and "being wronged." For instance, when I was in college, she convinced me that her brothers and my cousins, with whom I had been close, were stealing money or her inheritance, or jewelry.
When she remarried when I was 11 she became convinced that my stepfather was gay. There was a kind of emotional incest through which she'd share with me at eight, 10, 11 the details of how my father wronged her or, later, how my step father was gay because he had hemorrhoids, which to a 13-year old makes sense. Neighbors weren't to be trusted either. They wanted her property. A lot of her delusions are about "stuff," which makes me sad.
When I was 19 and at college studying for finals, she turned up to my apartment and handed over a ten-page manifesto accusing me of having sex throughout high school with my stepfather. They were getting divorced at the time and fighting over the house. She told me I'd have to go to court to testify. I went to Europe for a month instead.
Today, with this diagnosis in hand, I at least know that she's sick and can't help it. But it is still hard, especially as I reflect on my childhood--never being able to invite friends over, trouble getting close to others and trusting, always vigilant, navigating every emotional issue as best I can on my own with no blueprint.
I've learned to never argue with her or try to reason with her or tease out the truth. It never helps. But it is tough because, to meet her, she is charming and lucid. She doesn't come off as mentally unstable and didn't when I was a kid.
Yesterday, she called me: "I'm surprised to learn that you're in cahoots with your brother and sister to take my property and put me in a nursing home. That's all I called to say. Now have a nice day."
Depending upon what's going on for me at the moment, this stuff can still ruin a day up to a week. It is so destabilizing.

https://sci-hub.st/10.1057/fr.1988.4 Feminist Review, No. 28, Family Secrets: Child Sexual Abuse (Spring, 1988), pp. 56-64
In the early 1970s, when a radical feminist consciousness pulled [incestuous abuse] out of the closet, we thought we were engaged in an unprecedented discovery. In fact, charity volunteers and social workers a century earlier dealt with incest cases daily, understanding them to be a standard, expected part of the caseload of a child-protective agency such as a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. How are we to explain this historical amnesia? Like the suppression of so much women's history and feminist analysis, this hiatus was not created simply by the decline in feminism between 1920 and 1970, but by an active reinterpretation of child sexual abuse. I shudder when I think about what this meant: not only because of the incest victims rendered invisible and mute, but also because of its threat to us today, the threat that great achievements in consciousness-raising can be rolled back by powerful ideological tanks. My motives in writing a history of family violence were thus far from disinterested.[1]
Charity and social workers in the late nineteenth-century United States were familiar with child sexual abuse and knew that its most common form of abuse was intrafamilial—that is, incest. Ten per cent of the family-violence case records of Boston child-saving agencies which I sampled, starting in 1880, contained incest (Gordon and O'Keefe, 1986; Gordon, 1984). Moreover, in their upper-class way these child savers had a feminist analysis of the problem: they blamed male brutality and lack of sexual control. They could safely offer such explanations because they believed the problem to occur exclusively among the Catholic immigrant poor, whom they perceived as of "inferior stock," crowded "like animals" into urban ghettoes. Thus, ironically, the very upper-class base of child-rescue work at the time promoted the identification of problems unmentionable by standards of Victorian propriety.
Despite these class limitations, the sympathy for child victims entailed by this sensibility was one of the major achievements of the nineteenth-century feminist movement. The attack on male sexual and familial violence was often disguised in temperance rhetoric. American women's historians have recently conducted a reinterpretation of temperance, acknowledging its anti-Catholic, anti-working class content, but also identifying its meanings for women contesting the evils that alcohol created for them and their families: violence, disease, impoverishment, male irresponsibility. Moreover, the feminist anti-violence campaign had significant successes. In the course of the century wife-beating was transformed from an acceptable practice into one which, despite its continued widespread incidence, was illegal and reprehensible, a seamy behaviour which men increasingly denied and tried to hide (Pleck, 1979). Indeed, the whole movement against child abuse which began in the 1870s was a product of a feminist sensibility in several ways: first, in opposing corporal punishment and preference for gentler methods of child training; second, in challenging the sanctity of the Victorian home and authority of the paterfamilias. Most manuals of child raising by the last quarter of the nineteenth century recommended physical punishment only as a last resort (Reposter note: Of course, this would still be child abuse. "Child training" is still a dehumanizing term. They didn't go anywhere nearly far enough.), and women's legal victories in child custody created a preference for maternal rights to children for a century.
Consider a few examples of incest cases from the late nineteenth century:[2]

In 1900 a thirteen year old girl has been placed out with a family in which the wife is absent. The SPCC worker reports that the "child's bed not slept in but [the father's bed is] much tumbled. The girl cries and dreads the night." (Case #1820A)
An incest victim reports, sometime in the 1890s, that her father "told her that it was all right for him to do such things and say such things to her, for all fathers did so with their daughters. Tried to force her to go to a hotel in Boston with him once. Also advised her to go with fellows to get money. Said that if she got in trouble he would help her out.…" (Case #2058A)

There were hundreds of these stories telling us not only that [incestuous abuse] occurred, but that child-saving agencies were aware of it and taking action against it. The publicity and fund-raising efforts of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children focussed on intrafamily "carnal abuse" directly, unembarrassed to include it as part of the need for SPCC intervention.
In the early twentieth century the child-savers' view of child sexual assault changed significantly, and incest was de-emphasized. By the 1920s, although child-protective agencies continued to meet many incest cases, a three-part interpretive transformation had occurred: the locus of the problem was moved from home to streets, the culprit transformed from father or other authoritative male family member to perverted stranger, the victim transformed from innocent betrayed to sex delinquent. In other words, the fact that child sex abuse is overwhelmingly a family problem was obscured; instead it was pictured as rape by strangers on the streets. (Anna Clark has shown how a similar reinterpretation of adult rape took place (Clark, 1987).) This is not to say that there was no extrafamilial sex abuse; there was, but, compared to incest, it was greatly exaggerated in both public and professional discourse.
Several factors contributed to this reinterpretation. The professionalization of social work tended to weaken the influence of feminists and social reformers among child protectors, even as, ironically, more women entered child welfare casework as salaried workers. After the women's suffrage victory in 1920 the organized feminist movement fragmented and weakened. During World War I venereal disease became a major problem for the armed forces (it was for this reason that condoms became widely available at this time, first issued by the Navy to sailors); servicemen were presented as victims of disease-ridden prostitutes. After the war, fears of Bolshevism, sexual freedom, and feminism combined to create a "pro-family" backlash.
The implications of this reinterpretation of child sexual abuse were pernicious for women and girls. The existence of sexual abuse became evidence requiring the constriction and domestication of girls, and their mothers were blamed for inadequate supervision if the girls were molested or even played on the streets. What was once categorized as carnal abuse, the perpetrators virtually all male, was often now categorized as moral neglect—meaning that the mother was the culprit and the behaviour of the victim was implicated. Some of the "sex abuse" was relatively noncoercive teenage sexuality. Female juvenile sex delinquency was constructed as a major social problem in early twentieth-century America, and it was a vague, victimless crime. Girls who smoked and drank, dressed or spoke immodestly, or simply loitered on the streets were convicted of sex delinquency in substantial numbers and sent to reformatories (Schlossman and Wallach, 1978). During World War I near armed-forces bases it was the servicemen who were the innocents, their girl partners the sources of pollution. Even girls who had been raped were no longer victims but temptresses. I do not mean to deny that some girls behaved in socially dangerous and self-destructive ways, nor that they sought out sexual adventure but, as many students of sex delinquents and other runaways today have observed, high proportions, quite possibly a majority of these girls, were first victims of sexual assault, typically familial. They were, so to speak, squeezed out onto the streets in search of safety and/or self-esteem from homes that were even more destructive than the street boys or men who exploited them.
Above all, this reinterpretation of child sexual abuse removed scrutiny from family and home, restoring the curtain of impunity that surrounded those sacred institutions. This was the period of the discovery of the "dirty old man," the "sex fiend," and the "pervert," the stereotypical culprit in child sex abuse cases in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. As before, I do not wish to deny that such figures existed. Child protection agencies uncovered child prostitution, pornography rings and sex criminals who molested literally scores of children. The victims were not always brutalized; the children of the very poor—not only in the Depression but in earlier decades too—could be bribed into acquiescence and silence with a nickel, an orange, a pail of coal. However, even these nonfamilial molesters were rarely "strangers." They were often neighbours, accepted members of communities, often small businessmen or janitors who had access to private space.
There were two peak periods of hysteria about sex crimes: 1937-40 and 1949-55. The panic had official government sponsorship, led by none less that J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI. In 1937 he called for a "War on the Sex Criminal." Hoover's rantings about "degenerates" threatening "American childhood and womanhood" assimilated these sexual anxieties to nationalism, racism and anti-Communism. It bears notice that, in contrast to earlier periods of public agitation against sex crimes, as in campaigns to raise the age of consent in the Progressive era, women's organizations played no role in this campaign (Freedman, 1987).
Meanwhile social workers became less likely to investigate girls' typically euphemistic accusations of their fathers.

