#The fact that he. Fucking wrote about lesbians being “convinced” by men.

[honeylemony]

Mourning for the lesbian that was one of Neil Gaimans victims. I'm so sorry that happened to you. You didn't deserve that.

[that-one-kiddo-in-the-back]

The Harley Quinn show is amazing... probably.

Okay, so when I was in like middle school, I was a huge DC fan. I'm not as much anymore as I've dedicated my life to Star Wars. Now, Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy are my favorite femfatile villains and have been the lesbian couple Gotham really didn't want, but the LGBTQ fans needed. Both have been abused by the men in their lives and found companionship with each other. Now let see how Lily sees it.

So Lily isn't a fan of the DC universe. Mainly, her problem stems from batman saying that she stopped caring about batman when it became something dark and edgy and used the dark knight as an example of it getting too dark, which if you're gonna blame something for a franchise for getting to dark don't use the dark knight. The batman franchise has been a dark thing way before 2008. Batman, in the 85 years he's been around, has always had a dark streak. All of the villains are crazy patients with a killer clown running around a corrupted city and the main hero becoming who he is after the death of his parents. If you want to blame something for how Batman is now. Blame the dudes in charge in 1939.

Now, Harley Quinn has been the Jokers "girlfriend" ever since her first appearance in 1992. With them being an off and on relationship. Lily says that the abuse Harley goes through with the joker is never really touched upon, which is both true and not. Everyone in comics and shows knows that Harley is in an unhealthy relationship, and all have asked why she stays. It's not that it's not touched upon. it's more of everyone knowing she's not gonna leave him, no matter what he does to her. To everyone around her, they know Harley doesn't want to leave the joker, so why bother convincing her. Like Lily said, you can't help someone who doesn't want it.

Lily starts talking about Ivy and how dispirit the fact that she's a doctor (most of the villains are doctors in their own field) she sexualized except for The Batman where she's just a teenager. Then she talks about clayface being a D list villain who's now a struggling actor (he always was). While she's talking about other characters, her straw man is constantly asking Lily what she thinks of Harley Quinn herself and spoiler alert she doesn't like Harley. What a surprise.

She claims that Harley's character is boring and is only centered around the love between her and Ivy and the abuse between her and the Joker now that might be true for the show which is pretty lame if you don't want to read her comics but what makes me mad is that Lily thinks that Harley being a stand alone villain never made sense because she has no evil goal like Ivy or the penguin but the Joker also doesn't have a goal either. A villain doesn't need to have a goal to do evil things, and Harley is no different. Harley Quinn is straight up crazy thanks to the chemical dunk and has HPD (Histrionic Personally Disorder), meaning she does things for attention. She doesn't need to have a goal in mind to cause trouble, and personally, I think the scariest villains are the ones who start shit just because they could.

Lily then goes on to say that Harley is only a villain because of the people she's dating, then brings up how Harley was the Jokers therapist but threw it away because of

"Bog standard fangirl hybristophilia"

Harley was fucking manipulated by the Joker to see if he could make her fall in love with him not because she had a thing for bad boys. I have not seen the Harley Quinn show, so please tell me that's not what the writers wrote in for her backstory.

I try to watch the whole video, but her saying that a victim of manipulation and abuse did this to herself because she had Bonnie and Clyde syndrome pissed me off so much that I couldn't finish it. All I can say is that Lily really has a problem with victim characters, and we've seen it time and time again from her hating Hunter to Catra, how she's willing to end friendship to save her own mental health and completely forgetting that the person who is reaching out probably has no one else to go to. Lily has no empathy, but I didn't need to tell you that.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous asked: I really enjoy your erudite and literary posts about James Bond in your blog very much. Your most recent post about Connery as best cinematic Bond and Dalton as the best literary Bond was brilliant. Although the PC brigade have been inching towards making Bond a woman or even non-white, Ian Fleming’s legacy of a suave but cold hearted English gentleman spy hasn’t been completely trashed. As someone familiar with Fleming literary lore can you also tell me where was James Bond educated? Was it Oxford or Cambridge? I was having a discussion over Zoom with friends and the Oxonians like myself thought it was Oxford because in Casino Royale with Daniel Craig it’s made very plain it was Oxford. Your thoughts?

I appreciate your kind words about my posts on James Bond and his creator Ian Fleming. It’s very hard to ignore the cinematic James Bond because he is very much an icon of our modern culture that needs no translation to transcend across cultures. Alongside Sherlock Holmes, another British literary and cinematic export, the name alone speak for itself.

James Bond appeals to both genders very well.

For the men, Bond dresses well and lives in a care free way. He is both ferociously intelligent and resourceful to get out of any tight corner. He drives incredible cars (from the incredibly stylish Aston Martin DB5 to the incredibly awful AMC Hornet) and uses awesome technology (he is the archetypal boy with toys). He's not afraid to get down in the dirt to fight or engage in lethal gun-play and spectacular car chases. He sleeps with beautiful women, regardless how strong and independent they are (or even lesbian if we’re being honest about Pussy Galore).

For us ladies, while he's not averse to action, he's also a cultured gentleman with suave and sophisticated manners. He's also a generally pretty good looking guy. In many ways, he's a conventional male ideal. So while his conventional good looks and manners aren't for everyone, they hit right the sweet spot of what women like. For everyone, he's a spy! Not at a grey real world nondescript spy, but a cool spy fighting larger than life bad guys whose bland sartorial choices scream mad super villain. It's a very black and white world that James Bond lives in. These bad guys truly are villainous in the desire to re-order humanity, and we need a debonair British MI6 agent to save us from these mad men who want to harm us by laying waste to a bonkers Armageddon.

When all is said and done I think that what makes James Bond so iconic across gender and generations is what Raymond Chandler wrote back in 1959, “every man wants to be James Bond and every woman wants to be with him”.

That sounds about right. Men want to be him, women want to be with him.

I know my first introduction to James Bond was through my grandfather on my  Anglo-Scots father’s side who was a dashing gentleman in his day with a long rumoured hush hush work for Her Majesty’s government firmly shoved under the carpet to avoid further discussion that he - being self-effacing and humble - would find embarrassing that would paint him in any heroic light. Years later he had bought his Bahamas beach pile in Harbour Island out in the Caribbean for the family to rest up from cold winters in Britain. Amongst his immense stack of books dotted around the place were (and still are) first editions of Flemings novels which a few were signed by the author as he on occasion met Ian Fleming when he would sail over to Jamaica (they were also OEs which helped). We were not allowed to touch these but instead picked up the dog earred paperbacks that still retained their 60s musty smell.

On my teen sojourns there I would spend time along with my siblings just reading anything we could find to take to the beach or lounge around in a hammock or a chaise longue. That’s how I came to read the Fleming books - really out of necessity to avoid boredom on a beach (which isn’t really my thing as I prefer the rugged outdoors). But I was pleasantly surprised how well written the books were and I actually enjoyed the stories; it was a refreshing change from the more heavy literary tomes I was trying hard to wade through. As for the Bond films, I watched them on film nights at boarding school; I remember having a school girl crush on Connery, Dalton, and Brosnan.

There are many reasons for the successful longevity of James Bond in popular culture and literature but perhaps one of the most pertinent to our discussion is that James Bond is actually a blank slate and therefore malleable as a character and so he can capture the current zeitgeist in time.

This ability of the film to adapt to different generations while remaining relevant is an important factor for its longevity. For example, the early James Bond films were unashamedly sexist with characters using women as objects and discarding them. In the most recent James Bond films, certainly starting with Timothy Dalton, there is a subtle change in attitude with a few chauvinist attitudes.

James Bond today is more serious, seduces fewer women, and is more respectful towards women in his life, including his boss. This shows how the film changes concerning the rise of feminism in the West. For example, Miss Moneypenny used to be a minor character in the very first James Bond films. Today, she is more formidable and doesn’t tolerate sexist remarks.

Perhaps it is precisely because of this blank slate malleability that has allowed different actors that have been cast to play James Bond their own way - rather than get a straight like for like Scottish sounding actor to replacing Connery for example the film producers went across to Moore via Lazenby for example  - and letting each actor imbue the super spy with different moods. They each added their own colour from the same broad palate to create different tones. However, each of these characters maintained the essential character that defines James Bond. The actors have broadly stayed true to the inherent mix of character and class associated with James Bond.

For this reason I have some empathy towards your concern that Bond would be held hostage to the current zeitgeist of white washing or genderising everything so as to avoid being a victim of cancel culture. But it’s only empathy because I feel there is a danger of misunderstanding just who James Bond is and what he represents.

What do I mean by this?

I mentioned James Bond is a malleable character to the point he’s presented as a blank slate. This is ‘literally’ true - certainly as far as the books go. Ian Fleming doesn’t tell us much about Bond other than his appearance in his books. Indeed - as I mentioned in my past blog post on Connery as the best Bond - Fleming wasn’t convinced by Connery as Bond. He was reported to have said, ‘I’m looking for Commander Bond and not an overgrown stuntman’ and even dismissed Connery as “that fucking truck driver”. Fleming has good reason to rage. His Bond as written in the books was someone like him.

Like Fleming, Bond was an Eton educated Englishman; an officer and a (rogue) gentleman who was a lieutenant-commander in Naval Intelligence. As Connery began to wow and win over Fleming as Bond, Fleming had a change of heart. Fleming in his later Bond books re-wrote a half-Scottish ancestry for Bond as a tribute to Connery’s portrayal. Bond’s Scottish father was a Royal Navy captain and later an arms dealer, Andrew Bond from Glencoe; and his mother, Monique Delacroix, was Swiss from an industrial family. Bond himself was born in Zurich. Bond isn’t English at all but half-Scots and half-Swiss according to literary canon.

So I mention this because the question who can play James Bond is not as straight forward as it might seem.

But clearly we now have a canon of work, both cinematically and in the literature, where we have base line of who Bond is - or what audiences could possibly suspend their disbelief and go with what is presented to them as James Bond.

I do vaguely remember the hullabaloo and hand wringing around Daniel Craig playing Bond because he didn’t conform to the traditional tall, dark, and handsome trope of James Bond super suave spy. People couldn’t get past his blond hair. Some still can’t. But in my humble opinion he has been an outstanding James Bond and has reimagined Bond in a fresh and exciting way. Craig is in fact mining the Fleming books for his characterisation of Bond as a suave, gritty, humourless killer of the books. Dalton got there before him but that’s a moot point. To our current generation Craig has modernised Bond and dusted 007 down from being a relic of the Cold War to being a relevant 21st Century super spy.

Can anyone play James Bond OO7? Yes and no. It’s arguing that two different things are one and the same. They are not. James Bond is separate from OO7.  

Can a woman play Jane Bond or a black woman or non-white man play Black Bond? Respectfully, no. That’s not who James Bond is.

James Bond is a flesh and blood character with a specific genealogical history - whether in the books or on the screen. This Bond has literary back story that is canon and makes him who he is. Bond does transcend time - he can’t be 38 years old for over 75 years in the real world - but at the same time his character only makes sense when rooted in a specific historic context we know existed (and still exists) and not some wishy washy make believe fantasy of British society. He’s an Old Etonian and therefore an upper middle class male product of the British establishment that is identifiable in a very British cultural context.

Jane Bond would have to have gone to Cheltenham Ladies College, Benneden, or Roedean I suppose if we are talking about equivalence - but such girls’ boarding schools were not the breeding ground for future spies (more likely they married them or became trusted secretaries in the intelligence services as well as flower arranging in their Anglican parish church).

I believe they are letting in black pupils on bursaries at Eton these days to be more inclusive but again it’s an an exception not the rule and Eton doesn’t even get public credit for the inclusive work they try to do because it’s not well known.

Moreover we know Bond loses his Scottish-Swiss parents in a skiing accident. I don’t mean to sound racist but I ski a lot in Switzerland and I can say you don’t really find droves of non-white skiers on the slopes of Verbier or Zermatt. Of course there are a few but it’s the exception and not the norm. Again, I’m not trying to be racist but just point out some obvious things when it pertains to the credibility of character that underlines who Bond is. You pull one thread out of the literary biography and the danger is the rest of the tapestry will unravel.

Of course one could try and go for a Black Bond on screen and then hope there is a huge suspension of belief on the part of the audience. But I suspect it’s a bridge too far. It just doesn’t fit. Audiences around the world have an image of who Bond is - British at the very least but also male (damaged and flawed in many ways) and coming from a specific British social class background that serves as an entree to a closed world of English gentleman clubs, Savile Row, English sports cars, and the hushed corridors of Whitehall.

Any woke film maker with an ounce of creative vision and talent and one who is invested in this would be better off creating a new character entirely - with their own specific biography that is both believable and relatable. Can you imagine an American James Bond? What a ghastly thought. Or worse a Canadian one? Canadians are far too nice and far too apologetic to produce a cruel cold eyed killer. But look what clever film makers like Spielberg and Lucas did with Indiana Jones and even later Doug Liman did with Jason Bourne - both fantastic creations that are part of the cultural zeitgeist now.

Or look at Charlize Theron who plays a MI6/CIA/KGB triple agent in Atomic Blonde or Rebecca Ferguson as Ilsa Faust in any of the Mission Impossible movies. I would eagerly watch any movies with these two badass women on the screen. All this talk about making Bond a woman or even coloured is just lazy thinking at best and at worst kow towing to the populist tides of PC brigade.

