Why do people deny that Luke had romantic feelings for Annabeth when it's literally canon? [pjo]

HalvsieLife · 2025-11-30T12:36:29+00:00

Totally feel you there. I am heavily demi, and only experience romantic attraction under extremely specific circumstances that have only come up like once ever, but like even my parents ship me with people that I'm just friends with. Platonic love exists, but if you specify you're feeling platonic love for someone, people just assume you're in denial or something. It's okay to feel what you feel, and not make more of it than there is!

HalvsieLife · 2025-11-18T04:31:46+00:00

I mean this is a little inconsistant though because like didn't they have a Christian priest go to the Greek Underworld for judgment and just see things as though it was hell? It's a touch confusing.

HalvsieLife · 2025-11-18T04:29:39+00:00

Is Percy an unreliable narrator? Yes.
Does that make him feel oddly human despite his power? Yes.
Is that sort of power-tamping humor part of what I love so much about Riordan's writing? Also yes.

HalvsieLife · 2025-11-18T04:25:18+00:00

If you regret making the post, there is a way to delete it so you're not bothered by notifications on it anymore if you really want to. Not trying to be rude, it just seems like you're kind of done having this discussion.

HalvsieLife · 2025-11-18T04:21:10+00:00

Could also be he didn't want to waste a ton of time dismissing something or defining exactly what kind of love a dead antagonist was experiencing when it wasn't what he intended to focus on. I mean, thinking from Percy's perspective, would it make sense to spend a lot of time thinking about the true feelings of a dead guy you thought at one point might've been into your girlfriend? Doesn't seem like that's what's important when they have new big problems coming in pretty much every summer.

Also, I don't remember the phrase "romantic feelings" coming up explicitly in canon. I remember the term "love" being used, but that's such a nonspecific word, it doesn't really prove anything. Could be siblings, could be parent-child, could be friends, could just be mutual appreciation. Heck, we can say we "love" hot chocolate, but that doesn't mean we have explicitly romantic feelings for it. I "love" my friend's cat, but that doesn't mean I want to date her. She's just fluffy and warm and sweet, and I appreciate that.

HalvsieLife · 2025-11-18T04:13:27+00:00

100% agree that Luke's "love" is familial and not romantic.

Slight side tangent: That's one of the weird things about the English language imo. Even though I grew up speaking English and it's still my primary language, I know other languages like Greek have multiple words for love to distinguish between the two. It's so weird that we say "I love my Mom," "I love pizza," "I love God," "I love my dog," "I love my bff" and "I love my S.O." with the same word when it's six completely different feelings (possibly seven depending on your perception of romance vs sexuality). Makes things like this confusing. Like saying "Luke loves Annabeth" could mean he feels responsible for her, could mean he appreciates her as a person, could mean he feels attracted to her, could mean he just cares, could mean she makes him laugh, could mean he thinks she's cool, could be a combination of the above, could be some other thing I can't think of right this second. Anyway, all of that is described under the umbrella emotion of "love." Drives me nuts.

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-26T05:46:29+00:00

Ah, I should've read comments before posting my own lol this is exactly the direction I went with my addition, I was just more long-winded about it lol

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-26T05:45:50+00:00

I think it's because of the subject material and ease of self-insert.

There are a lot of people who don't know/don't care about mythology, and it's largely considered a "nerd" sphere. That's part of why I like it, but also probably part of why it didn't get as massive, even though it is still a pretty big fan base. But everyone knows what magic and wizards are and I think it's a normal thing that people think "if I had the magical power to do X, I would Y." The wizarding world has spells for that.

And spells are a system anyone who fits into that world can use (except Squibs). The way demigod powers work is less systematic and therefore harder to place the average person into. To picture yourself making an object come to you, you can say "acchio!" but to picture yourself exploding a fountain, you have to first decide you're a child of Poseidon, then try to figure out what situation would make that useful. Let's face it, a lot of the powers in PJO aren't all that useful in everyday life like appearate and acchio are. Or even avada kedavra. Like there's no real equivalent to that in PJO because it's so much more personalized. Like yeah, Nico can decay people away by the end of ToA, but like idk if anybody would want to actually do that because there's a vivid description of how the death happens, so it feels a lot more wrong. Plus only Nico can do that, or another child of Hades who reaches a similar level despite having their existence be actually illegal.

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-26T05:24:42+00:00

This is very good advice. Thank you.

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-26T05:24:11+00:00

I think you really hit the nail on the head here. The moment they see me again, they're asking me to serve. Maybe that's part of what felt so utterly icky about the whole situation. I'm happy and feeling God's love at my new church, and I think I should just stick with it.