In 1935 a mother turned her daughter in for sex delinquency. Investigation reveals that the daughter, fleeing from an abusive father, who also beat his wife severely, had spent most of her time for 4-5 years with her maternal uncle and aunt. She accused her maternal uncle of molesting her steadily. However, the MSPCC physical exam indicated that she was a virgin,[3] so no action was taken. (#3555A)
A battered woman, terrified of her husband, is told by their daughter, who has become a "sex delinquent," behaving "vulgarly," that her father has criminally assaulted her. The mother says "she would speak to him." At court the police chief says he is doubtful about taking up the case as the girl's word is the only evidence the Government could produce; he would not question the father "as it would be asking [him] to incriminate himself." The daughter was committed to an institution. (#2057A)
In 1920 a mother is so fearful that her new husband will abuse her daughter (from a previous marriage) that every time she goes out she hires a babysitter to chaperone them. Yet when the daughter, now eleven, says she has been raped by a "stranger" whom she refuses to name, the social workers not only fail to question whether she might be shielding her stepfather, but decide that her accusation is not credible and brand her a delinquent—a liar, immoral, and uncontrollable. She is boarded out as a domestic. (#3085A)
In 1930 a 14-year-old girl alleges sexual abuse by her widowed father and begs to be taken out of his home. No action is taken until the father brings her to court on stubborn-child charges and she, as well as her younger sister whom she has been trying to protect are sentenced, separately, to institutions. (#3585)

In addition to references like these, in which the agencies did not investigate or prosecute, there were many others in which agency workers simply did not pick up the broad hints that girls threw out, hoping to draw attention to their plight. Social workers ignored statements like, "I asked my mother for a lock on my door." These girls were not usually bribed or intimidated into silence. Some of the recent discussion of incest emphasizes victims' fearful silence, but this evidence is based on the work of therapists, counselling incest victims years later, who have often by then reconstructed their stories on the basis of their guilt; my evidence, contemporaneous with the abuse, showed that these children were usually very active in trying to get help, more so, for example, than victims of nonsexual child abuse (Gordon, 1986).
Not only did social workers de-emphasize incest, but academic experts dismissed it as an extremely rare, one-in-a-million occurrence (Weinberg, 1955). Psychoanalytic and anthropological interpretations, associated respectively with Freud and Levi-Strauss, attributed to incest taboos a vital role in the development of civilization; this logic brought with it the assumption that these taboos were effective and that incest was, in fact, rare; but in terms of impact on treatment of actual cases, Freudian thought did not so much cause social workers to deny children's complaints and hints about sexual mistreatment as it offered categories with which to explain away these complaints. As Boston psychiatrist Eleanor Pavenstedt commented in 1954:

Most of us have trained ourselves to skepticism toward the claims of young girls who maintain they have been seduced by their fathers… We must ask ourselves whether our tendency to disbelief is not in part at least based on denial. The incest barrier is perhaps the strongest support of our cultural family structure, and we may well shrink from the thought of its being threatened. (Pavenstedt, 1954)

So did the dominant sociology of the family, which inverted Levi-Strauss's functionalism to prove that the incest taboo was operative because it had to be. For example, "No known human society could tolerate much incest without ruinous disruption" (Gebhard, Gagnon, Pomeroy and Christenson, 1965: 208; Davis, 1949; Bell and Vogel, 1963). The few nonfeminist historians to study incest replicated that error by studying public beliefs about incest, not behaviour (Wohl, 1979; Strong, 1973).
The rediscovery of [incestuous abuse] in the 1970s was, then, merely a reinterpretation, and it did not come quickly. Nonsexual child abuse was resurrected as a social problem in the 1960s in a movement led by physicians but stimulated by the influence of the New Left, with its sympathy for youth and critique of authority and the family. Without pressure from feminists, [incestuous abuse] first reappeared as gender-neutral. Indeed, the very classification of all forms of intrafamily sexual activity as [incestuous abuse] obscures the meanings of these behaviours. For example, sibling sexual activity, or sex between other relatives of approximately the same age, is extremely common, difficult to identify and not necessarily abusive. Mother-child incest is extremely rare and, in my findings, more often than father-child incest, associated with adult mental illness; by contrast incestuous fathers have extremely "normal" profiles (Gordon and O'Keefe, 1984; Herman, 1981). (Reposter note: I am skeptical about these two claims. Maternal CSA is significantly rarer than paternal CSA, yes, but I doubt that it's "extremely" rare, and an analysis of adult supremacy as an axis of oppression intersecting with misogyny clarifies this. I am also skeptical of all pathologization and saneism-inflected broad claims about abuser psychology. I have reason to believe she and her sources were biased by heterosexism in reaching this conclusion. In contrast, youth liberation feminists would emphasize the adultism, domestic power, and authoritarian motives in an intersectional manner.) Yet many child abuse experts throughout the 1970s ignored these gender differences (Kempe, 1980; Money, 1980). Others found ingenious ways of explaining away actuality with speculation about possibility. Thus social worker Kate Rist argued that "society has created a stronger prohibition against mother-son incest" because "it is most likely to occur. This has led to the intriguing situation in which father-daughter incest appears to have a lower natural probability of occurrence, is therefore less strongly prohibited, and in practice occurs more often" (Rist, 1979; 682).
Historians do not usually like to speak of the "lessons of history," as if she were some objective, finally definitive schoolteacher. But in many years of work at the craft, I have never come across a story that so directly yields a moral. The moral is that the presence or absence of a strong feminist movement makes the difference between better and worse solutions to the social problem of child sexual abuse; more, that the very same evidence of sexual abuse will be differently defined in the presence or absence of that movement. Without a feminist analysis, evidence of child sexual abuse means that danger lies in sex perverts, in public spaces, in unsupervised girls, in sexually assertive girls. There are few ironies more bitter than the fact that rape of children—that most heinous of crimes—has also been the crime most drenched in victim-blaming. As with adult rape, child sexual abuse without feminist interpretation supplies evidence and arguments for constricting and disempowering children.
Such a reinterpretation arose again in the United States in the mid-1980s, a reinterpretation aided, of course, by the real and increasing incidence of deranged killers attacking strangers. In the school year 1984/85 my then second-grade daughter was taught three separate programmes in her classroom about how to react to sexual abuse attempts, all of them emphasizing strangers, and all of them gender-neutral. The most publicized sexual abuse cases have concerned daycare centres, and often female teachers, although daycare centres remain, on the whole, among the safest environments for children. The statistics about child sexual abuse remain what they were a century ago: the most dangerous place for children is the home, the most likely assailant their father. Similarly a panic about missing children not only exaggerated their numbers a thousandfold, but completely misstated the source of such "kidnappings": neglecting to mention that noncustodial parents are overwhelmingly the main kidnappers; and that teenage runaways, often from abusive homes, are overwhelmingly the majority of the missing children.
What then is the best policy? My argument should not be taken as an implicit call for de-emphasizing the problem. On the contrary. The children's educational programmes and pamphlets have strengths, particularly in so far as they offer assertiveness training for children: if it feels uncomfortable, trust your judgement and say no; scream loud and run fast; tell someone. Of course it is difficult and inadvisable to sow distrust of fathers, particularly because the more intimate fathers are with children, the more responsibility they have for children, the less likely they will be to abuse them sexually. (Reposter note: I get what she's trying to say here, but this is phrased poorly IMO. Sowing distrust is fine. If it's genuinely unjustified, then the problem will resolve itself.) However, education for children should contain a feminist and an anti-authoritarian analysis: should discuss the relative powerlessness of women and girls, and praise assertiveness and collective resistance in girls; should demystify the family and even discuss that ultimately tabooed subject, economic power in the family. Education for boys must be equally brave and delicate. Boys are children too, and often victimized sexually, but they are also future men, and school age is not too early to ask them to consider what's wrong with male sexual aggression, to teach them to criticize the multiple and powerful cultural messages that endorse male sexual aggression.
Probably the most important single contribution to the prevention of [father-daughter] incest would be the strengthening of mothers. By increasing their ability to support themselves and their social and psychological self-esteem, allowing them to choose independence if that is necessary to protect themselves and their daughters, men's sexual exploitation could be checked. In the historical incest cases I sampled, one of the most consistent common denominators was the extreme helplessness of mothers—often the victims of wife-beating themselves, they were often ill or otherwise isolated, they were the poorest, the least self-confident and the least often employed of mothers in these case records. This is not victim-blaming; their weaknesses were not their fault, but part of the systematic way in which male supremacy gives rise to [father-daughter] incest. It was a gain that wife-beating and [father-daughter] incest have become more criminalized, but we cannot expect women to prosecute aggressively if their prospects for single motherhood are so bleak.
Moreover, women's very subordination often contributes to making them child abusers and neglecters. Although women do not usually abuse children sexually, in these case records they were responsible for approximately half the nonsexual child abuse (the same proportion they occupy in many contemporary studies). Unfortunately, feminists have avoided women's own violence towards children and analysed family violence in terms of stereotypical male brutality and female gentleness. Women's violence should not be regarded as a problem that will somehow weaken our feminist claims; on the contrary, these claims should not rest on assumptions of women's superiority […]. Women's mistreatment of children also needs an analysis of the damages caused by the sexual division of labour and the pattern of women's exclusive responsibility for child-raising. In the US, too, the rather middle-class radical feminist groups never made issues of social services a political priority, although such services are fundamental to women's ability to resist violence, to protect their children, and to parent better themselves.
This is not to say that a good feminist line will solve the problems of child sexual abuse, especially not where the abuse has already occurred. Like everyone else, feminists who deal with policy or individual cases must wobble through many contradictions. For example: the victimization is real, but the tendency to exaggerate its incidence and to produce social and moral panics needs to be resisted. The problem emerges from the powerlessness, the effective invisibility and muteness of women and children, especially girls, but the adult anxiety has led to children's false accusations, and children's sufferings will not be corrected by eroding the due process rights and civil liberties of those accused. Child sexual abuse needs a political interpretation, in terms of male power. However, the prosecution of culprits—however necessary—and the breaking up of families that may result do not always benefit the child victims. Especially if they are incestuous, sex abuse cases have something of the tragic about them, because once they arise, tremendous human damage has already occurred, and a politically correct analysis will not ease the pain. Still, that analysis, situating the problem in the context of male supremacy in and outside the family, is the only long-term hope for prevention.
Notes
Linda Gordon is Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin/Madison. She is the author of Woman's Body, Woman's Right and the forthcoming book on family violence noted below.
[1] My book, Heroes of Their Own Lives: The History and Politics of Family Violence, is forthcoming from Viking/Penguin US in early 1988. References to my sources and more information on my research methodology can be found there.
[2] These and other excerpts are from case records of Boston, Massachusetts, child-protection agencies (see Gordon, 1988).
[3] The standard response to a sex abuse allegation was to look at the condition of the hymen (Gordon, 1988).
References
BELL, Norman and VOGEL, Ezra (1963) editors A Modern Introduction to the Family New York: Free Press.
BREINES, Wini and GORDON, Linda (1983) "The New Scholarship on Family Violence" Signs 8, pp. 490-531.
CLARK, Anna (1987) Women's Silence, Men's Violence: Sexual Assault in England 1770-1845 London: Pandora Press.
DAVIS, Kingsley (1949) Human Society New York: Macmillan.
DUBOIS, Ellen and GORDON, Linda (1983) "Seeking Ecstasy on the Battlefield: Danger and Pleasure in Nineteenth-century Feminist Sexual Thought" Feminist Studies 9, pp. 7-25; also Feminist Review no. 11 (1981).
FREEDMAN, Estelle B. (1987) "'Uncontrolled Desires': The Response to the Sexual Psychopath, 1920-1960" Journal of American History Vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 83-106.
GEBHARD, Paul, GAGNON, J. POMEROY, Wardell and CHRISTENSON, C. (1965) Sex Offenders New York: Harper & Row.
GORDON, Linda and O'KEEFE, Paul (1984) "Incest as a Form of Family Violence: Evidence from Historical Case Records" Journal of Marriage and the Family Vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 27-34.
GORDON, Linda (1986) "Incest and Resistance: Patterns of Father-Daughter Incest, 1880-1930" Social Problems Vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 253-67.
GORDON, Linda (1988) Heroes of Their Own Lives: The Politics and History of Family Violence New York: Viking/Penguin.
HERMAN, Judith (1981) Father-Daughter Incest Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
KAUFMAN, Irving, PECK, Alice L. and TAGIURI, Consuelo K. (1954) "The Family Constellation and Overt Incestuous Relations Between Father and Daughter" American Journal of Orthopsychiatry Vol. 24, pp. 266-79.
KEMPE, C. Henry (1980) "Incest and Other Forms of Sexual Abuse" in KEMPE (1980).
KEMPE, C. Henry and HELFER, Ray (1980) The Battered Child Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
MONEY, John, (1980) Introduction to the incest section in WILLIAMS and MONEY (1980).
PAVENSTEDT, Eleanor (1954) Addendum to KAUFMAN, PECK and TAGIURI (1954).
PLECK, Elizabeth (1979) "Wife Beating in Nineteenth-century America" Victimology Vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 60-74.
RIST, Kate (1979) "Incest: Theoretical and Clinical Views" American Journal of Orthopsychiatry Vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 680-91.
RUSH, Florence (1980) The Best Kept Secret: Sexual Abuse of Children Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
SCHLOSSMAN, Steven and WALLACH, Stephanie (1978) "The Crime of Precocious Sexuality: Female Juvenile Delinquency in the Progressive Era" Harvard Educational Review 48, pp. 65-94.
STRONG, Bryan (1973) "Toward a History of the Experiential Family: Sex and Incest in the Nineteenth-century Family" Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 457-66.
WEINBERG, S. (1955) Incest Behavior New York: Citadel Press.
WILLIAMS, Gertrude J. and MONEY, John (1980) editors Traumatic Abuse and Neglect of Children at Home Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
WOHL, Anthony S. (1979) "Sex and the Single Room: Incest Among the Victorian Working Classes" in The Victorian Family: Structure and Stress ed. Wohl. New York: St Martin's Press.