But I firmly believe one can have a female and a person of colour portraying 007. This is because James Bond and OO7 are two different things entirely. Many mistakenly believe 007 is Bond’s own code name and specific alias to him alone.  

007 is a license to kill for a very specialised kind of intelligence officer. Bond has that privilege for as long as he serves at the service of Her Majesty’s pleasure. His 007 license can be revoked - and it has been in the past Bond films - and he’s back to being a just another desk jockey civil servant in Whitehall. So my point is OO7 is not sacred to Bond’s identity. Bond could continue to be Bond even if M took away his 007 license to kill.

The origins of the Double O title may date to Fleming's wartime service in Naval Intelligence. According to World War Two historian Damien Lewis in his book Churchill's Secret Warriors, agents of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) were given a “0” prefix when they became "zero-rated" upon completion of training in how to kill. As part of his role as assistant to the head of naval intelligence, Rear Admiral John Godfrey (himself the inspiration for M), Fleming acted as liaison to the SOE.

In the novel Moonraker it’s established that the section routinely has three agents concurrently; the film series, beginning with Thunderball, establishes the number of OO agents at a minimum of 9. Fleming himself only mentions five OO agents in all. According to Moonraker, James Bond is the most senior of three OO agents; the two others were OO8 and OO11. The three men share an office and a secretary named Loelia Ponsonby. Later novels feature two more OO agents; OO9 is mentioned in Thunderball and OO6 is mentioned in On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Other authors have elaborated and expanded upon the OO agents. While they presumably have been sent on dangerous missions as Bond has, little has been revealed about most of them. Several have been named, both by Fleming and other authors, along with passing references to their service records, which suggest that agents are largely recruited (as Bond was) from the British military's special forces.

Interestingly, In the novel You Only Live Twice, Bond was transferred into another branch and given the number 7777, suggesting there was no active agent 007 in that time; he is later reinstated as 007 in the novel The Man with the Golden Gun. As an aside, in Fleming's Moonraker, OO agents face mandatory retirement at 45 years old. However Sebastian Faulks's Devil May Care (an authorised Bond adventure from the Fleming estate and therefore arguably could be considered canon) features M giving Bond a choice of when to retire - which explains why Roger Moore (God bless) went past his sell by date.

In the films the OO section is a discrete area of MI6, whose agents report directly to M, and tend to be sent on special assignments and troubleshooting missions, often involving rogue agents (from Britain or other countries) or situations where an "ordinary" intelligence operation uncovers or reveals terrorist or criminal activity too sensitive to be dealt with using ordinary procedural or legal measures, and where the aforementioned discretionary "licence to kill" is deemed necessary or useful in rectifying the situation.

The World is Not Enough introduces a special insignia for the 00 Section. Bond's fellow OO agents appear receiving briefings in Thunderball and The World Is Not Enough. The latter film shows a woman in one of the 00 chairs. In Thunderball, there are nine chairs for the OO agents; Moneypenny says every 00 agent in Europe has been recalled, not every OO agent in the world. Behind the scenes photos of the film reveal that one of the agents in the chairs is female as well. As with the books, other writers have elaborated and expanded upon the OO agents in the films and in other media.

In GoldenEye, 006 is an alias for Alec Trevelyan; as of 2019, Trevelyan is the only OO agent other than Bond to play a major role in an EON Productions film, with all other appearances either being brief or dialogue references only.

In Casino Royale with Daniel Craig’s first outing as Bond, we see in the introduction the tense exchange between Bond and Dryden, a section chief whom Bond has been sent to kill for selling secrets.  

James Bond: M really doesn't mind you earning a little money on the side, Dryden. She'd just prefer it if it wasn't selling secrets. Dryden: If the theatrics are supposed to scare me, you have the wrong man Bond. If M was so sure I was bent...she'd have sent a Double-O. Benefits of being Section Chief...I would know of anyone being promoted to Double-O status, wouldn't I? Your file shows no kills...and it takes - James Bond: - two. (flashback of Bond fighting Dryden's contact in a bathroom.)

The OO is just a coveted position and nothing to do with who occupies it. Ito use a topical comparative example it’s like a football team in which a new star player would be given an ex-player’s shirt number e.g. Messi wears Number 10 for Argentina which is heavily identified with the late great Maradona. So conceivably there would be no problem having a woman or anyone else play 007. I think it would be an interesting creative choice to have a woman or someone else play OO7 and Bond is out of the service and yet he has to work together with this new OO7 - the creative tension would be a refreshing twist on the canon. 

Your question about James Bond’s Oxford or Cambridge education is more easier to answer.

It really depends again which Bond one is talking about. The literary James Bond or the cinematic Bond.

In the Fleming books, James Bond’s didn’t go to Oxford or Cambridge or any of the other great universities of Britain. In the books Bond’s education is not gone into much detail. We know he was raised overseas until he was orphaned at the age of 11 when his parents died in a mountaineering accident near Chamonix in the Alps. He is home schooled for a time by an aunt, Charmain Bond, in the English village of Pett Bottom before being packed off to boarding school at Eton around 12 years old. Bond doesn’t stay long as he gets expelled for playing around with a maid. He is then sent to his father’s boarding school in Scotland, Fettes College.

Bond is then briefly attends the University of Geneva - as Ian Fleming did - before being taught to ski in Kitzbühel. In 1941 Bond joins a branch of what was to become the Ministry of Defence and becomes a lieutenant in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, ending the war as a commander. Bond applies to M for a position within the "Secret Service", part of the HM Civil Service, and rises to the rank of principal officer. And that’s it.

In the cinematic Bond universe things get more complicated and even contentious as you alluded to in your question. It’s never made quite clear which of the two - Oxford or Cambridge - Bond attended because it depends on how much weight you attach to the lines being spoken in each of the films where it is raised.

In Tomorrow Never Dies, Bond is up at Oxford (New College to be exact since his Aston Martin DB5 was parked in the courtyard at the entrance). He is seen bedding a sexy Danish professor, Inga Bergstrom, to brush up on his Danish (to which Moneypenny on the phone retorts ‘You always were a cunning linguist’). But it’s definitely doesn’t mean Bond studied there as an undergraduate. 

Casino Royale is the film many think yes, James Bond went to Oxford because it is mentioned by Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) as she sizes up Daniel Craig’s Bond on the train. Here is the full quote as said by Vesper Lynd, “All right... by the cut of your suit, you went to Oxford or wherever. Naturally you think human beings dress like that. But you wear it with such disdain, my guess is you didn't come from money, and your school friends never let you forget it. Which means you were at that school by the grace of someone else's charity - hence that chip on your shoulder. And since your first thought about me ran to "orphan," that's what I'd say you are.”

The thing to note is that it’s Vesper Lynd taunting Bond and even then she takes a wide stab by saying ‘Oxford or wherever’ because she doesn’t really know and Bond doesn’t oblige her with an answer.

That whole scene struck me as strange because she’s guessing by the cut of the suit it must be Oxford (or Cambridge). Bond is wearing an Italian suit (Brioni to be specific) and not and English Savile Row one that presumably someone of Bond’s taste and background would be sporting.

A more plausible answer if we are going by the cinematic Bond universe is Cambridge. Indeed it is stated explicitly by Bond himself. Can you guess?

You Only Live Twice which is has the distinction of being the only Bond film (as far as I can tell) from being set in just one country - Japan.

You remember the scene. Lieutenant commander James Bond has just had a briefing with M on board a submarine and is naturally flirting with Moneypenny on his way out. Moneypenny playfully tosses him a Japanese phrase book, saying he might need it.

“You forget,” Bond responds with an expression just short of a smirk as he tosses it back to her, “I took a first in oriental languages at Cambridge.”

So it seems James Bond is a Cambridge man.

A first means - as any British university student would know - first class honours. It’s the highest classification grade one can get in their undergraduate degree ie a ‘first’. Although at Cambridge, like Oxford, you can also get a double first in the part I and part II of the Tripos. Both universities also award first-class honours with distinction, informally known as a ‘Starred First’ (Cambridge) or a ‘Congratulatory First’ (Oxford).

Another oddity is he says ‘oriental languages’ when one got a degree in ‘oriental studies’ at the Oriental Faculty at Cambridge. That is until 2007 when Cambridge bowed to public and student pressure and chose to drop its Oriental Faculty label and instead adopted the name the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. Oxford still hangs on to its name the Faculty of Oriental Studies.

My only reservation about crowing over an Oxonian is how truthful was Bond being with Moneypenny in this scene?

Is this line meant to be taken seriously or ironically? Most people seem to take it seriously, despite much of Connery's dialogue being obviously ironic and playful. Certainly, Bond is shown to have never been to Japan before and is incapable of saying anything in Japanese other than the odd "sayonara" and "arigato." But then again Bond does know the correct temperature sake is meant to be served at. So there’s that.

Or it could be Bond was speaking a half-truth. I know speaking from experience as someone who very nearly read asian languages instead of my eventual choice of Classics that ‘Oriental languages’ at the ex-Oriental faculty in Cambridge can mean many other languages e.g. Sanskrit, Hindi, Farsi, Hebrew, Arabic as well as Korean, Japanese and Chinese. It opens up so many other delicious possibilities for Bond. If he read Arabic then perhaps he’s being deeply ironic with Moneypenny (after all she would have drooled over read his MI6 personnel file).

If you think I’m losing my mind then ponder on the fact it was Roald Dahl who penned the screenplay of You Only Live Twice. Dahl was not above snark. Indeed pretty sure he would have got a starred first in snark at any university.

Of course the most obvious explanation is that it’s plot armour as a way for Bond to just get on with the story by suspending the audience belief. Why wouldn’t Bond know Japanese? He seems to know everything else imaginable.

However if it ever was it’s now become canon as EON - the production company behind the Bond films - have stated officially for the fandom that Bond’s official bio has it that he went to Eton and Cambridge, where he got a first in oriental languages. So that seems settled then.

In hindsight it makes perfect sense that Bond went to Cambridge since historically Cambridge has provided the bulk of the spies not just for Her Majesty’s service but also for the other side, the Russians - the so-called Cambridge Spies of Philby, Maclean, Burgess, Blunt, and Cairncross, and a host of other traitors. We seem to be an equal opportunities employment service.

I’m sorry to disappoint you and other Oxonians that despite what you might think James Bond didn’t attend Oxford. Believe me as a Cantabrigian it gives me no pleasure to say this…..too much.

Thanks for your question.

[usagichanp]

lexthan

*rubs hands together* I was hoping someone would ask me that

This is gonna be a long one folks.

General:

Rate the Ship -  

Awful | Ew | No pics pls | I’m not comfortable | Alright | I like it! | Got Pics? | Let’s do it! | Why is this not getting more attention?! | The OTP to rule all other OTPs

How long will they last? - Life long partners, babey.

How quickly did/will they fall in love? - I think they had crushes on each other for a while. They didn't officially say "I love you" till a few months into their relationship, but they thought it sooner.

How was their first kiss? - I wrote a lesbian Lexthan version of their first kiss, though I don't think canon Lexthan's first kiss was like that. I imagine it to be not really planned out; just like they're talking to each other in the car and lock eyes, then slowly lean in and kiss. Since they've had kisses before, it's not a catastrophe, and it's actually fairly soft.

Wedding:

Who proposed? - Ethan. Wrote a whole ass fic about it.

Who is the best man/men? - I know who the best man is in my fics (it's my man Marsh, for those who have read it), but idk about the canon Ethan's best man. Maybe Danny (the Smoke Club Boy) but I'm not sure if they'd be friends enough to be his best man. He might not have one.

Who is the bride's maid? - Hannah. Duh.

Who did the most planning? - Ethan, but Lex chipped in too. Tom might help as well if asked lol

Who stressed the most? - Ethan. Though their ceremony isn't big, he still wanted it to be a good memory down the road (it was)

How fancy was the ceremony? -

Back of a pickup truck | 2 | 3 | 4 | Normal Church Wedding | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Kate and William wish they were this big.

First they had just a courthouse wedding where they signed the papers, then had a tiny wedding ceremony with only close friends. Even if they could afford a proper wedding (Canon Lexthan prolly couldn't afford it) I don't think they'd want a big affair anyways. It's be exhausting.

Who was specifically not invited to the wedding? - Lex's mom. Obviously.

Sex:

Now we're getting to the good part lads

Who is on top? - Ethan is a fucking switch. You can't convince me otherwise. He tops maybe like... 60/40 or 65/35. But when Lex tops, she tops bitch.

Who is the one to instigate things? - Ethan likes instigating things since he's a horny teenage boy, but it Lex doesn't want to, he stops. Sometimes Lex instigates, but usually when she does she's in the mood to top.

