desperately craving weird surrealist arthurania. Knights with no faces wandering through the mists. Seams between Christian and pre-Christian Britain gaping like open wounds. Beafts and visions. Maybe a monk. Maybe the monk is gay

You know what? I want a whole post for this:

Sex Repulsion is not the same thing as, or an excuse for, Sex Negativity

non-negotiable!

I am a sex-repulsed asexual. This means that I am uncomfortable and repulsed by the idea of engaging in sexual acts. This does not mean that I have an excuse to be repulsed by other people's sexual attraction or the right to police how other people engage in or express sexual acts or attraction.

Young queer people need to learn the difference between sex repulsion and sex negativity, and actively work to unlearn sex-negative attitudes. Asexuality, even sex-repulsed asexuality, is and should be fully compatible with sex positivity.

If you are uncomfortable with the idea of other people feeling sexual attraction or engaging in sexual acts that do not involve you in any way, that is not sex repulsion it is the cultural Christianity and you need to seriously work on that.

anyway im tired of people treating Disney (corporate) and Disney (writing and directing staff) as a monolith. yes Disney (corporate) funds massive anti gay legislature. yes Disney (corporate) only recognizes demographics in terms of how much profit they can bring. but trans guy in Baymax isn't an evil trap put there by the shareholders to draw in queers and wring us of money. the trans guy in Baymax exists because in the writing room a bunch of storyboarders and storytellers were spitballing "hey, what people do we need here?" and one of the answers that came up was "trans guy" from a person who sincerely believed that representation was not only valuable but necessary. there are real people making every choice you see and hear. you can hate how corporate feigns blasé without assuming it's all some premeditated plan. you can be rightfully suspicious of corporate motivation without erasing the artists with their own motivations

So, I'm looking at the trailer and hear Stolas say something like this . . .

"This transaction between us . . . i-it's not right anymore. I just want someone to care for."

I'm gonna assume he's talking about the exchange of the grimoire for sex with Blitzo. The deal that HE made in the first place????

Okay, first off- What do you mean, it's not right anymore?? NOT ONCE has it EVER been right! Making someone satisfy your pleasures in exchange for giving them something that's impossible to have and you never intended on giving them in the first place unless it benefits you somehow. That is called EXPLOITATION! Children . . . exploiting someone is NEVER a good thing! No matter how badly you want something to happen, it's never good to make someone do something against their will, and Stolas NEVER considered this! And even if he did, I doubt he would've cared!

Why is he suddenly caring now?

Because this is just another way for Viv to throw another Stolas pity party and she needs some kind of tension between Stolas and Blitzo so that their relationship can feel earned later. I think I have a pretty good feeling on what they're gonna make season two about.

This is gonna turn back into the "Stolitzo show" where we focus on the supposed "romance" between Stolas and Blitzo. How are they gonna go about it? Well, I think what's gonna go down is, instead of Stolas being in the wrong for how he treats Blitzo, they're gonna make the latter the bad guy for how he "treats" Stolas. Because blah blah blah, Blitzo doesn't love Stolas back, blah blah he's not considerate of Stolas's feelings for him, blah blah he's being mean, blah blah, he needs to give Stolas a chance. And at the end of the day, Blitzo is gonna feel all sorry and realize he loves Stolas, he apologizes to Stolas, the two are endgame and they live happily ever after! I'm calling it right now! With the way Stolas said what he said above, he's gonna make it seem like he's trying to reason with Blitzo saying the deal for the book is a bad idea as if HE wasn't the one that called Blitzo that one night and made that deal.

Do Viv or the writers ever THINK before writing these down??

Rhetorical quetion.

Edit (4/29/24) It makes no sense for Stolas to suddenly feel regret for this exchange as well as his feelings for Blitzo because of it. In season 1 he went from "Oh Blitzy! You're so hot! Let's have sex!" to "I'm actually genuinely in love with you Blitzo. Let's not do this anymore. I want to take this seriously." Out of nowhere.