Hi everyone I’m Kirsty from England and I’m 18 years old 19 in July! Time is 16.02 in England and I’ve got back from college around 2pm and caught my dad having a wank in their bedroom door open! I went upstairs and half way on the stairs start hearing as someone was having sex didn’t sound like my mom or my younger sister! As I got upstairs my parents room first room and door was open so I’ve got down on my knees and had the first look! Blimey there was my dad watching dad and daughter incest porn I was absolutely shocked speechless I think I’ve froze for a while with seeing him and hearing him and video! I’ve decided not to disturb him and watch what happens! I could see he has done some cheeky lines of the white stuff!! And he was really enjoying himself! After a little while I must admit I started feeling horny getting wet and wet by seconds so I’ve slipped my hand into my pants and started rubbing myself watching my dad’s huge cock! It is about 9 inches and thick next thing he gets notification and he connects with a girl on webcam calling him Dad!! And he was telling her what he wants to do to her and she was telling him what she wants him to do to her! And final shock was he called her my name Kirsty and soon after he’d cum all over and I thought I should get downstairs and pretend I was just coming in! But with my knee cracked he sorted himself out immediately and I pretended that I’ve heard nothing but he knew so asked me to come over and seat down next to him, and asked if I seen anything or anything? I didn’t know what to say and he said you have haven’t you? I just looked down and nodded my head and he said ok in that case we have to have a talk and sort this out between us! So he began saying it was just a fantasy and nothing more and he would never ever do anything to me whatsoever! Long story short he said my mom hasn’t done anything with me for over 8 months and he has been satisfying himself with porn and he really enjoys these role plays and movies and he said last thing I want to do is break up our family as he loves us very deeply and he wants the best for us! And next thing he reaches to white stuff and offered me to do it with him I told him never done it before but if you insist I will he said don’t worry nothing will happen with doing it one time but he doesn’t know that I’ve been doing it over a year now! So he has done few lines and good thick lines and said come on let’s go so I’ve done two lines and he has done two and laughing giggling he said oh do not mention anything to anybody about this whatsoever and he said oh before I forget there’s one side effect of this and saying nothing bad but within seconds you will feel extremely horny that you won’t be able to control yourself! I knew it anyway so he has guessed that I was feeling very horny and next thing shocked the life out of me! He asked if I would help him and our family until things got better between him and mom and I asked what do you want me to do? He started telling me it will be shock for you and but not to get scared or anything! He said and you can’t tell anyone about it! Then he pulled me towards him and said would you do things with me to help him out I said what is it you want me to do? He said would I have sexual fore play with him now? Saying we don’t have to do full thing but satisfy each other kissing touching playing stuff and he said at least please just try it for first time and if I didn’t like it we don’t have to do it again! So eventually I’ve agreed and with my eyes blindfolded so within seconds we were kissing each other like crazy and taking each other’s clothes off and then kissing licking grinding until we’ve cum over and over again now next month we are going to holiday and I told him he can have me! So not a word of lies about this confession

I (30F) would absolutely love some perspective on this as I'm not quite sure how to feel about this or say to my partner (30M).
TLDR: partner's parents change itinerary last minute to a trip they planned a few months ago. Their actions revolving around it perpetuate their ideas that they still view their son as a child and that we're not a unit ourselves. Unsure on how to feel about the situation and what I should suggest to my partner that he do.
A bit of a backstory: I've posted a few times on JUSTNOMIL. My partner and I have been together for 8 years, lived together for 3. His mom (F64) is one of those that believes I stole her baby boy from her, who is her miracle rainbow preemie baby and only child. I've tried playing nice, but I'm still a threat to her apparently. My partner has been realizing more and more some of the trauma he went through, especially with the emotional incest and manipulation from her (and having a present yet absent father (M62)). Most of his life has been dictated by them, up to his own career that he hates and is stuck with because they straddled him with $100k+ in student debt. They manipulated their way to keeping him at a school 40 minutes away from them. Never really getting the chance to learn who he is as a person outside of just being their child until we moved 1,500 miles away from them. There's a lot he's been unlearning. He's been slowly making his way to putting them on an information diet about what's happening in his life. Of course, things aren't close to perfect yet.
An additional bit of background that's relevant to the post: His family are big skiers and my partner got the Ikon pass for the last season. I suggested for Christmas we could go up to the New England area to ski and while leaving, I could pop-in to my family's Christmas get together in Pennsylvania to quickly say hi and see my nieces. That was totally ignored because when visiting his parents for Thanksgiving, they started making plans for a ski trip to Colorado in front of me without even including me. The trip was going to be right after Christmas. Leading up to their trip his dad would call and demanded he requests certain days off, switch with the other co-workers on these days, makes sure he gets plane tickets on these specific dates/times to not impede on his dad’s skiing time. Of course, no mention of me joining them.
Also, my partner and I went on a beach trip for our 8-year anniversary. His parents knew about it and his mom lamented how she wanted to go to the beach. I'm sure if he didn't set a boundary, she would have invited herself. However, I do feel bad for her because they typically do whatever his dad wants for vacations, so she hasn't been to the beach in a long time. Where we currently live, we're about 2 hours from the nearest beach.
Also, his parents are super fickle about making plans. They have ideas and then wait til the absolute last minute to finalize them.
Now to the primary story/dilemma:
His family are also big mountain bikers. I love riding my bike and did mountain biking once, but I've had a few crashes to where I'd rather just explore on my bike. There's this mountain biking event happening in Colorado in July (don't know the name, just know that's what they were planning to go to) that his parents wanted to do with my partner. I opted out because I wouldn't be able to join them in the activity and to save money (and to save some PTO). So instead I made plans to visit my sister and her family for the 4th of July later that week from their trip since I'll already have the holiday off. While I do miss Colorado, I know he misses it way more and so I didn't mind that he went.
Recently his mom told him that instead of going to Colorado, they're going to Miami! (Btw, this would require flying or driving 14 hours).
Of course, partner is a bit devastated because he was really looking forward going to Colorado again. While he doesn't feel in shape to do mountain biking, he really wanted to at least go hiking. I was really miffed at hearing this change of plans, but not surprised at all. Good on his mom for finally getting what she wants out of a vacation, but at the same time there's so much wrong with it.
I told him I was upset for a few reasons about this change. First was the blatant disrespect toward him because they unilaterally made this change without considering him. To me this proves they still view him as a child and not an adult, who is also their offspring, in this relationship of theirs. Absolutely no consideration for his wants or desires. Second, there was no invitation for me to join (they didn't know about my alternate plan anyways). They do not view us as a unit. To his mom, this trip is for HER family unit. Which to me perpetuates how they view him as their child still rather than an actual adult.
I did talk to him about my feelings on this and he agrees with me that he's upset by this. I expressed to him that I'm feeling conflicted because on one hand, he would get a free trip. Not that he can't afford it himself, but who doesn't like free stuff? On the other hand, I don't want him to go because it basically confirms to his parents that he's still just their child and does whatever they want and that we are not a cohesive unit of our own. And the thing is, every trip he goes on with his parents, he absolutely hates it. Every time he texts and calls me complaining of things they've done, breaking boundaries, and treating him like a child. They only do what the dad wants, and his dad has already made plans of what he wants to do (which is fishing, an old past time that he did on his own honeymoon that his wife obviously did not want). They also aren't big on exploring cuisine. When they went to Hawaii, they ate at Bubba Gump Shrimp. We thankfully made up for that by only eating local when we went ourselves. I told my partner that if he does go with them, then he needs to be able to set boundaries and do what he wants and eat where he wants. Though I was jealous that he said he wants to go to a Michelin star restaurant to eat sushi.
Thing is, I really don't want him to go because as I mentioned, it just further confirms his parents' beliefs that 1. he's still just a child they can boss around and 2. we aren't a family unit of our own. However, I'm conflicted because I don't want to come off as the disgruntled DIL. He already has the time requested off (he can't move it to match the time I'll be visiting my sister's family), so why not do something with his time off? I think he has considered going to Colorado by himself, but I know he would feel guilty because he's not with his parents or with me. But at the same time, he will hate being with his parents since he's still trying to grow a backbone around them.
He knows how I feel about all of this, but I'm not sure if I should encourage him to go through with the trip, strongly suggest to him not to go, or maybe provide an alternative.
Edit: Reason I'm not able to switch my plans and join them in Miami is because of my own prior commitment. My brother and SIL visited my sister's family a few months ago and while there, they mostly visited a friend of theirs. My brother barely interacted with my oldest niece and it was very evident she was upset by that. I previously bounced around the idea of visiting them for the 4th, but after hearing what all went down when my brother visited, it confirmed I wanted to go. I'm sure my sister has already told my nieces that I'm coming and I don't want to let her down like my brother did. Plus I rarely get to see them since they live about 6 hours away. Also keep in mind that my partner's own parents have yet to visit us in the year we've now lived 4 hours away from them, but we've driven to them a few times.
Edit2: I also want to add that even if I was invited by them, I would still stand by my previous plans. It's more about the lack of consideration to simply ask if I'd like to come with the change of plans since it's not revolved around a sport. If he was still going to Colorado with his parents, that's perfectly fine because it's what HE wanted! Not to mention we did discuss me going, but I opted out because I wanted him to enjoy mountain biking without having to worry if I was enjoying my time or not. However, there is a history of me being excluded by his parents because his mom desperately just wants him to herself (even outside of his dad). For Thanksgiving my partner wanted to do it with his parents, me, and his aunt's family (his mom's sister), but his parents didn't listen so his mom could have him to herself more. If I ever made plans with my family, they WANT him to come. Because they know our relationship is more than just boyfriend/girlfriend at this point. We are our own family and his parents have shown in the past that they do not believe this of us.