How healthy is their sex life? -

Barely touch themselves let alone each other | 2 | 3 | 4 | Once a couple weeks, nothing overboard | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | They are humping each other on the couch right now

I'd give it a 7.5, depending on the situation. While they try to tone it down around Hannah, when they have alone time they'd totally go for it. Ethan's glovebox in his car has a box of condoms in it at all times. What can I say, as I said before, they're horny teenagers

How kinky are they? -

Straight missionary with the lights off | 2 | 3 | 4 | Might try some butt stuff and toys | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Don’t go into the sex dungeon without a horse’s head

They don't like seeing each other hurt so they wouldn't like BDSM. They're not vanilla but nothing too crazy- blindfolding, light bondage (aka tying hands up with rope or cloth), scratching, light spanking, pegging

How long do they usually last? - It depends on how much time they have to have sex. They've done quickies in bathrooms or whatever before, but if they have all night then they're pretty good at prolonging it.

Do they make sure each person gets an equal amount of orgasms? - Absolutely. It is said in multiple fics (I think?) of mine that Ethan makes sure Lex has the same amount of orgasms as he does. Always.

How rough are they in bed? -

Softer than a butterfly on the back of a bunny | 2 | 3 | 4 | The bed’s shaking and squeaking every time | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Their dirty talk is so vulgar it’d make Dwayne Johnson blush. Also, the wall’s so weak it could collapse the next time they do it.

They certainly can have slow, soft, romantic sex, but Ethan is also 100% capable of rocking Lex's world so hard she can't walk right for a week. (That happens in my first fic, Cassieopia, albeit off screen)

How much cuddling/snuggling do they do? -

No touching after sex | 2 | 3 | 4 | A little spooning at night, or on the couch, but not in public | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | They snuggle and kiss more often than a teen couple on their fifth date to a pillow factory.

1) I fucking love that metaphor 2) They don't get much physical affection at home, so they fucking love snuggling and cuddling- whether it be after sex or just hanging out. Sometimes they cuddle as a form of stress relief after a shitty day.

Children:

How many children will they have naturally? - 2, maybe 3.

How many children will they adopt? - I think they might prefer to have children naturally, but in my California series they gain custody of Hannah when she's 12. Does that count?

Who gets stuck with the most diapers? - Lex forces Ethan to learn how to change diapers. That being said, Lex isn't half bad at changing them either, since she helped change Hannah's when she was a child.

Who is the stricter parent? - They're not exactly strict parents, but both Lex and Ethan can definitely scold the kid. ("hAnNaH! tHaT bEtTeR bE fUcKiNg fLoSs!!!!!") That being said, both take care to not be abusive to their child, especially Lex. She doesn't want to be like her mom, so she tries to keep her temper in check.

Who stops the kid(s) from doing dangerous stunts after school? - Ethan has good reflexes, and has stopped his kids from falling and hitting their chin on a playground structure more than once. (Fun fact! That happened to me when I was 3. I fell from a steel elephant shaped jungle gym at a German zoo, hit my chin on a steel bar, and bit through my lower lip/knocked 3 teeth out. I still have the scar years later lol)

Who remembers to pack their lunches? - Lex. Though the lunches aren't always the healthiest.

Who is the more loved parent? - I think they're both loved, but maaaaaybe Ethan a bit more.

Who is more likely to attend the PTA meetings? - Neither would attend PTA meetings out of the goodness of their hearts. If Lex or Ethan would go to a PTA meeting, it'd most likely be because they wanted to yell at a teacher or principal. They might go seperately or together depending on the severity of the issue.

Who cried the most at graduation? - Ethan wouldn't admit he cried, but he did. So did Lex.

Who is more likely to bail the child(ren) out of trouble with the law? - Oh bitch, Lex and Ethan both said fuck the law. If it was just like, an overnight jail cell for some stupid misdemeanor, they might try to break their kid out. Otherwise, Lex would probably the one paying the bail because Ethan would try to punch the cop in the face if the cop talked shit about Ethan's kid. That reaction is not exclusive to cops.

Cooking:

Who does the most cooking? - Neither of them are exactly 5 star chefs, but they can hold on their own. Lex is better at cooking breakfast and Ethan is better at cooking dinner- but if he's exhuasted from work, Lex can cook dinner for him.

Who is the most picky in their food choice? - Neither are picky. Both of them grew up young scrappy and hungry just like their country without really the chance to be picky. They had to take what they could get.

Who does the grocery shopping? - Lex. She's good at calculating totals in her head. I wrote that in an unrealeased fic.

How often do they bake desserts? - Rather rarely. Perhaps on special occasions or to bond. Ethan has ruined the kitchen with his kid trying to bake a cake for Lex at least once. Maybe more.

Are they more of a meat lover or salad lover? - Meat lovers, babey. Fuck that fancy plant bullshit.

Who is more likely to surprise the other(s) with an anniversary dinner? - Ethan. I wrote that in the proposal fic.

Who is more likely to suggest going out? - Depends on what you count as "going out". Lex likes going to McDonalds, but Ethan is the one who suggests eating at actual restaurants.

Who is more likely to burn the house down accidently while cooking? - Ethan, but both have had near misses.

Chores:

Who cleans the room? - Both had fairly messy rooms as teenagers so they're not super anal about having sparkling clean rooms. That being said, when someone comes over Lex does try to tidy the place up a bit. At least enough to make it seem like they have their shit together. Ish.

Who is really against chores? - Ethan can be a bit of a lazy bones sometimes, but Lex isn't exactly a huge fan of chores either. However, she is used to doing chores since she practically raised herself and Hannah.

Who cleans up after the pets? - They take turns. Both hate it.

Who is more likely to sweep everything under the rug? - Ethan, because he doesn't want to incur Lex's wrath.

Who stresses the most when guests are coming over? - Lex. As I said above, she actually actively cleans the house beforehand. Not to the level of that freaking out mom from the comedy video who's name I can't remember tho.

Who found a dollar between the couch cushions while cleaning? - Ethan. He has a nack for finding random bits of money. Score.

Misc:

Who takes the longer showers/baths? - Lex, though both take relatively quick showers to save water.

Who takes the dog out for a walk? - They actually like doing it together. It's nice to get some fresh air, and they enjoy each other's company.

How often do they decorate the room/house for the holidays? - Ethan goes over the top, partially to annoy Lex. You know that Christmas tree Chris Pine vine? Yeah, Ethan would fucking do that.

What are their goals for the relationship? - Live a better life together than they did in Hatchetfield. White picket fence and California dreams shit.

Who is more likely to sleep till noon? - Ethan, but Lex is known to sleep till 3 in the afternoon if she's really tired.

Who plays the most pranks? - Ethan. That's literally canon.

I can babble about them all day lol

[5sosbitchfest]

Reactions to Luke’s IG Story 6/14/2020

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: I hate her as much as the next person but bi people in straight relationships are still bi

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: I call bullshit on Messy being bi. Sorry, if she was bi, why didn't she come out earlier? Her 'haters'? Where? Also, Luke needs to learn the difference between supporting Pride and celebrating it while PR dating a fake ass 'bi' woman.

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: I also don’t think it’s fair to say Sierra has never been in a same sex relationship we really don’t know who she’s dated. This is a big problem in the LGBT community, when a bi woman is in a relationship with a man her bi identity gets erased. Halsey has actually talked about this a lot. While I agree that Lierra is not a queer couple, that does not erase Sierra’s identity as a queer woman, and pride is absolutely still for her to celebrate too 🌈

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: *i understand that it was Luke’s post but obviously she had input to post it.

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: Does Messy’s journey of her sexuality excuse her transphobia? Bc I don’t think so. She sure is selective about who and what she celebrates then. She posted that picture for attention, like everything else she does. It sounds harsh and if she wants to share her journey then great but let’s recognize and call it out for what it is. She doesn’t need to have Luke in a post to talk about her sexuality. Happy Pride Month to that person she purposely misgendered and attempted to invalidate.

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: It’s not about disliking Sierra anon. She has only officially came out in a reply on twitter that she later deleted. That’s the only time it’s been mentioned. People struggle to come out and she tweeted and deleted it as if she actually wasn’t saying it. And now her boyfriend is the one essentially coming out for her? That’s what the issue is anon she has never openly said she was bisexual and now that it’s pride month she is? This is just the first time it’s being brought up& it wasn’t even her

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: I don’t care that Luke posted good on him but him posting something for pride halfway through the month makes the other boys look inconsiderate for not posting anything

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: I'm the anon that said the thing about "lets not make this into a mikey situation" I agree that it was a complete distraction tactic, and I also can not stand Sierra I was just trying saying that even with those two things in mind the post isnt harming anyone and so we shouldn't get mad at luke for making it.

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: I hate to admit it but I don't see Lierra ending anywhere near soon. Yes, couples don't last forever and still I don't think they will but let's be honest, he cares about her. Idk how things are in their life, and I hope he's happy, but I think she will stay around for this year and maybe a bit of 2021. 🙄

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: Okey but was the "biracial" necessary? It made me cringe...

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: I know luke can be cringy when it comes to Sierra but cmon haven’t we learn by now all the cringy stuff if from Sierra being on his account lol

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: Sierra wrote that ... no caps, her grammar, fave chosen emojis etc totes her 10000000000% although glad acknowledging bisexual biracial but Angel? Angel by day and to stans but I thought she was the “late night devil”

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: Something about Luke’s ig story doesn’t sit well with me... the fact that he felt the need to state that she’s biracial and bisexual just makes it look like he’s treating her like some kind of a trophy to show off, idk it just doesn’t feel right

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: Why do L and S feel the need to make everything about S? This isn't about you, so shut up and actually get a job.

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: “beautiful bisexual biracial angel” i’m gagging and laughing so hard yeah he 100% wrote and posted that himself /sarcasm

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: I love luke and I'm happy if he's happy but the way Sierra clings to him in that photo is so gross. It really just feels like she's using him to do her dirty work. Like that post didnt feel genuine at all and it really seems like luke isnt even trying to convince us anymore he just does the bare minimum to make her happy. I dont blame him tho. Just feels icky.

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: As a straight person, I hate straight couples and hope to never be cringe.

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: I'm sorry but that Instagram story that luke posted talking about his "beautiful bisexual biracial angel🥰🥺" does NOT (capitalize, underline and bold) sound like how luke would type something. The first part where he talks about how far we have to go sounds like him but not that that part.. not even close. Want to bet either sierra typed it, gave him the idea to say that OR did both cause we know she monitors him like crazy

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: "Bisexual biracial" is so unnecesarry. Luke, hon, shut up. People are out here fighting for their rights, and you feel the need and have the audacity to make it about your crazy ass girlfriend? Don't get me wrong, I love the boys, but making every fcking thing about your girlfriend-particularly luke- is not the point of these movements. So stfu Luke, stfu Sierra, stop making everything about S. That pisses me off, sorry I just needed to rant somewhere.

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: is it just me or does the whole “beautiful bisexual biracial angel” not sound like him or something he’d say??? idk I’m kinda new to the fandom but it felt cringey reading that come from him

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: Did you see what luke posted on his story? Seems him and Sierra are getting along great, smh. Also she's confirmed bi as well I guess. That's cool. Hope she doesnt use it as a weapon to defend criticism tho. Also did luke redo his hair cuz it seems very white again. Idk. Seems fishy. What are your thoughts? Do you think he was told to post that to distract from mike?

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: just when I was starting to forgive luke for his “response” to messy’s MESS, he goes and posts this... I’m TIRED

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: ok but as a lesbian it makes me sooo happy that Luke is celebrating pride and he's supportive of her sexuality 🥺 men never take bisexuality seriously and I love that he respects that. YET as someone who doesn't like s I'm like why....... like this week has been so frustrating and we were all like "they don't defend m bc they're in a sm break" and now he comes to post this and doesn't say anything? i just :(

allisonscarlett said to 5sosbitchfest: Honestly pride month came just in time cause I remember some stans saying that sierra is probably not bisexual and now there's luke insta story. I'm not trying to erase anyone's sexual orientation, I'm bisexual myself and I've found it weird that in the past years sierra didn't anything about her sexuality during pride month (and don't remember when she tweeted about being bi but I don't thing that it was in during pride month)

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: is anyone else getting"i can't be racist/homophobic because my gf is biracial and bisexual" vibes from lukes ig story or is it just me??? does he know he's digging a hole???

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: should we assume luke posted that in response to the insiders muke information? interesting timing on his part

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: I honestly can't stand Luke rn. Angel? Angel???? ANGELLL????????????

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: Okay but I don't think that counts as a "a straight couple thinking pride is theirs to celebrate". Just cause Sierra is in a straight relationship doesn't take away from the fact that she's bi, or mean she can't celebrate pride. And I think Luke wishing her and everyone a happy pride is actually a really supportive thing for him and again doesn't really count as a straight person thinking pride is theirs to celebrate, because he's focusing on her, not himself.

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: “my beautiful biracial angel” i hate it here

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: Gonna say something to MAYBE make some people happy. That picture was taken at a PROTEST. So they probably aren't together 😂😂 they were just together for the protest

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: The biracial part of his story post is feeding into him being a king for dating a mixed person

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: ok luke did look very cute tho

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: Every single time there’s any drama in the fandom, a new “cute” picture pops up and some people really think that’s goals? Like in what world is now the time for that kind of post, if it isn’t a direct pr response to the twitter mess of the past few days? Smh they’re not even trying to be subtle anymore

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: i think it’s fine for straight couples to go to and celebrate pride when one of them or both of them aren’t straight.

