Ruth: She's the girl of my dreams!

Pete: You say every girl is the girl of your dreams.

Ruth: I have a lot of dreams.

arthur is rude to that one sex worker because the guys are fucking around as they oughtn't be and he actively wants the source of their distraction to go away. that is how he operates through the entire game: deliberate, utilitarian intimidation and strategic unpleasantness to achieve a goal. it is an early game commentary on arthur meant to position him as a big dog that barks. it is not a commentary on his views about women which are clarified many times afterward. you guys realize that right

how different the atla main group and the lok main group are is Still the funniest thing in the world to me. like, the gaang are real sweet best friends, would die for each other and kill for each other, probably, a sprinkle of found family, friendships CAN last more than one lifetime, etc. and then korra has dated literally all of her three best friends. everyone in that group wanted a piece of the avatar’s ass

NGL I have STRONG opinions about digital releases omitting the letters to the editor section of older comics. I feel like the letters are a part of comic history and should be aggressively preserved.

Your au takes place in the 1920’s. I know your au has rarijack, are there any issues because of them being lesbians or is that not really a problem (the general existence of cadence may have caused people to be more accepting sooner idk)

Not really a problem. This AU's supposed to be fun, it wouldn't be fun having to write 90% of characters and settings as vehemently and violently anti-gay. At the very least, bigotry still exists, but social progress is more similar to the 2010s, where queerness is more normalized.

a detective who has a partner🔍 and a partner💕 who are friends so the three of them end up doing a lof things together and the detective refers to them as "my partners" and doesn't realise this makes everyone think they're polyamorous (they do end up polyamorous by the end of the story)

normal things to say

how come you don't draw the ppl / characters you have the hots for

there's a certain kind of artist that can do that... a better type of artist................. and an artist who can stand to look at the reference material for more than a few seconds at a time.

It’s the way you can tell most of the lesbian community are full of bi-hets just by how enraged they are by a lesbian saying she’s proud to have never kissed, dated or had sex with a man. Why are you offended by homosexuality? Shouldn’t you be happy for her? Hm..

Also I hate when the fauxbians who have never had sex with a man are like “I just never happened to have sex with a men because no man wanted me lolll I’m a gold star but ashamed to call myself one :((.” Like as very femme young woman who never has done anything even slightly romantic with a men but has had boys ask me to be their girlfriend and even male friends try to ask me for intimacy since a very young age, and has had to put her foot down and firmly say no ever single time, its so weird that they are deliberately erasing gold star’s life experiences to just being “ugly”. If you would have then you are a bisexual. Full stop.

Listen, the fact that House literally had Lisa Cuddy in front of him and was still thinking about Wilson is all that has to be said.

for real WHERE does the idea that [utdr humans] are nongendered so that "you can project on them" come from. their literal character arcs are about NOT being a blank slate to be filled in by the audience

i think i understand the assumption on some level for undertale, because there is a very intentional effort to make you identify with the "player character" in order to make your choices feel like your own (the beating heart of undertale's metanarrative lies in giving you an alternative path to violence against its enemies after all, and whether you're still willing to persue it for your own selfish reasons. YOUR agency is crucial).

of course, the cardinal plot twist of the main ending sweeps the rug from under your feet on that in every way, and frisk's individuality becomes, in turn, a tool to further UT's OTHER main theme: completionism as a form of diegetic violence within the story. replaying the game would steal frisk's life and happy ending from them for our own perverse sentimentality, emotionally forcing our hand away from the reset button.

i think their neutrality absolutely aids in that immersion. but also, there's this weird attitude by (mostly) cis fans where it being functional within the story makes it... somehow "editable" and "up to the player" as well? which is gross and shows their ass on how they approach gender neutrality in general lol.

but also like. there's plenty of neutral, non PCharacters in undertale and deltarune. even when undertale was just an earthbound fangame and the player immersion metanarrative was completely absent, toby still described frisk as a "young, androgynous person". sometimes characters are just neutral by design. it's not that hard to understand lol.

anyone who makes this argument for kris deltarune is braindead. nothing else to say about it.

I want to make a longer post about this someday but: I think Arya's TWOW arc is going to include her coming to terms with her identity as a Lady. This has been an ongoing conflict with her since her first chapter and I think her flowering in winds is going to mark a turning point. The theory of her having an apprenticeship with the courtesans holds a lot of weight and the idea of Arya going through puberty among a group of unconventional women she's fostered a positive relationship with is just too perfect. It would really have an impact on Arya reconciling her personal idea of what a Lady should be. There's also a lot that she could learn from them in terms of courtesies, communication, appearances, body-language, etc. that would elevate her current skill-set and ways her relationship with them could push the plot.

