#I like the boiled one a lot

[davidisnotmyname]

(warning for possible creepy imagery)

AU where the boiled one discovers the magic of friendship is more powerful than any curse

this is stupid sorry lol I was bored (also click for better quality)

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Burning Rotten Bridges

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[pestercide]

Been absolutely obsessed with this freak lately <3

Concepts + progress

[bigskydreaming]

Imagine if you were a gay or bi man who tried a certain firefighter show because of all the attention it was getting for one of its mains having a later in life bi awakening.....and between seasons you ventured into its fandom in search of material to tide you over til the next one. And you're greeted by a deluge of posts and fics that are just cheerfully homophobic towards one half of the newly out bi character's canon relationship on the basis of 'well he's not the RIGHT gay guy' and pushing the idea that actually its fine to cheat on him because Reasons and he's sexually predacious based on......behind the scenes implications people have divined like they're reading fucking tea leaves.

But don't get it twisted....this fandom, like all fandoms, really cares about representation!

Sorry not sorry, but we really need to kill this idea that fandoms are welcoming and inviting and inherently progressive when they're frequently insular and reductive as fuck. Every single fandom I've been in has had major trends of people doubling down on their own headcanons and fanon interpretations of the characters and willfully enacting trends aimed at running off people who like the 'wrong' characters (usually characters marginalized along one or multiple axes), like the characters in the 'wrong ways' or other bullshit.

Scott is a Bad Friend fics overtaking Teen Wolf fandom was not incidental, it was a FEATURE of the fandom, because the vast majority of that fandom did not want to share its space with anyone who had the nerve to like its main character. Survivors complaining about or criticizing the prevalance of rape fics in a certain fandom has in my experience always led to a reactionary UPTICK in those fics, with gems like 'this character can, will, must be raped' in the tags making it crystal clear that some of these fics exist because how fucking DARE anyone try and push forth a narrative not agreed upon by Fandom Main.

I could cite examples for so many other fandoms, with the commonalities always being that vast majorities in these fandoms are explicitly reacting defensively to being asked to be more mindful of fandom trends revolving around or exacerbating racism, homophobia, transphobia, rape or abuse apologia, ableism, etc....

With the most prolific fucking rallying cry across countless fandoms being "No the fuck we will NOT be doing that," because lolololol.....

Fandom is an inherently progressive space, didn't you hear?

[nydescynt]

Thematic Analysis of Hades II: Why You Can Never Go Home

(At some point I might make a video on this, but for now sharing my thoughts via textpost. Spoilers ahead!)

So the text of the story of Hades and Hades 2 are Zagreus breaking out of the House, and Melinoë breaking in.

But the wild thing (and the reason Hades 2 is much more interesting to me) is that both games actually have almost inverted themes from that text. Zagreus is intent on uniting a household; Melinoë is discovering the home she's fought to return to is rotten to the core.

Zagreus, despite his entire textual goal being to leave his home and family, is narratively & thematically working to bring the family and household together. His mother comes back and is reunited not just with him but her husband, mother, and entire extended family. Achilles and Patrocles, Orpheus and Eurydice, Asterion and Theseus: Hades is a story of people metaphorically coming home and making peace with where they are (Sisyphus, Thanatos, Orpheus). Everyone basically gets a happy ending, credits roll, problems all resolved or en route to be solved. Everyone is home.

(Important to note: we never see a human in the first game. We see shades, and gods, and monsters, and the closest you get to a mortal living thing is the satyrs. This is a story concerned with the realm of the gods.)

In contrast, Melinoë has no home - besides being estranged from her childhood home, she literally lives in a tent. In case the theme was too subtle, presumably.

Now, she has been fighting her entire life to become powerful enough to return home and reclaim her family - that seems Zagreus-adjacent on its face. However, there isn't a home to return to- Hades is in shackles, the rest of her family trapped in time. At this point in Early Access, on both a metatextual & diegetic level she quite literally can neither make it to Mt Olympus or into Zagreus' room - she cannot go home, she cannot meet her family.

Consider the others: Odysseus' presence seems to tie into the idea of a long journey home, but this is an Odysseus who lived and died and now has other (inhuman) priorities. He loves them, but has no interest in reuniting with Penelope and Telemachus at this point. Nemesis dislikes her siblings, and is more concerned with the equal application of "justice" than whether it has any reforming effect. Narcissus and Echo eventually talk and part more amicably, but that's the best that can be said about their relationship.