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: I was reading this blog a few hours ago and I read a post where someone said that everyone basically assumed sierra was bi bc of a comment and now Luke comes out calling her "bisexual" as if he was confirming it...Idk felt weird lol

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest:  Bisexual biracial angel😭😭 who made him write that and thought people will take it seriously

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: have you seen luke’s story? “especially to my bisexual biracial girlfriend” i fucking CACKLED like is it how she’s supposed to be known for?

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: thank you luke for that ig post for it will keep messy ass kissers away from m mentions for a while

Anonymous said to 5sosbitchfest: Funny how you just brought up everyone saying that Sierra was bi just cause she said she loved men and woman and woopty do guess what luke put on his insta story. “My beautiful bisexual biracial gf” Luke I love you but 🤢

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Why Is It So Hard for Democrats to Act Like They Actually Won?

By

Rebecca Solnit

November 19, 2020

When Trump won the 2016 election—while losing the popular vote—the New York Times seemed obsessed with running features about what Trump voters were feeling and thinking. These pieces treated them as both an exotic species and people it was our job to understand, understand being that word that means both to comprehend and to grant some sort of indulgence to. Now that Trump has lost the 2020 election, the Los Angeles Times has given their editorial page over to letters from Trump voters, who had exactly the sort of predictable things to say we have been hearing for far more than four years, thanks to the New York Times and what came to seem like about 11,000 other news outlets hanging on the every word of every white supremacist they could convince to go on the record.

The letters editor headed this section with, “In my decade editing this page, there has never been a period when quarreling readers have seemed so implacably at odds with each other, as if they get their facts and values from different universes. As one small attempt to bridge the divide, we are providing today a page full of letters from Trump supporters.” The implication is the usual one: we—urban multiethnic liberal-to-radical only-partly-Christian America—need to spend more time understanding MAGA America. The demands do not go the other way. Fox and Ted Cruz and the Federalist have not chastised their audiences, I feel pretty confident, with urgings to enter into discourse with, say, Black Lives Matter activists, rabbis, imams, abortion providers, undocumented valedictorians, or tenured lesbians. When only half the divide is being tasked with making the peace, there is no peace to be made, but there is a unilateral surrender on offer. We are told to consider this bipartisanship, but the very word means both sides abandon their partisanship, and Mitch McConnell and company have absolutely no interest in doing that.

Paul Waldman wrote a valuable column in the Washington Post a few years ago, in which he pointed out that this discord is valuable fuel to right-wing operatives: “The assumption is that if Democrats simply choose to deploy this powerful tool of respect, then minds will be changed and votes will follow. This belief, widespread though it may be, is stunningly naive.” He notes that the sense of being disrespected “doesn’t come from the policies advocated by the Democratic Party, and it doesn’t come from the things Democratic politicians say. Where does it come from? An entire industry that’s devoted to convincing white people that liberal elitists look down on them. The right has a gigantic media apparatus that is devoted to convincing people that liberals disrespect them, plus a political party whose leaders all understand that that idea is key to their political project and so join in the chorus at every opportunity.”

There’s also often a devil’s bargain buried in all this, that you flatter and, yeah, respect these white people who think this country is theirs by throwing other people under the bus—by disrespecting immigrants and queer people and feminists and their rights and views. And you reinforce that constituency’s sense that they matter more than other people when you pander like this, and pretty much all the problems we’ve faced over the past four years, to say nothing of the last five hundred, come from this sense of white people being more important than nonwhites, Christians than non-Christians, native-born than immigrant, male than female, straight than queer, cis-gender than trans.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito just complained that “you can’t say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Now it’s considered bigotry.” This is a standard complaint of the right: the real victim is the racist who has been called a racist, not the victim of his racism, the real oppression is to be impeded in your freedom to oppress. And of course Alito is disingenuous; you can say that stuff against marriage equality (and he did). Then other people can call you a bigot, because they get to have opinions too, but in his scheme such dissent is intolerable, which is fun coming from a member of the party whose devotees wore “fuck your feelings” shirts at its rallies and popularized the term “snowflake.”

Nevertheless, we get this hopelessly naïve version of centrism, of the idea that if we’re nicer to the other side there will be no other side, just one big happy family. This inanity is also applied to the questions of belief and fact and principle, with some muddled cocktail of moral relativism and therapists’ “everyone’s feelings are valid” applied to everything. But the truth is not some compromise halfway between the truth and the lie, the fact and the delusion, the scientists and the propagandists. And the ethical is not halfway between white supremacists and human rights activists, rapists and feminists, synagogue massacrists and Jews, xenophobes and immigrants, delusional transphobes and trans people. Who the hell wants unity with Nazis until and unless they stop being Nazis?

I think our side, if you’ll forgive my ongoing shorthand and binary logic, has something to offer everyone and we can and must win in the long run by offering it, and offering it via better stories and better means to make those stories reach everyone. We actually want to see everyone have a living wage, access to healthcare, and lives unburdened by medical, student, and housing debt. We want this to be a thriving planet when the babies born this year turn 80 in 2100. But the recommended compromise means abandoning and diluting our stories, not fortifying and improving them (and finding ways for them to actually reach the rest of America, rather than having them warped or shut out altogether). I’ve spent much of my adult life watching politicians like Bill Clinton and, at times, Barack Obama sell out their own side to placate the other, with dismal results, and I pray that times have changed enough that Joe Biden will not do it all over again.

Among the other problems with the LA Times’s editor’s statement is that one side has a lot of things that do not deserve to be called facts, and their values are too often advocacy for harming many of us on the other side. Not to pick on one news outlet: Sunday, the Washington Post ran a front-page sub-head about the #millionMAGAmarch that read “On stark display in the nation’s capital were two irreconcilable versions of America, each refusing to accept what the other considered to be undeniable fact.” Except that one side did have actual facts, notably that Donald J. Trump lost the election, and the other had hot and steamy delusions.

I can comprehend, and do, that lots of people don’t believe climate change is real, but is there some great benefit in me listening, again, to those who refuse to listen to the global community of scientists and see the evidence before our eyes? A lot of why the right doesn’t “understand” climate change is that climate change tells us everything is connected, everything we do has far-reaching repercussions, and we’re responsible for the whole, a message at odds with their idealization of a version of freedom that smells a lot like disconnection and irresponsibility. But also climate denial is the result of fossil fuel companies and the politicians they bought spreading propaganda and lies for profit, and I understand that better than the people who believe it. If half of us believe the earth is flat, we do not make peace by settling on it being halfway between round and flat. Those of us who know it’s round will not recruit them through compromise. We all know that you do better bringing people out of delusion by being kind and inviting than by mocking them, but that’s inviting them to come over, which is not the same thing as heading in their direction.

The editor spoke of facts, and he spoke of values. In the past four years too many members of the right have been emboldened to carry out those values as violence. One of the t-shirts at the #millionMAGAmarch this weekend: “Pinochet did nothing wrong.” Except stage a coup, torture and disappear tens of thousands of Chileans, and violate laws and rights. A right-wing conspiracy to overthrow the Michigan government and kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer was recently uncovered, racists shot some Black Lives Matter protestors and plowed their cars into a lot of protests this summer. The El Paso anti-immigrant massacre was only a year ago; the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre two years ago, the Charlottesville white-supremacist rally in which Heather Heyer was killed three years ago (and of course there have been innumerable smaller incidents all along). Do we need to bridge the divide between Nazis and non-Nazis? Because part of the problem is that we have an appeasement economy, a system that is supposed to be greased by being nice to the other side.

Appeasement didn’t work in the 1930s and it won’t work now. That doesn’t mean that people have to be angry or hate back or hostile, but it does mean they have to stand on principle and defend what’s under attack. There are situations in which there is no common ground worth standing on, let alone hiking over to. If Nazis wanted to reach out and find common ground and understand us, they probably would not have had that tiki-torch parade full of white men bellowing “Jews will not replace us” and, also, they would not be Nazis. Being Nazis, white supremacists, misogynists, transphobes is all part of a project of refusing to understand as part of refusing to respect. It is a minority position but by granting it deference we give it, over and over, the power of a majority position.

In fact the whole Republican Party, since long before Trump, has committed itself to the antidemocratic project of trying to create a narrower electorate rather than win a wider vote. They have invested in voter suppression as a key tactic to win, and the votes they try to suppress are those of Black voters and other voters of color. That is a brutally corrupt refusal to allow those citizens the rights guaranteed to them by law. Having failed to prevent enough Black people from voting in the recent election, they are striving mightily to discard their votes after the fact. What do you do with people who think they matter more than other people? Catering to them reinforces that belief, that they are central to the nation’s life, they are more important, and their views must prevail. Deference to intolerance feeds intolerance.

Years ago the linguist George Lakoff wrote that Democrats operate as kindly nurturance-oriented mothers to the citizenry, Republicans as stern discipline-oriented fathers. But the relationship between the two parties is a marriage, between an overly deferential wife and an overbearing and often abusive husband (think of how we got our last two Supreme Court justices and failed to get Merrick Garland). The Hill just ran a headline that declared “GOP Senators say that a Warren nomination would divide Republicans.” I am pretty sure they didn’t run headlines that said, “Democratic Senators say a Pompeo (or Bolton or Perdue or Sessions) nomination would divide Democrats.” I grew up in an era where wives who were beaten were expected to do more to soothe their husbands and not challenge them, and this carries on as the degrading politics of our abusive national marriage.

Some of us don’t know how to win. Others can’t believe they ever lost or will lose or should, and their intransigence constitutes a kind of threat. That’s why the victors of the recent election are being told in countless ways to go grovel before the losers. This unilateral surrender is how misogyny and racism are baked into a lot of liberal and centrist as well as right-wing positions, this idea that some people need to be flattered and buffered even when they are harming the people who are supposed to do the flattering and buffering, even when they are the minority, even when they’re breaking the law or lost the election. Lakoff didn’t quite get to the point of saying that this nation lives in a household full of what domestic abuse advocates call coercive control, in which one partner’s threats, intimidations, devaluations, and general shouting down control the other.

This is what marriages were before feminism, with the abused wife urged to placate and soothe the furious husband. Feminism is good for everything, and it’s a good model for seeing that this is both outrageous and a recipe for failure. It didn’t work in marriages, and it never was the abused partner’s job to prevent the abuse by surrendering ground and rights and voice. It is not working as national policy either. Now is an excellent time to stand on principle and defend what we value, and I believe it’s a winning strategy too, or at least brings us closer to winning than surrender does. Also, it’s worth repeating, we won, and being gracious in victory is still being victorious.

[Rebecca Solnit’s first media job was in fact-checking and her last book is the memoir Recollections of My Nonexistence. She’s sent a lot of mail to her nieces and nephews during the pandemic.]

[thotful-alien]

Comphet makes so much sense

I've had obsessive crushes on guys my whole life. I remember writing about my infatuations in my journals since I was a kid. I never seriously acted upon these crushes, though. They were usually unattainable. The few times a guy expressed interest in me first, I freaked out, I'd avoid them. Or if I indulged them and they went in for a kiss, I felt sick to my stomach. I found reasons for them to not be good enough for me. But I'd tell myself to give them a chance even when I wanted to run away screaming, and I ended up in unfulfilling uncomfortable scenarios.

What I wanted was validation and attention from my objects of desire. A relationship in which I was pursued was unsatisfactory. I tried hard to feel excited but something was missing. I was just along for the ride, trying to figure out if I was broken inside and incapable love.

My past infatuations included:

- Professors MUCH older than me

- boys older than me

- Taken guys who were dating my friends

- Gay guys

- an actual abusive Sociopath

- Tom Hiddleston as Loki

- guys who didn't acknowledge me outside of class

The first man I convinced myself I was in love with was dating an ex-friend of mine. He and I were good friends and I let my infatuation bloom, I even eventually told myself I was physically attracted to him, that he's the only guy I'd actually marry and have kids with. But fast forward 3 years, when he was finally single and hit me up, I didn't want to pursue him even though I was *so* in love with him throughout the years. I just felt powerful that he desired me. I lost all serious interest. He came over one evening 2 years ago and his car got towed so he slept on my couch. At one point he woke me up asking if he could cuddle me and I said yes, and that moment was like so satisfying because I finally got what I thought I wanted from him. I didn't actually physically feel butterflies. He later asked me to be his Valentine and I said yes, but he didn't see me that day and left for New Zealand a few weeks later. I was only a little sad tbh. I feel like I still love him but as a platonic friend.

A lot of taken guys that I'm close to develop crushes on me, it feels powerful for a while but then I'm just uncomfortable with it, I just wish I could be best friends with men without them feeling anything about me.

I find that's true in general. I just want to be left alone. If a cute guy seems to be interested in me, I find every flaw possible to justify not wanting to indulge him. I just want to be "bros" with boys. I get nervous if I feel them checking me out. Even objectively attractive men make me nervous, and I'm not physically attracted to them and I don't see myself in a relationship with them.

In fact I've set impossible standards in place and I don't even see a man in my future at all. When I envision my future I see me, a cat, some house plants, and being the "cool aunt" babysitter at family gatherings when my brothers have kids. I have zero desire to pursue men at all.

