People magazine recently announced this year’s Sexiest Man Alive, which makes it a great time to ask: Can we get rid of the whole tradition of People’s Sexiest Man Alive?

The annual cover is a lightweight honorific that worked its way into the public consciousness as way more legitimate than it actually is. Kind of like winning a Golden Globe.

Think about the inherent ridiculousness of declaring anyone the sexiest person alive. Sexiness, by its very nature, is subjective. So it’s a winky joke that People offers up its own tastes as if they are everyone’s. And by making their subject male, they’re tacitly saying: See, we’re not objectifying women, we’re so evolved. Men can be objects of lust too! Maybe that was (arguably) a subversive statement in the 1980s, when Playboy, Penthouse and other magazines imposed a misogynist ideal of sexiness at the newsstands. But now? Not so much.

And when you consider the enduring ubiquity of People, its insistence on shaping our taste in men feels less funny. The magazine’s tradition began in 1985 with a candidate whose appeal, I think we can agree, has not aged well: Mel Gibson, now infamous for his antisemitic rants. It’s worth noting that a bunch of SMAs subsequently made headlines for pretty troubling reasons.

The vast majority of People’s SMAs have been White, straight men with generic good looks. In its 37 years, the magazine has featured four (also chiseled and straight) Black men – Denzel Washington, Michael B. Jordan, John Legend and Idris Elba - and one biracial man, Dwayne Johnson.

Nobody is disputing these are handsome men (even ones who’ve proven themselves to be ugly on the inside). But their looks represent the narrowest sliver of the range of humanity.

Where’s the sexiness in that? As Tracy Moore wrote in Jezebel, “sexy is a construct, and unfortunately, in this world, it’s a very very very unimaginative, narrow, boring one that fails to address many sexy things and focuses on other, boring things that have been sexy for so long I’m willing to suggest right here they might have even lost some of their sexy.” As she points out, “we’re so conditioned toward the fake image that it has become normalized as Definitively Sexy.”

What if we just acknowledged there’s a huge spectrum of what people actually consider sexy in a man, without trying to fit the term into a one-size-fits-all container? Different people are attracted to different body types, different orientations, different presentations of gender. Some men look really good in dresses, just for example. By reliably announcing the same presentation of masculinity, over and over, as the BEST kind, this tradition of SMA is just shoring up the many ways that beautiful people are rewarded in countless ways in our culture.

As one study has noted, “people seem to assume that positive interpersonal qualities and physical attractiveness are systematically linked.” Arguing about the definition of what’s sexy may seem silly, but it has real-world implications for anyone who doesn’t live up to a rigid stereotype about what it is or isn’t. One 2020 study claimed that “compared with people of average attractiveness, the highly attractive earn roughly 20 percent more and are recommended for promotion more frequently.” In less stark economic terms, it stands to reason that reinforcing a status quo about what’s acceptably sexy makes people with differing views feel less empowered to be open about it.

Compared to newer titles, People can seem like a bit of a relic, but it’s the publication that jump-started the business of marketing celebrity to the public. It’s still available in plenty of waiting rooms the world over. So when people pick it up and see that another White, wealthy, successful, straight, American, able-bodied guy has been crowned The Sexiest, it reinforces the idea that everyone who deviates from that norm is inherently less than.

A study found that “People magazine had the largest audience in the United States in June 2022, with an average monthly reach of 81.35 million people.” It has the power to wave its pop-cultural wand and confer “sexiest” status on anyone it wants. (As one tweet put it: “Imagine if sexiest man alive had (been) a wheelchair user?”)

There’s real damage done when media continues to idealize masculinity in such a limited way. “The more men cling to rigid views of masculinity, the more likely they are to be depressed, or disdainful, or lonely,” wrote Monica Hesse in the Washington Post. The effect, quite possibly, applies to both reader and subject.

