#Elton Brand

[unkstaarwysbr]

Unleashed Potential: The Lost Era of the Los Angeles Clippers

In TSDS 279, the hosts embark on a nostalgic journey to a time when the Los Angeles Clippers possessed a roster brimming with extraordinary talent, poised to revolutionize the NBA. Fondly reminiscing, they recall the likes of Darius Miles, Quentin Richardson, Lamar Odom, Elton Brand, and Sam Cassell, all of whom graced the Clippers’ lineup at one point or another. However, a tinge of…

[bungitonthen]

20/7/24

khalid of space part two: welcome - larry young (lawrence of newark)

jetsex ... timewhys - tonto's expanding head band (zero time)

calling on - weta ("calling on" cd single)

rocket man* - elton john

the disappointed - xtc

(gus dudgeon production gems)

nuclear burn - brand x (nuclear burn)

digging in the dirt - peter gabriel ("digging in the dirt" cd single)

behind the lines ... duchess ... guide vocal ... turn it on again ... duke's travels ... duke's end - genesis (duke)

*mars ain't the place to raise your kids

[heritageposts]

Ask an older generation of white South Africans when they first felt the bite of anti-apartheid sanctions, and some point to the moment in 1968 when their prime minister, BJ Vorster, banned a tour by the England cricket team because it included a mixed-race player, Basil D’Oliveira. After that, South Africa was excluded from international cricket until Nelson Mandela walked free from prison 22 years later. The D’Oliveira affair, as it became known, proved a watershed in drumming up popular support for the sporting boycott that eventually saw the country excluded from most international competition including rugby, the great passion of the white Afrikaners who were the base of the ruling Nationalist party and who bitterly resented being cast out. For others, the moment of reckoning came years later, in 1985 when foreign banks called in South Africa’s loans. It was a clear sign that the country’s economy was going to pay an ever higher price for apartheid. Neither of those events was decisive in bringing down South Africa’s regime. Far more credit lies with the black schoolchildren who took to the streets of Soweto in 1976 and kicked off years of unrest and civil disobedience that made the country increasingly ungovernable until changing global politics, and the collapse of communism, played its part. But the rise of the popular anti-apartheid boycott over nearly 30 years made its mark on South Africans who were increasingly confronted by a repudiation of their system. Ordinary Europeans pressured supermarkets to stop selling South African products. British students forced Barclays Bank to pull out of the apartheid state. The refusal of a Dublin shop worker to ring up a Cape grapefruit led to a strike and then a total ban on South African imports by the Irish government. By the mid-1980s, one in four Britons said they were boycotting South African goods – a testament to the reach of the anti-apartheid campaign. . . . The musicians union blocked South African artists from playing on the BBC, and the cultural boycott saw most performers refusing to play in the apartheid state, although some, including Elton John and Queen, infamously put on concerts at Sun City in the Bophuthatswana homeland. The US didn’t have the same sporting or cultural ties, and imported far fewer South African products, but the mobilisation against apartheid in universities, churches and through local coalitions in the 1980s was instrumental in forcing the hand of American politicians and big business in favour of financial sanctions and divestment. By the time President FW de Klerk was ready to release Mandela and negotiate an end to apartheid, a big selling point for part of the white population was an end to boycotts and isolation. Twenty-seven years after the end of white rule, some see the boycott campaign against South Africa as a guide to mobilising popular support against what is increasingly condemned as Israel’s own brand of apartheid.

. . . continues at the guardian (21 May, 2021)

[someone-will-remember-us]

Elton John and David Furnish have done it, and so have Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West.

There’s a bloke from Essex who recently joined the club via an undisclosed overseas location and a 72-year-old Scotsman has just been recognised as the legitimate owner of an American one he bought back in 2020.

What we are talking about here is surrogacy: the incubation and effective purchase of babies after the careful selection of their component parts.

The global market – already worth almost $18 billion (£14 billion) – is projected to rise to $129bn by 2032, according to the research firm Global Market Insights, with anywhere between 5,000 and 20,000 babies incubated to order annually.

This covers the whole caboodle in which you can DIY things with a friend at one extreme, or go for the full Lamborghini treatment where, in some countries, an agent will help you shop around the globe for the finest sperm, eggs and wombs money can buy.

For those opting for the international pick and mix route, there are BOGOF deals (two implants for the price of one), the option of sex selection and a pay-as-you-go plan.

And that’s because you, the customer, are always right. As one agency, New Life Conceptual Limited, based in Lagos, Nigeria puts it: “…it takes four ingredients to make a baby: an egg, a sperm, a womb to grow in, and a family to go home to. You have the last ingredient, but you need a place for your baby to grow, and that’s why you’re here.”

Some companies even offer legal guarantees around defective foetuses that have to be aborted.

If you think I’m making this up, think again.

In the UK, where commercial surrogacy is banned but international imports are not, there are now between 400 and 500 new surrogate-incubated babies registered each year, while globally the business is more than doubling in value every two years.

Some call it a “miracle” and point to the invisible hand of the market creating a profitable multi-billion dollar industry in which everyone wins; a benign system of supply and demand the libertarian economist Leonard Read might have called I, Baby.

And while there is no suggestion that the multi-millionaire celebrities who have used surrogacy, like Elton John and the Kardashians, have exploited the surrogate mothers who bore their children, for others – including feminists like myself – the global surrogacy trade reeks of false entitlement.

It has been sanitised by the liberal “rights” agenda and the same self-serving logic that brands prostitutes “sex workers”. If it brings to mind a book or essay, it is Brave New World, Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel about social engineering and evil hiding in plain sight.

To what extent, for example, is the lack of regulation around surrogacy driving impoverished women into unsafe and unconsented arrangements, as it once did so extensively with domestic and international adoption?

And what do we really know of all those hundreds of Brits now shopping for children around the world.

