also a hug comp

Because i have a problem

Holy fucking shit

I do wanna say re: Silver Backstory and my rec list and my tendency to poke and prod and explore where he may have come from--

That's not me saying that the way his character is presented in the canon *needs* that, at ALL.

First off, the speech on the cliffs, the Solomon Little stories, the complete inability to share?

It's perfect for the character, as well as an absolutely jaw-dropping ballsy as hell decision to make a prequel/adaptation about the most famous pirate figure in Western media and simply... refuse to define him in those terms the way we've seen the other main characters. It's such a ballsy and brilliant move that sometimes I stare at the wall thinking about what they have done and just, god I hope one day I can write something that great. I could go on about that but it's not my main point.

Second off, many ppl have said that the point is that the story of Black Sails itself *becomes* his origin, and in many ways that is absolutely true and I agree.

However, I also wanna point out that the acting and the writing reflect all the information we would ever need to know about John Silver even if he cannot bear to speak it in specifics.

in 4.9, Silver says:

“I have no story to tell. It all might seem as though I’m trying to conceal something from you, but… truth is, there is no story to tell. ... Not unremarkable, just…without relevance. A long time ago, I absolved myself from the obligation of finding any. No need to account for all my life’s events in the context of a story that somehow…defines me. Events, some of which, no one could divine any meaning from…other than that the world is a place of unending horrors. I’ve come to peace with the knowledge…that there is no storyteller imposing any coherence, nor sense, nor grace upon those events. Therefore, there’s no duty on my part to search for it. You know of me all I can bear to be known. All that is relevant to be known."

"Other Than That The World Is A Place Of Unending Horrors."

Now, coming at this as someone with my own fucked up trauma, that one sentence coupled with the performance from Luke really tells us everything we need to know.

So yeah, in a way it both does and doesn't matter that we don't get his history wrapped up in a pretty package, both bc it's NEVER THAT SIMPLE, and bc his REACTIONS to events/ppl are... so VERY clearly the reactions of someone who has been deeply traumatized. We don't NEED to know for the story and character to work EXACTLY as intended.

We can see him, we the audience. If you pay attention, he is not some mystery at all. We may not know exactly what happened to him, but also, we do... don't we?

I was thinking about how we never see the fallout of the clone mutiny on Umbara which one would expect to lead to a some sort of situation- i mean yes, Krell turned out to be a traitor, and yes, any number of things could have happened off screen, but we don’t see it, so- and also the chronic occurrence of Anakin disobeying orders and suffering zero formal consequences, which is not generally how armies work-

and one possible explanation that amuses me is the jedi high command basically deciding on a wink-wink-nudge-nudge approach to these things, with no cases of mutiny or disobedience ever reported, no sir nothing to see here, these clones on the list of the dead are definitely really dead not deserters, and Krell died in action, terribly tragic, Captain Rex is of course an impeccable captain who would never dream of mutiny, etc, and that Ahsoka’s trial was literally the first time anyone in that army ended up in front of a military tribunal at all

the one thing i always hate about that line about daemon whinging on at viserys for not making him the hand is that the hand of the king is a political position that requires political skill in order to function well and get the job done and daemon has spent the entire series showing us that he has the political instincts of a lobotomized tuna fish

I don’t have anyone else to ask, so here I am. What do you think about the term “boy lesbian” ? I just saw a TikTok where a person said they were a boy lesbian not a woman lesbian? I got the same vibe from that as when a lot of people on TikTok tried to say identifying as lesbian was excluding an it should be called non men loving non men?

well my short answer is that i think boy lesbians are cool + sexy + i wish they would all come over 2 my house so we could kiss w tongue <3 however i am sensing from ur message that this is perhaps a concept that u are a bit wary or skeptical about (? might be reading tone incorrectly but that is the vibe i'm getting lol) so i will put a longer answer under the cut:

so i feel like what you're asking when you say "what do you think about this" is essentially "do you think people should be able to call themselves 'boy lesbians'" which. is a source of online discourse that i typically try to avoid because i think discourse about who's "allowed" to identify a certain way in the queer community is basically pointless and does more harm than good. like, at the end of the day, there's really no use in policing who's "allowed" to call themselves what, because people can literally identify themselves however they want and you can't control that, because identity is an inherently personal and subjective experience. and so anytime people do start trying to strictly police identity + draw clear boundaries around who's "allowed" to use which labels, usually the result is just alienating and ostracizing other queer people who we should be in community with, as we share overlapping political struggles.