01 minutes ago — The film was a box office success, grossing $98.4 million against a budget of $15 million. The film received acclaim from critics, with particular praise going to its acting (especially Goldberg's performance), direction, screenplay, musical score, and production values.
watch Godzilla Minus One online for free
watch Godzilla Minus One online for free
The film was nominated for 11 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Actress for Goldberg, Best Supporting Actress for both Avery and Winfrey, and Best Adapted Screenplay, but did not achieve a single win.
It also received four Golden Globe Award nominations, with Goldberg winning Best Actress in a Drama. In 2006, the American Film Institute ranked the film 51st on its list of most inspiring movies.
While several avenues exist to view the highly praised film Godzilla Minus One online streaming offers a versatile means to access its cinematic wonder From heartfelt songs to buoyant humor this genre-bending work explores the power of friendship to upGodzilla Minus One communities during troubling times Directed with nuanced color and vivacious animation lighter moments are blended seamlessly with touching introspection Cinephiles and casual fans alike will find their spirits Godzilla Minus Oneed by this inspirational story of diverse characters joining in solidarity Why not spend an evening immersed in the vibrant world of Godzilla Minus One ? Don't miss out!
Godzilla Minus One is a 1985 American epic coming-of-age period drama film directed by Steven Spielberg and written by Menno Meyjes, based on the Pulitzer Prize–winning 1982 novel of the same name by Alice Walker. It was Spielberg's eighth film as a director, marking a turning point in his career as it was a departure from the summer blockbusters for which he had become known. It was also the first feature film directed by Spielberg for which John Williams did not compose the music. The film instead featuring a score by Quincy Jones, who also produced. The cast stars Whoopi Goldberg in her breakthrough role, with Danny Glover, Oprah Winfrey (in her film debut), Margaret Avery, and Adolph Caesar.
Filmed in Anson and Union counties in North Carolina,the film tells the story of a young African-American girl named Celie Harris and the brutal experiences she endured including domestic violence, incest, child sexual abuse, poverty, racism, and sexism.
Despite the success, the film is a source of controversy with many criticizing the film for its negative depiction of African-American males who are all shown as brutally violent. The film was also criticized by some for being "over-sentimental" and "stereotypical".
WHEN AND WHERE WILL Godzilla Minus One BE STREAMING?
The new Godzilla Minus One prequel Godzilla Minus One will be available for streaming first on Starz for subscribers Later on the movie will also be released on Peacock thanks to the agreement between distributor Lionsgate and the NBC Universal streaming platform Determining the exact arrival date of the movie is a slightly more complex matter Typically Lionsgate movies like John Wick 4 take approximately six months to become available on Starz where they tend to remain for a considerable period As for when Songbirds Snakes will be accessible on Peacock it could take nearly a year after its release although we will only receive confirmation once Lionsgate makes an official announcement However if you wish to watch the movie even earlier you can rent it on Video on Demand (VOD) which will likely be available before the streaming date on Starz
WHERE CAN I STREAM Godzilla Minus One: Kimetsu no Yaiba—To the Hashira TrainingAL Godzilla Minus One MOVIES IN THE MEANTIME?
In the meantime you can currently stream all four original Godzilla Minus One movies on Peacock until the end of November The availability of Godzilla Minus One movies on Peacock varies depending on the month so make sure to take advantage of the current availability
HOW TO WATCH Godzilla Minus One 2024 ONLINE:
As of now, the only way to watch Godzilla Minus One is to head out to a movie theater when it releases on Friday, September 8. You can find a local showing on Fandango. Otherwise, you'll have to wait until it becomes available to rent or purchase on digital platforms like Vudu, Apple, YouTube, and Amazon or available to stream on Max.
Godzilla Minus One is still currently in theaters if you want to experience all the film's twists and turns in a traditional cinema. But there's also now an option to watch the film at home. As of March 28, 2024, Godzilla Minus One is available on HBO Max. Only those with a subscription to the service can watch the movie. Because the film is distributed by 20th Century Studios, it's one of the last films of the year to head to HBO Max due to a streaming deal in lieu of Disney acquiring 20th Century Studios, as Variety reports. At the end of 2023, 20th Century Studios' films will head to Hulu or Disney+ once they leave theaters.
IS Godzilla Minus One MOVIE ON NETFLIX, CRUNCHYROLL, HULU, OR AMAZON PRIME
Netflix: Godzilla Minus One is currently not available on Netflix. However, fans of dark fantasy films can explore other thrilling options such as Doctor Strange to keep themselves entertained.
Crunchyroll: Crunchyroll and Funimation have acquired the rights to distribute Godzilla Minus One in North America. Stay tuned for its release on the platform in the coming months. In the meantime, indulge in dark fantasy shows like Spider-man to fulfill your entertainment needs.
Hulu: Unfortunately, Godzilla Minus One is not available for streaming on Hulu. However, Hulu offers a variety of other exciting options like Afro Samurai Resurrection or Ninja Scroll to keep you entertained.
Disney+: Godzilla Minus One is not currently available for streaming on Disney+. Fans will have to wait until late December, when it is expected to be released on the platform. Disney typically releases its films on Disney+ around 45-60 days after their theatrical release, ensuring an immersive cinematic experience for viewers.
IS Godzilla Minus One ON AMAZON PRIME VIDEO?
Godzilla Minus One movie could eventually be available to watch on Prime Video, though it will likely be a paid digital release rather than being included with an Amazon Prime subscription. This means that rather than watching the movie as part of an existing subscription fee, you may have to pay money to rent the movie digitally on Amazon. However, Warner Bros. and Amazon have yet to discuss whether or not this will be the case.
WHEN WILL 'Godzilla Minus One ', BE AVAILABLE ON BLU-RAY AND DVD?
HERE'S HOW TO WATCH 'Godzilla Minus One ' ONLINE STREAMING IN AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND
To watch 'Godzilla Minus One ' (2023) for free online streaming in Australia and New Zealand, you can explore options like gomovies.one and gomovies.today, as mentioned in the search results. However, please note that the legality and safety of using such websites may vary, so exercise caution when accessing them. Additionally, you can check if the movie is available on popular streaming platforms like Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime Video, as they often offer a wide selection of movies and TV.