Not to mention she will undoubtedly reclaim her identity as Arya Stark, and her being a Lady is inseparable from that. Arya Stark is a Lady Stark and being a Lady is a social position, not a measure of how well someone preforms feminine tasks. She shouldn't have to relinquish her position because she doesn't fit patriarchal standards. That's not to say that she's ever going to be the perfect example of a traditional Lady but what I think will happen is that she becomes capable of playing the part. She plays several identities throughout the series but she's always been Arya underneath, so I think it's appropriate that she learns to adopt a "persona" that's part of her. Her remembering Ned putting on his "Lord's face" (+ the various examples of other characters being separate from their ruling persona) makes me think that Arya will be donning her "Lady's face" when she makes a return to Westeros.

one thing about biblical womanhood posts that I’ve noticed is that when it’s talked about, they still strive to emphasize the aspects that were remarkable situations— they leave a faint taste of feminism in my mouth because they focus on Deborah, the woman raised up to lead because the men wouldn’t; they focus on Jael, the woman who kills a man with a tent spike; a woman dropping a stone, Rahab smuggling Israelites and defying authorities—

And all of these are raised up and praised as the Biblical woman with just a hint of look!! We’re strong!! We’re in the thick of it!! We’re not submissive doormats!!

In one sense, this is true. These are great, godly women. They are our examples.

But in all our striving to remind people of biblical women’s strength, we cannot forget who else are our examples.

We cannot forget Ruth. Ruth who humbled herself and remains loyal with Naomi, submitting herself to God and trusting in His provision. Ruth who lays herself at Boaz’s feet and who sacrifices possibly being a widow soon again for the sake of Naomi’s care and God’s provision.

Martha— one who serves and who desires to serve

Mary— one who sits at Christ’s feet to learn and desires to hear the words of her Lord

Lydia— who insisted on hosting and serving the Lord’s messengers; who would be possibly sacrificing her wealth being a part of the church in Philippi and serving the church

Mary— Jesus’ mother who submitted herself to God’s will, submitted herself to the scorn of her peers, who trusted the Lord to fulfill His promises and whose soul was pierced with a sword

The strength of godly wives who submit though their flesh and curse is contrary— the strength of women who order their homes, are humble, are helpers, are mothers, are servers, are menders, are teachers, are caregivers, are sellers and makers, are students of our Lord.

Don’t confuse gentleness for weakness; nor tenderness for a lack of strength.

Women are strong.

And it’s not because of tent spikes.

I'm so tired. And Frustrated.

I'm tired of characters needing to be "in love" every time they love each other. Especially when the media goes out of the way to make it clear that they love each other without ever trying to define that as "in love". They love each other. That is just as valuable. That is Just as worthy. They can be partners without romance. They can be partners without sex.

They Can Be Partners Without Romance.

I am so Sick of not only the idea that for some god forsaken reason, Every single queer relationship needs to be labeled and categorizable to "count" as explicitly queer, but the idea that it needs to be romantic. The notion that characters and stories cannot be queer until you get to see a kiss or people are declared "boyfriends" or something else like that. We are Woefully shy of queer representation on the whole— I'm not saying you can't interpret media however you like. Do what you want.

But I am so sick of characters that Clearly mirror aromantic stories or stories about queerness that just don't focus on romance be called "not good enough" or "homophobic". Not every story is about romance. Not every partnership is romantic.

That doesn't make them not queer. That doesn't make them not important. I can promise you, those of us who don't or can't center romance in our lives? We Are living a queer experience. We are antithetical to amatonormative allonormative expectations for how life "should" be lead.

We get to see ourselves in those stories you're calling "not queer enough". Queerness is complex and weird and Fucking Queer. It's not an analog of straightness or cisness. We're not playing opposite to straightness or cisness. We're not operating in the same Framework— that's what makes us so goddamn queer. We aren't easily definable, and when we try to force ourselves to find one definitive way to be queer, we leave community behind.

So yes. We need more queer stories. We need more queer stories of all kinds that are messy and weird and romantic and aromantic and trans and ace and nonbinary and all over the place because every single story about queerness is going to be different. And that's good.

Normally I’m a huge fan of people leaving reviews and comments on things. Really I am!

HOWEVER. If you are listening to an audiobook narrated by a feminine voice or has a female main somewhere, I am BEGGING you. If your comment is “omg I loved the main male MC but the female mc is SO ANNOYING” or “great plot but the narrators voice is SO SHRILL AND ANNOYING” honestly? Don’t post that. Please examine your internalized misogyny. I certainly had to when I was younger and I still have spots that come up.

And if you must comment negatively, consider helpful reviews such as: “the narrator mumbles and is hard to understand” or “their attempt at a British accent is not very good” or “the sound quality is horrible and the plosives blow my ears out. This sounds unedited”.

Specificity of experience is what makes reviews valuable. Saying “people with feminine voices are shrill and annoying” just makes you sound like misogynistic chihuahua.

The world has trained us to loathe feminine voices. Don’t let it win, especially not against the marathon runners of VA—or you.