Like-- In episode 6, he was lustful for Blitzo and made out with him by the end of the ep, and then suddenly the next episode, he's feeling all lonely and is innocently having feelings for Blitzo. WHERE DID ALL THAT COME FROM?? There was no ounce of development within those episodes!

guy who so desperately tries to find god. who wants to have faith in a higher authority to guide him out of the hole he's in. from the weight of guilt from simply existing, as the person he is. but every time he thinks he's answered his higher calling it turns out he's made the Morally Incorrect choice and his path to goodness and holiness was the road to the devil all along

I’m so glad everyone is having the same visceral reaction to episode 4 like I did. I thought I was being too sensitive but fucking no. It is painful. It is horrid. Knowing that this type of abuse actively happens to sex workers and those who are trafficked. It’s jarring because I didn’t expect to see this dark and explicit depiction in a cartoon that jokes about penises every 2 minutes. It’s like when light hearted coco melon shows start talking about death, it was just unexpected because I never took this show serious. I’m going to share more of my thoughts below! Trigger Warning: Mentions of SA ⚠️

I don’t think it’s my place to deny or confirm if the ‘poison’ scenes were fetishized, I personally believe it’s subjective. I know how I feel but I think no matter where you stand, you are right in your own way. Many things can be true at once. What we can all agree on, is that it was harsh. In a way, I hope the audience is able to understand how exploiting and non glamorous sex work is. There is nothing fun about having your body used multiple times a day by people you do not know and having said scenes recorded then plastered all over the media. Of course all forms of engaging in or creating adult content are different, I am specifically talking about sex workers who have no say or control over their bodies and finances. Like Angel. Let us put emphasis on WORK in sex work.

It is demanding. It is laborious It is scaring. Remember that and remember the unheard voices who must do this to simply survive.

There is a lot of criticism about angel’s personality and yes I agree it is annoying but you have to understand, it is a trauma response. Hypersexuality is a common trait among those who are sexually abused. Angel just outwardly expresses it all the time because it is all he knows. This thought process is the only way to tolerate his behavior. I say thought process because it is only an interpretation. It’s very obvious viv just adores writing sexed up characters with zero nuance or depth but let’s just pretend she can actually write male characters that think beyond their cock and balls. Let’s pretend that Angel Dust is a two dimensional character and not (grits teeth) fetish bait.

Now, let’s talk about Charlie. Alright great, she saw her friend being mistreated and was about to stand up to his abuser, ok good good. The victim (Angel) gets upset and wants her to leave because he was beaten. Yes, average response of someone who is an abusive relationship, he is afraid and wants to avoid more conflict between him and Val. The situation at hand couldn’t be more than obvious. How does Charlie respond? She cries. And not because she is frustratedly concerned for the safety of her friend. It is because he yelled and rejected all her poor attempts at helping. Charlie is weak as shit and I think that interaction was weirdly written. I wish she had the mental fortitude to understand how much danger Angel’s life was in at that moment. I cannot enjoy her ‘aggressive kindness’ cutie do no wrong baby girl type of character in a moment like that.

And I feel the same about Husk’s song. Out of all the responses you could’ve made, this is what made it to the final cut? Do better. I don’t care if I lack the mEdIa LiTeRaCy twitter keeps yapping about. It’s bad. You just showed a sexual assault montage and the rebuttal was basically “my uncle broke his neck tap dancing once :/“ lol we’re both losers and that’s ok, suck it up buttercup, I like you regardless. This was the best response to an SA victim? No degree in media literacy would ever help me think that was an acceptable response. I dunno about ya’ll but I major in common sense at the university of using my eyes and fucking ears. Now imagine, if that entire segment, when Husk and Angel are at the bar plus the musical number; imagine if all of that was placed BEFORE we see Angel and Val interact and then poison plays as the final song. It would be 10x more impactful because then the audience sees how deep and stuck Angel actually is. Trauma olympics is never acceptable but neither is trauma participation trophies. It is not right to make Husk’s issues be seen as the same as Angel’s issues. They are not the same and it is ok to acknowledge that Angel has it worst than Husk. It’d be more genuine if Husk were to just hug him in complete silence after dragging him out of the bar and have Angel tearfully embrace him back. The first non sexual and benevolent interaction between them. The first physical act of care with no ulterior motives of lust.

I grind my teeth at the wasted potential.

With the rise of booktok/booktwt, there's been this weird movement against literary criticism. It's a bizarre phenomenon, but this uptick in condemnation of criticism is so stifling. I understand that with the rise of these platforms, many people are being reintroduced into the habit of reading, which is why at the base level, I understand why many 'popular' books on booktok tend to be cozier.