Can it really be right that you can effectively buy a baby overseas but raise it in Britain where commercial surrogacy is supposed to be banned?

Just as in the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s, when we thought of adoption as a favour to unsuitable mums whether they be “wayward” teens or impoverished Mexicans, surrogacy is being sanitised.

Delve into the subject on the Internet and you will find that almost everywhere you look, it’s celebrated. These babies, magicked into welcoming arms, are seemingly a modern miracle for childless couples of every stripe. TikTok is full of it.

Here in Blighty, we have only “ethical surrogacy”, says Surrogacy UK, a leading non-profit “providing a safe, supportive environment for surrogates, intended parents and families”.

Such organisations emphasise the benefits to infertile couples, and the “great gift” bestowed by women (aged 16 or older) who are happy to “altruistically” lend their womb to another for nine months.

Whilst such arrangements do work for some, there is no reliable data on what is really going on in the UK. This is because the sector is governed by a bizarre mish-mash of statute and common law, and because regulation, where it exists at all, is opaque.

Echoing the words of a Tarantino script, surrogacy is legal in the UK but not a hundred per cent legal.

It’s legal to enter into an agreement with a surrogate, it’s legal to pay her “reasonable expenses”, and, if you’re the owner of a womb, it’s legal to grow a child (made with your eggs or someone else’s) and give it away once it’s born.

But it’s illegal to advertise you are looking for a surrogate in the UK or solicit for business if you want to become a surrogate. It’s also an offence to arrange or negotiate a surrogacy arrangement as a “commercial enterprise”, but that doesn’t really matter because, get this: “reasonable expenses” can stretch beyond the average annual wage.

If money is still an obstacle, you can always rent a womb from a woman in a country like California, Cyprus or Greece where for-profit surrogacy is legal, before bringing the child back home to the UK.

Another oddity of the UK system is that, while it is a criminal offence to advertise surrogacy services, there are “some exemptions for not-for-profit organisations”. It is not clear how these agencies are selected but they are organisations that officials at the Department of Health and Social Care deem trustworthy. It is how agencies like Surrogacy UK and Brilliant Beginnings are able to proactively recruit and advertise a willing pool of surrogates in Britain.

“All our surrogates benefit from being a part of our thriving community and can enjoy a range of events and gifts along the way,” says the Brilliant Beginnings website. “Surrogate retreats” and “milestone gifts” such as chocolates, flowers and even bellybuds - speakers that allow mothers to play music to babies in the womb - are all part of the service.

Brilliant Beginnings says “expenses” payments to surrogate mothers in the UK typically range between £12,000 to £35,000. It is not known how well off the typical UK surrogate is in relation to the intended parents check, but there is potentially a stark economic divide.

“For surrogates who receive means-tested state benefits, it is important to be clear about whether benefits might be affected by any expenses received,” says the Best Beginnings website. “We would always recommend surrogates are upfront with their benefits office”.

Evidence for the benefits and harms of surrogacy in the UK are almost entirely anecdotal.

Disputes do occur but no one really knows their frequency or what they entail because they are heard in the secretive Family Court, which sits mainly in private and from which detailed reporting is banned.

An obvious problem in the UK, is that the flash point for disputes typically arises after the fact - that is, after a child has been born. This is the point at which the intended parents (or parent) must apply to the Court for a “transfer of legal parenthood” and, in most cases, will be the first time the state even becomes cognisant of the surrogacy arrangement.

An application for such a transfer can only be made with the surrogate’s consent but the decision hinges on what the Court considers to be in the best interests of the child, not the surrogate mother.

“The parental order process takes place after birth and involves the family court, and a court-appointed social worker,” says the DHSC website. “This provides a valuable safeguard for the best interests of the child”.

There is a growing recognition that the regulation of surrogacy in the UK is inadequate but the agencies who run it want legislative reforms that favour the would-be parents rather than the surrogate mothers.

They are especially exercised about the fact that written agreements between surrogates and intended parents are ultimately unenforceable in the UK courts.

Others, including myself, want the practice banned – as it is in many countries across the world. Miriam Cates, the former Conservative MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, caused a storm in January when she said surrogacy was “just ethically not acceptable”.

“Of course adults have a strong desire to be parents, both men or women. Of course it’s a sadness if that’s unfulfilled for whatever reason – they can’t conceive, don’t have a partner, whatever it is.

“But to deliberately bring a child into the world in order to separate it from its mother at birth I think is just ethically not acceptable,” she said.

Alan White, chairman of Surrogacy UK, told a webinar hosted by the Royal College of Midwives in February that those of us who see the practice as unethical and exploitative were limiting choice and free will because we failed to properly understand the motivations of surrogate mothers.

“Surrogates don’t see themselves as mothers, they see themselves as extreme baby-sitters,” he said. “[They are] doing that wonderful thing of doing the part of having children women or gay men can’t do for themselves”.

To survive the psychological impact of giving away a child, there is little doubt that this sort of thinking helps.

As Helen Gibson, the founder of Surrogacy Concern points out, surrogates are encouraged to see themselves as a bystander – just the “the oven” or “the microwave”, as some describe themselves.

But this sort of psychological dissociation doesn’t always work, and perhaps seldom does.

I spoke to one UK woman who feels deep regret at her decision to enter into a surrogacy arrangement. Sandra, whose name I’ve changed, was 32 with two children of her own. She had escaped a violent husband, and was struggling to make ends meet.

A friend suggested she could make money by carrying a baby for an infertile couple. And, after approaching a UK agency she found via Facebook, she was told that in return for having the baby, she could enjoy “unlimited expenses, within reason”.

She was introduced to a gay male couple who wanted her to carry an implanted embryo, engineered with selected eggs to give them the best chance of a “tall, blonde child”. Sandra, by contrast, is short and dark.