but. looking specifically at the term "boy lesbian" (and terms like it). i know a lot of people immediately get up in arms going "the whole point of lesbian is that there's NO BOYS!!!!!" but. personally i do not think that's true. every label currently used by the queer community is historically and contextually specific; most labels like 'gay' 'lesbian' and 'trans' are umbrella terms that include broad and varied communities of people who do not all share exactly the same identities or experiences. and the label 'lesbian' as an umbrella term has not always been used + conceptualized historically the way it's used today; it has also not always been 'exclusively women who aren't attracted to men' or whatever other definition people try to claim. many lesbians, especially gender nonconforming lesbians, have complex + nuanced + fraught relationships to gender + womanhood, and there has specifically always been a lot of overlap in (using today's terms) transmasculine and lesbian communities. leslie feinberg's stone butch blues comes immediately to mind as one example of lesbian experience that does not align simply or perfectly with womanhood and is much more nebulously transmasculine. at the end of the day, it's impossible to draw strict definitional boundaries around umbrella terms like "lesbian," because to do so will always inevitably fail to account for certain people who do identify with the term--and what right does anyone have to tell someone else that their personal experience of identity isn't "allowed?"

like - defining lesbianism as either centered around womanhood or positioned against manhood both inevitably devolve into gender essentialism. if you say "lesbians are women who love women," that requires you to provide a strict definition of "woman," something that is essentially impossible without resorting to gender essentialism. if you say "lesbians are nonmen who love nonmen," then you run into the same problem with defining "men." this is because both "men" and "women" are also historically + contextually specific umbrella terms used to define social categories of people, and not some sort of pre-existing inherent natural identities.

so then you might be saying--but wait a second, if all these labels are so fluid and nonspecific and personally defined, then what's the use of labeling anything!!! aren't you just saying that none of it means anything?!

no, not at all! what i'm saying here is that trying to draw strict boundaries around labels that have to do with gender + sexuality is at best pointless and at worst harmful, because gender and sexuality are inherently personal experiences and you can't police someone's own sense of self, nor should you try to. but there are three areas where labels are useful and do matter:

1 - personal value

labels are useful for individuals trying to understand themselves and how they relate to the world. people can find comfort or joy or simple understanding by labeling themselves in relation to the world around them; this sense of labeling is deeply personal and up to each individual in terms of how/to what extent they want to partake in it

2 - community

umbrella terms like "woman" "lesbian" "man" "trans" etc are all useful in socially specific contexts for identifying shared experiences + building community. if i say to someone "i'm a lesbian," and they say "oh i'm a lesbian too," i'm not going to assume that we have the exact same experiences of gender + sexuality that fit some made-up set of rules, but i am going to recognize that this person has certain experiences which overlap with my own, and we can build a community around those experiences. this is the way that basically any label works in a social context--if i say "i'm american" and someone else says "oh me too," i wouldn't just assume that we've had the exact same "american" experiences, because america is a vast country with a huge diversity of people + lifestyles + environments etc etc, y'know? social labels like these are useful for identifying broad overlap in experiences, but because they encompass such broad groups of people it's silly to try and make strict rules about who's "allowed" in the group--especially if your goal is to build community

3 - identifying + naming political struggles + oppression

this follows along the same lines as point 2 -- basically, most queer labels function as umbrella terms meant to bring together people of varied experiences + backgrounds who share common sites of oppression + common political struggles. like, historically, this has been the center of queer community-building--the fact that we are all being oppressed by the same people in overlapping ways. when i tell you "i'm a lesbian," that sentence does not tell you all that much about my own, individual, personal experience of gender. but it does tell you a lot about how i am politically positioned in the world and the kinds of political struggles i might face, and that's what makes that label so socially meaningful. like, the purpose of these labels is not to give everybody insight to the nuances of personal identity; it's to build community + identify our shared struggles with each other.

