#I'll admit that

[springs-hurts]

Ah the irony, Daenerys Targaryen, first of her name and whatever, wanted to free slaves, worked toward that goal so determinedly and yet she met one of her most precious friends and a trusted advisor only because he was caught selling poachers into slavery! Oh gods I love Jorah, I like him but it's so funny😭😭😭

Also, if not for slavery, he might have(no might needed here tho) remained in bear islands, and would have been saying "we know no king but the king in the North whose name is Stark" With Lyanna Mormont😭😂

[twilightguardian]

lmao. I'm not an abuse apologist for disagreeing with you on what constitutes sexual harassment or abuse, Lilith. Calm the fuck down. God it's like... there are only two shades in existence with people like you. No such thing as nuance or context.

And come to think of it, no, I don't think touching someone's hair counts as sexual harassment, either. I do think it's inappropriate, sure. Though again, context, if it's something like stroking a few strands, it's creepy, but it's not harassment like, for example, Judge Claude Frollo. I'm not actually defending Shay here so much as I was trying to say Yang is not a victim of sexual harassment and what he had done had barely counted as such. Because I don't like painting someone like Yang to be a victim. So I'm not really going to go down any rabbit holes trying to defend Shay more than just going over what I had previously. Plus, and I will concede this, I think my point got very muddied and lost and that is my fault. Because I can admit when I'm wrong unlike someone I know.

My point was that Yang did objectively worse than Shay and yet she gets main character status in canon and no one gives a shit. Shay doesn't lay a finger on her and you think it's the end of the world when he gets a little more depth than a joke name in a rewrite. No one cares about Shay/Shiloh except for you, since you focus on him so much. You treat every little tiny thing done to a male character in writing or critique as being sexist, and yet you ignore anything given in these rewrites to the female characters or, even if it's a positive thing, treat it as a negative anyway. Interesting, that.

[sabertoothwalrus]

modern au laios

[doydoune]

names names names (1-2/4)

(3-4/4)

[hellenhighwater]

I had a colleague come into my office the other day and go, "hey, do you have a second, I have a...dark...picture."

And immediately, my first reaction was holy crap in the context of this office something "dark" has got to be the most morally reprehensible crap I've ever seen, we see murder and assault of all kinds on a regular basis, what on EARTH qualifies as "dark" in this context--

and he showed me the picture, and it was--

--solid black.

I adjusted the brightness for him.

[leikeliscomet]

The aspec community REALLY needs to add intersecting identities to these analysis' instead of making general statements. How helpful is 'ace women are seen as pure because everyone thinks all women are asexual' when we look at the sexualisation of Black women and the Jezebel, the idea Black girls are 'fast' and the general sexualisation of women of colour e.g. spicy latina trope? Are we factoring in how the desexualization of women of colour e.g. the Mammy, the 'submissive' East Asian women trope, the virginity myth isn't acceptance of female asexuality? Does 'ace men are expected to be more sexual' factor in the sexualisation of Black men and other men of colour e.g. 'savage' Arab trope and the antiblack trope that they're inherently predatory? Or the desexualisation of East Asian men? How easily can we define the ace men v ace women experience at all if trans and non-binary aces are missing from most ace representation despite facing the brunt of anti ace discrimination? If we're solely defining these experiences by cis aces? How easily can aroallos 'just have sex' when you factor in the demonisation of gay sex, HIV/AIDS crisis and seraphobia and how this affects gay, lesbian, bi and pan aros? How easily can alloaces 'just partner up' when you factor in the ban of gay marriage that is still in many countries across the globe and the historical policing of 'homosexual behaviours' and this impacts gay, lesbian, bi and pan aces? And this isn't even getting into disability, religion etc. yet. When there's SO many factors that play into how an individual participates in sex and romance, or if they're even allowed to participate at all, how much can we clearly cut the aspec experience into alloace v aroace v aroallo. Or sex favourable v sex indifferent v sex repulsed. There's A LOT we can learn from each other.

[sporesgalaxy]

TWO THANGS

when I say "love" with no descriptors, I don't mean romantic by default

when I say "art" with no descriptors, I don't mean visual by default

[grey-viridian]

She's cute

[shinynewmemories]

Listen to me Suzanne Collins did not have to give Katniss and Peeta a history before the games. She did NOT have to do that. She could have just had their story begin when Peeta's name was called. She could have had them be total strangers until the moment of the reaping.

Like: "And the boy tribute is... Peeta Mellark!" Katniss: Who's that? Or she could have made them vaguely familiar with each other! Peeta's name is called and Katniss just thinks, Oh, I know that name! He's in my class, actually. Poor boy... Anyway!

Either way, SC could have written the rest of the story exactly the same! I think many authors would have done that! Because if Peeta's purpose in the book was to be Gale's competition, to be one of the 3 corners of a love triangle, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE WAY TO DO IT!! But that's NOT how she did it because that's NOT what Peeta is.

And who is he? To Katniss, Peeta's someone who saved her and her family and received nothing in return except a beating. Peeta's someone she has had her eye on but has never worked up the courage to talk to. Peeta's someone she associates with kindness and hope. And all this before the start of the events of the book! Just because WE, the READERS, met Gale before Peeta and immediately felt a connection with him does NOT mean that was Katniss's experience! And that's what SC is trying to tell us!

To dismiss Katniss and Peeta's past as unimportant or inconsequential compared to whatever Katniss and Gale have in the present is to fundamentally misunderstand Katniss as a character and, as a result, condemn oneself to never fully understand the choices she makes in the future.

Suzanne Collins wrote it that way on purpose because she had something to say. And no one will ever be able to convince me that something wasn't "It was always going to be Peeta".

[bixels]

tarpit site.

[wickymicky]

anyway

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Bonus 8: How met your mother (CSSR design by @qourmet!)

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[nervouspearl]

"Sauron was become now a sorcerer of dreadful power, master of shadows and of phantoms, foul in wisdom, cruel in strength, misshaping what he touched, twisting what he ruled, lord of werewolves; his dominion was torment."

[haljathefangirlcat]

Vaggie + giving Charlie the softest looks

[kala-mies]

Whaddado!

[saragrosie]

As promised, incredibly stupid s4-5 drawings