The embryo transfer failed three times, and the IVF process made Sandra extremely sick. Eventually, the couple decided to go to California, but not before admonishing her for wasting “their time, and a lot of money.”

“I felt like a broodmare,” she told me.

If the UK surrogacy market is a classic British muddle, the global market is the wild west.  

And because no UK Court or Home Office official can possibly check the provenance of all the elements that go to make up a child (the sperm, the eggs, the IVF, or, crucially, the free agency of the surrogate mother), anything goes for the unscrupulous.

Although most countries around the world still ban the practice, there are more than enough who don’t.

In Greece and various US states including California, Washington DC and Arkansas, commercial surrogacy is fully legal. In many other countries it is either unregulated or very lightly regulated, enabling the trade to flourish. Countries in this bracket include Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Argentina, Guatemala, Iran, Kenya, Nigeria, the Philippines, Russia and Ukraine.

WFI Surrogacy, one of America’s biggest providers, offers its customers what it calls a “live birth guarantee” – the promise that a birth will occur once the process is underway.

“The high quality of our egg donors and surrogate mothers enables us to make this type of guarantee”, says WFI. “Our live birth guarantee programs are available for either: singleton or twins [or] one specimen source or two specimen sources”.

“All our surrogate mothers are medically and psychologically screened,” it adds.

This is Big Fertility, whose business model relies on the commodification of every aspect of pregnancy.

A healthy overall budget for a Brit using the US surrogacy route sits between £250,000 to £320,000, according to the UK agency Brilliant Beginnings.

Often freelance agents or “fixers” will shop around the world for their clients to increase choice and reduce costs. A surrogate mum in Los Angeles, California costs a whole lot more than one from rural Mexico, for example.

Denmark has long been prized for its sperm, its tall blond donors making the most of their viking heritage.

For eggs, there are also options galore – and all pushed with a good dose of fairy tale genetics.

Egg Donor number “241222_01” on the World Center of Baby website (motto: every person deserves to be a parent) conforms precisely to the modern notion of female beauty as defined by Instagram.

Weighing in at just 66kg, she’s also “an artistic soul with a flair for creativity”. If you would prefer a sporty one, just go for donor number 241222_02 – “an athletic enthusiast, deeply engaged in fitness and sports”.

Embryos can be made up from the customers chosen eggs and sperm in any number of IVF labs around the world. They are then frozen and shipped to wherever the chosen surrogate may be. Fixers facilitate the entire process, including the negotiation of complex legal agreements and the careful arbitrage of international and domestic laws and regulations.

The wording of commercial surrogacy contracts is telling, the text reflecting the economic disparity between carrier and client.

“If Gestational Carrier suffers a loss of her uterus as a result of the performance of her obligations under this Agreement, she shall receive $5,000.00 from Intended Parents”, stipulates one contract.

It continues: “If Intended Parents jointly request Gestational Carrier to terminate the pregnancy because of the Child’s medical condition(s), she will do so promptly. If Gestational Carrier refuses to terminate, Gestational Carrier will have materially breached this Agreement and Intended Parents’ obligations under this Agreement shall cease immediately”.

Natalia Gamble, a director at Brilliant Beginnings, says the agency made an active decision “to only facilitate people going to places that we felt were ethical, secure, and safe”.

Although Ms Gamble is adamant that her approach is ethical, she helps clients go to Nigeria, Cyprus, and Ukraine, where commercial surrogacy flourishes.

“We made the active decision at Brilliant Beginnings to only facilitate people going to places that we felt were ethical, secure, and safe – we have very much focused on the US, but through our law firm (NGA Law) we have helped people go into places like Nigeria, Cyprus, and Ukraine because our role is much more not to help them do it in the first place but to help them bring their children home and resolve all the legalities afterwards,” she said.

Northern Cyprus even allows sex selection, with several clinics there advertising the service on their websites.

“The cases that are happening in Nigeria or Cyprus where it’s very unregulated and there’s no legal framework are a very, very small percentage of the overall international surrogacy landscape,” she said.

“We do need to be very alert to the risks of exploitation and those risks are greatest in places where there is no legal framework regulating how surrogacy is run [...] but, it’s about not overinflating those risks when the majority of people are going to what you might call ‘good surrogacy destinations’.”

Ms Gamble is pushing for a change to UK law that would grant commissioning parent(s) legal rights to the child (embryo) at the point of conception.

“It’s in the best interest of the child,” she says. “If you speak to any surrogate mother they will say ‘Look, I am not the mother of this child, I’m always very clear that it’s someone else’s child that I’m carrying’ – no one wants the surrogate mother on the birth certificate, including her.”

But is that really true – are surrogate mothers really so detached?

I spoke to Liane, who said her own experience of surrogacy caused “a huge amount of grief and hurt”.

She described the market as being infected with a sort of “toxic positivity”.

She added: “It’s painted as a wonderful thing to do, a beautiful selfless act which can only bring joy when for me, I felt used, manipulated, and devastated”.

Ms Gibson of Surrogacy Concern says cases involving “coercion and regret” are not uncommon, even within the UK’s surrogacy model.

“Surrogacy prioritises the wants of the adults ahead of the needs of the child, and creates a societal sense of entitlement towards women’s bodies,” she said.

The practices of single men buying children abroad, white couples using black surrogate mothers, and the growing trend towards using cut price surrogacy destinations such as Mexico, Colombia, Kenya and Ghana are all on Surrogacy Concern’s radar.

Physical harms to surrogate mothers are real. Carrying a baby always involves serious risk but, for surrogates, those risks are often greatly magnified.

Linda Khan, an epidemiologist based in the departments of Paediatrics and Population Health at NYU, says surrogates run an “increased risks of all kinds of pregnancy complications, which lead to adverse outcomes for women and children”.