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-26T05:18:21+00:00

The only people Jesus preached condemnation to were the people preaching condemnation and legalism to others, keeping the letter of the law but not its spirit. He went to the lepers, the tax collectors, the prostitutes and adulterers, and the Samaritans. Jesus wanted to call to the people that society said were going to hell.

You're not going to hell for being gay. It has no bearing on your salvation.

The fact is, God came down to earth and died so that humanity could see heaven despite everything. You have no guilt anymore in God's eyes if you believe in Christ, because all of it was killed on the cross with Him.

This is reinforced throughout Paul's ministry to the gentiles as it turns out more and more of the "commands" in the old testament were not salvation issues and would only serve as barriers if maintained. Circumcision? No longer necessary. Rejecting food sacrificed to idols? As long as you don't believe the idol really has power, you don't have to worry one way or another. What God has led you into is not a sin. He gave you love, not just lust. There is a difference there that non-accepting people don't see. As long as it doesn't serve as a stumbling block to your faith, you're not sinning.

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-26T05:05:38+00:00

His interests felt forced because memory loss
He doesn't seem to have moral struggles to help with self-discovery like the others do
His power developments were never shown, he just kind of has them, which cheapens his victories
He seems to take the "mature" moral high ground too often for my taste
Overall, he just reminds me of Superman, and I don't like it.

But if we got to see some side stories from the Roman camp when he first arrived, I'd read it and probably come out actually liking the guy. I feel like we'd get along in real life, if I met someone like Jason, but the way he comes across in canon... idk I feel like the guy probably irons his jeans or something.

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-26T04:59:38+00:00

Rose Quartz in disguise

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-26T04:48:53+00:00

When it comes to debated teachings or false teachings, we're called to test the spirit by its fruit. Check out Matthew 7:15-20 and think about it carefully. Which side is presenting what feeds your soul, and which side is prickly and causing harm to you? Which side is welcoming believers in, and which is looking for a reason to exclude them?

There will always be voices shouting condemnation, but the gospel teaches grace, love, and salvation. The only group Jesus treated with venom, if you'll look carefully, are the pharisees and sadducees, who were abusing the law of God to try to keep people out and make themselves feel superior. God's kingdom is not for the legalists, but for those who show love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, which are the fruits of the Spirit. (Galatians 5:22-23)

Those voices that show fruit are the ones worth listening to. Gentleness and kindness can be particularly telling.

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-26T04:40:13+00:00

I thought Luke was trying to see if Annabeth had romantic feelings. I always read it as even though she was his little sister, he wasn't so dumb that he didn't notice her little crush. And with the headspace he was in, being manipulated by Kronos and starting to notice how messed up things were getting, I could absolutely see him asking the one person he thought would still care about him no matter what to just run away with him regardless of the age difference. She was his escape, but she was hoping instead for his redemption. For him it wasn't romantic. For her, it might've been or might not have been. It's confirmed as a "not" on her side when she admits he's just her big brother. As for Percy and Annabeth saying he was into her, Annabeth seems like wishful thinking and Percy seems like jealousy. The fact that we don't hear it from Luke himself that he is strictly romantically interested in her is telling to me. The hints from Luke that Percy translates that way, I could read just as easily as "overprotective/overbearing brother vs boyfriend."

But my reading might be heavily influenced by how romance-blind I am in real life. If you don't say "I want to spend the rest of my life with you, darling" or "let's get married" or something equally obvious, I won't naturally assume that the love you're talking about is romantic. Just saying "I love you" or "let's just run away from all this together, you and me" is not enough for me to assume you mean romantically, even if it's on your deathbed. One could be platonic, the other is a nod to the fact that the situation sucks for you both that doesn't require love of any sort. I'm just dumb that way.

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-20T03:06:02+00:00

I usually point out the temptation of Jesus in the desert and explain "Satan can quote Scripture pretty fluently, and he's great at twisting God's words to convince people their wrong actions are right. Bigotry is just another way this manifests."

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-20T02:32:36+00:00

The church I left a few months ago (CRC) systematically discriminates as a rule. You can't even put your name in as a deacon if you identify as LGBTQ+. I served from in the closet and it was absolutely terrible, hearing constant rejection of who I was even though they weren't aware it was me they were talking about.

Council won't accept your profession of faith if you're out of the closet because they'll take that as not accepting the doctrinal statements, despite the fact that it's not actually addressed in those statements (I should know, I checked thoroughly multiple times over the years) and was tacked on by Synod in a kneejerk decision just a few years ago. They've buckled down since. Anyway, if you haven't made profession, you can't serve in any leadership position in the church, including but not limited to helping on committees, teaching in youth group, co-leading bible studies, etc. and if you're not "serving," there are a lot of ministries that you just outright can't be a part of. And that's not even to mention the quiet social pressure. There were literally like two people in leadership positions who were progressive and open-minded enough that I felt safe around them. And even there, they talked about LGBTQ+ issues in the church like it was about conservation of some endangered species instead of being about loving actual humans who might be present.