Hecate refuses to be called Melinoë's mother: she will not distract from the "true" family that Melinoë has no memory of ever meeting.

Instead of Ares and Dionysus (enjoyers of chaos and least affected by the toxicity of the family in Hades 1) we have Hestia and Hephaestaus- a goddess who helped murder her father and a god constantly belittled by his own family. Their tense and frequently bitter interactions with the other Olympians are evocative of the central theme being explored: what if there isn't a home to go back to? What if your family is unforgivable? (What if you want to forgive them anyways? What if you need to?)

This theme is why Arachne is in the game, and Athena is not: likeable, first-helper-of-Zagreus Athena turned Arachne into a spider out of petty anger. How do you reconcile that?

Moros (lovely, kind Moros, who gushes at Odysseus like a fanboy) and his sisters the Fates did horrible things to mortals out of boredom. The same mortals whose bodies you can see stacked up like cordwood in Ephyra, who you repeatedly claim you are fighting to protect from Chronos. Moros can neither confirm nor deny that the current events could have been set in motion by the Fates. How do you reconcile that?

Polyphemus raises sheep. He genuinely loves and cares for them, is protective of them. He also eats them, and is confused when Melinoë implies a contradiction.

How can you love someone and be willing to kill them? For survival? For fleeting satisfaction? For vengeance?

Is Chronos' willingness to eat his children so morally heinous that it makes him worse than every cruelty the gods have wrought? Worse for who?

[utilitycaster]

Ok I'm probably going to regret reinventing 17th century European religious philosophy here but:

Ludinus's issue with the gods as stated to Imogen and Fearne (and I will state right now that we know he was lying or deliberately misleading at points in that conversation so I don't exactly take him at his word, but let's assume he does mean this) is that they did not prevent the Calamity. I have the following questions.

Does he have any loyalty/feelings about the Titans given that they would have killed all the people in the era of the Schism, ie, the gods averted that Calamity? My guess is no, which means that whole avenue of discussing the Titans was something of a dead end.

How should Calamity have been averted? The Prime Deities during the Age of Arcanum largely let people do what they wanted, which is what led to one of those mortals releasing the Betrayer Gods. Should the gods have struck down Vespin Chloras before he actually did anything, Minority Report style? Can the gods even predict based on the actions of a single individual or small group, because my guess is they can't, particularly since within the current stream of gameplay they absolutely cannot [ie, the reason the Changebringer can't tell FCG to stay or run is because Matt Mercer is the Changebringer and he doesn't know how people will roll; you do need to consider the medium here]. But if they could: so you think they should strike down mortals on the basis of thoughtcrimes? Or control them? In that case, why is Aeor a problem? There's a lot you can argue is justified once you permit the gods to override free will and kill people over mere potential for catastrophe.

On that note, Laerryn both was an unwitting architect of the Calamity (shorted on energy and then killed the Tree of Names, which served as a core planar defense system) but also averted the worst of it. Did the lives she saved by preventing the rise of Rau'shan and Ka'Mort outweigh the lives she took by destroying the Tree of Names? How should the gods have reacted?

Should, perhaps, the gods have all sealed themselves away earlier - perhaps post-Schism? If so, then the issue isn't the Divine Gate, now is it? Should the gods intervene or not intervene? Should they remove themselves or no? It feels like the issue isn't that they distanced themselves so that they can do less in the world, particularly if you wish to kill them, but that you really want to fucking kill them and they made that somewhat more difficult.

How do we know the gods (for example) didn't save Laudna? She was hanged and she's still alive; Morri would probably count this as saving her and I don't see the same desire to wipe out all Archfey. [real talk I find most discussion of Laudna specifically to be...incomprehensibly ignorant in its refusal to acknowledge that everything about it is player agency related, whether it's the story that the cast played out for Vox Machina or the decisions Marisha specifically made in creating the character, ie, do you think Matt should have said "well you can't play a Hollow One because that would mean the gods didn't save you" not to mention the fact that again, we are playing this within a game system where the existence Deus Ex Machina would in fact fucking suck ass; but even setting aside those reasons why this argument is stupid, it's still stupid. It's like a layer cake of stupid.] Again: do you want more intervention or less? Killing them guarantees less.