One factor, she says, is that the embryo is not biologically related to the woman and implanted via IVF. Another is that “many women are carrying multiples because it’s so expensive. They want two for the price of one”.

“Twinning is not safe, even when it occurs naturally. It is a huge burden on women’s bodies, it gets all the risks of complications sky-rocketing.”

Whilst it would be difficult (though not impossible) to ban or abolish surrogacy entirely – changing laws to ban the ‘womb traffickers’ as many campaigners refer to the brokers, should be a priority.

The marketing of surrogacy should also be made subject to tougher regulation, say some experts, although many others favour a blanket ban.

“Surrogacy is a trade that makes commodities of children, of embryos and of eggs, and reduces women to being seen as machines,” said Ms Gibson. “It should not masquerade as a progressive solution to the problem of infertility.”

Further, any legal protections introduced in the UK should be for the benefit of the surrogate mothers giving birth and the babies, rather than for the commissioning parents or agents, adds Ms Gibson. A commissioning parent should never have a legal right to remove a baby if a woman has changed her mind.

In March last year, experts from 75 countries signed the Casablanca Declaration, which calls for a global ban on all forms of surrogacy. And in April this year, an international conference was held in Rome with an aim to provide all States with a legal instrument banning the practice of surrogate motherhood.

Implicit within it is a rejection of the fanciful and dangerous notion that anyone, anywhere has an inalienable right to a child.

“The regulations of each country are not enough to stop human trafficking globally,” said Bernard Garcia Larrain, the Executive Director of the Casablanca Declaration for the Universal Abolition of Surrogacy.

“We need an international treaty to prohibit surrogacy because this is a global market that moves a lot of money and knows no borders,” he added.

[mysteriouslytransparentwitch]

I desperately need to understand what Harry and Meghan really want. What is their objective? After 4 long years of spitting on the royal family, what more do they want ? Why this obsession with Kate and William ? They have millions of dollars, a house, children, businesses. For you, what are they really looking for ? Sorry for all these questions, but I would really be interested in hearing your opinion.

you won't be able to understand their logic because their brains aren't wired correctly.

Meghan wants to be as powerful and desirable as Catherine.

Harry wants the same power as Wiliam but without the duties, he just wants to be as powerful as William.

After 4 years we can say that they are really taking the path of second-rate royals and they are starting to be conscious. Why? 3 pseudo-royal visits to "less economically developed" countries because no real country will finance their tour without an investment in return. The problem is that it is obvious, which is why Meghan and Harry opt for ultra-controlled communication with a single journalist who has no idea how it works and who is convinced that this is how it is.

The biggest problem for Meghan is that her business has been overshadowed by Catherine's absence. I don't know if people realize, but Catherine was absent and she launched her brand but people noticed Catherine more. At that time (according to my tarot readings) Hollywood was impressed by Catherine's impact, they sold so many articles for 10 days. That's when they understood Catherine's power. AND it's over for Meghan, she can try a lot of things, she will always be behind.

Currently for Harry, he still has things because his father is king and his brother is the future king. But forget one thing, we are really starting to see that he is separated. We will never treat him the same way as William. Personally, he still has 4 years left in front of him after that it's over!! Prince George is coming, he will be 14 and he will enter adolescence, if he goes back to Elton, imagine the world press. Harry will be eclipsed by his nephews and niece. The children will start to participate in national and international tours.

What will they do?

that's all for me, good night.

[fancylala4]

I saw some of you anti Ts posts they are funny and I need to Rant. sorry.

I am so FUCKING sick and TIRED of being relatable being cool! Fuck! If I wanna listen to someone they need to sound good! Way better than ME! Why is being average so overhyped! Bring back actual talent! Bring back people who can sing! Really sing. I want to be awestruck. I want to me in mesmerized. For fuckss sake Taylor Swift is only that popular because she is average and these swifties identify with her.

And fucking hell I AM SO TIRED of this bitch! I am so tired that they act like only her achievements count and as if achievements of other artists don't fucking count!

The Weeknd has a song with 4Billion streams on Spotify.

Drake has one song with 3 Billion and one with 2 Billion

Post Malone has one with 3 Billion and two with 2 Billion

Dua Lipa has four with 2 Billion

Justin Bieber has 3 with 2 Billion and 1 with 3 Billion

Coldplay has 3 with 2 Billion

Bruno Mars has 3 songs with 2 Billion

Ed Sheeran has 3 songs with 2 Billion and 1 song with 3 Billion

Taylor fucking Swift just recently as one song with 2 Billion streams! ONE! if she is so big? Why doesn't she have more? I can answer you this. Because her stupid fans only care about first week streams. They care about getting her on the chart. That is what spotify and billboard pushes. These morons will mass play her music all night so it get streams. It's so embarrassing.

If she didn't release shit constantly and her stans weren't some pathetic losers wanting her to chart so she just charts there is no WAY in fucking hell she could compete with todays artists.

Fucking hell and they compare her to Michael Jackson! Taylor Swift does not have the LONGEVITY. SHE DOES NOT. Not Mariah Careys, Britney Spears, Elton John or the Beatles. There's more but here's a few.

Michael Jackson had a top ten hit in 5 DIFFERENT DECADES. ( 6 if you count the Jackson 5) And probably will have another one after the biopic comes out!

If Taylor Swift would do this she would have to be able to have a TOP TEN HIT in 2030 and 2040. There is no way she would be doing this.

Mariah Carey in 4 DECADES SINCE THE 90'S!

Britney Spears the same as Mariah!

Elton John in four from the 70's- 20's missing the 00's and 10's.

The Beatles in the 60's 70's 90's and 20's.

Like i hate it so much how much this woman is pushed! And swifties gon act like as if she is the only artist being this succesful! SHE IS NOT! It's more impressive that Rihanna still gets high streams beside not releasing anything for YEARS! BTCH i wanna see Taylor Swift not releasing anything for 7 Years and see where she's at. Let's find out. But this woman is to coward to ever do that. She is so damn desperate for validation it's embarrassing.