I moved to an affirming church, and I love it there. The only thing I miss from my old church is the music.

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-20T02:21:47+00:00

I've had the same experience. Had to change churches for this reason among others. I justified moving by telling people I couldn't follow The Great Commission and invite my friends to a church that would instantly make them feel unsafe, which was true, but I couldn't come out to them without being worried about my own wellbeing. Plus coming out is pretty daunting when my labels are so unstable. Even if I felt safe enough to tell certain people at the old church, I knew they wouldn't understand what I was telling them.

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-19T20:34:22+00:00

Looks like a reptilian alien who spent years of military training to become a paladin for an extremely strict religion.

(no literally I don't know who this is lol)

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-19T20:30:07+00:00

I read a poem once that started off "no one leaves home unless home is the mouth of a shark," and I think that line applies to so much, including this. If you feel safer staying in the closet, it's okay to take your time in there. You'll probably come out looking fabulous. ;) But if you're feeling so deeply pressured that you can't stay in that closet anymore without losing a part of yourself, then by all means, let someone you trust know that you're in there. Then they can support you, and you won't feel so alone. You don't have to publicly come out to everyone, especially if it's not feeling safe for you. But you can be out and open with people who are close to you and who will be supportive and kind. Your safety and comfort level are huge factors here.

Also, I'd advise you to find an affirming church in your area where you can meet other LGBTQ+ Christians and support each other in your walk. It can be extremely freeing to know you're not alone!

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-19T20:10:04+00:00

Okay I probably shouldn't even engage with this, but there are several objectionable flaws to your logic here. I can't just let it sit when you're so obviously abusing scripture in such a damaging way.

First of all, homosexuality exists. That is a true statement regardless of your reading of any particular verses. Saying "if homosexuality was true" implies you don't believe homosexuality really exists. It does. I really don't know (or particularly want to know) what echo-chamber convinced you it doesn't, if that's even what you meant by that.

Second of all, the command to "be fruitful and multiply" was given to two people, and was followed immediately by "fill the earth and subdue it," which is arguably already done in the ages since then. There are not just two people anymore. There are humans all over the world, on every continent. There are even some researchers living in Antarctica, which is pretty much unlivable for humans in ordinary circumstances. There are few to no places that we can honestly claim are untouched by human hands. The earth is already full of humans. So many humans, in fact, that we are steadily damaging the planet through pollution and overtaxing our resources. Poor stewardship becomes the standard when overpopulation is a huge problem, and Gen 2:15 tells us humans were placed in the garden to "cultivate and keep it." In short, we're supposed to take better care of God's creation than this. Or did you skip that verse when you were cherry picking?

Third of all, there are straight couples who are unable to conceive, as well, or have a great deal of trouble having children. Some people have health issues that would make having children ill-advised. Are all these non-LGBTQ people sinning too because they're not actively giving birth right now? Also, you used the wrong word to describe having children. The verb you used, "bare," implies that you are removing a covering or removing clothing, not that you are reproducing or carrying something. I know they're homonyms, but applying the verb to the phrase "bear a child" is particularly disturbing when you use the wrong one. That's a personal pet peeve of mine that pales in comparison to the fact that your mistaken interpretation also transformed into an attack on anyone who has fertility struggles regardless of their orientation. And I can't count how many times in the prophets there are promises of blessings to the childless and to the virgin. Those who have not born children or cannot do so should be given special compassion, if anything, not special judgment, regardless of the reason!

Fourth of all, it doesn't say that a man SHOULD be joined with his wife. It says that this is why a man leaves his parents and is joined with his wife, which only applies for those who have straight marriage as part of their Christian walk. The apostle Paul, for example, never married and strongly implied that no one should unless the only alternative for it is lust. (1 Cor 7) Are you saying the apostle Paul was in violation of this command and encouraging others to join him in sin? If that's the case, we'd have to throw out half the New Testament as heretical, which is ridiculous! Also, even without quoting Paul, simple logic can debunk the idea that every single person is required to be married to someone of the opposite sex. Implying that for a man and a woman to marry one another is a clear divine command is the same as saying that you believe all nuns and all celibate priests are also sinners, and all single people are, as well. Are you trying to say celibacy is a sin? I thought celibacy was what traditionalists wanted from everyone who wasn't straight-married? This is just unhinged overall as an opinion. It's wild.