I was dumped last month by a guy I decided to trust even though the first time he kissed me I freaked out and wanted to vomit. I told myself it was PTSD from a past experience and to get over myself and give him a chance because he's a good friend of my brothers' and he was really charming and easy to talk to. As the relationship continued he turned out to be a fucking narcissist, so that's fun, but I had to force myself to find him attractive and overlook the fact that I felt nothing towards him physically and kinda just ignored his corporeal form. He treated me great at first so I ignored my gut feelings. I grew to like the idea of him and the idea of our future because it would be so convenient since he's close to my family already. But when I imagined us long-term, I grew incredibly sad. I knew that I didn't want to actually settle down with him yet, because I wanted to be with a woman. That thought never went away.

The relationship went to shit and I've been recovering for a month now but I feel freed in a sense because I want to finally be with a woman. That idea is so exciting to me. I've always been attracted to women and I only acknowledged it at age 19 and I told myself I was bi because of my past infatuations for men. But accepting that I like girls was such a huge moment for me, I'd been repressing those feelings my whole life. I wasn't doing a good job apparently because everyone around me thought I was gay before I even entertained the idea.

I was actually kinda bullied and made fun of because everyone thought I was gay. Thankfully in marching band there were HELLA queer folks and I ended up running with the crowd that grew up to be members of the LGBT+ community. They all thought I was gay, too. Not even bi, just straight up gay. But I was too defensive about it and kept ignoring my feelings. I only had one real boyfriend in highschool and that was my senior year, it lasted until after my first semester in college until I broke it off. I never felt excited about him, he stopped communicating, so I found reasons to decide I shouldn't be in a relationship with him. He didn't do anything wrong per se, I just knew I couldn't be with him anymore.

That was my first serious relationship, and the longest one I had. The last one I got out of was only 4 months. And the entire time I was wishing I could be with a woman instead.

In the past I've entertained the idea of being a lesbian instead of being bi, since the only times I've been excited about someone hitting on me have been when they were women. I always had a special soft spot for my friends growing up. I realized last year that I felt love for my straight best friend. Something about women is just so exciting, they make me feel warm and get the butterflies, I blush and look away when I see a beautiful girl on campus. My Instagram feed is full of beautiful models and makeup artists, as well as traditional artists that draw women, and I'm just so drawn to appreciating women's bodies and their beauty.

Even drawing a woman gets me all excited and tingly. I never feel like that with men, even picturesque guys that are objectively attractive. I seriously thought I was asexual until I acknowledged my very real attraction to women.

In video games where you can woo a woman, I get so fucking excited for the chance to do so. Growing up (and still now) I occasionally make lesbian couples on the Sims, and I always felt this guilty excitement when they would kiss.

The first fantasy that excited me as a teenager that wasn't some fucked up power scenario was me imagining I was playing 7 minutes in heaven and getting paired up with a girl.

I've felt over the past few years that I'm definitely more on the gay side of the bisexual spectrum. But now I'm feeling like I really am a lesbian. I looked up comphet when I was searching for answers online and the masterdoc I found just perfectly described my life, I felt like I was seen and understood for the first time. I think everyone around me was right that I'm actually gay as fuck. Throughout my shitty relationship I found myself looking longingly at beautiful women and feeling like something in my life was missing. After things ended I wrote in my journals that I wished I were a lesbian. And finding the masterdoc was so affirming for me! I want to shout it from the rooftops but I'm afraid people will think it's just because I broke up last month and I'm just "done" dealing with men. But I feel like this chance to reflect upon myself has brought me to acknowledge that I'm Gay as FUCK. And that my feelings for men were comphet.

I previously identified as bisexual, and this is in no way being biphobic or dismissive, I will fight to the teeth to defend the legitimacy of bisexual folks, fight their erasure, and that they belong in queer spaces and queer discourse. I just, I think I just took a really long time to unravel my feelings, and I feel like I'm realizing at age 25 that I am, indeed, a lesbian.

It's a difficult feeling because I feel finally that I've found a label that fits me, but I've been out as Bi for years now and even though my immediate family never pressured me to settle down with a man and pop out babies, I feel like it was a choice I HAD to make. Like I had to just hang up my Bi flag and become a housewife. But I don't want that. I don't see myself with a man in the future. And if I want kids I can find a sperm donor. I think I'm feeling the loss of "the option" of living a straight life. But I don't want that at all. So it's difficult unwrapping myself from that expectation.

But yeah I'm fairly certain that I'm a lesbian, I feel like I need to tell people but I don't know how to go about doing it and I'm afraid I won't be taken seriously even though my immediate family is 100% supportive and accepting. I don't know how or when to come out to people. I'm still dealing with self doubt. But I'm fucking GAY GOD DAMNIT and I feel like everyone has to know!

Fuck.

Anyway of you read this really, I really appreciate it. This is a huge transformative moment for me.

[takaraphoenix]

I recently came to the startling realization that I’m... quite over Hawaii Five-0.

I was really into it when it first aired. And many early things are forgiven. Nine years ago, that’s the times of queerbaiting - between this, Supernatural and Teen Wolf, I was quite used to showrunners teasing ships that would never happen.

But it’s been nine fucking years and it’s the year 2019 by now.

And this isn’t even about McDanno. Obviously will that never happen. That’s the Super Mega Straight Queerbait ship.

I’m talking about how they wrote two of their main characters out. They had two main characters to replace last season.

It’s been nine years and a show might be excused from not having one single LGBT+ character if it’s been running for nine years and is still at full original cast.

This show started out with four core main characters. And over the years, it gained quite a lot of additional main characters or recurring characters of importance - Max, Lou, Jerry, Kamekona, Duke, Noelani, Adam, Catherine.

That’s twelve recognizable, reoccuring characters, including the four mains. And not one of them was ever made gay. Say, Noelani. We know little of her. She could be a lesbian, or bisexual. Heck, any of those characters who have so far only displayed assumed heterosexuality could have potentially, with a well-written plotline, been presented as bisexual.

Or when Lou’s son and Danno’s daughter became teenagers. Instead of then at least using those secondary characters for LGBT+ representation and writing a good arc of either of those men being a good father and a kid coming to terms with their sexuality... nope, The Teenage Boy and The Teenage Girl of course had to end up with each other.

At this point, for those counting, we’re at fourteen major characters that are just... cishet.

And I cut the show a lotta slack because even most of the promoted characters, aside from Lou, Jerry and Noelani, have been around from the start. So like, they have been always written as straight and they shall continue being straight. Fair enough. Shoehorned in, retconned rep is kind of cheap.

But again, the teens recently becoming old enough to be romantically involved would have been a great moment. Noelani would have been a great choice.

And now, very recently, only last season, did they write two of their four central main characters out of the show. (The issue around that is its whole own can of worms that reeks of racism to me, personally, considering Danno’s been in approximately two outta three episodes at max for what feels like the past three seasons, while Kono and Chin Ho carried a lot of the show and yet... the Two White Men are paid significantly more...)

Anyway, you write two of the four core characters out. And, consequently, add two completely, entirely new characters to the team. New characters, added in the year 2017, to a show that’s been running entirely without any LGBT+ representation for seven years at that point.

And yet they’re both (more than justifiably assumed) straight. And from the get-go you basically set it up like This Boy and This Girl will end up as a couple because oh shocker they are Attractive People Of The Same Age.

And that’s the point where you just kinda... lost me, you know.

The queerbaiting of McDanno was always one thing. And it’s moderately been reduced (due to Danno’s reduction of his role? Seriously, for an entire season I was convinced his actor was starring in another show somewhere due to his lack of being in any actual episodes), though granted their “old, married couple” banter about the restaurant they now share is still banking on the McDanno fans.

But the fact that, with now a total of sixteen reoccuring characters with not a single one in any way or shape even hinting at actual LGBT+ representation... now that’s just homophobic and there’s no other way to phrase that.

If you can’t manage to tell a story for nine years and include at least one LGBT+ character, then that’s homophobic, plain and simple.

It’s disappointing and frustrating.

And that disappointment and frustration is not even including the general let-down that the two new characters are, in my opinion.

What made Hawaii Five-0 work for me has always been the team dynamic.

You had McGarrett, the wild, reckless one who dives head-first into danger and fucks all rules.

Danno, the calm and annoyed one who tries to reign Steve in somehow.

And Chin Ho and Kono were the actually calm ones that brought it all down again, which honestly was the more important part for me that made it work. Because a Lethal Weapon-style chaotic, over-the-top cop duo has been done to no end, that comedy dynamic in general is all over the place, but to still have someone to ground it somewhat, that’s what makes it work.

And then there was nerdy, dorky, adorable Max too, to bring a different flavor into this.

And the two new guys? They are just such cheap copies of McGarrett. They’re McDucklings, following their MommaGarrett around and being as loudly reckless. While, over the years, Danno himself had strayed more and more from his level-headed role into someone doing at least two third of the same reckless shit as McGarrett. The same goes from Lou, he too evolved more and more into a McGarrett over the years.

So, basically, from a team with an interesting balance that gave way to comedy and intrigue, this morphed into having five shades of McGarrett, exploding as much shit as humanly possible while pulling ridiculously dangerous stunts. And that... holds little appeal.

Now, the reason I’m writing this is because I find it grossly disappointing for a show nowadays to so wilfully ignore LGBT+ representation. And I also find it disappointing that a show that banked in individually drawn characters to just resort into louder and more action.

I don’t know. I’ve just reached the point where it genuinely pisses me off if you think you can get away with blatantly, purposefully not including representation. That shouldn’t happen, not nowadays. This is something you could get away with ten years ago, but you really shouldn’t be able to get away with today.

[digoxinpurpurea2-blog]

One of my grandfathers died of AIDS complications before I was born.

There, that's my pound of flesh. You have to present those before anyone listens to you on this fucking website.

I didn't delete my tumblr because oh no I'm the Hamilton cannibal mermaid freak. I have been that for years. And, for what it's worth, I never interacted with Israa as Israa. She tried to interact with me, once, two years ago, about the intentionally dumb garbage I wrote in my spare time. I ignored her because I didn't know who she was and I didn't care.

Nah, I deleted my tumblr because you freaks kept sending me death threats and I couldn't exactly deal with that after being awake for four days and trying to manage the emotional fallout of this monster.

Don't send people death threats, you fucking loons.

This was not about fandom, because I do not orient my world around fandom. This was about my grandfather, and not just him, and not just the other people I have known who have had their lives irrevocably altered by HIV, and not just the fact that she stole money. This was about basic common decency. It's not about me. I'm not going to pretend I'm an angel or anything but I have never done anything like this.

But this is not about me.

The person behind hivliving, Alix McLiar:

1. Lives in a $500,000 waterfront house in a wealthy suburb in the US with her married and very wealthy parents, both of whom have terminal degrees in the sciences

2. Goes to a prestigious private out-of-state university on a merit scholarship worth approximately $250,000 over four years. Or maybe not. Maybe she got kicked out. Still not sure. Her school has been contacted multiple times by multiple people, and the chief of police of her university told me that she would be punished appropriately. I believe, at least, that she's no longer involved in the school's anti-racism groups as an administrator, and I know that her advisor knows, and that the head of the diversity office knows, and that her friends all know and have completely stopped talking to her. Rephrase: she went to a prestigious university while this was going on, majoring in a healthcare-related field.

3. Went to one of the best high schools in the United States

4. Started racefaking on the internet early in her senior year of high school, possibly earlier - she was 17 at the time and is 19 now

5. Vacations internationally with some frequency

6. Is white and cisgender and REALLY FUCKING RICH, meaning she definitely used the money she got as “Israa” for drugs or something

7. Is probably going to do this again

She used the following identities:

1. Israa, Liar Prime - bigender bisexual Chinese-Pakistani 19-year-old, from the China-Pakistan border (once or twice specified as westernmost Xinjiang), HIV+ after being trafficked into sexual slavery by her parents as a young teenager, Muslimah, hijabi, once had her eye popped out of its socket after someone found out her HIV status, once raped and robbed by police at gunpoint, pregnant, miscarried, married, living in India with her wife - blueskysapphic/hivliving/angischuyler

2. Muk(h)ta (she spelled it different ways) - Somali, Catholic, raised in America by her American father who was implied a few times to be a diplomat of some sort, 18, trans woman, lesbian, married to Israa, trafficking victim, not HIV+ - thewarsnotdone

3. Naj, American lesbian POC (never specified other than that), congenitally HIV+, fairly active in ace discourse -allolesbean/hivliving

A bonus identity discovered while investigating:

4. Alix, Lebanese Jewish lesbian, self-identified as an Arab, from Lebanon, living in the states for college - lesbianeclipse

(the Jewish community in Lebanon numbers about forty, by the by. She's fond of doing this)

Israa lied a fuckton but she didn’t just pop out of the blue. She had put together the biracial trafficking victim persona before she started posting her fic. She had convinced other people of this persona before she started writing fanfiction - named the wife, picked out Chinese and “Muslim” names (yes she called Israa her Muslim name), found a beta for her fic, made up a backstory. 

And it wasn’t just hivliving that she was involved in. Israa and friends' modus operandi in fandom was to declare someone a pedophile over fanfiction, sic followers on them, threaten to dox them, force them to divulge (often sexual) traumas, and then use those traumas to harass them into self-harm. She did this multiple times, mainly to young gay teenagers and young trans men and young impoverished women. Some of those people did self-harm. And she knew it. And she kept on bullying, and told anyone who said “Stop it” that how DARE they, she is HIV+, she can do this.