None of these problems with the title itself should cast any aspersions on this year’s SMA, Chris Evans, by all accounts a genuinely nice guy who’s long been interested in using his fame to advance good causes. But there’s an inevitable schtick involved in being anointed the SMA that he plays into: “‘The Gray Man’ star is also bracing for some good-natured ribbing from his close friends. ‘Really this will just be a point of bullying,’ he jokes. ‘It’s ripe for harassment.’” Actors who’ve participated in a lengthy photo shoot and interview and, one imagines, a lot of back-and-forth to arrange the whole thing, still have to do an aw-shucks-who-me affect about showing up for the gig.

Personally, I’d love to see an SMA give an interview where he talks about the increased wealth that comes with the title; what movie doesn’t want its leading actor to be an SMA? Or openly discusses the massive advantages he’s already enjoyed in his career thanks to being the kind of hot that mainstream pop culture considers acceptable. Or acknowledges the damage that can happen when the media insists on a retrograde definition of masculinity.

Now that would be sexy.

2023 is the year for asking the burning questions like "What if David Tennant came back to play a queer, nonbinary, nearly-immortal, otherworldly being that loves Earth and whose greatest adversary list somehow includes a cup of coffee?"

(I'm a security guard.)

I miss people using non-medicalized terms for other people's passions

like. well and good to talk about "hyperfixations," "special interests [in the context of an autistic person's favorite subject]," or "infodumping" if you have ADD/ADHD or autism, or are talking about someone who is, but...that's not everyone who feels strongly about something, obsesses, or loves talking about their interests. those words mean specific things, associated with specific forms of neurodivergence

don't assume everyone is comfortable with that language

"rambling" is a word; so is "ranting." "obsession" is a word. "passion" is a word. learn them and use them

Elemental (2023)

I'm sorry I let down my guard.

[First] Prev <–-> Next

i'm so so sorry to the people that didn't get to see saltburn in theaters because imo it was truly the best way to watch it

feeding off of the energy of all the other people in a packed theater, it feels SO much more voyeuristic with strangers sitting right next to you in a dark room with all your senses heightened, the soft gasps, the shocked laughs, people mumbling "what the fuck" to their movie partner next to them under their breath, i cannot describe the high i got off of seeing it in theaters

the genuine goosebumps i had from the soundtrack in surround sound, from rosamund's gut-wrenching scream, it is just not the same at home

i feel like if you didn't see it in theaters, it's not fair to give it a terrible review because it is really a completely different experience

"I want Annabeth to be blonde :(" then pick up a PJO book and read it you dumb fuck

dont normally post about drama but this seems relevant:

im seeing a lot of people jump to "james somerton was never good anyways" in retaliation for the hbomb expose, but there's a really fine line to tread there before you get into stepping on the toes of the people he stole from, you know?

some of his videos and analysis did seem genuinely intelligent, thoughtful, insightful, and well-written. yeah, it turns out those are the result of him stealing from other people. but that doesnt mean the original writers WEREN'T intelligent, thoughtful, insightful and good writers. he had plenty of garbage opinions interspersed throughout, but the reason many people (myself included) were suckered in by him is that the queer creators he stole from DID have really important and interesting analysis. the parts of his videos that were good were stolen, but by discounting his essays entirely we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater and insisting those he stole from didn't have anything important to say.

the parts he himself supplied were trash, but he stole the work of some genuinely brilliant and insightful writers and passed it off as his own- and that writing still exists and is still brilliant and insightful; we just know now who was actually responsible for it and who to thank for that work

lets just be careful when we smugly proclaim that we always hated everything he had to say- because a lot of the words we're discounting were never his to begin with, and the last thing those authors need is to have their work trash talked because it ended up in the mouth of someone dishonest

This election day, I'm thinking of my Nana.

I'm thinking of how as a young woman, she fled political violence in her native Colombia to build a new home in a more stable country. I'm thinking about how she lived a long life, but not long enough to see her home country elect its first ever progressive president (just a few months ago!).