The argument always falls into the 'this book means too much to me' or 'let people enjoy things,' which is rhetoric I understand -- at least fundamentally. But reading and writing have always been conduits for criticism, healthy natural criticism. We grow as writers and readers because of criticism. It's just so frustrating to see arguments like "how could you not like this character they've been the x trauma," or "why read this book if you're not going to come out liking it," and it's like...why not. That has always been the point of reading. Having a character go through copious amounts of trauma does not always translate to a character that's well-crafted. Good worldbuilding doesn't always translate to having a good story, or having beautiful prose doesn't always translate into a good plot.

There is just so much that goes into writing a story other than being able to formulate tropable (is that a word lol) characters. Good ideas don't always translate into good stories. And engaging critically with the text you read is how we figure that out, how we make sure authors are giving us a good craft. Writing is a form of entertainment too, and just like we'd do a poorly crafted show, we should always be questioning the things we read, even if we enjoy those things.

It's just werd to see people argue that we shouldn't read literature unless we know for certain we are going to like it. Or seeing people not be able to stand honest criticism of the world they've fallen in love with. I love ASOIAF -- but boy oh boy are there a lot of problems in the story: racial undertones, questionable writing decisions, weird ness overall. I also think engaging critically helps us understand how an author's biases can inform what they write. Like, HP Lovecraft wrote eerie stories, he was also a raging racist. But we can argue that his fear of PoC, his antisemitism, and all of his weird fears informed a lot of what he was writing. His writing is so eerie because a lot of that fear comes from very real, nasty places. It's not to say we have to censor his works, but he influences a lot of horror today and those fears, that racial undertone, it is still very prevalent in horror movies today. That fear of the 'unknown,'

Gone with the Wind is an incredibly racist book. It's also a well-written book. I think a lot of people also like confine criticism to just a syntax/prose/technical level -- when in reality criticism should also be applied on an ideological level. Books that are well-written, well-plotted, etc., are also -- and should also -- be up for criticism. A book can be very well-written and also propagate harmful ideologies. I often read books that I know that (on an ideological level), I might not agree with. We can learn a lot from the books we read, even the ones we hate.

I just feel like we're getting to the point where people are just telling people to 'shut up and read' and making spaces for conversation a uniform experience. I don't want to be in a space where everyone agrees with the same point. Either people won't accept criticism of their favorite book, or they think criticism shouldn't be applied to books they think are well written. Reading invokes natural criticism -- so does writing. That's literally what writing is; asking questions, interrogating the world around you. It's why we have literary devices, techniques, and elements. It's never just taking the words being printed at face value.

You can identify with a character's trauma and still understand that their badly written. You can read a story, hate everything about it, and still like a character. As I stated a while back, I'm reading Fourth Wing; the book is terrible, but I like the main character. The worldbuilding is also terrible, but the author writes her PoC characters with respect. It's not hard to acknowledge one thing about the text, and still find enough to enjoy the book. And authors grow when we're honest about what worked and what didn't work. Shadow and Bone was very formulaic and derivative at points, but Six of Crows is much more inventive and inclusive. Veronica Roth's Carve the Mark had some weird racial problems, but Chosen Ones was a much better book in terms of representation. Percy Jackson is the same way. These writers grow, not just by virtue of time, but because they were critiqued and listened to that critique. C.S. Lewis and Tolkien always publically criticized each other's work. Zora Neale Hurston and Langston Hughes had a legendary friendship and back and forth with one another's works which provides so much insight into the conversations black authors and creatives were having.

Writing has always been about asking questions; prodding here and there, critiquing. It has always been a conversation, a dialogue. I urge people to love what they read, and read what they love, but always ask questions, always understand different perspectives, and always keep your mind open. Please stop stifling and controlling the conversations about your favorite literature, and please understand that everyone will not come out with the same reading experience as you. It doesn't make their experience any less valid than yours.

he’s here to show you the word of god (hitting you in the face with hot lead at 1700 mph)

(process + the magma doodle i did of this originally ft. fellow gays from the vashwood bb server)

I'm really not a villain enjoyer. I love anti-heroes and anti-villains. But I can't see fictional evil separate from real evil. As in not that enjoying dark fiction means you condone it, but that all fiction holds up some kind of mirror to the world as it is. Killing innocent people doesn't make you an iconic lesbian girlboss it just makes you part of the mundane and stultifying black rot of the universe.

"But characters struggling with honour and goodness and the egoism of being good are so boring." Cool well some of us actually struggle with that stuff on the daily because being a good person is complicated and harder than being an edgelord.