And, given that Israa and her crew placed so much emphasis on IP address hits to Tumblrs as "stalking," it is absolutely impossible that none of them - including the one who followed her on her "Lebanese Jewish" tumblr and Facebook-linked twitter - did not know. This was a squad of teenagers dedicated to threatening and sexually harassing rape victims over fanfiction, with their core defense being 'Israa has been much more traumatized than you, by people like you, and she's protecting other people by hurting you.'

Yeah, no. Weirdly enough, most trauma victims don’t go out of their way to tell victims of child sexual abuse that they should kill themselves.

Israa used the social capital and following she gained being a moral arbiter and Teller Of Wise Truths About HIV in fandom (she and her crew also picked on an HIV+ member of the Hamilton cast on Twitter such that I believe he blocked them, by the fucking way) to start hivliving. 

The person behind Israa is not Muslim. Or Jewish. Or HIV+. Or Somali. Or biracial. She was not trafficked to another country by her parents. She grew up wealthy. It was incredibly obvious she was not who she claimed she was. A basic knowledge of geopolitics would have nipped this shit in the bud literally years ago, because nothing Israa said made any sense. This should have been caught day of. Other people knew and let it ride because it’s fun to cloak your repulsive behavior in the language of social justice to get away with it. Other people should have figured it out.

Point by point:

1. Language

Israa claimed to speak Chinese and Urdu natively and English, Spanish, and Kannada as second languages. She exclusively used English on her blog. She learned English as an adult and yet had absolutely perfect grammar, spelling, mastery of American slang, etc. Is this impossible? No, of course not, but learning a second language as an adult - especially in a non-immersion environment, especially one from an entirely different language family, presents a ton of difficulties. I am currently learning a second language in a non-immersion environment. Writing and reading are easier than speaking, sure, but they do not come easy.

Israa wrote like a native English speaker. She never made the mistakes in grammar or spelling common with people learning English from Chinese. She never had slightly odd turns of phrase borne from not grasping all the tiny nuances of a given English word. She never had an accidental character inserted when she forgot to rotate the language on her keyboard. (I rotate keyboards. Lemme tell you, it happens frequently.) She used British spellings pretty consistently, but not British or Indian English phrasing. Her slang was all American, young, Tumblr-approved. The media she talked about was almost all in English, minus one Chinese-American film and one Chinese novel available in English translation. She never used Chinese or Urdu on her blog, except to write brief greetings or her name. She never talked to anyone in Chinese or Urdu or Kannada. Her punctuation was completely American. She never, ever forgot a word.

This person, from a family poor enough to knowingly traffick a child into sex slavery, was fluent in 4-5 languages, presumably literate in at least 3 (meaning she could effortlessly cycle between 3, possibly 4 different writing systems) and somehow so fluent in a language she had started learning only two, three years before that she was indistinguishable from a native speaker.

How?

How was her English so native-perfect after only two or three years?

Because she didn't only have two or three years to build on. Because she was a native speaker. Duh.

2. Offensive racial stereotypes

Israa consistently presented herself as from western China, right along the China-Pakistan border. Never specified city or town, presumably because Alix was not invested enough in the character to pick a random town name off of Google Maps. She also once posted about her family having a dispute about the family rice farm.

There is almost no rice agriculture in extreme western Xinjiang. Not none, but almost none. Too arid.

But rice, China, right?

Also, bit of a digression as the character could have started wearing it while not living there, but about wearing hijab in Xinjiang: it's not exactly legal, right now. Crackdowns on specifically Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang have been front-page news in major English-language publications for years. Crackdowns on Hui Muslims (the ethnic group she occasionally claimed to be a part of) are less common, but they happen. And, of course, not all Muslim women wear hijab...but all Muslims are the same, in Israa-world. Speaking of.

Israa claimed that she had relatives in Gaza and that she did medical research at a clinic in Gaza under the auspices of her university.

1. How did she get a passport? It would have to be either a Pakistani or Chinese passport. Traveling from India to the Gaza strip on a Pakistani passport would be, shall we say, extremely difficult. It would be difficult for her to acquire a passport in the first place (did she have any documentation before she was trafficked? After? She was trafficked into India and India repatriates trafficking victims. Presumably she would have been repatriated to China. Would she, an HIV-positive member of a Muslim ethnic minority breaking the law in Xinjiang, be allowed to acquire a passport? How would she afford a passport? etc) 2. How would a 19-year-old non-medical student undergraduate receive permission to enter the Gaza strip, especially if she was traveling on a Pakistani passport? 3. Current Israeli law gives the Minister of the Interior the right to deny access to Israel (and thus Palestine and Gaza) to any HIV+ alien or migrant worker. Presumably Israa counted as an “alien or migrant worker,” so how did she get into the country to travel to Gaza in the first place? 4. Did Israa not realize that Pakistan and Palestine (and China) are culturally very dissimilar because they're in very different parts of the world? This is another China = rice moment. Alix assumed that all Muslims are the same? How would the aforementioned impoverished ethnic minority family be wealthy or mobile enough to have relatives at the other end of the continent?

I'm pretty sure her logic there was "Chinese Muslims are oppressed, Palestinians are oppressed - basically the same, right? Family!"

Oh and by the way she seemed to not remember if her family was based in western Xinjiang or in Karachi. She had sisters living in Karachi at some point and then she told me and, apparently, told quite a few other people, that she would be moving back to her loving parents in China soon after graduating university, at the age of 19.

Her parents who trafficked her.

Hokay.

Oh and besides the 80s high school AIDS crisis AU fic she wrote a lot of seriously offensive “Muslim AU” fic that trafficked in a lot of incredibly harmful and racist tropes about Muslim women but I said I wouldn’t mention fandom

3. Her wife

Mukta/Mukhta - Somali, Catholic, raised in America by her American father, somehow ended up in India as a trafficking victim, monolingual in English. She implied a few times that her father was some kind of diplomat. Muk(h)ta married Israa and they lived happily together as an interfaith couple, doing such coupley things as packaging Christmas care packages at Muk(h)ta's church and having wanted pregnancies.

1. As far as I can tell, Mukta and Mukhta are not Somali names, and if Muk(h)ta was monolingual in English wouldn’t she, like, spell her name in the Latin alphabet consistently 2. There are approximately 100 Somali Catholics. (Like I said, she liked doing that.) 3. An American-raised child of a diplomat being kidnapped (?) and trafficked for sex in India would have made international news. I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INTERNATIONAL NEWS.  4. Legal gay marriage does not exist in India. I wouldn't bring this up, people can call their partners whatever they want in the absence of legal recognition, but Israa made a distinction between "wife" and "girlfriend" and talked about having a wedding in a religious space, so - 5. How were two married female teenagers living together with apparently no problem in Bengaluru? 6. Muk(h)ta and Israa ended up in the same brothel together after being trafficked and one day decided to take the bus out. TO WHERE. HOW DID THEY GET THE MONEY. How Israa talked about the brothel was completely bullshit too and seems to have been based on legal brothels in Australia or Nevada - personal amenities, private bathrooms, private rooms, et cetera. 7. Again, India repatriates, or attempts to repatriate, known minor victims of trafficking - so why were either of them still in India?

Oh also Muk(h)ta's blog literally only talked about how awesome her wife was and Hamilton and she almost never interacted with other people by herself and she would have had the same non-Bengaluru IP address as Israa (same blog organization, frankly, as allolesbean), so -

4. Being a student in India

Israa insisted she, a Chinese (and?) Pakistani national, was a science student at a university in Bengaluru. She would not have been able to do this without documentation and you have to apply for a student visa in India outside of the country.

So:

1. Again. How did she acquire a passport? 2. How did she prove her residential address outside of India? 3. How did she put together the money to pay student fees? 4. How was Muk(h)ta living with her in the interim, if Muk(h)ta wasn't an Indian citizen? 5. How did she overcome the language barrier in either English or Kannada in enough time to start studying science? 6. Where was Muk(h)ta during the application process? In China? In Pakistan? In India? How?

6. The pregnancy

Jesus Christ where do I start

Israa always, always insisted that Muk(h)ta presented as a woman, was understood as a woman, etc, and the pregnancy was expected and wanted - the old ladies at church (who 100% accepted her) cooed over her baby bump.

Two AFAB people and their magic desired child baby bump. 

NO 19-YEAR-OLD HIV+ PERSON IS GOING TO RECEIVE IVF. ANYWHERE. EVER.

When someone pushed back on this, she started insisting that Muk(h)ta was a trans woman, taking hormones, and then later she conveniently miscarried.

1. How did Muk(h)ta access hormones? 2. How did Israa access her HIV medications such that she was fine with having unprotected sex (she stated a couple of times that she and Mukhta were a serodiscordant couple), and/or how did Mukhta access PrEp? 3. Why would two impoverished teenagers living on student visas (and it had to be student visas as, again, India repatriates foreign trafficking victims) plan to have a baby? 4. How did Muk(h)ta, a devout church-going Catholic living in India, safely and successfully navigate as a lesbian trans woman married to a Muslim woman such that her church accepted her and the pregnant partner unconditionally? 5. Same question but about Israa and Israa's mosque, which she apparently attended regularly 6. If the child was planned, how did Muk(h)ta, a young (17? 18?-year-old) trans woman on hormones, access the healthcare that would have assured them both that her hormones weren't interfering with her fertility? 7. How did Israa access neonatal care? 8. How could they afford all of this and yet Israa needed to ask for donations on hivliving to deal with vague miscarriage-related medical bills?

And on. And on. And on.

Am I saying it's impossible for someone to learn a language quickly, or to be Pakistani and have relatives in Gaza, or be a victim of trafficking, or be a lesbian in India, or any of the other things she claimed separately? No, of course not. I'm sure there's actually someone who is very like Israa out there, minus all the lies.

I'm just saying - are you fucking kidding me? Are all of you so illiterate about how the entirety of the world works that this bullshit was allowed to pass unchecked for two fucking years??? Are all of you so illiterate about how the world works that no one wondered why a person with this background would be spending her internet time primarily writing god damn Hamilton fanfiction??? Yes, you are, because instead of putting together this incredibly obvious idiotic racist garbage in a post to point out the many insane consistencies, I had to wade through the goddamn cash.me terms of service LITERALLY MONTHS AFTER SHE STARTED DEFRAUDING PEOPLE.

And that was obviously not the only time she'd demanded money, she just deleted her tumblrs before I could find the "friend's paypal" she had used earlier on blueskysapphic/angischuyler.

Did she ever talk about living with HIV in any meaningful way? Did she ever talk about it in a way that wasn't just yelling about not blaming asexuals or complaining about people twenty years older than her not using Tumblr-approved phrasing or whatever? Did she actually do anything with hivliving besides reblog things other people had posted and tell people to pm her for more information? The real Alix is a 19-year-old college sophomore who is so stupid about public health that she told people RENT is a good introduction to the AIDS crisis in twenty god damn seven teen and told me that she checked herself into a hospital for narcissism (spoilers: there's a huge lack of beds in psychiatric hospitals and no psychiatric ER is going to admit a person not immediately in danger, especially not for NARCISSISM). She had absolutely nothing of value to contribute. She was clearly not talking from a place of expertise. She did not sound like she knew anything about anything and what she did regurgitate was highly Americanized. If her value as the person who ran hivliving was as an HIV+ pregnant married nonbinary non-American trafficking survivor, then it should have been obvious earlier that she was none of those things.

It is not difficult to figure out things like it is costly and difficult to move between countries, or that midcontinental aridity precludes heavy-water-using agriculture, or that adults who are learning English as a third or fourth language from a non-Germanic language will have quite a bit of trouble with grammar and vocabulary even several years in, or that a nineteen-year-old bigender woman-aligned person would have difficulty living safely with her wife anywhere, or that it’s nigh impossible that a person holding a Pakistani passport could get to the Gaza strip, or that most Somalis are not Catholic.

BASIC KNOWLEDGE. BASIC COMMON SENSE. BASIC GEOPOLITICS. A few hours on Wikipedia could have thrown all of this into the garbage. 

Why did any of you believe this garbage?

Easy! Because:

1. Tumblr fetishizes oppression, especially that of trans people and Muslim women, and Alix made herself a persona that hit every jackpot possible 2. Tumblr consumes only fanfiction and thus elevates it to an insane level of importance in culture, therefore fights over fanfiction content are actual justice (it's not that fucking deep) 3. Tumblr has an extremely warped understanding of social justice theory and abuse dynamics 4. Tumblr refuses to absorb any news or history besides that which is presented on Tumblr 5. Alix was so prone to leading harassment mobs that any pushback would lead to more abuse 6. Tumblr hates gay men and would rather listen to an obvious bullshit artist than anyone the community that is primarily affected by HIV

Really can't stress that last one enough. REALLY can't. I remember some big name ~tumblr LGBT-community famous~ blogger telling their thousands of followers that the pogrom against gay men in Chechnya wasn't happening, partially because they were so stupid that they didn't know how to click through on tabloid publications to the serious reporting done by actual journalists, but mostly because Tumblr has decided that gay men aren't oppressed and AIDS is over or some bullshit.