Coincidentally, I was living in Colombia at that time (in the very city she grew up in), and I was able to witness what felt like a miracle. A very conservative country, suffering from the violent inheritance of colonization and catholic invasion and the war on drugs, against a backdrop of the dangerous global rise of the far right--this unlikely country managed to elect one of the most progressive heads of state in the world, in 2022. That's a pretty big deal.

And I'm thinking about this, this election day, because that election was won by a very thin margin. I'm thinking about how it almost didn't happen. I'm thinking about how it was only possible thanks to the highest voter turnout in 20 year. And I am thinking about the countless number of voters who chose to vote for the first time. I am thinking of the poorest and most disenfranchised citizens who showed up at the polls. I am thinking of the indigenous women who rode 12 hours on public buses to vote at the 'nearest' polling stations. I am thinking of all the money and corruption that went into preventing minority citizens from voting, and I'm thinking about how they showed up in the millions and voted anyway.

I am thinking that I would like to see a miracle like that in my own home country.

So if you're on the fence about waiting in line today to cast your vote, I hope that you will think--about the country you want to live in, the future you hope will unfold, and about all of the people it takes to make a miracle.

Because history may deem us nameless and faceless, but when we show up en masse, we are the ones who make history happen.

And yes, maybe also spare a thought for my Nana. Who was in fact a very angry and judgemental woman who supported the republican party for 50+ years, and who would be turning in her grave right now (if the family hadn't had her cremated). Think about the mean angry ghost of my Colombian grandmother, who very much wants you to not show up at the polls to support abortion and other sinful progressive values. Think about her. Do it for her. Do it for Nana.

Tim Drake has a weird fucking function

The thing about Tim that I find unique is that his life became SO MUCH WORSE after joining the heroing thing. Everybody else had a mid-to-shit life before becoming a hero/living with Bruce and mostly everybody (except Jason who LITERALLY DIED) had their life improved by being a hero/being Bruce's kid (or at least it is typically portrayed as such.

Tim had the exact opposite trajectory. His life wasn't perfect before he became Robin, but like...multi-millionaire/billionaire (canon is unclear, but he's within Gotham's upper-strata) kid with both natural intelligence + charisma and a bright future ahead of him and parents who were emotionally neglectful but nothing really beyond that (which is also a form of trauma, but all of the info we have indicates that the Drakes were no Arthur Brown or David Cain) and he still had other people he could rely on outside of them. He went to boarding school, which could be something horrible OR something amazing depending on your own thoughts/experiences. I grew up having a commute where we'd drive past a really pretty and rich af boarding school that literally everybody in our area DREAMED of going to, so to me the idea of going to boarding school sounds incredible but mileage may vary. Tim seems like the type of kid who would thrive in that though. Based on what we know in canon atm, his pre-robin life was fucking amazing.