and i think one reason this discourse gets so heated in online spaces is that people get really angry about the idea of, like, "well what if someone calls themself a lesbian to infiltrate lesbian spaces!!!" which. i mean a lot of that fearmongering is rooted in transphobia quite honestly, but. at the end of the day, if someone is identifying themself as a lesbian, i'm going to assume that they have a good personal reason for doing so, and what matters to me will be knowing that we share a political struggle. i trust that if i encounter someone who's just trolling and "pretending" to be a lesbian or whatever i'll be able to recognize it and just....choose not to interact with that person. but honestly i don't even really think that actually happens--like i said, i think a lot of the fear that drives people to try and create strict definitional boundaries around the term "lesbian" is rooted in transphobia.

and i think something else driving a lot of this online discourse surrounding queer labels is like....this emphasis on identity labels as primarily a personal identifier rather than identity labels as primarily a community-building tool. like, there seems to be an emphasis particularly in online spaces + amongst certain groups of queer people to really want to micromanage identity + create specific rules + definition for each label so that, like, you're getting as much personal information as possible about someone who tells you that label, because you know they're following these detailed rules. but like. a) you truly are not entitled to personal information about anyone's individual experience of gender and/or sexuality and b) that's not the point of these labels!!!!! like i promise you it is so much more important to just accept that these are umbrella terms with nebulous boundaries so that you can take a step back and evaluate the social context in which they're being used in order to then build community. it is okay if there aren't strict rules and definitions! what matters more is being able to look at a specific contexts + the way a broad term can be applied differently in those specific contexts.

anyway. last thing i will say to this whole point is that i personally am someone who identifies to a certain extent with terms like boy lesbian or boydyke, in that my own sense of gender is much more centered around dyke than it is womanhood and i don't necessarily experience lesbianism as something centered around women/womanhood. my lesbianism feels more closely tied to gendernonconformity, genderqueerness, and overlaps a lot with experiences i've heard transmasculine people speak about. but lesbianism is still central to my identity, as i am politically positioned in society as a lesbian and it is the best umbrella term to give people a sense of my identity at a glance, and thus generally the best term for me to position myself within queer spaces + to seek out community. so i understand on a personal level why people might identify as a 'boy lesbian,' and hopefully from this personal anecdote you can understand why someone might too! if u have any questions or anything feel free to shoot me another message; i'm trying to cover a lot of ground in this response so i didn't fully expand on like. every single point bc that would have taken forever lol

1.20.24 - realized yesterday I hadn’t drawn my daughter once this year and immediately had to rectify that ft. some scar headcanons

going home, or somewhere like it

cradle & all - ani difranco / disco elysium - ZA/UM studio / on believing - hanif abdurraqib / q train - nigel van wieck / the children’s adventure ep. 4 - worlds beyond number (aabria iyengar; erika ishii) / anonymous, translated by @aurorraz_ on twitter

I'm so fatigued but it's the beginning of the month. Please bujo gods and friends, grant me the strength to do this month's needed layouts and also plan out my calendar for the next year and also redo my beginning pages with updated info 🙏🙏

Look, I’m a slut for fictional men and fey princes, but it is now just frankly embarrassing to admit that I am in love with a figment of someone else’s imagination called ‘Wendel Bambleby’, of all things. Like that is crossing some kind of line.

also i see a lot of people talking about a tom win where he kills all the sibs (metaphorically) and becomes CEO but like… what would the point of that even be. like ok nice twist what does it actually like mean

I hope every man wearing womanface knows that the most butch lesbian is still more of a woman than they will ever be.

let's go —— just the two of us

hi! two of my friends and i are in the process of writing a fullmetal alchemist fic where roy mustang has a dragon (inspired by your art). we wanted to run this by you and see if we have your permission to use your design for the dragon. regardless of whether we use the design or not, we plan on linking to the art when we post. thank you! also i REALLY love your art :D

:O holy shorts no way! sure feel free to use my design, i'm honoured it inspired you and your friends!

thank you so much for the kind words, and for being considerate ^^