sn33z3s

[sn33z3s]

putting all my stanky related playlists in one spot cuz why not

stan/kyle

stan’s pov

kyle’s pov

stan only mix

kyle only mix

[sn33z3s]

(It's because it's the best album ever)

@sn33z3s made a little Kyle playlist for his birthday, so as a companion piece to the art I made alongside her recent Stan mix, I drew this too 💚 Happy bday Kyle!!

[sn33z3s]

mothers day in the broflovski-marsh household

[sn33z3s]

goofy aah comic

[sn33z3s]

with sneeze's blessing, i did a continuation of this with the idea being "what if they still didn't get together" 😅

[sn33z3s]

thinkin bout dads

[sn33z3s]

Girl, gimme something I can break 💥

(drew this playing my gf @sn33z3s' Stan mix on repeat, which u can listen to here 🫶🏻)

[sn33z3s]

why did you reblog my post? you don’t follow me and never had to engage in the first place. i was using my blog for pretty standard purposes and if it upsets you that i expressed my frustrations over a rude comment about my friends' art you could have blocked me first or DM’d me instead to avoid “seeing [this subject] on your dash.” i am not stressed out nor am i the one who started any “drama” about the drawings in question. i am making a post to express my opinion which is something i do frequently, though rarely with intent to “vague” as you seem to be suggesting

your initial reply didn’t give me much to work with so i instead elaborated on my original points. indeed, i also support not trying to form a consensus about who is “correct.” that’s why the posts about my friends' art feel so dishonest. do you not also express your opinions about these types of things, and spread what you feel to be the “correct” opinion on a certain issue? i’m confused.

is calling fan art where a character uses one word to refer to themselves in a vaguely feminine manner “heterosexual” not shallow? it’s great that you don’t care for more romance trope-driven fanworks i guess, but accusing anybody of “flattening” a dynamic because they made a joke (and then people tried to be purposefully obtuse about that joke, which will also make even more people upset) is a bit holier-than-thou

the “parallel between 'Kyle is the mommy' heteronormativity accusations and whatever it is you're arguing about allegedly antisemitic Kyle portrayals” is that i don’t get being more worried about drawings of a fictional jewish character being called mommy than drawings of a fictional jewish character being abused OR being a devious mastermind (to list some examples, since you think they are “alleged.”) indeed, gay people are not going to be in agreement about anything — that’s why i find it very strange to ignore the gay people behind the supposedly heteronormative fan art and say one’s point is above theirs. and yes, same applies to how jewish fans feel! did i say i am dictating what is or isn't innately antisemitic? no, absolutely not, but i am allowed to have feelings about it

“maybe Kyle is a hotheaded asshole. people are allowed to think that” okay, exactly. and i don’t make posts complaining about how often people portray him this way. but if somebody draws kyle acting nurturing and sweet because that is how they see him, it’s pretty guaranteed you’ll see a bunch of posts crop up about how we need to stop “feminizing” him. also, how do you know that i don't problematize stan and kyle's relationship? you aren't aware of the full extent of my headcanons or characterizations of them; though i still believe comparing their dynamic to one which contains sexual assault and racialized harassment pretty unfair

it’s weird that you are accusing me of being somebody who believes i can control what others do online when you haven’t said the same to anybody who made the initial posts to begin with. if you don’t like me or my friends that’s okay, but i’m speaking for myself so please don’t lump them into my own personal decision making. i rarely get into “public drama” and reserve the right (the same way you do) to use my blog however i want to. and yes, the same applies to the initial “vaguing” done by people who disliked the mommy trend! i’m not attempting to control anybody, i’m just responding to current fandom events. in any case, i am very happy in my niche. is there an issue with that? why is being in my niche bad? literally all of us are and i'm unsettled by you assuming any of this is having affects on my health considering you don’t know anything about me

if the experience of trauma and abuse is relevant to one’s opinions when engaging with fandom and fictional content, then so is how i feel disturbed (and have for a long time as this isn’t a new issue) with the homophobic suggestion that i’d apparently be pinned a problematic imitation of heterosexuality just for existing as a butch lesbian dating a femme woman. while heteropatriarchy can certainly be forced onto gay couples and characters, it’s not really in the form of some of us claiming made-up concepts like motherhood which straight people don’t own anyway

a fictional character headcanon’d as a gay man (in fan art drawn by a gay man) calling himself “mommy” is deeply problematic but the same character’s trauma and abuse being seen as passable so that he can be coupled with the source of his trauma and abuse is okay. because it’s just fictional.