And then he starts being the sidekick and working towards becoming Robin. His parents immediately get kidnapped and poison themselves through drinking tainted water; his mom dies and his dad is in a coma. This is not the fault of Robin, but Tim himself muses about the idea that Robin and dead parents are linked: to become Robin completely, you must lose your parents. And with how fate/destiny/canon events can operate in comics universes, maybe he isn't that far off. Once his dad wakes up, their relationship becomes strained as the man grieves the loss of his wife and realizes that his son has been doing vigilantism as a hobby. It is unclear exactly how good of a parent Jack was before the incident, but the results of Tim's involvement with the Robin mantle has definitely made things worse between father and son. Jack will also die within quick succession of 2 of Tim's best friends, his girlfriend, and his other father. He will also effectively lose like 1/2 his loved ones in the fallout of all of that mess including: his older brother, his other friends (both civilian and superhero), and the stepmother with whom he shared what I would argue is his best parent-child relationship (Dana also may have died, but it's left unclear). He has stopped pursuing higher education (the moment he even applied for college he 'died', and it seems he hasn't made another attempt since) and if he wasn’t a major focus of the media before he sure is now. He tries to quit briefly (in fact he initially was planning on quitting once someone more suited came along) and cannot bring himself to do so. Even when he does manage to get away for a while, his superhero life impacts the pre-robin life he is trying to go back to. Leaving is an impossibility, this is all there is for him now. He also isn’t allowed to make mistakes anymore, not when lives hang in the balance. The one who enforces that impossible standard the most (besides Bruce depending on who's writing) is himself. He’s got TRAUMA now and people want to hurt him constantly. He is constantly questioning his own sanity and morality and place in the world. He almost dies like every month. Tim grows colder and less grounded, he is becoming both a better and a worse version of himself at the same time. He’s saving lives in the same few issues as he’s setting up a Saw movie plot for the man who killed his father. He is haunted by the ghosts of his past and the looming figure of his future. His life becomes SO MUCH FUCKING WORSE after he becomes Robin. Some of it is the fault of others, some is the fault of circumstance, and some of it is due to his own actions. But basically all of Tim's worst traumas and life-changing moments are either tied to or caused by Robin. Dick's parents would still be dead, Jason would still be living on the streets, Stephanie would still have Arthur Brown for a father and a lot of other things that deserve their own posts/IDK if they've been retconned, and Damian would still have been raised in the eco-cult where death is a constant. Those are life circumstances that occur without the involvement of Robin, the only one who even needs Bruce involved at all in their series of events is Damian. But Tim? All of what is considered his 'worst' moments occur after he assumes the role.

This idea is what I find the coolest and most fascinating about Tim as a character. Being a hero is usually portrayed as either an outright awesome thing or a righteous duty that one must fulfill or (maybe in a grimmer and/or more grounded story) a sacrifice to your interpersonal relationships/mental health that is made for the greater good. For Tim, being a superhero actively ruined his life (both because of the general circumstances surrounding being a kid vigilante and the choices he made as part of that role). It's never portrayed that way in canon because we need to come out of issues going 'wow being a superhero is so cool! I'm gonna buy the next issue!', but when you just look at Tim's life literally everything really bad that we know of occurred after he became Robin.

My all time favorite complaint people have about popular media with even just slightly problematic themes is when they say stuff like "this is the worst thing I've ever read/watched" like ohhhhhh. So you just don't consume a lot of media. I get it now

Bro I hate fundamentalists and culturally-fundie parents they'll say shit like "spare the rod spoil the child am I right haha yea my parents used to have to beat my ass with a switch almost everyday but I sure did learn my lesson" but like??? no you didn't??? you were hit multiple times for something you very obviously did not, in fact, learn

Like studies about how harmful even lightly spanking children is aside, you're literally contradicting yourself?? Some even admitted they got worse as they got older cause they wanted to see how far they could push their parents before they got punished

And studies not aside, you're gonna get child raising advice from the same book that tells you to stone your wife if her hymen doesn't break on your wedding night instead of the decades of research we have now?? Just say you're a bad parent and move on my guy. Skill issue

Yeah Venom of the Red Lotus showed us how crazy powerful Korra is but The Last Stand had Korra transform the destructive power of a massive bomb blast into something regenerative in the culmination of one of the best character arcs I've ever seen. In my OPINION!!

Okay, I just have to say it to anyone feeling isolated or picked on or like the Main Character standing against Amazon's Wot-Show wrongs: nobody is mad that you don't like the show. People have different opinions! Different expectations! In a series this long there's dozens of things people will disagree on in terms of importance and that is normal!

You know what nobody likes?

The condescending, holier-than-thou attitude of some individuals who don't like the show who have decided that It Is Actually Bad And Terrible and anyone who likes it is Wrong.

Who constantly invade show-friendly spaces, who review bomb, who basically act like five year olds having a tantrum in the middle of Target.

People who I'm sorry to say don't seem to understand that there's no one way to adapt a series. Think of it like the works of Shakespeare and move on with your day.