HOW THE FUCK IS SHE NOT EMBARRASSED WINNING ALL THESE AWARDS OVER PEOPLE WHO ARE 10 TIMES MORE TALENTED THAN HER?!

This btch is absolutely not humble because i would be embarrassed. Literally. It's like how can you shit as tour gain so much money when you know you can't dance and are a mid singer.

And these faces of acting shocked when she wins an award! With that open mouth and GOD! Yes we get it you won again "suprisingly."

How the fuck does she have more AOTYs than any other fucking artist ever? How the fuck does this mediocre ass woman have more than Janet, Michael Jackson, Amy Winehouse, Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, Stevie Wonder.

And don't let me start on her victim card that she has used has her brand since fucking Kanye West had to go up on stage and embarrass her. He literally started this whole shit. You can never criticise her for anything. Because if you do you are a misogynist who just hates succesful women. She's always the fuckin victim and swifties romanticize it so much! They want her to be this struggling underdog who rose to fame cause that is what fits their damn wattpad story!

Taylor Swift wants to be the Man. She wouldn't be as succeaful if she was a man. Point blank period. Her shield to protect her self from any criticism wouldn't work. The only thing she has to be oppressed about is being a woman thats why her and swifties milk it so fuccking hard!!!

Thanks, and it’s ok. This whole blog is just a bunch of rants anyways.

But everything you said was true. I didn’t know she of all people have more aoty awards than those you mentioned. This just proves that the Grammys are a joke.

[yourplayersaidwhat]

Our party consists of a human artificer (my IRL husband) and a dragonborn paladin (me) who have a habit of seducing the local cat girl population wherever we go, a yuan-ti named lou whos patron is Elton from cat Twitter and their life goal is to become a cat and convert people to eltonism, and a brand new player who plays a shapeshifting druid named nix

We were having some ooc discussion

Me : Are tabaxis furrys?

DM: No, but those that like them are

My husband: Almost everyone in the party is for sure a furry then.

New player: Also any character who chooses to be an animal or animal kin is a furry irl confirmed

New player: Except Nix. Because she's for sure not me vicariously exploring being a furry.

DM: I mean, this whole campaign has been taking place in the Furry Federation

By popular demand

Me: Where else do you expect 3 furries to want to be

New player: is [warlock player] a furry?

Me: Listen all im saying is Lou wants to be a cat very badly

Me: Assigned furry at dnd

Warlock player: AFAD

[my-own-walker]

dating frat! kyle headcanons please?? ily 💕💕

Dating Kyle Spencer - Campus Fratboy Headcanons

note: i love this! it's a lil quickie i can put out before i post my next story!

+++

He's really affectionate in public. Especially around his frat brothers. He treats you like his prized possession, but not in a toxic manipulative way. He's just really proud he bagged a babe like you.

And by showing you off, I definitely mean he tries to make his frat bros jealous of what he has with you. He talks you up to them and tells them how cool you are (your achievements, things he likes about you).

In private he's even sweeter. Very vulnerable with his emotions. He comes right out and says what he's feeling no matter what.

He will open up to you about anything. Fights/arguments are typically very productive. He's a good communicator and lays his thoughts out on the table for you.

Not afraid to cry in front of you either. He isn't afraid to curl up into a ball on your lap and sob into the crook of your neck. But he's also very supportive of your emotions too. Will do anything in his power to make you feel better. Total softie.

Frequently buys you flowers/food/trinkets he thinks you'd like whenever he gets the chance. Always thinking of you. He remembers the small things, too.

You said you were out of your moisturizer last night? He shows up with it the next day, correct brand and all, because he knew you had class and would be too busy to get to the store.

Definitely is already planning your wedding. Like who will be there, where it will be, the whole nine. He's a commitment king. He doesn't do flings. When he's dating you he's in it for the long haul.

100% has the worst sex playlist on Earth. Like he made one, which is cute, but it's all 80s yacht rock and classic rock he was raised on.

Fav songs include: Hold The Line by Toto, Goodbye Stranger by Supertramp, Do Ya by Electric Light Orchestra, and I'm Still Standing by Elton John.

Total uncle vibes. He's a 20-year-old uncle. Makes dad jokes and is super corny. If you're in a store together and a song he likes starts playing, he will full-on start singing and dancing to it in an attempt to make you laugh.

Like he will twirl you and everything.

A total people-pleaser. You have to have multiple stern talks with him about doing whatever his frat brothers ask him to do. He just wants to fit in, but you see their tendency to walk all over him and take advantage of his kindness.

That being said, he is totally cool with making a fool of himself in public. He laughs at himself a lot.

He's really book-smart, but not always street-smart. Common sense sometimes evades him. He'll tutor you in biology but then forget to use oven mitts when pulling something hot out of the oven.

Very intimate in more ways than sex. It isn't a top priority for him. He is very touch-oriented. Every part of him wants to be touching you at all times. He would live him your clothes if he could.

He's big on neck kisses. They're his weakness.

Whenever you hold hands he makes a point to stroke the back of your hand with his thumb. When you cuddle, he's playing with your hair. When you're studying together, his arm is around you, or his hand is on your forearm.

Big on eye contact. He likes to look into your eyes during intimate moments. It helps him feel grounded/stay connected to you. Gives him a sense of control.

He is super helpful. Will always carry heavy things for you. Built the Ikea bookshelf in your apartment for you all by himself. When he's around your family, he helps with cooking, cleaning, whatever.

Makes a point to sit next to your grandmother/grandfather. Really respects his elders. Has genuine conversations with them and is super patient. Truly listens to their life stories.