I'm assuming the problem with the Calamity is the vast loss of life, in which case, what's the math on how many people have been killed by the Vanguard or Imperium in the pursuit of unleashing Predathos? How many more will die?

If the release of Predathos doesn't result in the immediate demise of all the gods, and the Divine Gate is down, why isn't this a recipe for Calamity 2? What was the motivation for killing the gods again?

Should we kill mortal diviners who do not do all within their power to stop terrible things that may come to pass? If the issue is that some people have power without working for it, why haven't we killed all the sorcerers?

Should we be listening to a single word from someone who consumes random fey to live longer, and that's just the start of the CVS receipt of atrocities?

Is there a point where one's deeply held beliefs due to one's own personal trauma become invalidated due to one's actions as a result of that trauma? If so, why is the limit for Orym "is okay with killing people who are trying, directly, to kill you (which, frankly, isn't even a trauma response, that's just called not wanting to die, which I highly recommend as a personal philosophy), and gets upset when people defend those knowingly collaborating with his family's murderers" and the limit for Vanguard generals "family abandonment/just. buckets of murder of innocents./child soldier recruitment in multiple different contexts/eating fey as biohacking/destroying an entire city and the surrounding forest for hundreds of years (ongoing)/imperialism in multiple different contexts/I was going to make a gallows humor joke about how while neither exist in-world they've violated the Geneva Convention AND the IRB for testing on human subjects multiple times over but actually those both are in fact written in a lot of the same blood/probably some others that I'm forgetting"

[tofixtheshadows]

"Marcille is gay because she felt Falin up in the bath" boring. Anyone as neurotic as Marcille could act like that.

The biggest canon proof that Marcille is a lesbian is her extremely comphet fantasies of chaste and chivalric men.

Like this is just what lesbians who haven't realized they're lesbians imagine they want from men.

Marcille should not be at the club, but she should be home watching Pride and Prejudice (2005) and Revolutionary Girl Utena.

[sprinklethetangerine]

Hey, I just watched Dead Poets Society for the first time ever! Now, if you guys don't mind, I'm gonna go sit in the corner of my room and scream!

[allastoredeer]

I'm with you there on preferring bottom!Alastor and getting squicked out by top!Alastor. The squick is worse for me when searching radioapple than radiostatic stuff, and I think it has more to do with the egregious amount of uke-fication of Lucifer that I've seen. Vox and Al get it sometimes too, let's be real that's gonna happen in any mlm ship. But I feel like it happens SO often to Lucifer, mostly cause he's small and cute, that people completely forget he's the oldest and most powerful entity in hell.

He would NOT be genuinely scared or intimidated by Al or any other sinner for that matter and Al would NOT be able to physically overpower or threaten Luci. It just feels so wildly out of character for me that any of the appeal of the ship/characters is gone at that point.

Like, for real, no shade to anyone that likes that, go on and get your food. But my extreme dislike of it has me now avoiding bottom!Lucifer radioapple like the plague just so I don't risk being subjected to it.

I think...I think you just described why I feel so squicked out by bottom!Lucifer and top!Alastor 😦 Like, I couldn't figure out what exactly about it was throwing me off, but you just said it perfectly!!

That's literally it! It's the uke-fication of Lucifer. That's it. Lucifer would never feel threatened by Alastor. He would never be overpowered by Alastor. So when I see depictions of Alastor successfully intimidating Lucifer, or overpowering him at all, it just throws me out of the story.

Lucifer's been alive longer than Hell. Alastor's measely 100+ years of being alive is nothing compared to his millennia+ lifespan. And yeah, Lucifer is the strongest person in Hell, he could beat Alastor in any fight, no question. He has no reason to be scared or threatened by him.

And look, there are ways to get Lucifer to a point of being afraid. There are always a way to make characters act in a way you wouldn't typically see. In fact, Lucifer, the biggest, baddest person in Hell, being threatened by something would be a huge thing for his character and for the story. That could totally work!