The way I'd do it is going to be different than the way you'd do it, which will be entirely different from the way a third person will do it. That doesn't make any of us wrong - and YET you get mad when reasonable people point out that when you say the show is an Evil Bad Wrong No Good Bad Adaptation Without Question you are discounting those of us who think it's honestly not bad.

And then those same people wrap themselves up in a mantle of hurt and victimhood because everybody is being mean to them! Nobody understands!

Honey, we understand talking to you about the show right now is like talking down some drunk guy in a Denny's parking lot who is screaming at the curb. You aren't making rational points. You are Big Mad and trying to make it the problem of anybody who doesn't think the way you do.

I know I've made an effort to be understanding and empathetic about it, I've tried to explain my reasons for enjoying the show while seeing the point of others who hate it, but I'm tired of only receiving "that's cute you think that but Actually I Am Correct still" in return.

There's no growth, no learning, no further understanding. At this point it's bitching to bitch while pretending to be the only one knowledgeable on the subject. It's screaming about "that's not what I'm asking for!" while, actually, the complaints you're making are very much asking for a perfect 1 to 1 adaptation or some secret third thing that remains a mystery to me.

Either way, I love ya'll, I love WOT, I hope like hell this is a taken as the I Don't Know What Else To Do intervention, come-to-maker post it's meant to be but if it's not and you're angry maybe think about why.

Yesterday, I was talking with a couple of friends about the newest Dimension 20 episode and it was brought up how killer a party the bad kids are. Their levels of optimization and total mastery of the battlefield is a sight to behold. From there, it was mentioned how Bells Hells and the Bad Kids are at the same level (level 13). And naturally, we began to compare the two parties, and it became quickly apparent that one party felt leagues ahead of the other. And that got me thinking, what do the Bad Kids have that Bells Hells don't?

And this is nothing about the players themselves. All 13 players from both CR and D20 are masters of what they do. Their level of strategy and creativity is unparalleled. And you can't say that one group of people is specifically better than the other. So then where are these problems coming from? And then I realized the problems didn’t have anything to do with the players. Not with characters or even their choices

It’s their party composition that’s the real issue.

While on the surface, BHs looks like a very diverse party, everyone in it is very locked into specific roles. We have three melee fighters (who can really only act as melee fighters), two spell casters who mostly have damaging spells (mixed in with some support stuff) and a cleric (that is really locked into their role of healing and support). Fearne is really the only character with any real versatility but because of the current party setup, she kind of has to play support or healing, otherwise the party becomes very unbalanced.

Because so many characters are unable to deviate from their “roles,” everything becomes much harder.

Look at the bad kids in comparison, Adaine can quickly switch from pure damage dealing to support moves very quickly, Fig can switch between melee to spells to straight up healing, and Fabian, who is mostly melee, is still able to take on a support role because of his levels in bard. And while they do have some more rigid roles (Kristen, Gorgug, Riz), these characters still have options via spells.

The best DND parties are the ones where the individual roles are fluid and ever changing. And because BHs setup, that becomes a difficult feat to pull off.

And then I was thinking about why.

Why they would design the party this way if it was so clearly unsteady.

But the thing is, it wasn’t supposed to be.

Because there is one word that explains exactly why the party is what is. One word that simultaneously explains and fixes everything.

One word.

Dorian.

Having a bard in the party would go miles into helping BHs and make a lot of those issues outright disappear. Dorian ,as a Swords bard, can engage in direct melee, but can also provide additional support and be another source of healing within the party. Spells like Hypnotic Pattern, Warding Wind, and Shatter are all incredibly useful within combat, and having caster that can take a hit is always a good thing.

And again, do I think that Bells Hells doing something wrong by having the party they have? Absolutely not. Despite my earlier statements, I'm genuinely impressed by their accomplishments, strategy and overall creativity. I love them all. But having a Bard in the party wouldn't hurt.

TLDR; Dorian we need you.