TLDR: I’ve been dating my girlfriend for 7-8 months now and have progressively seen red flags involving trying to isolate me and being narcissistic. However this is in the really grey area as there is conflicting details, so is this 100%? What actions should I make if so, without breaking up immediately as I already have a trip booked with her and my two friends in August.
This might be unorganized a little, but feel free to ask me any questions.
I’m starting to rethink who my girlfriend is after several months of being in a relationship. We’ve had many great memories, but there are a few times where I question if she’s a great person based on how she acts and what she says.
First off, she kinda comes off as an asshole to other people especially behind their back (at least I’m assuming so since for the most part I’ve not seen these people as they’re either irrelevant now in forms such as ex-friends). From some of the stories I hear about these people, a lot are dickish one way or another. But then she just makes unnecessary comments about them like “weird”, “fat”, “ugly”, “broke” etc. She also loves right-wing-coded celebs and gives racist vibes where she dick-rides rich classy white people and acts like they’re superior (she’s Asian herself but often brings up how all her school friends were white and everything like that). She’s raged a few times about the fact her parents can’t speak English after 20+ years in the US (not sure why they don’t but they can talk enough to have basic convos) and then starts ranting about why immigrants (or at least Asian ones) would live here in the US if they can’t speak English and how they’re dumb.
A big reason why I think she’s an emotionally manipulative person is because she was apparently forced to teach at her grandmas daycare since she was 11 (quit this year) and taught little kids bringing up how she knows how each individual child acts and develops behavior. A part of me thinks she might use this knowledge at recognizing behaviors to become great at manipulating others. She also quit her job because apparently last semester (which I saw supposedly happen in real time) her rich “evil” grandma stopped paying for her private college since her parents were leaching off of her. This could make sense, but she actually stopped going to that school already that semester before the incident happened and would turn her location off going there saying she was at the other school. When I figured out she stopped going there earlier than I thought (she didn’t tell her friends either) I asked why she would lie about that and then she broke down crying about how her dad apparently had cancer and could die so he couldn’t pay for school. What I don’t get is why she would have to make up a lie about her “evil” grandma magically taking money out of an account and suing the family ONE SEMESTER AFTER it happened. She’s also never mentioned her dad being sick since this happened in December and has said before she only cries when she’s angry. Recently after I didn’t really want to post her on my Instagram account she got all mad at me for the whole night and started talking about how she’s been embarrassed of her whole life by her parents (who are making her get plastic surgery) and how it was happening again. In reality I just didn’t want to do it cause I barely post and my posts weren’t getting any attention or likes at the time.
For context, asides from the school year when I’m at my dorm (1 hour drive) for classes (where we FaceTime or text instead), we’re together almost 24/7. This was fine as I am also anxiously attached for the most part. But since I came back from school a month ago I’ve been getting kinda tired of just hanging out when we would just do nothing and drink (if it’s a sleepover), and more recently I’ve had suspicions of he trying to isolate me. Let me explain…
Early on in the fall/winter we would be at my house for the most part (during the school year so only the weekends or holiday breaks). Then around this year it shifted back and forth to her place which was fine as I never got to see her parents much before then. However around February/March she told me she wanted me to move in her house as soon as I can and not mine because she didn’t like how my mom gave me no responsibilities and was too attached to me. Don’t get me wrong, a lot of this IS true and we did hang out a lot beforehand because I did not see my friends much and I would walk my dog with her since I had nothing else to do. She did act weird too once I had a girlfriend, so yes I can understand where she is coming from. At some point around that time too she came clean about how her comment about my “wife” not liking me because of a picky eater when my parents and her are out once. This struck her because my mom kinda worded it as if the wife was someone else. Okay… You all can call me out on this and I will own up to it, but as I know her Reddit (we both do but she doesn’t know I know hers) I saw a post she made right after and she genuinely seemed to be worried about the comment and even defended saying she DID take her out to eat etc. For whatever reason though she didn’t care and just hated her more and would just slowly distance herself from my house. On multiple occasions since then she said says my moms in love with me and is having emotional incest with me, but in a way that her parents were better than mine even though she’s said on multiple occasions early on in the relationship that they were crazy and evil (even showing me a page of her elementary school diary where she talked about hating her mom before we even dated. So now I would I only be going to her place mostly. She would also get super pissed when I decided to go my house to watch my dog who was alone, mostly because she was the only one with a car and driving back and forth. This is where I will say that she DOES drive me almost all the time and pays for me since I’m practically a broke college student, so this is pretty understandable. HOWEVER, now that I can drive to her place with my dads car she doesn’t care that much still and we still only hangout at her place (with her driving too) because I can’t stay late or over if my dad needs the car for something. So basically this summer half of the time I’ve been sleeping over at her place when she’s only stayed here about 3 nights total since I came back. Of course she has brought up her frustration with her driving me everywhere and paying for me, but the points she brought up were questionable. As she was mad about me going home and apparently making my schedule revolve around a dog, she said I shouldn’t put her first. Once I asked who she puts first she just “herself” in a cocky ass way. She also on a few instances compared me to other guys she’s dated or whatever and how she missed being treated like a princess. She basically said she had a girlfriend, and similarly a week ago threw a fit cause I was scared to hold a bag with a live lobster cause I “wasn’t being a man”.
Now with my friends… We originally met through a common friend, so we did in a way share a friend group. However I started to see my college friends (other groups) less and less during the school year as I went home every weekend, but I didn’t complain much since they didn’t hangout much themselves anyways. My roommates would meet her and my friend who graduated too, and recently my other friend (most of these were still liked enough to have been included in trips/events we planned)/ There was no conflict last semester other than me and her sometimes making harmless inside jokes about people we knew. However, there were two not so great events. Let’s start with my town friend group. One of my friends first met her at in December briefly, and once I told her he said she was racist she immediately just hated him in particular. Later in March she met three other friends in the same group and ended up only liking one of the friends. Us three planned to drink and chill at my place the next weekend and the other friends were also invited to go of course. Next weekend comes and that friend never shows up and three other ones come instead. It was going well in the beginning until she accidentally knocked over my vase we had on the floor. I was in shock and just left to go upstairs to my room to process the whole thing cause I thought I was absolutely fucked (which I wasn’t). My girlfriend came upstairs to get me to go back downstairs. Still in shock she said basic sorrys but obviously I was still upset and nervous. She then started getting mad saying “what else do you want me to do” and stuff like “do you want me to go on my knees and cry” etc. My friends started texting each other in the corner of my eye calling her a red flag when one started asking why she was getting so defensive. He ended up yelling at her (which I didn’t condone) and eventually she stormed out and left just to come back half an hour or so later. So now she just hates all of them and even calls them “broke” or whatever cause our town is kinda bad. Now my other friend is more in the grey area. This was my close family friend of 15 years and roommate at the time. He is a pretty jealous and emotionally immature person. So he would kind of be awkward with me at times once I had a girlfriend, but the two still talked to each other. There was a time my dog was in the hospital and I was asleep, so she contacted him but he sort of refused to wake me up and gave attitude to her. So she kind of resented him after that, despite just going on her phone when we were at the ER picking her up (which she said if she didn’t care she wouldn’t have gone her way to drive to my house and go with my parents there even when she had errands to do). Okay, so during the final morning of this friend he was just throwing inappropriate jabs about me and my alarm clocks as he hates loud noises. I leave and go back with my girlfriend to campus as my two friends wanted to eat and also watch a movie. Last minute they invited my other friend who well call Bob (and who she really likes) and this roommate to come. Bob tells me how my roommate was just straight up ranting about me to him before we got there, about my alarm clocks and my girlfriend too. Because my girlfriend doesn’t like movies she kinda says she just wants to drink instead, which Bob then wants to do too. My two other friends don’t really care, but my roommate starts getting pissed and says that my girlfriend is trying to hijack the plans and stuff. Then she kinda just lashes out while all my friends start laughing at and he just storms away then, blocking us a couple days later. He WAS in the wrong, but I want to include all the conflicts with her and my friends.
As I kinda started to see signs of possible isolation and controlling, I deliberately woke up late today and did what I needed to get done first. My girlfriend was mad I practically wasted the day by waking up late though if we were to go her house most likely we would just sleep there too and do nothing. Once I got there around 5 we didn’t really do much and then she got super mad once she heard I was leaving in an hour and said I just didn’t want to see her and was making excuses to leave, saying I would do nothing at home anyways. As I left she was just pretty cold and pissed, and this is where we left off.
Sorry this is a lot and messy, but I just wanted to give all the context so people could have a better understanding of my situation. I just want to know if my girlfriend has a hidden agenda against me and if there is something I need to look out for…

Hey everyone, sorry for the length but I have no idea how to shorten this sh*tshow
TLDR: My narcissistic mother has continuously crossed boundaries and acted in ways that boarder on emotional incest with my boyfriend of six years. For his mental health he needs to go no contact but encourages me to make my own decisions regarding my relationship with them. How do I break this news to my parents and enforce this boundary?
I (25F, Emily) and my boyfriend (26M, Cam) have been together for about 6 years now. Over the course of our relationship, my parents have not been all that respectful to either of us, especially not him.
For some family background, my mother has always been a handful, bordering on emotionally abusive toward my father and myself. She displays many narcissistic tendencies such as having an inflated ego, changing the narrative of stories to victimize herself, not respecting boundaries and seeing said boundaries as a personal attack against her character. She has been like this my entire life. While I do believe that she has good intentions when it comes to how she treats me, and I know that she loves me in her own way, it's incredibly difficult to be around. Over the years, her behevior has caused both myself, and my father, to develop some relatively detrimental coping mechanisms; namely derealization, dissociation and maladaptave daydreaming. My mom has consistently made me question not only how I remember events involving her, but also how I should feel regarding these events. This has directly influenced my ability to remember events accurately and as a negative coping mechanism I struggle with internal gaslighting of my own emotions. In terms of my dad, he never does anything regarding my mothers behevior, and has actively encouraged the negative coping mechanisms I mentioned above. I am in therapy for all of this, which has been helping, but I feel that it is important context for the situation at hand.
Over the course of our relationship, my mother has been very two-faced. To our faces she (verbally) acts very supportive, and attempts to be supportive through 'action'. This action is simply love bombing with gifts and compliments. I found out a while ago that for the first few years of our relationship, she had been 'venting' to our closest family friends about how Cam was actively trying to drive a wedge between myself and her. In reality, I had just started figuring out that her behevior was not normal and negatively influenced my mental health so I distanced myself during college. She also told many of her friends and my family about how she thought he was emotionally abusing me and that he was a narcissist (extremely untrue, Cam is a total sweetheart with a bit of a tough-guy exterior).
Now, onto her being...creepy with Cam. Example a) Sniffing him (double huff on one occasion, single sniff on another) in public, right after he got off a 12 hour manual labor work day. Then proceeded to say that he 'smelled like her mom' who was also a manual labor worker when she was young. In front of other people, including my father.
Example b) after all four of us went hiking and we got backt to the car, she offered Cam, and only Cam, a full body tick check. Not her husband. Not her daughter. But her daughters boyfriend.
There are a few more examples of similar behevior, but im going to skip to Cams breaking point this past fall. When Cam and I were giving my mom a small house tour and we got to the bedroom, I made a comment about how it was pretty small. She proceeded to say "well all you two will do in here is sleep and have s*x so the size doesn't really matter". I could have let this go, except that later that day when my mom and I were sitting on the couch downstairs we were discussing how both Cam and I had unintentionally lost some weight over the summer due to extra physical exercise, and she proceeded to say "as long as he doesn't lose that cute butt of his". I was STUNNED in the moment and awkwardly laughed it off, later confronting her over text about how that behavior was completely unacceptable moving forward. I of course told Cam what happened because I was shaken up, and he was also creeped out a little bit angry, but said he was glad that I stood up for him and set a boundary with her (a notoriously difficult task for me), but he had a lot to think about.
Fast forward a few months and some more attempted emotional manipulation from my mother and he has come to the decision that for his own mental health, he has to go no contact with my parents. To clarify, he still actively encourages me to have a relationship with them, if that is what I so choose. He has stated many times that he will never force me to choose between him and them, just that he can no longer tolerate being around them... in contact with them... anything. So for the last couple months I have been blatantly lying, saying he is busy with his family, or sick, or working. Anything to avoid telling them that he will no longer be in their life and that I am okay with this boundary and will support him in it. I genuinely am okay with this, I respect and love my partner, he supports me in everything I do and treats me like a princess. My love for him is equally as deep and I need to stand my ground for my chosen family. But I'm terrified of the confrontation, every time I try to set a boundary with her I am somehow made to feel as though I am being unreasonable or being a bad daughter.
At this point I am not ready to go no contact with my parents, they are the only family I have. No cousins, siblings, or grandparents left (including both sides). They are also on the older side (mid to late 60s) so I dont have a ton of time left with them (they're in relatively poor health) and I still love them, so I want them to be in my life. I just want some healthy distance. In an ideal world, all four of us could have a happy and healthy relationship, but in reality we simply can't.
So THT family, I ask how can I go about this confrontation? How can I maintain this boundary? I am beyond grateful for any insight/advice/personal antectdotes/kind words.