But when it comes from Alastor just going into his demon form, or looming over Lucifer, I just 🥲 it takes me out of the story. I can't. Alastor may be a big bad Overlord, and he's dangerous for sure, but like...power-wise he is just not on Lucifer's level and Lucifer knows that--Alastor knows that--and this is what makes their dynamic so, SO interesting, especially if they're in a relationship or slowly building into a relationship. That's what makes it so spicy and flavorful. The push and pull. The insecurity and emotion. The complex dynamic between them.

I think you're right about it making bottom!Lucifer and top!Alastor lose its appeal. I went back through my Twitter bookmarks yesterday and found a few top!Alastor's & bottom!Lucifer's that I've saved, but I've come to dislike that generalized characterization of it so much that I avoid it it like the plague too.

And like you said, there's no hate to those who enjoy it. This is fandom and people are allowed to write, draw, and do what they want. It's all fiction and it's not hurting anyone.

I just don't like the top!Alastor & bottom!Lucifer dynamic in most fan-arts, and I don't click onto fics with it cause I just don't want to subject myself to an unenjoyable time 😂 I'm here to have fun too, afterall.

[batsplat]

after 2015 until 2018 it seemed that things had calmed down a bit between valentino and marc, in the sense that they had started to be polite between them again and valentino no longer seemed to be on a war footing. then after argentina obviously the situation worsened again. in the podcast where valentino spoke in 2021 if I'm not mistaken, when he talks about marc,however, he only refers to the events of sepang and not to what happened in argentina which instead seemed to have been the final “divorce”. so my question is, during 2016 and 2017 did valentino just pretend to put up with marc? because in that podcast you can feel valentino's resentment is still a lot even after many years, so I imagine it must have been even greater in the two years immediately following sepang, even if it didn't seem if you see how he behaved

well. look. it was reflected in how valentino behaved... I think sometimes if you see isolated photos and gifsets, you can maybe be left with a bit of a mistaken impression of what that dynamic actually looked like for those two years. they got to a point post-catalunya where they were civil to each other, and maybe they'd exchange two lines in greeting, at podium celebrations, when somebody in a presser made a joke... and maybe marc at the very least was sincerely hoping they could get back to something like what they had before 2015. in reality, though, it was still very very far away. it wasn't open hostilities... at some point in 2016, valentino realised he simply couldn't go on like this. I talked about it a bit here:

you get this discrepancy in his 2016 output, actually. if you compare what he's saying that autumn for written press interviews vs what he's saying with marc right next to him... he'd clearly decided there was zero point in directly fanning the flames. at the sepang 2016 presser when marc and him are quizzed on what had happened the previous year, he just goes with marc's response and decides against reopening the controversy by adding anything from his side. but he still made it clear he hadn't changed his mind in interviews from the exact same time period! at times, he tolerates marc's tentative advances - at other times, he's almost accidentally sucked in, like he can't quite help himself from laughing at something marc has said. but there was never a period where he forgave marc for what he'd done... for various reasons he just decided he wasn't going to harp on about it too much. he did basically say as much post-argentina 2018:

but yeah, argentina 2018. it's an interesting one, isn't it? the stuff that valentino says there doesn't actually feel... quite in line with anything else he's said about marc. typically, when valentino criticises marc, it really is all about sepang 2015 - it's very focused, very specific, he's talking about being unable to forgive marc on a personal level for something marc had done to valentino... but it's not like he's really coming at marc for anything else... when other riders have gotten into spats with marc, he's stayed out of it - and generally he remains pretty neutral when he talks about everything else concerning marc. so, for example, there's a world where the moment alex rins is saying marc doesn't respect other riders in 2019, valentino immediately jumps at the opportunity to offer his hot take... but he doesn't do that. and yes, he had criticised marc's riding before, in particular in marc's moto2 days, but obviously those criticisms were considerably more restrained and sounded at times quite worried for marc's sake. (he also got close to that in silverstone 2016 when he remarked marc had 'something special' for their battles, but a) he's not wrong, except insofar as it's clearly mutual, and b) he explicitly said he didn't have a problem with that fight and considered it hard but fair). in 2017, when valentino was criticising other riders for being too aggressive... well, he wasn't doing so with marc, and he even conceded the point to marc in subsequent races after marc had obliquely criticised valentino at cota for his rhetoric not matching up to his own riding. when valentino's young riders have gotten into their own spats with marc, he's not waded in either, at most saying stuff about marc's fight with pecco that from his lips sounds almost like something akin to praise. radio silence after bez's run in with marc at the end of last year... argentina 2018 is the exception not the rule