Has a folder in his phone of pictures of you. He's always taking candid shots of you. He likes the non-posed photos just as much as the posed ones.

Don't even get me started on the selfies. He will send you 5 million silly selfies when he's bored. Whenever you hang out he's taking dumb selfies with you. Basically, he figured out his phone had a front camera and has been entertained by it ever since.

+++

I HAVE SO MANY MORE SO LMK IF YOU WANT A PT 2 OR ANOTHER CHARACTER!!! THESE ARE FUN

[euphraisette]

ursa's les amis modern au - courfeyrac

| 1. campus {vampire weekend} 2. big parade {the lumineers} 3. bennie and the jets {elton john} 4. the ballad of peter pumpkinhead {crash test dummies} 5. it's still rock and roll to me {billy joel} 6. actor out of work {st. vincent} 7. the chicken in black {johnny cash} 8. daydream believer {the monkees} 9. fireflies {owl city} 10. brand new key {melanie} 11. rocket man {elton john} 12. sloppy seconds {watsky} 13. call me maybe {carly rae jepsen} |

[roryonic]

Weekly tag Wednesday - The Google search edition!

Alright, roll call! @mybrainismelted @creepkinginc @spookygingerr @jrooc @gallapiech

@thepupperino @transmurderbug @blue-disco-lights

Thank you for the tags - let's get into it yuh

///

Name: For tonight, you can call me yours

Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego? (or you)?: Who has what kinda sand with Diego? I'm in the mountain land, my friend

Ok, so this week we are going to snoop into your google search. type in each phrase and tell us what the first suggestion is that google gives you!

What is the best way to… sleep. curled up in your ar--

Where can I… Saltburn. Not watched. Iffy if I want to or not.

How old is… Taylor Swift. Google says 34, but you never ask a lady her age.

How long does it take… to learn Norwegian? Forever and a day.

How many… songs can fit on a cd. It's for research. No need to know.

Who set the record for… the longest rock concert in the united states? Bruce Springsteen, apparently.

When did… the voting age change to 18 uk? Again, research.

What does it feel like to… get shot? I probably have googled that ngl

Can you… feel the love tonight. Sing it, Elton John!

When you… wish upon a star. Yeah, I know music.

Why do… we hear more about labor issues today? Really hope I get a good grade on this paper.

Is there a way… to save Karlach? Who now?

How old do you have to be… to have paypal? Idk.

Where do the… maori come from? Probably useful information one day.

What is the best time to… wake up? Easy. Never. Next question.

And to finish us off… What comes up when you type in Shameless? Shameless cigarette brand. Which are often Morleys, a fictional cigarette brand used in many different medias.

Do it (or don't, but still...) @spacerockwriting @transmickey @rayrayor @bawlbrayker @stocious

@sam-loves-seb @doshiart @heymacy @lee-ow

[qnewsau]

Chappell Roan debuts lesbian country song on SNL

New Post has been published on https://qnews.com.au/chappell-roan-debuts-lesbian-country-song-on-snl/

Chappell Roan debuts lesbian country song on SNL

Chappell Roan has confirmed a new era is starting for her, performing a brand new sapphic country-pop song on Saturday Night Live.

The pop superstar, 26, was the musical guest on the show over the weekend, as comedian John Mulaney hosted.

Chappell performed Pink Pony Club first, but for her second performance of the night, she debuted a new track.

Titled The Giver, the country-pop serenade is about her favourite topic: girls loving girls.

“All you country boys saying you know how to threat a woman right,” Chappell said during a spoken word aside in the song.

“Well, only a woman knows how to treat a woman right. She gets the job done.”

The title of the song was only confirmed when the SNL performance was uploaded – and then removed – from the show’s YouTube account.

Watch below:

Chappell Roan’s full hq performance of ‘The Giver’, her new cuntry single, live on SNL! pic.twitter.com/NdKLmqXRpw

— best of chappell roan (@bestofchappell) November 3, 2024

Watch Chappell’s performance of Pink Pony Club below:

Chappell Roan is releasing her second album

Chappell Roan toured Australia late last year following the release of her debut album The Rise And Fall Of A Midwest Princess, which was a slow burn success.

She performed smaller venues in Australia, but in less than 12 months the American artist has become one of the biggest pop stars in the world, breaking crowd size records at festivals.

Chappell has been teasing the release of new music recently.

Last week, she posted a photo of herself with the vinyl of her debut album and wrote, “Album kinda popped off imo but it is time to welcome a hot new bombshell into the villa.”

  View this post on Instagram

  A post shared by ･ﾟ: *✧ Chappell Roan ✧*:･ﾟ (@chappellroan)

Read more:

Chappell Roan reflects on meteoric rise to pop stardom

‘I’m coming’: Chappell Roan teases next Australian tour

‘True talent’: Elton John is a huge Chappell Roan fan

Chappell Roan calls out ‘creepy’ fan behaviour

For the latest LGBTIQA+ Sister Girl and Brother Boy news, entertainment, community stories in Australia, visit qnews.com.au. Check out our latest magazines or find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

[anonymoushouseplantfan]

Sure there's "naive" but Harry literally included an anecdote where he was thinking about his dead mother while rubbing the same brand of scented skin cream on his penis.

The multiple people involved in the creation of the book absolutely know how that reads - Moehringer, Meghan (maybe Doria?), Penguin staff, any friends he trusted to give feedback (Nacho?), and possible beta-testers.

You simply can't convince me that a major publishing house like PRH would not know how the book would be excerpted in the press. And they would have known that serialisation in the tabloids could be a further income stream + keep the focus on the anecdotes that shape the public narrative the most.

Okay, one last one before I close for the night.

I agree with you. I think when they say naive they mean Harry specifically, not the publisher. The publisher must have known, but I bet Harry insisted on not excerpting. He accused Elton John of hypocrisy when he did, so I bet he was the one who made that decision.