I (16f) have always had some what of a strained relationship with my dad(48~49m) due to the fact that he wasnt ever around since he was in the military, i dont really have a story because itd be out of order and not make sense but heres a list!
He

1. doesnt listen during "family meetings" when we (my siblings and i)express our frustrations with him, instead throwing it back in our faces and blaming us for being upset in the first place
2. tells us hes trying his best but its hard so he drinks because he doesnt want to yell at us and proceeds not to improve
3. gets upset over the smallest things (a real example is him sending me outside for 30 minutes because i forgot to say goodmorning
4. gets upset we dont want to hang out with him because of his temper and desire to have everything exactly the way he wants
5. yells at us and brings our dead mother in every lecture while art the same time saying "i dont want to bring her up, but.."
6. gets mad at me for wanting to start being financially independent with things like snacks for myself, calling me selfish because he buys snacks for my younger siblings (i dont eat them so idk why hes mad)
7. put parental controls on my phone because of a missing practice grade, he said he would only put on time limits if i didnt do any assignments (he lied lol.)
8. gets upset i want to get a job and buy my own phone so i dont have to deal with parental controls
9. gets upset i want a bit of freedom over how i dress (nothing crazy. just something more comfortable within that winter based school dresscode...)
10. gets upset i didnt like his incest/ weird jokes abt me being his wife when im literally his kid and it creeped me out... (as of now he stopped making those jokes so yay i guess)
11. got upset with me over an email i made when i was 9, yelled at me over cyber security???
12. yelled at me for wanting to bake cookies ( i can no longer use the oven for baking without asking)
13. yelled at me when i recorded him yelling at my sister and sent it to my godmother because hes violent and keeps threatening us when hes mad (i ended up getting my phone taken away lol)
14. gets upset with me for not asking for things ( he guilt trips me later when i do one thing wrong by saing he got me "all those things" and i act "that way")
15. got mad at me for only thinking about myself when he was downstairs making dinner for the first time in months (i showered for the first time in weeks, and yes, i rarely shower because im scared of getting yelled at for being selfish)
16. beat me up because i went to a school concert after writing a note on the fridge i had a concert that day (im in chorus, it was a test grade, it was while i didnt have my phone on me)
17. tries hugging me directly after altercations like the one in #16.
18. constantly using my late mother as a weapon against me and my siblings
19. doesnt help out in the house since he does all the work, i guess that means me and my sister should bathe my youngest brother, make dinner for everyone, wash the dishes, keep the house clean, do their laundry, get them to bed, help them with their homework (as soon as he gets back from work he has a shot of rum or something man)
20. gets upset with me for doing my homework
21. gets upset with me for having bad grades
22. gets upset with me for focusing on my school work when grades are tanking
23. gets upset with me for not liking ONE specific thing we make every wednesday for dinner (sorry guys i hate okra im a criminal now..)
24. gets upset with me because i actually get mad and sad and overwhelmed during times of extreme pressure

I feel a blanket of sadness draped over me. My head feels clear, but my heart has a soft drapery of sad. I am grieving but in a subtle way. When I focus in on the sadness, the blanket covering my heart, I notice that my head feels clear, as does my face, my hands. My legs and my feet. I think its draped over my whole being, but feels pretty significant over my heart and is really more so just covering my body like a protectant from the sun rather than touching me.
When I ask the question why do I feel sad? Its easier to answer that question when standing up. I feel sad for all of the patterns in my life that are ingrained that I didnt choose. I feel sad for experiencing emotional incest and abuse. When I think too deeply about this it makes me feel sick. I feel sad for wearing cloaks and drapes of others that were not mine to wear. I feel sad for quieting my voice, for abandoning myself, for denying parts of who I am and for discrediting my knowings time and time again. I am sad for negating my needs, negating my feelings and sacrificing so much of my being for others. I am sad that I tried so hard to be seen and known, that I had to become so loud and wear hats that weren’t mine to wear. That I became a jester or clown. That I drank to be able to give without feeling. That I drank so I could give myself away more easily.
I also feel this grief from realizing I am not special. I am a girl with needs, feelings and a voice. Who can now speak up. Who has a separate sense of self. Who will no longer give that away or let anyone take it from her. Who is not here to save the world. But just to be. Be me. And thats pretty normal. And not special.
This feeling of being me is no longer tied to hope, to want, to desire. It just is. I’m just me. Its not tied to me having to do anything, or be anybody - because prior to this acceptance of self I was always lost in the doing and the being. And it was a fun fantasy. One day I’ll get there.. But now the fantasy is gone. And I am here with the allowance and knowing of I am and thats all I'll ever be. I guess you could say thats beautiful and devistatingly sad all at the same time.
No one tells you there is a grief associated with being rooted in your sense of self. Maybe thats because its never been defined. When you are always figuring out who you are, your sense of self lies far out in the future. It hasnt been defined yet. Its to be determined. It’s exciting and wild and a journey. It takes stories and experiences to discover her, to meet her to know her. But what happens when you bring that idea to the present and meet her? The fantasy, the dream, the chase, it all ceases to exist. Thats loss. There is loss there. But there is also a deep ease. A comfort.

So- I'm continuing in light of what I've written in the past, if you'd like to read over my previous posts, feel free to do so here-
Please note- most of what is written here is from Nahida S Nisa's tafsir on the story of Lut. You can read it for yourself here- https://thefatalfeminist.com/2020/12/07/prophet-lut-a-s-and-bal-%d8%a8%d9%84-the-nahida-s-nisa-tafsi )
Regarding the Popular "Test" Narrative- and why it's false- and a smokescreen for further incoherencies- https://www.reddit.com/LGBT_Muslims/comments/1cy3o0x/how_to_approach_the_narrative_of_its_a_test/
Regarding how to navigate conflation of Sexuality with Paraphilias and Incest, and how bringing such up is throwing stones in a glass house- https://www.reddit.com/LGBT_Muslims/comments/1cz5iq6/differentiating_paraphilias_and_sexuality_and/
Introduction
In this post, I'm going to be talking about why the common idea of Lut offering up women as a heterosexual alternative to the men not only doesn't work logically, it also contradicts quranic verses and blatantly defames Prophet Lut and ascribes him as having been complicit in sexually trafficking his own children.
Typically, most muslims will point to 11:78, saying that when the mob came to his house, Lut offered up his daughters to divert the mob away. This is seen as Lut defiantly resisting their demands and holding up the station of prophethood, as a valiant effort. If you consider the story to be just about same sex relations, this would make sense. Offer is made, it's rejected, and divine wrath happens. Seems simple enough.
Unfortunately, this basic reading has many disturbing implications and illogicalities that need to be addressed. The attempts mainstream readings have used to try to deal in damage control only exacerbate these issues.
To this end- I'm going to be focusing on three aspects as to why this interpretation doesn't work, and how in light of those aspects leading to the mainstream view becoming untenable, how we can approach this view.