At least five people, five men, five GAY AND BI MEN, came to Alix with their status, begging for help. She fed them garbage and lies. She looked them in the face and decided she would continue with this monstrousness and you just fucking let it happen and then you made it about fanfiction because you don’t understand that there are things way beyond fandom. She was a psychopath who OPERATED IN FANDOM and 15 years ago she would have pulled this shit on the TWOP boards or the scarleteen message boards or neopets or something.

God, fuck all of you.

I have a tiny bit of money spare this month. If you send a receipt of a donation to an HIV/AIDS-related organization of your choice to thatwhichechoes@protonmail.com, personal information redacted as you so choose, I'll match it, multiple its, for a total of $50 from my end. If that doesn't happen by February 15, I'll just send it all to one of my choice. I can hold a couple bucks spare each month so that, God willing and my rent don't rise, I can consistently send to Rainbow Railroad or my home LGBT center's HIV/AIDS program.

Nothing is going to fix what she did and she's never going to get held to account in the way she should but I'm going to post receipts every so often anyways because I am nasty and angry enough to care about other people. I am angry enough to do penance on her behalf. I have been furious and horrified and sick about this ever since I found out and dealing with her vileness has caused actual tangible harm in my life but again, it's not about me, and I'm going to remember that even if you motherfuckers won't.

I would seriously advise anyone under the age of 21 to get the fuck off of this website and go learn how to communicate with other people in a healthy manner. Go outside! Interact with other people in the real world! Read a book. Read a fucking newspaper! Learn about the world. Or you can stay here and burrow in the echo chamber and become credulous fauxwoke racist homophobic morons who prioritize calling other teenagers pedophiles til they try to kill themselves because Steven Universe or something over doing literally anything that could help the world. Your choice.

The rest of you: comport yourselves like normal fucking human beings for once in your fucking lives and sort out your goddamn priorities. Read a fucking newspaper. Stop giving obvious racist fraudsters like medievalpoc and Israalix the benefit of the doubt and actually think about the information that is being presented to you and then maybe do something more useful with your time than getting into internet fights. For example, I organized an auction in my spare time that, with the help of another lovely person and dozens of wonderful donors, raised $3,917 for various charities over six months, including $200 for GMHC and about $75 for an HIV/AIDS organization in Wisconsin. Go do something similar or get off the fucking internet! It’s 2018! You’re adults! Try tangibly helping other people, at some point, instead of engaging in this terrible narcissistic performative circlejerk where trauma has become a cudgel to beat others!

If any of you do anything like this again I will find you and I will fucking destroy you. That is a promise. 

Go to hell.

[koganphrancis]

Camless Episode 4

(gif credit: winifred-burkle)

It’s a landmark episode and not a lot happens, as always.  If they didn’t have the fact it was the 100th episode to talk about, they’d pretty much have nothing at all.  Another episode without bringing up Terror (yay!), another episode without sex or a titty shot (shock!), another episode where we learn nothing about wtf is going on with Ian (yawn).  I HAD thought the show had managed to wrap up 3 storylines, but then I saw spoilers online last night that would indicate at least 2 of them will go on :(  Spoilers and not much else under the cut.

Ian got the “here’s what you missed” again this week, which I’m taking as another sign Cam is nearing the swan song ;)  But, ugh,the opening wasn’t funny-or understandable-at all.  Cam’s standing in front of a busload of extras they must’ve bussed in from a local Chicago school of modeling to portray Gay Jesus supporters, he’s wearing his “God Loves Fags” T shirt and says, “What the fuck were you doing last week that was more important than watching Shameless?  Protesting homophobia and bigotry?  Damn right you were.”  WTF?  If people weren’t watching Shameless last week they were exercising good taste, not “protesting” somewhere at 9 PM on a Sunday-or does he mean not watching this shit show is a protest against homophobia and bigotry?  That actually does make sense.  I apologize ;P

Liam  Whatever the point was of aging him and doing a time jump after Monica died went out the window last night when Liam is approached by some public school teachers about his placement for the next school year.  Liam is afraid he’s going to be kept back, but they assure him it’s the opposite, they want to move him up.  He asks if he’ll be put in 3rd grade, but they say they want to try him in 6th.  But if Liam thought skipping a grade would put him in 3rd, that means currently he’s in 1st and the oldest that would make him right now is 7.  The fuck?  The only reason I’m talking about any of this is because that’s how lame the show is now.

Carl  Lip FINALLY says something to him about the dogs smelling up the whole house.  And then shockingly Ian and Carl have a conversation about the dogs too-and West Point.  But of course this is the year of the Gallagher house seeming weird and creepy, so the conversation takes place with a very catatonic-like Ian sitting on the basement steps in weird shadows whilst Carl feeds the dogs.  The brotherly convo goes like this: Ian: Sure they wouldn’t have been better off if you just gassed them like you were supposed to? Carl: I couldn’t bring myself to do it. I: How are you going to order men (note to JW-women can serve in the armed forces now too, even in combat) to kill the enemy if you can’t put down a couple of old dogs?  That’s what officers do-order men (!!!) to kill.  What did you think they were gonna teach you at West Point?  Marching cadences? C: Is that what Gay Jesus would do? I: What, kill old dogs?  Hell no, Gay Jesus is all about inclusion and grace, but you’re not looking to get into heaven.  You want to lead lean mean murdering machines.  (DID ANYONE EVER THINK THAT WAS IAN’S GOAL IN GOING TO WEST POINT?  LEADING KILLING MACHINES TO THEIR DEATHS?  I HATE YOU, JOHN WELLS!)  If you can’t kill a couple of old dogs might be the time to start considering teaching kindergarten?  Nursing school?  

On that note, he gets up and walks away.  Let me interject another rant here-since WHEN is Ian this insensitive sexist jerk who would think of jobs/careers in terms of things real men do vs. traditionally (in the dark ages) “feminine” jobs?  John Wells is a fucking dinosaur that needs to be educated-fucking teaching and nursing jobs are as difficult as soldiering, plus these days they’re expecting teachers to start protecting classrooms with weapons.  He’s such a dumb fuck!

And also-I bet this is the only time Ian will speak to Carl about West Point and we’ll never know how he truly felt about watching Carl grasp at the dream he once had.  Way to blow the opportunity.

There’s a whole stupid side story about Carl and the kid who originally was getting the West Point letter of recommendation.  In another add it to the list of “read the room, school kids arranging to shoot each other isn’t funny, you fucking out of touch white males” plots, Carl needs to get his “killing mojo” back so he goes to visit a local veteran.  I can’t even begin to guess if Wells was trying to make some commentary about PTSD or if he was just using the poor guy for laughs (this is Shameless, as they love to remind us, so I’m guessing Wells was just going for yuks).  The show makes its at least THIRD joke using tattoos as a punchline, and-just like with Mickey and Ian-it fails to be funny.  Get new material, you untalented hack!  Sorry I keep yelling at John Wells-what a waste if he’s not actually reading this ;) 

In Carl’s showdown with the other kid, Wells turns that kid into a poetry-spouting “pansy” at the last second.  The kid can’t bring himself to shoot Carl, so he shoots himself in the thigh saying his warmonger dad can’t make him enlist in the Marines now even if he’s not going to West Point.  I’m sitting at home wondering if the idiot nicked his femoral artery and is about to bleed out.  Carl says the self inflicted wound is just a flesh wound and they’ll be able to tell, so the kid starts blabbering poetry and Carl shoots him in the other thigh to shut him up.  The kid thanks him and Carl walks away.   Now I’m convinced that second shot had to hit the femoral artery and no one’s calling 911 and I bet the kid dies and Carl’s path to West Point is now strewn with his body and Kassidi’s.  

Debbie  I can’t...I’ll try, I’ll try to be brief, because it’s all meaningless.  After spending one night together, Alex says they should live together (because that’s what ALL wacky lesbians do, they move right in), and Debs says yes.  They get to have a cute domestic breakfast scene that by rights should’ve gone to Mickey and Ian, but I digress.  Debbie goes out and buys “lesbian” outfits, which to me just seemed like they were making fun of HER-of course she’s going to hit the mall, she’s just a teenager!  She doesn’t have to be the spokeswomen of lesbians everywhere.  This show has a knack of mocking the wrong things at the wrong times.  It’s their shitty writing, not teen spending habits, that’s ridiculous here.

The next time we see them, they’re in bed again, and Alex is filling Debbie in on her past serious relationships, and then Wells gives Debbie a speech about all the dudes she slept with and it’s so much more cringe-worthy thinking about the fact he wrote it.  Plus it’s another “relationship retcon” speech since Debbie doesn’t mention that every other time she’s had sex it was a form of rape.  Matty (who Wells has Debbie say had a “big dick”) wasn’t conscious (and, btw, John, a 12 year old virgin-which is the oldest Debbie could’ve been at the time with all your screwing around with her still being 16 last year-wouldn’t be all that enthusiastic about “big dicks” for her very 1st time), Derrick (who she lied to about birth control-if he had slipped off a condom right before entering her that would be rape and this case is also-Wells says he had a great body and really knew what he was doing), and the guy she crossed state lines with who was obviously over 21 if he could rent a hotel room in Missouri, PLUS she was drugged and unable to give consent-that dude’s a two for!  Debbie doesn’t mention him, since she can’t remember him, I guess.  She brings up Neil, but says being with him was just financial (she doesn’t bother to say he just watched while she did things to herself.  But hey, if they had had sex, that would’ve been another case of statutory!)  Anyway, then Wells has Debbie spout off about what having sex with another “girl” is like and Alex gets more and more dejected.  She’s just now seeing that Debbie’s not gay?  We’re supposed to feel sorry for her?  When in the previous episode which SEEMS to have taken place the day before (or a couple of weeks, tops, if you’re going by Liam’s time line) Alex said right out loud that she knew Debbie was straight?  WHY IS THIS SHOW SO DUMB?  We haven’t gotten to know Alex well enough to have sympathy for her regardless, but they made the point of letting us know she KNEW going in Debbie is straight.  And of course in John Wells’ world, there’s no such thing as bisexuals, so...

Deb and Alex “break up” (who cares?) and I thought that would be the end of Alex and Debbie’s gay storyline, but no-sounds like they’re going to be the new Ian and Terror-next week “Debbie tries to repair things with Alex” according to Spoiler TV.  NOOOOO!  I wanted that to be one of my three wrapped up storylines!  

Debbie comes back into the Gallagher kitchen, dragging her baby carriage and pillow with her and crying her heart out.  None of the siblings appear very concerned-this is the new Shameless, a bunch of strangers occasionally bumping into each other.  The biggest “shocker” of the scene is the family is eating Popeye’s instead of KFC.  Another jolt that we don’t even know these people anymore, LOL.

Lip  I can’t...I just don’t understand the motivation to try to make Xan part of his life when he doesn’t seem to be bonding with her in the least.  He asks her if she’d want to stay with him if her mom never comes back-but doesn’t tell the kid why HE wants her to stay or ask Xan why she would want to stay when she says okay.  The story is hollow and no one seems to try to be filling it with any substance.  

There’s a couple of scenes at the motorcycle shop and it’s so obvious Lip and Brad have no idea what they’re doing-they always just grab wrenches and poke at bike parts with them.  Last night Lip kept using the ratchet wrench-I think JAW must like the noise it makes.  

Lip sells the bike he restored to get money to buy parental rights from Xan’s mom, and it’s just creepy?  Why would the mom know to trust him?  I’m still not even convinced WE should trust him-sharing a room with her is creepy af.  Anyway, Xan comes running up when Lip’s trying to get the mom to make the deal (and why is Xan out unsupervised in the middle of the night on a dark South Side street?  Even if she did “just” sneak out to look for her mom, this is a clear example that Lip isn’t father of the year, that he’s not meeting the bare minimum requirements as a guardian), and the mom drops to hug Xan because it’s the 100th episode and these two characters we barely know should get the big emotional scene?  Anyway, Lip drops the check and runs, overwhelmed by an actual show of emotion, no doubt.  THIS was the 2nd storyline I was hoping would be over, but then TMZ reported that the actress who plays Xan has been signed for Season 10.  Which, BTW, still hasn’t been officially announced and that just seems weird that they haven’t.  What is Showtime waiting for?  

Fiona  Ugh, she was worse than ever this week.  Can’t believe these are her waning days-it truly seems like Wells is out to punish her.  Fi is on the toilet as Bored brushes his teeth.  Fiona goes right from flushing to brushing her teeth WITHOUT WASHING HER HANDS.  It was so gross-I hope next episode she and Bored have pink eye and mouth thrush.  (Fi also touches her lip after putting on lipstick-still without the benefit of soap.)  They still have no fucking chemistry, and they start talking about the election which of course they don’t see eye to eye on.  Then Fi goes to Patsy’s for the first time in forever and Wells gets to recycle the Fi vs Ian fight over gentrification from last season by having Fi on the opposite side of Frank’s candidate, although they don’t bother to give us any face-to-face interaction.  Which is just fine, since the election storyline was boring and weak anyway.  