and you know... at the end of the day, that was an emotional reaction. valentino might be wearing the habitual smile on his face during the media debrief and sound reasonably calm and composed, but he was furious. which, it's always worth remembering, isn't an entirely unreasonable reaction to that specific situation. yes, valentino doesn't have a clean track record either, but you're going to struggle to find such a... weaponised carelessness, a blatant disinterest in his fellow riders while shoving them aside, in the way marc was exhibiting that day - and indeed that whole weekend. looking back, of course argentina 2018 ended up being an isolated blot on marc's track record that he's not come close to repeating since (yes, he's made high profile errors that took out other riders, but it's different)... but we didn't know that at the time. also, I doubt valentino much appreciated being treated just like an obstacle in marc's path! the fact that valentino wasn't the only marc victim that weekend kind of has an interesting effect, because you have to doubt whether it would have helped if valentino felt like he was being targeted specifically by marc, but on the other hand... well, it's almost disrespectful, isn't it... being singled out is in a way still better than being brushed aside like any other rider

still, valentino's pushing it with his criticisms, he's out of line, and he clearly did lash out in the heat of the moment - which was of course largely a product of the resentment he'd been holding onto those past two years. calling marc's behaviour that day dangerous? sure, you'd find a lot of agreement for that. saying that marc was ruining the sport? that he was intentionally causing other riders to crash? ... well, hold on one moment. I reckon the simplest explanation is the best one here: valentino was angry and said stuff he wouldn't otherwise say, which we know because he's not done so before or since. of course, he was never going to retract what he said about marc that day - he wasn't ever going to apologise for it. not with their history, not when there was still just enough about those argentina comments that he meant... so he wasn't going to feel too much regret about the bits he wouldn't have said under any other circumstance. the problem post-2015 for valentino is that constantly signalling his fury to the world wasn't doing him much good... but pretending like everything was just fine clearly also took a bit of a toll. argentina 2018 wiped the slate clean - even though they gradually crept back towards basic civility after that. and valentino really didn't continue with that line of critique... since then he's basically completely reverted back to a sepang 2015-centric approach. maybe a few hints at it... in 2021, he said something along the lines of how he doesn't feel good when he's on-track with marc, but that's pretty generic while also crucially being personal - he's not saying marc is a problem for the series, he's saying it's them specifically that have an issue with each other

which doesn't mean he didn't believe what he said in argentina 2018 in the moment... when they reconvened in cota and had marc and valentino do separate media debriefs from the main presser, valentino said he stood by his comments - but also didn't actually repeat them or elaborate on them or anything. he's back to terse short responses to the press' questions, saying he wants to focus on the race ahead: kind of the go-to approach when it comes to marc post-sepang (with notable exceptions). he's walked his strongest comments back as much as he was probably ever going to - by simple virtue of the fact that he's left it at that. and you know, he's a complicated guy... 2016-17 was both pretending and it also wasn't. he didn't act like everything was forgotten, but he certainly was willing to let people believe that this relationship might end up being mended - which quite frankly was probably never going to happen. mostly, he was just sort of sick of the whole thing, struggling to enjoy himself in what had become such a charged, hostile environment for all the riders involved. at the same time, look - fundamentally, the interpersonal chemistry with marc was always fine. they click as people! they click as riders! marc makes valentino laugh! sometimes, that line between 'pretending' and 'letting yourself pretend' and 'actually not pretending at all' can be quite thin. when valentino talks in that time period about how much he enjoyed a battle with marc, of course he isn't lying - because he really does enjoy those fights! that's what racing is all about for him, and that's something him and marc still share! as long as marc isn't barging him aside and causing him to crash, that is. maybe it'd be easier if it were all a pretence, but it wasn't... sometimes, when you say you thought a race was hard and fair, you really do mean it and you really did have a lot of fun. sometimes, the struggle isn't actually acting nice for the cameras, it's trying to bite down the temptation to laugh alongside your sworn enemy