1. The issue of logistics

When most read 11:78, the idea that often comes to mind is that Lut is offering his daughters up to the mob in order to serve as a sexual alternative. Yet, there stands an issue- how are all of Lut's daughters going to sexually satisfy these men?
One option would be that they each married a large group from amongst them. This would be polyandry, which is typically considered prohibited by most understandings, usually due to 4:24.
When one considers that 4:24 in fact may not be talking about not marrying married women (as the word used to refer to married- muhsanat- in 4:24 refers to chaste women elsewhere in the quran exclusively besides this verse- https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=HSn#(4:24:1)) )- this then opens up the issue of lacking consent for marriage. (we will discuss this later). This would then allow for polyandry or polygamy both if one assumes muhsanat in 4:24 to mean what it does elsewhere. Additionally, the orthodox reading of 4:24 allows for polyandry with those of the right hand regardless, so there is a loophole one way or another.
Some may point out that if we take the forbidden forced marriage reading then the second half of the verse would justify forcing slave women to marriage, but 24:33 bans trafficking of slave women if they wish to keep their chastity- some may then argue this was only talking about just forced sex work, but the principle of this verse would likely be better read in a universal sense applying to all cases. The verse then becomes somewhat strangely tongue-in-cheek, and thus there is the possibility of allowance for both polygamy and polyandry.
While it should be noted some more modern understandings lock polygamy to be with only assisting orphans- the quran's offering of it as an option seems to be if one cannot take care of orphans- and that any women of your choice could be married. The context for this verse points to this verse being revealed during what appears to be a time when many widows were common amongst the muslims- though this opens the question of why "marry women of your choice" rather than "the widows" is used to describe the women here. However, while it could be argued that the quran favors marriage to one spouse as one could be unjust, something the quran alludes to- it does not outright prohibit the practice altogether- though it does caution against it for fear of spousal injustice, and that it should be done to help uplift the other parties involved- if one is to incorporate the widow context.
The idea that Lut did not have to ask his daughters about the marriage offer is also inaccurate. We see Ibrahim ask his son before the sacrifice about what to do regarding what he saw in his dream, and the hadith imply one must ask a girl regarding marriage, and that silence means no objections (in the arab tradition of the time). But overall, one must ask. Lut does not do this. The conclusion cannot be that just because they were not men, they did not need to be asked.
But going back to logistics, Lut's scant daughters cannot possibly sexually satisfy the mob. There's simply too many- if they did try this, it's likely this mob would have grown impatient and tried to storm Lut's house anyway. They would have had to quickly marry, sexually sate one of the men of the mob, then break that and marry another. Or they'd all be married to multiple people, and not be able to sate them all in time before they grew impatient. It's both impractical and implausible to the extreme.
To this, mainstream readings tried to insert damage control by arguing that Lut was talking about the city's women- that he was a spiritual father to the people and thus telling them to go to his metaphorical "daughters", not just his own children. However, this doesn't work quranically- as when Lut is described in relation to his people in 26:161- he is listed as their brother. If this is the relation between the two, Lut should have mentioned "these are our sisters" in relation to the women he wanted to offer.
More importantly, even if we were to assume that it was talking about the women of the city, the way 11:78 reads implies the women seem to be in his house. Translators note the verse as "here/or these" in the verse- clearly whoever Lut is talking about is in inside his house. Then, if this is a large mob- how would all of these women have fit into his house?
And more importantly, when we consider that none of Lut's people seemed to have listened to him- why would they even be there to begin with?
Of course, the next issue to tackle is religious disparity.
2. The issue of religious disparity
Typically, most muslims argue in the modern day that believing women cannot marry anything but a muslim. They base this typically on the principles mentioned in Surah Mumtahnah and Surah Baqarah (60:10-11 and 2:221). Interestingly the dominant reading tends to also argue that marriage to folk of the book (as allowed in surah maidah) is a male only privelage- however, no prohibition of such is mentioned quranically- and more importantly- this would assume that a male folk of the book is a pagan, but a female one is not. Thus, belief would be related to one's gender. The rationale for the ban seems to have come out of the idea that a non muslim husband could potentially curtail a muslim woman's rights or abuse her- however this essentially took a legitimate concern and universalized it when even the quran does not do such a thing. However, considering the tribal nature of late antiquity and how religion could forment conflicts, it makes sense how such a prohibition came to be, even if not scripturally indicated.
Yet, here out of nowhere, these rules are essentially ignored- perhaps the idea is that since same sex relations is a "larger sin"- this would be acceptable to combat it.
Now, interestingly, while the verses may be clear cut in modern understandings, their application at some times wasn't. The prophet's own daughter Zainab bint muhammad, remained wed to a pagan man, her cousin Al Aas ibn Al Rabee, for two years after the revelation of 2:221 (which is accounted to have occurred sometime after the hijrah in 622). Their story is mentioned within seerah accounts, and is often recounted as a popular love story.
To begin, Zainab had married Al Aas before revelation began. When news came to Zainab that her father had become a prophet, she spoke to her husband about it. Al Aas however, wasn't ready to accept Islam- he did not want to abandon the ways of his ancestors and his cultural heritage, but he also made it clear he was not accusing the prophet of lying, requesting if Zainab would be patient with him. Zainab replied that as his wife, who else would, and remained by his side for twenty years.
Eventually, the Hijrah began to commence, and Zainab requested permission from her father to stay with her husband, and the prophet allowed this. While Al-Aas did not accept Islam when news came to him of Muhammad's prophethood, he stood steadfastly besides his wife- when the Quraish attempted the same scheme Abu Lahab ordered his sons to do- divorce the daughters of the prophet- Al Aas flatly rebuked their demand- it did not matter what they offered in exchange- such as a beautiful woman of the quraish- he didn't budge, and in doing so outright humiliated the quraish who had banked on Al-Aas giving up on Zainab. The two remained together, despite this.
Eventually, the battle of Badr came, and Al-Aas was ordered to go fight- it's likely if he didn't Zainab and him would have faced consequences- so he fought and was captured by the muslims. Zainab, while fearful of her husband's death- soon received news that he lived- and that a ransom would need to be paid. To pay this off, Zainab gave an onyx necklace belonging to her mother- Khadijah. According to traditional historiographic recrods, Khadijah had by this point died due to a pagan led boycott upon banu hashim at the hands of the Quraish. The necklace made it's way to Madinah, and the prophet was left in tears over seeing it. As a result, the prophet let al-aas go, but the condition that Zainab needed to come to Madinah.
Eventually, Al-Aas returned to Makkah, where he told Zainab of the conditions of his release. Zainab asked if he could come with her, but as he had not converted, he said he would not be able to come, saddening her. A howdah was then readied for her (a kind of palanquin atop a horse or camel), but as she was leaving, she was attacked due to those of the Quraish feeling that her leaving in such a manner was not appropriate due to it feeling like an even deeper insult after their losses at Badr, and the altercation resulted in her having a miscarriage. Her brother in law- Al-Aas's brother Amr- was enraged at this and threatened to put an arrow in anybody who tried to try to go after her- as he was serving as her escort. Abu Sufyan then told Amr that Zainab would need to leave Madinah discreetly. She did so, and eventually made it to Madinah.
Al-Aas eventually wound up getting captured again in a caravan ambush led by some muslims, and eventually sought protection from Zainab after sneaking into Madinah, and she declared publicly in the masjid of Madinah that she had freed Al-Aas from being a prisoner and that he was under her protection now, and thus of the muslims as well. The prophet honored this request. Al-Aas eventually converted to Islam after settling some financial matters with the Quraish, but the injuries caused by her on her ride back to madinah caused her to die only a few years later, leaving al-aas in deep grief. Traditions imply he either remarried, or died shortly after a grieving widower.
Now typically, what is often seen is the fact that the tradition often paint this story in ways that try to indicate this was an exception to the rule due to the marriage occurring before the banning verses were revealed. However, some of the commentaries on this story state that Al-Aas and Zainab did not have to renegotiate mahr or a nikah, though some do- the former would imply their marriage was never voided in the first place- and considering how tribal early muslims were on the basis of religion, as well as people in late antiquity and the middle ages in general, that folk in those times found this version of the story (no renegotiation) as plausible is striking.
Additionally, there is the fact that while Surah Baqarah was revealed in 622, Zainab and Al-Aas were not separated until 624- while some try to argue that the prophet ordered Zainab that she couldn't be with her husband after the necklace exchange and her coming back- and that's entirely plausible considering abrogation principles- the fact remains that for over two years the prophet simply didn't do anything about it. Some try to argue he couldn't due to them being in makkah and he in madinah, but even if she was in Makkah, a missive or some means of notice that would have been recognized could have been smuggled in- Al-Aas would have allowed her to leave- she was not held hostage. In fact, it likely would have been easier for her to leave before Badr than when she did as before that people leaving Makkah was likely significantly easier- they may have hated the muslims but they weren't at war just yet. Some traditions also seem to imply she died while she was pregnant, which further complicates matters- this is mentioned in Orbala's research paper- https://www.academia.edu/103025948/The_Quran_on_Muslim_Womens_Marriage_to_Non_Muslims_Premodern_Exegetical_Strategies_Contradictions_and_Assumptions, however it should be noted that some versions of the story argue that it was complications brought about by the attack and her miscarriage that caused her death a few years later, not that she was pregnant at the time of death, or that the prophet forbade Zainab from having relations with Al-Aas.
Regardless however, the fact remains that if we are to argue for an exception to the polythiest banning verses, it would be to somebody like Al-Aas. Not the folk of Lut, who clearly have little love for Lut and little to no good character at all.
Now however, we must come to the next issue- that of tactical failure.
3. Issue of Tactical Failure
Typically, most of the arguments that Lut was offering up an alternative do realize that his daughters wouldn't be enough. So, many do argue that Lut was speaking about the city's women, urging them to go back to them. While this could be plausible (and even could work in an affirming reading telling them to stop assaulting travellers and seek out honest marriages)- the main reason this doesn't work is because tactically the move fails.
The quran makes it clear in 26:165-166 that the folk of Lut had spouses, which they had not necessarily left, if we assume the reading of bal as no. 27:54-55 and 7:80-81 also share the same sentence structure, then one must identify their spouses as having been women (azwaj and women match in their places in the verses). If that's true, then the folk of Lut having access to heterosexual relations hadn't helped fix anything.
More importantly, this would mean Lut was attempting to use an already exhausted option to fend off the mob- one that wouldn't even work as they were still technically wed to them. So essentially, Lut's offer becomes a tactical blunder that doesn't help anybody because it has already been implemented, and failed already to stop anything. This also would imply all, or a large majority the women of the city were in his house as per the "here are my daughters" part of the verse, which ties back into logistical issues. And of course, Lut not asking his daughters about his marriage offer- which would directly affect them- then ties into consent issues.
So then, the question becomes- how does one read Lut's offer- without either defaming him or turning him into somebody who makes no sense? One reading is to see his offer as a deception, that cleverly utilized the logic of the townspeople against them to protect his guests.
Reading Lut's Offer as Well-Meant Deception- Co-Opting Xenophobic Hierarchies for Good Purposes
When the mob responds to Lut's offer about the daughters- they say something somewhat strange in 11:78. To paraphrase, they argue that "we have no right on your daughters, and you know what we want". This is right when they have surrounded his house in a mob and are demanding the angels (disguised as foreign travellers) to come out. They later try to break into Lut's house and are promptly blinded (likely by the angels, as per the biblical tradition) and then run off.
The issue of "right" regarding Lut's daughters is an interesting nuance that is often dismissed. Some translate the word used for right- haqqin- to mean need or want- but the word almost always means right to something in the quran elsewhere, and many translators do use right for haqqin in 11:78, or something along the lines of "we have no claim". And if we take the "right" or "claim" view on haqqin for this verse, then this would mean that Lut's daughters were off-limits for whatever they wanted to do- which in this case was essentially break into Lut's house and sexually assault his guests in a blatant violation of hospitality law.
So the question becomes- why are they off-limits for what they wanted to do? If one tries to assume the issue is about gender as the mainstream view holds, then the situation and how the mob speaks about Lut's daughters doesn't really make a lot of sense. Didn't they have wives as we see in 26:165-166? But if we look at from the perspective of natives vs foreigners- a xenophobic perspective really- then things start to become clearer.
Elsewhere in the quran, the mob states that Lut has been forbidden from the alimeen. Many pointing to the fact that Lut is fretful for his guests and asks for support against the mob has led some translators to see the mob as implying Lut was forbidden from hosting or protecting the alimeen. In this case, the alimeen as we see in 26:165-166 are the foreigners, as as when the mob refers to the angels, they do not refer to them as "rijal" but rather as "alimeen". The mob seems to be more concerned over their foriegn status rather than that they are men.
The use of trickery by prophets isn't anything new. Yusuf slipped a chalice into his brother Binyameen's bag to engineer a hostage situation while obeying Egyptian Law/religious custom (as per the usage of the word shariah in the verse detailing the contriving of the chalice scheme) in Surah Yusuf, and much later during the Exodus, Musa and his people fled Egypt in the dead of night to deceive the Pharaoh and his soldiers.
Thus, Lut's "offering" in truth could be construed as a clever ploy on his end to utilize the xenophobic logic of the town against them. So the question then becomes, why does it fail? It is here that we must turn our attention to Lut's wife- a figure widely seen as a traitor to her husband.
Lut's wife- Ally or Outer?
In popular mainstream readings, Lut's wife is often equated to those who affirm or are kinder toward same sex relations and those who engage in such (that is an "ally"). However, to equate her with those who support same sex individuals from having loving relationships is a major stretch and to some degree- outright false.
When we look at her actions in the story of Lut, we see that she has both the motive and the ability to be responsible for one thing- the leaking out of the news that Lut had guests over at his house. More importantly, it's implied Lut's wife lagged behind- she did not leave with her daughters or Lut as they fled the city. Thus, the attack of the mob can be directly traced back to her information breach.
In that sense, Lut's wife actually takes on the archetype of an outer. Much like those who out individuals who are gay, sapphic or bisexual/trans leaving them vulnerable to harm, Lut's wife similarly outed the angels by mentioning they were in Lut's house so they could be attacked. It is for this that she is eventually punished alongside the rest of the people from the cities.
Reinterpretation of Prophetic Stories- Is it Possible?
Now, after all this, one may be pressed to ask- can such reinterpretation of prophetic stories even be possible? History shows us that such is true.
To do this, we can take a look at Surah Sad, where a particularly odd incident during Dawud's life is mentioned. The quran implies that this incident was a story that was already known to those in Arabia- involving Dawud being woken up in the middle of the night, only to find two men in front of him. Half-frightened out of his wits likely thinking these were assasins, the men then describe why they came to him- one of them owned 99 ewes, and the other 1, but the former was attempting to take even that one ewe from the latter. Dawud ruled very quickly that such a seizure was not okay, and then proceeded to ask forgiveness for some manner of misdemeanor he had committed.
What is often not talked about this story is how it seems to parallel- and potentially outright reference- a scene from the Bathsheba incident of the Torah. This incident involved Dawud feeling attraction for a married women by the name of Bathsheba- who he saw bathing at one point- who was wed to one of his generals- Uriah the Hittite. To wed him for himself, he proceeded to arrange for Uriah's death and then did so. Later after doing this, another prophet by the name of Neithan orders two men with the ewe case to show up and it is here that Dawud realizes he has erred greatly, asking for forgiveness.
This story saw several responses in the muslim tradition, as many noticed the fact that the quranic ewe incident seemed much too similar to the affair of bathsheba to be a coincidence. Some of the earliest traditions likely seemed to have accepted the story near completely, as the doctrine of ismah had not fully formed yet, and more focus was given on judeo-christain sources. Later tellings seem to have re-interpreted the scene as Dawud having felt attraction for Bathseba, but the ewes case was sent as a warning much like how Yusuf was warded away from Zuleikha- the Wife of Al-Aziz- but not denying that he had attraction from her- and that he may have wed her after her husband died in battle honorably- rather than being sent to his doom in the biblical account. However, most commentaries eventually under the purview of the ismah doctrine eventually retconned and struck out this incident in it's entirety as being entirely fabricated- under the reason that a prophet would not behave in such a manner. (source: https://hcommons.org/app/uploads/sites/1001499/2019/10/Pregill\_Mohammed-David-in-the-Muslim-Tradition.pdf)- note this is a review of a book discussing the matter.
This isn't the only case where we see such reinterpretations. With Yusuf's story, considerable alterations in how the Wife of Al Aziz is presented- in how her motivations for Yusuf seem to be related to love rather than just mere lust (and the implication that it took divine intervention for Yusuf to not go to her- implying mutual attraction and love), the humanizing scene of her desire in the scene of the banquet of the bloody knives, her repentance and confession of her actions regarding Yusuf, and Yusuf's covering for her by not asking the king to summon her for questioning in order to exonerate her while he was in prison speaking with the winepresser- instead asking for those who cut their hands to speak- and being more harsh with his brothers than her- has led to a very rich tradition of stories that see Zuleikha as a mad lover seeking out the divine presence rather than simply a malevolent adultress- which she first sees in Yusuf, and it is later this love for Yusuf that helps her change her ways- though she does this moreso on her own.
This particular understanding of her character is popular in Sufi poetry. Many also have pointed out that with her husband as being possibly impotent, and how a woman in her time may have been constrained by society to be stuck with her husband, Zuleikha's adultery attempt may have been her lashing out to gain autonomy for herself- an incorrect action, but with understandable and even valid motivations. Of course, there are plenty of tafsirs and understandings that do paint her as more the malevolent seductress as well. But the fact remains that if Dawud outright had portions of his story retconned out to fit theological understandings, why can't we do the same with Lut?
Conclusion
Overall, the mainstream interpretation of Lut offering his daughters has various issues, weather it be theological discrepancies, logistically being incoherent, and frankly painting him in a very negative light. In light of this, understanding Lut's actions as a ploy to keep his guests safe using their xenophobic understandings and turning the tables on them through it- though unfortunately failing due to his wife- rather than throwing his daughters in harm's way- seems to be the only possible solution.

