[ SECRET POST #2518 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2518 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 060 secrets from Secret Submission Post #360.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I don't understand -- are you saying it's impossible for a villain to both manipulate someone and have affection for someone at the same time? Because uh....that's so not true. As someone who has experienced and observed this up close several times IRL, it's perfectly possible to have genuine loving feelings for someone AND still be totally emotionally manipulating them.

[kaijinscendre]

No but I think when the only time you show affection is to manipulate someone, then you don't really care about them. That is not to say other actions between the above were manipulative, but the ones shown are.

Basically, showing affection to manipulate is NOT true affection.

[(Anonymous)]

da

I'd say it's definitely true affection, just not the sort of affection people like to receive.

[(Anonymous)]

It IS true affection. It's just not positive affection. Affection is not a universally "good" emotion.

[kaijinscendre]

Then...how does this "bad" affection make them less of a villain?

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt It doesn't make them less of a villain, story wise. But their character can be more complex than that. I've seen this enough in real life where a person can do/feel both for it to register with me.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly. And if Rapunzel no longer had her coveted hair, how much longer would Gothel's "affection" have lasted?

Affection and love between a mother and child shouldn't be conditional. Gothel's was. And the second Rapunzel wised up and truly rebelled, Gothel turned ugly, gagged and chained her and murdered her boyfriend. Not because she was jealous of their relationship, but because she was going to lose Rapunzel's precious hair.

Fucked up, conditional affection doesn't make a villain human. It makes them profoundly selfish and self-serving.

[intrigueing]

Er...not to burst your bubble or align myself with any particular opinion because I really don't feel that strongly about it, but...how are "human" and "profoundly selfish and self-serving" at all incompatible?

And why would it be impossible for conditional affection (which is terrible) to exist, just because it shouldn't exist? Lots of things exist and are human even though they are awful.

[(Anonymous)]

Conditional affection is common in humans.

[(Anonymous)]

Of course affection between a parent and child must be conditional - the question is just what exactly those conditions are. They're usually not "you have something that I want" and more "you're not a completely horrible human being, where did I go wrooooong".

[(Anonymous)]

Not very long at all, as Gothel would be dead. As demonstrated in the film.

[(Anonymous)]

You have a rather fucked up definition of love.

IT'S OKAY TO USE SOMEBODY JUST AS LONG AS YOU LOOOOVE THEM

No. No it's not. It's disrespectful and cruel, and is absolutely NOT love at all.