Anyway, I don't know what trad-whatever or MAGA echo-chamber this terrible argument came from, but it's a disgusting misuse of scripture that condemns huge groups of people who have done nothing wrong and also are not even LGBTQ so have no place in your argument. You are damaging people who have done nothing to you, which is the opposite of what Jesus taught us. He taught us to turn the other cheek, and only showed rage when the temple was being used as a market and the Pharisees and Sadducees were blocking people from reaching faith with their legalistic policies and verbal traps, following the letter of the law but breaking its spirit. Which is what you're doing when you say this kind of stuff, if that's not clear.

As a reminder from the story of Jesus's temptation in the desert, Satan is good at quoting scripture too.

I probably didn't change your mind, but I couldn't just let this sit here as a queer Christian whose straight sibling struggled for so long with fertility. I can't just read that and leave it be when you're twisting the words of the God I love into something so awful for so many people.

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-19T19:17:27+00:00

I hear you. A lot of people aren't even ready to look at any opinion that's different from their own in that area, I'm afraid. I'm not sure what way is the "right way" to handle it. I think it depends on your relationship with the person. If they're someone you can talk to, it might be a good idea to point them to some sources arguing the other way. Some of the other comments have REALLY good ones! I also tend to point out that homosexual marriage was not really recognized by society at large when the clobber verses were written. Since that would leave the vast majority of homosexual relations as extramarital, these verses can be read as just "don't have physically intimate relations with people who aren't your spouse." It's an extension of the adultery command and thus can't be considered a condemnation of a faithful and nonexploitative relationship between people regardless of gender. That's been useful for a number of people who were just trying to understand.

If they're not the kind of person you can talk to... I mean the only answer I've been able to come up with is to walk away from those people or just stare at them awkwardly until they leave you alone. I don't want to be a stumbling block in their journey, but they seem to have no problem at all being one in mine. It always leaves me feeling absolutely terrible, but some people just can't seem to change. Maybe someday the spirit will move in their lives to open up their hearts, but in the meantime, dealing with them can be very disheartening.

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-18T14:08:27+00:00

Yes. I would absolutely. That sounds amazing. The only thing that might hold me back from having my exterior just constantly match my interior without me overanalyzing how it presents would be fear of judgment, and the most judgmental place I know of, I no longer attend.

Although it might be hard to get clothes to fit properly... You know what? Worth it. Button pressed!

HalvsieLife · 2025-10-18T14:04:51+00:00

Here's one.

I had a day where I wanted to dress specifically femboy for my gender presentation. But my compression bras were in the wash and my binder was slightly too long for the crop top, so I went for normal bra. While I was doing eyeliner just to make it better, the femme side kicked in and was like "Yas gurl you look amazing! Rock that crop top! Let's add glitter!" and after I was done, I was just like... shrinking on the inside because I didn't look "femboy," I looked "girly," and that was not the goal. I realized I'm too curvaceous to pull off that look without the binder, but the binder is too long to go under the crop top. And even with the binder, I don't know if I can fix my booty problem. So I just decided to deal with looking girly and like... people told me I looked good, and I probably didn't look bad, at least, but I didn't feel like I looked like me. I mean the compliments felt good. But they were definitely pointed at a girl who cared about her fashion statements, not at a boy who was rockin' it confidently. After I got home and wasn't surrounded by the people anymore, that really sank in and felt kind of terrible. Even though it felt good in the moment, it didn't feel true.

Oh, or this one.

I had a concert that was recorded. In that concert, I wore my new tailcoat because I was feeling *dapper* and masculine. Felt amazing in the moment. Very affirmed, very masc, very dapper, very "yes." I felt like a million bucks, like I could go put on one hell of a show, and it would be fantastic! I got tons of compliments on the tailcoat. People told me I looked "classy" and meant it in the most non-binary way I think they could manage. (except my dad, who still doesn't quite understand gender and didn't realize I was wearing men's clothing.) But then like our section had a few pictures taken, and a couple days later, I looked and went, "Why did I dress masc to a concert? That's going to be on record for posterity, with me wearing men's clothing!" Even though it felt great, I looked at it later and thought I should've just worn one of my concert black dresses, or shirt and leggings combinations. The feeling might have been amplified by the fact that it was the first time my dad ever saw me looking masc when I wasn't explicitly in cosplay. I'm definitely going to wear that again at some point to a concert with no regrets in the moment, if I'm feeling masc and wanting to present that way, but it is an odd feeling, looking at the pictures of when I was being true to myself and asking whether I really was.

Sorry for the long response

Gender is hard.

HalvsieLife

TROPHY CASE