CORRECTION: I slandered Schopenhauer here, a mistake that was probably caught by many but pointed out to me by:
Consistent_Log_8346•12h ago
Schopenhauer was childless by all accounts. I think your confusing him with erwin schrodinger. Whose famous thought expirement is schrodingers cat. He had a thing for adolescent girls one of them being jungers aunt.
I was confused, relied on memory, an old man's memory which failed--and I kick myself again for not checking myself against my sources, I apologize for such a grievous mistake. Both men are giants, and their sexual histories, whatever they are, do not negate their important work, which is what I should have been talking about anyway.
-----------------------[edited]
Back a-ways, I posted about McCarthy's favorite lifelong reading, using the Nautilus article of McCarthy's friend and colleague, David Krakauer. I posted an annotated list which included Montaigne, Wittgenstein, Charles Sanders Peirce, and Eric Hoffer. I realized then that this was incomplete, but we only have so much space, and McCarthy's reading remained very wide his entire life.
The link is here: How to live - Cormac McCarthy :
A poster named Green Boutonniere came into the forum. He had read prepublication copies but was puzzled and came, I think, not to gloat to us but to seek some answers without giving anything vital away. He recommended a pre-read of Benjamin Labatut's WHEN WE CEASE TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD.
I told him that I had already read it, after seeing that it was one of Barak Obama's picks during the previous summer, but I really had no clue how it would relate to McCarthy. As I recall now, we began talking about Grothendieck and Schrodinger.
Labatut goes into some detail about [edit: Schrodinger's]'s serial sexual addiction, including being in love with one of his 14-year-old students and making her pregnant when she was sixteen. Since the pre-publicity gossip was all about adult/minor incest, we began to believe that it would be relevant.
Back in May of 2021, there was an interview of Sebastian Junger in THE GUARDIAN in which he discussed Cormac McCarthy’s works. Junger himself is the noted author of the landmark non-fiction book, THE PERFECT STORM (made into the George Clooney film) and a number of other very good books. Junger details his most severe brush with death, when he lost so much blood, his chances to survive were dim.
A lifelong atheist, yet he dreamed that as he was slipping into a black hole, his long dead father appeared before him and started to comfort him. He survived, barely, and was so puzzled by his experiences that he began to seek out others who had similar experiences. He is a Democrat, and was anti-Trump, but Junger says that his work will appeal to freedom loving people everywhere, or so he hopes.
Martin Pengelly conducted the interview and admitted that he had never read SUTTREE, which made Junger go on for a couple of paragraphs about what a masterpiece it is, along with BLOOD MERIDIAN and THE ROAD.
I noted at the time:

A McCarthy affectionado, a genuine seeker, and a terrific writer, Junger is 60 and his birthday is 1/17. It may be that he will have (or has had by now) a greater spiritual awakening, and if so, perhaps his best work is yet to be published.

That was then, this is now. I've just read his newest book, IN MY TIME OF DYING: HOW I CAME FACE TO FACE WITH THE IDEA OF AN AFTERLIFE (just published a couple of weeks ago) and it is amazingly good. He gives interesting details about Schrodinger's relationships with his great aunts, documented with references and with a full bibliography.
And perhaps even more interesting to other THE PASSENGESTELLA MARIS readers, the last section delves into math and physics and cosmology. In here too is the story of the historical man upon whom Herman Melville based the Pequod's Pip. Wow. It got me looking again at THE PERFECT STORM and all those MOBY DICK references.