see also assen 2016... like, isn't this kinda wild? you've just had catalunya the race before, you've just had the mere semblance of a tentative start to a possible reconciliation - then they return to the place that was really the beginning of the end for them. they go on a few track familiarisation laps, including to check out the resurfaced final chicane (aka the scene of the crime). they race each other on said track familiarisation laps. then marc brings it up in the presser, giggling about the whole thing, and apparently valentino also finds it pretty funny - before he visibly swallows up his grin. later that weekend, marc pointedly decides to try out valentino's final chicane move himself during the warm up session. this is all obviously deranged, but it's a type of deranged where they are fundamentally on the same wavelength. it's the kind of ridiculous behaviour they're both incredibly fond of... you see it in how valentino shrugs off the towing at catalunya 2019, and thinks it speaks to marc's smarts and wiliness - unsurprising, really, because they're so similar in that regard, and valentino has never shaken his admiration for marc as a competitor

valentino can clamp down on his animosity towards a rival during his direct interactions with them... lord knows if you watch a few of the casey and valentino face-to-face interactions over the years, you really wouldn't match that up with the sheer vitriol of some of the stuff they were concurrently saying about each other in the press. that rivalry was never really personal (on valentino's end), it was never fraught in the same way (for valentino anyway) - still, it shows he's theoretically capable of separating this stuff out when he needs to... and he just about managed with marc for two years. if he had just been waiting for an excuse, surely you would have heard at least a hint of that when him and marc swapped paint in 2017. you never quite knew how he was going to answer the inevitable questions about marc's riding, but no direct criticism was forthcoming at any stage. the post-argentina 2018 rhetoric wasn't in any way premeditated from valentino's side, and personally I don't think he was just waiting for an excuse either. it was the result of a constant internal conflict between knowing that engaging in any more active beef with marc wouldn't do anyone any good, and the fact that he still hadn't forgiven marc... and then a race came along that simply pissed him off enough to push him over the edge

from 2016 onwards, valentino both very much wanted and very much did not want further conflict with marc, and neither of those impulses ever quite go away. usually, he's disciplined enough to avoid stoking the flames any further... potshots to the press outside of the paddock are essentially a free and harmless outlet in that regard, and even there you can tell he was trying to scale it back in the years where he was being forced to directly interact with marc. he was pretending and not pretending and sometimes pretending like he wasn't pretending and sometimes pretending like he was pretending. maybe it would have always just taken one major on-track confrontation for things to fall apart between them again... but you do kinda have to acknowledge the whole thing was really unfortunate. I've long thought that something like sepang 2015 was pretty inevitable as long as valentino managed to put himself in title contention once marc had joined the premier class, but I don't actually feel the same way about argentina 2018. an awful marriage of circumstance and coincidence and bad choices caused the relationship to fall apart again this badly. valentino might have had some more or less sincere misgivings about marc's riding, but at the end of the day he wasn't going to ever express them unless it got personal - because all of these people are incredibly self-centred and valentino wouldn't have felt like it was worth it. he lost his temper, he said some stuff he might partly but not fully believe, he's not inclined to bring it up again. that's that

[ardenrosegarden]

I have rendered, line by line, not an abstract linguistic equivalent of the Greek, but what I understand its living significances to be...In the theatre, I want to encounter what they are saying to me, not what they once said to someone else. Paradoxically, we might only ever approach the ‘original experience’ of Athenian Tragedy, by first expunging from it every element we think of as ‘Greek’. Euripides’ audience weren’t watching a ‘Greek’ play. They were watching a play of their own. So must we be.

-David Rudkin's Foreward for Euripides' Hippolytus

Euripides tr. David Rudkin, Hippolytus Shane Donaghy, A Reading on Hippolytus Anna Maria Ruffino Broussard, Asexual Dramaturgies: Reading for Asexuality in the Western Theatrical Canon Thomas K. Hubbard and Maria Doerfler, From Ascesis to Sexual Renunciation in A Companion to Greek and Roman Sexualities Ela Przybylo, Asexual erotics: Intimate readings of compulsory sexuality Canton Winer, Camouflage, Exceptionalism, and Cultural Criticism: Asexuality and Masculinity Threat in Asexualities CJ DeLuzio Chasin, Reconsidering Asexuality and Its Radical Potential

[harbingersecho]

RVBtober 8+9 > fall + revelation "You know, sometimes, when somebody falls off a cliff in movies, he's actually just over the edge, hanging on a tree branch or something." "Nope. He's definitely dead."