Sure you can use fiction to explore the darkness of human nature and learn empathy, but the world doesn't actually suffer from a deficit of empathy for powerful and privileged people who do heinous stuff. You could literally kill a thousand babies in broad daylight and they'll find a way to blame your childhood trauma for it as long as you're white, cisgender, abled and attractive, and you'll be their poor little meow meow by the end of the week. Don't act like you're advocating for Quasimodo when you're just making Elon Musk hot, smart and gay.

everyone who says arknights stories are bad because they're too long or too wordy has a huge skill issue. god forbid there are Words in my Visual Novel. this is one of many reasons why the subreddit is dead to me

i hate cinemasins so much you would not believe

Angel's allowed to be comfortable in his own body. He's portrayed in a sexy way because that's how he presents himself and wants to without Valentino breathing down his neck.

How could anyone take this seriously. Participated in the porn industry but he's not proud of it despite his ENTIRE personality and eccentric drag lifestyle? Dislikes water and space and has the personality as 'Bitch'. Yeah no why are you defending this as good drag?

He is nothing without the performing name we don't even know how he died nor his human name as if that matters. The show is labeled as redemption and healing over abuse but it blatantly animates abuse without the substance of realizing that 'Hey wait a minute were portraying actual drug abuse and pimp abuse as fetish bait maybe we should rewrite angel as an actual person!'

Your characters name is slang for cocaine and his entire shtick is based around being abused. There is no point to AD other then the fact that he serves eye candy to service the fact that feminine men have to overtly ALWAYS be portrayed in media as sexual. That's a bad thing if you didn't catch my drift. Drag Queens come in different sizes shapes lives loves losses gives hopes and fears, angel dust gives none of that whatsoever.

Go to your local gay bar and have a drink dude

Do you pray for the hostages too?

Yes. I pray for the 110 or so israeli and immgrant hostages assumed to still be alive. And I also pray for the hundreds of Palestianian hostages arrested without charge in Israeli prisons assumed to be alive.

I pray for a ceasefire so that the Israeli hostages are released. I also pray for the end of Israeli apartheid government, so that Palestianians are liberated.

memoria is incredibly close to my heart, but when i listen to it now, it's hard not to think about the undertones re: how therapy as an institution handles disability. maxwell's objective was always to help hera get back to work, to find accommodations she could function under, or otherwise to replace her. "i'm sorry you feel like you can't do your job." maxwell presents her solutions in a less hostile framing, but her methods are the same ones cutter threatens hera with in her live show performance review (re: deleting her memories) and it's something she intends to do regardless of hera's consent. maxwell's practice aligns with goddard's interests, and of course it does. there's something about therapy as maintenance, and the treatment of the disabled mind and/or body as a broken machine.

hera is used to being condescended to and taunted for her limitations ("we all have our limits. you can't do what you can't do. it's not your fault.") and that intersects with her trauma ("i can't do this. i'm not good enough.") in a way that inherently ties her self worth to her ability to be useful and perform a job. as a result, she has a gut reaction to and a resistance to anyone suggesting she might not be capable of something, or that she might need help, and that makes her constantly push herself past her limits, causing real damage. the problem is that hera is disabled, there are things she can't do, and she hasn't been given the security or compassion to really come to terms with that. no amount of ways to manage doing her job will really help the core problem; she needs to be able to separate her concept of self worth from her productivity. "we get things wrong, and we get better." is a nice sentiment, but i think it applies more to interpersonal conflict than physical burnout. hera even directly calls back to and casts doubt on that specific line later in the show.

that's why eiffel matters so much to hera. when eiffel says "you can do anything" - he believes that, he has that kind of sincere faith in all of his friends, but he means it even when it's disproven. he's seen her fail. he's seen her make mistakes. it doesn't matter because it isn't about what he expects of her, it's about who she is to him. minkowski is the commander, even when she's not. hera can do anything, even when she can't. eiffel values people, not their jobs. if hera didn't have a supercomputer for a brain, she would still be the same to him; it's who she is and her companionship that he wants. i'm not saying that what maxwell did for hera was useless - it's effective therapy that gave her a clearer understanding of herself, and a framework to understand what's been happening to her; that's extremely valuable. but that alone would not have been enough. what hera thinks of at the end of memoria, what actually pulls her through, is the support and care that eiffel and minkowski continually show to her.

MORPHINE LOVE DION •  drag race 16.09 see you next wednesday runway [design challenge]

the percy jackson tv show is actually great when there isn’t a little shit in your ear telling you it’s not “book accurate”