[sn33z3s]

i’m not fighting anybody or looking for their approval. i didn’t even tag this post; i’m just using my blog so i’m not sure why you get to label it discourse. at most, however, i’m seeking to understand the lack of consistency. maybe “trauma” isn’t the right word, but what else would explain kyle’s decision to “scream at someone’s children”? so in that case: kyle’s decisions should be taken seriously and not comedically — ok, is nothing cartman does to kyle serious too, then? or is it fine because cartman is a fictional 10 year old? you’re correct in that my use of technically was redundant but it was for expressing my discomfort with the hypocrisy.

while i think it’s pretty unfair to compare stan and kyle’s dynamic to cartman and kyle’s, nowhere did i imply that stan and kyle have a perfectly healthy relationship. again, i’m just trying to get how it’s appropriate to single out style shippers for heteronormativity (the phenomenon is frequently misapplied, anyway) when conversations about how fanon portrayals of kyle in relation to cartman are antisemitic often get hand-waved away with the defense that it’s just fictional and to not take it that seriously.

why is it a “heterosexual relationship” when a drawing has kyle calling himself mommy but it’s not antisemitic when kyle is drawn as conniving, evil, and cold-hearted? that is a horrendous implication to me when i view it on a broader level. i’ve never seen anybody call the popular jersey kyle x bad irene pairing a “heterosexual relationship” even though it features hypermasculinity alongside hyperfemininity. why? and what is the definition of infantilizing or babying to you? because i’m only talking about the word “mommy” here, which is something i think gay men who are also parents should be allowed to call themselves if they so choose

a fictional character headcanon’d as a gay man (in fan art drawn by a gay man) calling himself “mommy” is deeply problematic but the same character’s trauma and abuse being seen as passable so that he can be coupled with the source of his trauma and abuse is okay. because it’s just fictional.

[sn33z3s]

if you can do whatever you want, then technically so can everybody else. in general i think some sp fans should sit down and have a long talk with themselves about why “it’s fictional” seems to apply to everything except kyle’s feelings. if he can’t be hurt because he isn’t real, then why does he suddenly have free will - instead of just being a tv show plot/commentary device - when he does whatever aligns with your subjective opinions about sp? kyle’s pain is just a joke but the character who inflicts it upon him deserves to be treated with humanity; why? and what grants other characters the ability to be depicted “femininely” in fanon if not just different forms of stereotyping? do antisemitic tropes not also exist in portraying kyle as overly aggressive and dangerous? i ask all of this genuinely

a fictional character headcanon’d as a gay man (in fan art drawn by a gay man) calling himself “mommy” is deeply problematic but the same character’s trauma and abuse being seen as passable so that he can be coupled with the source of his trauma and abuse is okay. because it’s just fictional.

[sn33z3s]

a fictional character headcanon’d as a gay man (in fan art drawn by a gay man) calling himself “mommy” is deeply problematic but the same character’s trauma and abuse being seen as passable so that he can be coupled with the source of his trauma and abuse is okay. because it’s just fictional.

[sn33z3s]

[sn33z3s]

hey i opened commissions again! email hrluver201@gmail.com with as many references/pose ideas as possible. all prices are usd and go through paypal. prices vary by complexity. 

i was fired last week and i need an alternate income while i go jobhunting, reblogs are appreciated, thank you!

[sn33z3s]

Just wanted to say I really love reading your analysis posts, and although I view things a bit differently regarding Stan and Kyle’s dynamics, for the large part what you said was deadly accurate. It also changed my perspective on some aspects of the boys, they really do just need each other, whether they want to or not. Also great how you pointed out the post Covid ending when stan and Kyle straight up admitted they lose everything after the friendship (what losers) anyways thanks for the great reads!! 💕😊

hi, omg. no need to thank me! thanks for sending this??! if u ever wanted to share, i'd love to know what your thoughts are on style's dynamic; i'm always reworking my analyses and rewording myself in order to better articulate how i feel abt fandom characterization so i also love discussing with other ppl 🥹 it makes studying the canon all the more fun and gratifying... for example, as u said, they "need each other whether they want to or not" - don't they want to? when we apply the red string of fate idea to style, is the implication that they are aware of their dependency on each other and simply choose to indulge in it, or do they just wanna be with each other and don't even realize how entwined their relationship is? do they still resent each other a little bit? of course, they're fictional: they are only able to break the 4th wall as much as is written, but lmao, ygwim

ANYWAY, thank u again. these messages make my day!! 💗

[sn33z3s]

a doodle redrawn for here cuz i don’t rly like the version i posted to twitter :P

[sn33z3s]

for obvious reasons it’s very hilarious that there’s such a split in stan’s characterization within the fandom to the point of this episode potentially splitting said dichotomy further. i have to say though that another episode premiering wherein stan plays a board game (which is a significant but still recent and therefore smaller aspect of his overall personality) doesn’t really shake my conception of stan because sometimes characters do things for plot. like, yes, stan loves board games -- but to then jump to the conclusion that it is essentially not just his only interest, but also an interest which prevents others (such as sports) is funny because that misses the point of the episode 

it’s important that stan loves board games because people in the real world like andrew tate - who randy is a mouthpiece for here - believe that certain traits can’t coexist with more “traditional” standards of masculinity. in fact, board games are such a gate-kept, male-dominated hobby and culture that randy’s attempt to pin it down as an effeminate interest or something like that just adds to the dramatic irony. stan is no stranger to pridefulness and aggression like his dad, but the joke is that stan is acting “manlier” than randy is in the episode because stan doesn’t worry, most of the time, whether or not he’s even perceived as manly enough

[sn33z3s]

i love your style fanart! can we get more kissing scenes of those two scrimblos?

a few tips on how to kiss your best friend without it being suspicious!