This one is on him. He can't shift the blame.

Okay, now it's good night for sure.

[7nessasaryevils]

Song Shuffle Game

rules: put your music library on shuffle, then list the first 5 songs that come up in a poll to let people vote for the one they like the most! 🎶

Tagging some of my recent rebloggers because I wanna get to know my moots more!!

@iam3nity @misakiusui07 @lamonnaie @hyeoni-comb @wolfsbane15

[bethanydelleman]

Northanger Abbey Readthrough, Ch 5

Mr. Tilney is still missing! He is not to be found at the theatre, the pump room, or out of doors. However, according to the narrator, this absence is very clever of him:

This sort of mysteriousness, which is always so becoming in a hero, threw a fresh grace in Catherine’s imagination around his person and manners, and increased her anxiety to know more of him.

Also, poor Isbella keeps dropping hints about James, She liked him the better for being a clergyman, “for she must confess herself very partial to the profession”; and something like a sigh escaped her as she said it but Catherine has no idea what she is hinting at! The fact that Isabella wants "delicate raillery" reminds me of Anne Steele from Sense & Sensibility:

Miss Steele wanted only to be teazed about Dr. Davies to be perfectly happy. (Ch 34)

Mrs. Allen is highly gratified to find friends that are shabbier than her in dress! But she and Mrs. Thorpe hardly ever actually talk to each other, in what they called conversation, but in which there was scarcely ever any exchange of opinion, and not often any resemblance of subject, for Mrs. Thorpe talked chiefly of her children, and Mrs. Allen of her gowns. If you want an example of Austen actually writing one of these conversations down, check out the "bragversaion" between Mrs. Elton and Mr. Weston, where he only really talks of Frank and she brings literally every statement back to Maple Grove. (Emma, Ch 18, V2)

Catherine and Isabella rapidly become friends, perhaps a bit too rapidly. Their quick friendship will be contrasted later with the more properly and far slower intimacy between Catherine and Eleanor Tilney. However, I have definitely had vacation friendships like this, where due to the amount of time together and the knowledge that you will soon go home, the friendship moves very fast.

They called each other by their Christian name, were always arm in arm when they walked, pinned up each other’s train for the dance, and were not to be divided in the set; and if a rainy morning deprived them of other enjoyments, they were still resolute in meeting in defiance of wet and dirt, and shut themselves up, to read novels together.

And then we come to the famous rant against the degradation of novels! And you know what? Austen has a good point. Why not have heroines of freaking novels read novels? What a strange brand of doublethink! A heroine must not read novels whilst existing within them. Funny to think that many of the novels that Catherine might have been reading would be considered classic literature now, though many more have faded out of recognition.

Austen also rightly points out that people are far more likely to actually read novels than "edifying" materials such as poetry or history, something which will come up later on the country walk. This makes me think of the scorn towards YA novels and comic books/novels today, which I still see way too much of. Let kids read what they like! A general love of reading will get anyone far in life.

(To be honest, I still kind of prefer fantasy YA because way too much of the adult stuff features rape/non-con/sexual assault and that's far less likely in YA)

But yeah, you just tell me the last time someone came up to you gushing about a History of England, it's not those books that capture our imagination and make us feel, it's novels. There is a reason I'm still reading novels from 200 years ago today and little else, and it's not just because factual information is far out of date!

Only a novel indeed!

[iwanthermidnightz]

As Taylor Swift rolled into Los Angeles this week, the frenzy surrounding her record-breaking Eras Tour was already in high gear.

Headlines gushed that she had given $100,000 bonuses to her crew. Politicians asked her to postpone her concerts in solidarity with striking hotel workers. Scalped tickets were going for $3,000 and up. And there were way, way too many friendship bracelets to count.

These days, the center of an otherwise splintered music world can only be Taylor Swift.

The pop superstar’s tour, which is now finishing its initial North American leg with six nights at SoFi Stadium outside Los Angeles, has been a both a business and a cultural juggernaut. Swift’s catalog of generation-defining hits and canny marketing sense have helped her achieve a level of white-hot demand and media saturation not seen since the 1980s heyday of Michael Jackson and Madonna — a dominance that the entertainment business had largely accepted as impossible to replicate in the fragmented 21st century.

“The only thing I can compare it to is the phenomenon of Beatlemania,” said Billy Joel, who attended Swift’s show in Tampa, Fla., with his wife and young daughters.

In a summer of tours by stars like Beyoncé, Bruce Springsteen, Morgan Wallen and Drake, Swift’s stands apart, in numbers and in media noise. Although Swift, 33, and her promoters do not publicly report box-office figures, the trade publication Pollstar estimated that she has been selling about $14 million in tickets each night. By the end of the full world tour, which is booked with 146 stadium dates well into 2024, Swift’s sales could reach $1.4 billion or more — exceeding Elton John’s $939 million for his multiyear farewell tour, the current record-holder.

Swift has now had more No. 1 albums on the Billboard 200 over the course of her career than any other woman, surpassing Barbra Streisand. With the tour lifting Swift’s entire body of work, she has placed 10 albums on that chart this year and is the first living artist since the trumpeter and bandleader Herb Alpert in 1966 to have four titles in the Top 10 at the same time.

“It’s a pretty amazing feat,” Alpert, 88, said in a phone interview. “With the way radio is these days, and the way music is distributed, with streaming, I didn’t think anyone in this era could do it.”

But how did a concert tour become so much more: fodder for gossip columns, the subject of weather reports, a boon for friendship-bracelet beads — the unofficial currency of Swiftie fandom — and the reason nobody could get a hotel room in Cincinnati at the end of June?

“She is the best C.E.O., and best chief marketing officer, in the history of music,” said Nathan Hubbard, a longtime music and ticketing executive who co-hosts a Swift podcast. “She is following people like Bono, Jay-Z and Madonna, who were acutely aware of their brands. But of all of them, Taylor is the first one to be natively online.”