... and he is. presumably.

(also if you ever decide to try and make a 2-page comic in 2 days even if half of it is just a paintover. don't do that. that's the devil talking)

[shalom-iamcominghome]

New blog rule (inspired by recent events): antisemites get one (1) snarky reply from me before they are reported if I choose to respond.

After that, the only response will be thus:

עם ישראל חי

[tennessoui]

Do you have a preference for top Obi-Wan or top Anakin in obikin? And if so, why? I'm new to the fandom and ship, and it seems that top Anakin is very popular. I've always imagined him bottoming more often for Obi-Wan, although I like to think they switch occasionally

i very much do not have a preference or an opinion on this! i read and write either - the important thing for me is that they're recognizable to my understanding of the characters and i don't see either of them as massively frail, demure, twinky, etc so that's usually the stuff i don't read or interact with (and i've moved away dom/sub stuff currently) though more power to you if that's what you like! to me, their sexual positions in bed do not make up a big part of their characters, so i really can switch between both and enjoy it all.

it's just not the interesting part of a story for me, and honestly (and i know this is controversial or what passes for controversial in a fandom lol) i don't tend to tag my explicit fics with who is topping and who is bottoming if there's penetrative sex involved - especially for longer fics because the story isn't about that in my mind. it's a very small aspect of it and the least important part

i do think i've seen a lot of conflating dom/sub with top/bottom lately and that's a trend that comes and goes like waves and also a trend i very much dislike. i definitely have stronger views on conflating dom/sub and top/bottom than i have on who should top and who should bottom LOL

[fitzrove]

Fun facts about crown prince rudolf 🥰💖

Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria was this super tragic figure whose super tragic life was always tragic and very sad. Also he was an irredeemably evil sexist jerkface and if you like him you're a pick me girl who wants WOMEN TO DIE,, anyway here are some fun facts about him!

He died in 1889 from suicide :( Or he may have been murdered by French agents sent by his friend Clemenceau,, listen I know they were friends who were aligned politically, but Empress Zita said this ~40 years after Rudolf's death, and because she's distantly related to him through marriage it must 100% be true!

He shot himself in the mouth, I don't know why all of these adaptations change it to be the temple lol

He infected his wife with syphilis >:o

According to his writings (mostly Eine Orientreise where he frequently admires the fresh manliness of his Arab hunting companions) he was heteroromantic polysexual <3 representation

He used to keep this creepy sex register where he used different colors of pens to mark what kind of woman he slept with (virgin, of noble birth, etc...). No trust me bro it's legit even though nobody has ever presented proof of this register existing anywhere or even a credible primary source citation to point to someone contemporary describing it

During his travels in Egypt and Palestine Rudolf acquired many cultural and historical artifacts for museums in Vienna as well as for his personal collections<3 Explorer king. Wait what do you mean imperialism, graverobbing and arson?? Noo I wouldn't describe it as such haha...

He was really sexist and that's not ok tbh :/ How can anyone be interested in him when he was horrible to women :( I mean it's kinda hard to find 19th century european men who would not have been and a lot of our still-revered statesmen had comparable attitudes that people let slide, but actually when it's someone that was also mentally ill in a Scary Violent Way it's ok to center his negative traits and ignore everything else about him haha. Also women are only allowed to enjoy researching and discussing historical figures who are unproblematic and good representation<3 ALSO women are not allowed to make arguments about historical figures being interesting or sympathetic based on their political views/positions if those figures were awful people in their personal lives, it's like the rules of feminism or something! ~~

He was involved in this crazy conspiracy to crown himself as king of Hungary. Also he was really hyped about hungarian nationalism and independence and totally wasn't an imperialist first and foremost who would've seen the ideology as ultimately destructive regardless of any personal fondness for Hungary

The italian anarchist Luigi Lucheni actually really wanted to fuck him and this was a motivating factor for Lucheni's assassination of empress Elisabeth in 1898 😳

[THIS POST IS SATIRE (inspired by) and the "facts" are purposeful misinformation kfkfkfkf. If anyone can provide actual proof of that sex register thing that does NOT come from greg king and penny wilson (derogatory) I will graciously not duel them in the hofburg parking lot xD I hate that this disclaimer needs to be included because it ruins the joke, but a lot of these are such common takes that I can't not]