Before Eras, Swift hadn’t been on tour since 2018. And her catalog has grown by seven No. 1 albums since then, fueled in part by three rerecorded “Taylor’s Versions” of her first LPs — a project hailed by Swift’s fans as a crusade to regain control of her music, though it is also an act of revenge after the sale of Swift’s former record label, a move that, she said, “stripped me of my life’s work.”

“Folklore” and “Evermore” expanded her palate into fantastical indie-folk and brought new collaborators into the fold: Aaron Dessner from the band the National and Justin Vernon, a.k.a. Bon Iver, rock-world figures who helped attract new listeners.

The other major tour this year that is enticing fans to book transcontinental flights, and to show up costumed and in rapture, is also by a woman: Beyoncé, 41, whose Renaissance tour is a fantasia of disco and retrofuturism. Like Swift, she is also a trailblazing artist-entrepreneur, maintaining tight control over her career and fostering a rich connection with fans online. Together with Greta Gerwig’s “Barbie,” a critique of the patriarchy told in hot pink, they are signs of powerful women ruling the discourse of pop culture.

But in music, at least, the scale and success of Swift’s tour is without equal. Later this month, after completing 53 shows in the United States, she will kick off an international itinerary of at least 78 more before returning to North America next fall. Beyoncé’s full tour has 56 dates; Springsteen’s, 90. (Recently, Harry Styles wrapped a 173-date tour in arenas and stadiums, grossing about $590 million.)

Outside Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City, fans posed for selfies and shared their ticketing ordeals. Esmeralda Tinoco and Sami Cytron, 24-year-old former sorority sisters, said they had paid $645 for two seats. A stone’s throw away, Karlee Patrick and Emily DeGruson, both 18 and dressed as a pair in angel/devil costumes after a line in Swift’s “Cruel Summer,” sat “Taylorgating” at the edge of the parking lot; they said they had paid $100 for parking but couldn’t afford tickets.

As Swift’s opening acts finished, the crowd rushed in. Glaser, the comedian, later said that of the eight shows she had been to, her favorites were the ones where she had brought her mother — and converted her to Swiftie fandom.

“Everyone is in love with her,” Glaser said her mom told her after one show in Texas. “Now I get it.”

[alarrytale]

Hi Marte. Do you think it is harder for male popstars and actors to CO than female popstars and actresses? Because fans of female popstars and actresses are mostly gay men and straight women but fans of male popstars and actors are mostly straight women who sexualize and fantasize about them. Billie CO hasn't impacted her career at all because she doesn't have a thirsty audience but it would impact Harry and Shawn's right? Due to having a female audience who fantasize about sleeping with them. Well Ricky Martin managed to do it but he waited until later in his career. I hope we don't have to wait that long! How would a male artist go about CO if he has a female audience? Do you think it's possible? I'm talking gay male artists by the way, not bi. Bi it would be easier to CO as straight women will stick around.

Hi, anon!

I agree with you that it's harder for gay male popstars and actors to come out because of their target audience. For gay male popstars, coming out will kill the fantasy and het women will lose their chance to project their wants, needs and use them for their heterosexual exploration. For gay male actors they will maybe lose the chance to play het romantic roles and action movies, or other hyper-masculine roles that het males project onto. They're afraid they'll loose het male respect and recognition.

It's totally doable to come out to a female audience as a gay popstar. Like gay men love popstars like Lady Gaga, Madonna and Beyoncé, female heterosexual women love gay men the same! There are plenty of straight women who are larries, plenty of straight women who read gay fan fiction, and plenty of older women screaming about Elton Johns flamboyant outfits.

Gay men can still be fashion icons, trendsetters, influencers and role models to women when they come out. Even if they can't deliver on het female fantasies anymore. Gay men are more relateable to women, less misogynistic, feminists and more supportive and understanding of females than straight men are. Women might not want you anymore, they now want to be you. They still want to know who you're dating (is he hot), which celebrity friends you hang out with, what brand you're wearing and what festival you're playing next.

If Harry (and Louis) start to age up and act their age, they will stop attracting so many teenagers as fans and continue keeping fans their own age, and grow and older fanbase. Most people will stop projecting their sexual fantasies onto celebrities when they grow up (or at least realise that you won't marry them). When you've been around as an artist on top of world for a decade, your fans will also have grown loyal to you. They won't stop buying your music or going to your concerts because you come out as gay. People will have grown up alongside you, you're a part of their childhood and you will always have a place in their hearts. You can’t love someone so much for so long and reject them just because they come out. You can still attract teenagers as fans, but they will be fans for other reasons than you being someone to project onto. Teens love the cast of Heartstopper, Young Royals and RWRB for example. As long as you stay relatable, iconic, cool, inventive and explorative, and be someone to admire and look up to, you'll be fine.

If the coming out is done right, slowly and by seeding, your fans will get the picture and start rooting for you to come out. They won't be taken off guard and will come to accept it, little by little. Boil the frog. I also don't believe going from a straight image to totally changing up everything to exaggeratedly show off your queerness is the right way to go in order to keep your longtime straight fans loyal and supportive (i'm looking at you jojo siwa and sam smith...). If finally being free and doing whatever you want is your main goal, then by all means. But if you still want to maintain your fanbase and level of fame, then don't change everything up and make the artist your fans know and love totally unrecognisable to them. It's too much. Don't do a personality transplant. Show that you are still you. That basically means still catering to heterosexual women. They are still your biggest target audience. You will automatically now also appeal and cater to queer people. I think that's a good way to do it. With time and more acceptance, you'll be able to be more and more your authentic self and self express the way you wish. Your fans will have gotten used to it and not notice it. Boil the frog.