Fi is a total...I don’t even know the word-what do you call a boss who doesn’t allow their workers their freedom as voters?  She tells the waitresses to take off their buttons supporting their candidate and that there can be “no electioneering” at the workplace, but puts up a poster for her guy and offers free pie to anyone who puts on one of his buttons.  Would she ever really be that clueless and such a bully?  Does anyone care anymore?  

Later, Fiona goes to the Alibi and has a conversation with Vee where she basically says, “This is what Ford is telling me to think this week...”  Fiona says she wants to vote for the guy against rent control, the businessman  And Vee points out that “the businessman” in Washington isn’t working out too great.  Ooh, Shameless, rushing in with the timely political commentary!  (There will be more too, ugh.)

When Fi shows up at her (or a?) polling place, there’s a rumble going on and Wells has her throw one punch to show us she’s still “South Side”, I guess.  It was gratuitous.  It did not remind us of the show’s glory days, it was a thrown in pointless moment that was so outrageously just tacked on. 

In Fiona’s final scene this week, Bored walks into the apartment building with his massive wooden toolbox reminding us he’s a massive tool, and Fiona tells him how she changed her vote, they kiss, and women’s rights are set back another 100 years.  Oh, and Bored still squints A LOT delivering his lines.  Emmy seems to open hers even wider, probably unconsciously trying to get the other actor to at least try to keep his open once in a while...

Veronica and Kevin  There was some more truly awful “rape jokes” this week. Rape is never going to be funny, and with the week this country suffered through last week-plus the fact that it’s still ongoing-I really wish they had just deleted all the Alibi scenes.  Kev makes up a scoreboard or bingo sheet (it isn’t clear) of all the “types” of rapey behavior that can now be shorthanded into a celebrity’s name.  I won’t even justify the “joke” with some examples.  And then KEVIN becomes a sought-after consultant to make other South Side bars less rapey because he’s the white man running the Alibi and Vee is...not.  

Frank is in the episode more than I’m going to talk about, but suffice it to say I do truly believe his election storyline is over (one out of three is not good enough, Shameless!  Wrap up the boring shit that’s going nowhere and do something with the other shit that’s also going nowhere!)   Mo wins the election, and Wells has a reporter say it’s because voters were afraid to say they were bigots in polls.  Which again, this show is too narrow to try to address larger issues-if that’s Wells’ theory why Trump won, it doesn’t explain how “bigoted voters” elected Obama twice.  Try making the world a better place, Wells.  Yes, there is racism and idiot bigotry here, but there was just something smug about how he justified his fictional political outcome.  There was a scene where Frank’s asking some of the Gallaghers if they’re voting-Carl says he’s too young, Lip says he’s not registered, and Ian says, “What’s the point?”  And that pissed me off too, because we’re having Gay Jesus shoved down our throats, but then Wells seems to be saying Ian won’t bother to vote and would rather blow shit up.  Again, the kid that ORIGINALLY had the dream to serve his country by going to West Point.  And fucking Lip-what, he’s too “smart” to think voting matters?  

(Also in that scene, Ian was eating peanut butter toast, but still no sign of his pill bottles.  Cam actually took a bite of the toast, if that type of dedication to his craft matters to anyone.)

The post credits “joke” was a pedo joke about Mo.  Fuck you, John Wells.  

The only thing Frank was good for this week was to lead us back to Mickey’s house.  As so often with this show, I have to forget context (good thing I’ve had plenty of practice, I guess?) and I will fully admit that when I saw Mickey’s little castle of a house I teared up a little.  It was like seeing an old friend.  

But then of course they had to ruin it by Frank knocking on the door, we hear Terry yelling and hitting a dog named Adolf (they put a yelp in and everything) and Terry opens the door wielding a baseball bat that brought Negan and Jeffery Dean Morgan to mind-I hope that was a shout out to him.  The bat had nails in embedded in it instead of barbed wire, but close enough.  Best not to imagine how much cooler the show might have been with JDM instead of Sean, sigh.  

A much funnier joke than anything they did give us about Mo White would’ve been to have Frank ask Terry, “Still have a connection with Russians?  I have an election to rig.”

Finally we get to Ian but just because he had more screen time this week doesn’t mean we’re any closer to knowing anything.  And I was going to bust Cameron for acting very sleepy and out of it in all of his scenes, but then I realized that’s pretty much how all the Gallagher kids actors have been acting, except for Fiona (and I’d say she’s trying too hard sometimes.  There’s also been lots of scenes so far where it seems like she’s phoning it in-but of course they’re giving her shit to do).  

Anyway, things this episode start in the Gallagher kitchen, Ian groans when he sees the coffee’s all gone, and says he’s not sleeping-he got too used to all the noise in jail, it’s too quiet here.  Well, bitch, the house was always lively when the Milkovich siblings were there too, work on getting them back...

Lip asks him if he met his public defender yet and Ian says Geneva and the Gay Jesus donors got him a lawyer, “rich, queer, too much time on his hands since same sex marriage got fixed.”  Um, why is Ian sounding so put out with the guy without even meeting him?  What’s this superiority complex?  

Later Ian walks into GJ church HQ and he’s limping, but I don’t think it’s a continuity error, I think they probably just had him film scenes out of order that day and I think he went a little too hard, LOL.  Anyway, the GJ kids applaud and Geneva hugs him-she’s into it, he’s not.  At the HQ they’re making silk screen shirts with Ian’s face and Gay Jesus signs.  Geneva is once again spouting out statistics, saying how wildly popular the movement is, 77,000 followers in the past five days-One Direction at their height was gaining popularity around the globe like that, not this Gay Jesus shit.  Ian doesn’t seem to be listening too closely to what she’s spewing, and when two body-builder women walk by he asks Geneva who they are.  She says they’re part of the lesbian legion from an MMA gym and adds, “Your gays turned out to be too sweet to handle security.”  Whatever-they keep trying to act like there’s all this dynamic action happening off screen-NO ONE CARES since all we ever see is Ian moping around, looking like Cameron has a headache.

Next time we see Ian he’s walking around outside in his red kicks (really wish we knew the significance of those-are they supposed to be like Jesus’ sandals?  What happened in the cut scene where he left them in the aisle last season?  I only want to know because the show seems to think they mean SOMETHING)-anyway, where’s Ian going?  Why?  We’re never told-great storytelling this ain’t, kids.  A van slows up next to him and a guy leans out and says, “You’re Ian, right?  Gay Jesus?”  How did the guys in the van know where Ian would be walking?  Do they just circle the Gay Jesus church hoping he’ll come out?  Again, we’ll never know.  The guy continues, “I’ve been watching your videos with my friends.  The burning vans, the sermons-it’s inspiring.”  Ian says thanks.  The guy says, “You really think that’s what Jesus was teaching?”  Ian says, “Inclusion, love, acceptance for all?  Yeah, absolutely.”  Then the van guy says, “You don’t think God sees homosexual bestiality as a sinful perversion of His divine creations?”  Ian’s confused, says, “What?”, sees the sliding panel door of the van open, and takes off running, jumping over fences and at some point in his getaway, pulling some muscle in his tight jeans.  

Next time we see Ian he’s sitting alone in the Gallagher kitchen nursing a beer and his thigh.  (No Bible this time-no sign of his pills either.)  Lip comes in and asks him if he’s okay and Ian says he maybe pulled a hamstring running from homophobes.  Lip says, “I guess there’s nothing new about that, right?” and you wonder just when he stopped caring so completely about his brother.  

Ian doesn’t bother to answer, sips his beer instead.  After a minute he quietly asks Lip, “Think you could do hard time?” Lip: In prison?  Uh...rather not.  I: Gay Jesus kids don’t want me to cop a plea.  Want me to take it to trial.  Get as much publicity for the cause as I can. L: What’s your lawyer say? I: Could be looking at 10-15 if I don’t take a deal.  (Me at home, screaming at the TV: WHAT ARE THE CHARGES?  WHY CAN’T THEY EVER TELL US ANYTHING?  WHAT ARE THEY SAYING YOU DID THAT’S ON PAR WITH MICKEY’S BULLSHIT ATTEMPTED 2ND DEGREE MURDER SENTENCE????)

Lip, rather than saying ANYTHING to the brother he’s closest to about maybe not giving up his entire young adulthood to a cause, not saying something like, “You’d be older than the real Jesus got to live till by the time you get out”, not saying if he thinks Ian’s an idiot if he’s even questioning doing hard time in a bad place, no, rather than that, he takes his coffee out of the microwave and comes around the counter to the same side as Ian and says, “You ah, hearing from Shim again?” I: Sometimes.  (Me at home: WHAT?  WHEN?  What does that look like when it happens?) L: Well, what does Shim think? I: Unclear.  (Oh, Ian, are you kidding me?  All this time you thought you were talking to god but you’ve just been playing with a Magic 8 Ball?) L: Xan’s mom showed up today.  (Guess we’re done talking about Ian then!)  She’s a junkie.  Hookin’... I: What are you going to do? L: I don’t know. I: Maybe you should try asking Shim. L: Maybe.  

End scene.  So again, we get tantalizingly close to a discussion about what might be going on inside Ian’s head-is he getting it?  That the Gay Jesus movement is just using him at this point?  Or does he really think going to prison as the highly recognizable face of said movement is going to work out somehow-other than him not dying a painful and brutal death?  And why can’t Lip give enough of a shit to at least ask him not to go?  Fuuuuuuck.  

Next Ian’s back at GJ HQ.  Geneva comes in and says she didn’t see him come in.  He says he came in the back-all the hugging and applause when he comes in the front is kinda weird.  Since Geneva is the only one who ever hugs him, I hope she’s getting the hint.  He’s looking over the “Free Gay Jesus” posters.

Ian: What is this? Geneva: Couple of the arty kids are working out a few ideas for if you do end up in prison. I: Couple assholes in a van chased me last night.  Apparently they’re not very big fans of my interpretation of Bible verse. G: Fuckers.  I’ll get you a couple of lesbian legion body guards.  They’d love nothing more than to a chance to stomp homophobes.  (Because, yeah, THAT was Jesus’ message.) Ian holds up a Che Jesus shirt with an unintentionally hilarious graphic of him wearing a beret-Showtime probably thinks fans want to buy them (I wrote these notes before Steve Howey tweeted he wants one last night.  It got less than a thousand likes, and I bet that number would be less than half if Cam hadn’t replied).  

I: Think any of this is gonna end up making a difference? G: Ian, you’ve given thousands of gay and lesbian teenagers a voice.  (Insert Mickey gif of “Not really tho” here.)  You’ve inspired us to stand up and fight for ourselves.  

So much wrong with so much of that.  First of all, is Geneva LGBT?  She was a runaway who ran away from having to give blowjobs, right, not because her parents kicked her out for being LGBT?  And she’s been crushing on Ian since Day 1, so, probably not “L”, and Wells clearly doesn’t believe in “B”, so who is Geneva to say “us”?  And next, IF Ian/Gay Jesus has given kids “a voice”, what is he saying for them-are the teens really into his whole “Jesus was a junkie”, “my god is non-binary” shouting that they haven’s shown since last year?  Don’t teens get bored and move on to the next thing when their idols aren’t doing anything new?  Lastly, she says they are standing up and fighting for themselves-where, when, how?  

I: Know what I was thinking when I was running away from those bastards?  (Me at home: NO!  We never know what you’re thinking!  That’s the whole damn problem with your storylines!)  It’s been 2000 years since Jesus died on the cross and I’m still running for my life down an alley because I fall in love with men instead of women.  (No, Ian, you’ve only ever loved one (1) man-fucking admit that for once and then get on with your life.  That line should’ve been “have sex with”, no one deserves to be chased down for that either, and it wouldn’t have made me exasperated with Ian over the whole “love” thing, which is a separate issue this show fucking needs to handle before it’s all said and done with Ian.)  

Then one of the GJ kids comes in to report there’s a bunch of Nazi’s keeping people from getting to one of the polls and we don’t see Ian again this episode. But again, I hope that they’re finally having him wake up to the fact that NO ONE cares about him.  The family has washed its hands of him, the Gay Jesus followers WANT him to go to prison (and probably die) and be a martyr for the cause.  Time to ask yourself who is the only person who ever looked at you and actually saw you there, Ian.  The only person to look you in the eye and say, “I love you.”   

[betsynagler]

Tired of Being Treated Differently

In 1996, my best friend from high school invited me to go on a two-week cross-country trip with her and three of her friends — which turned out to be four for the first six days, when one of them decided to bring an extra person, until we dropped him off in California. I’d never driven across the country, and was excited to give it a try, so I said yes. It was an incredibly fun and also eye-opening experience, not only because it was my first visit to sites like the Grand Canyon, Las Vegas, and the Corn Palace, but because four of the people in the van — and once we dropped off our California-bound late-addition, everyone except for me — were people of color. How did this matter? Well, for starters, when we’d land in places like a fishing town on the Oregon Coast, and everyone would stare. As a fairly generic-looking white woman of 27, I was used to passing without a second glance in most of the places I’d been to that point (basically the States, Europe and Canada), certainly anywhere I’d been in the U.S. It very quickly became obvious to me that this wasn’t the case if you were were Black or Asian American, like the friends I was traveling with. Turned out there were parts of the country — and a lot more parts than I’d suspected — where you were going to get noticed, and not in a friendly way. But there was also stuff I learned on that trip that wasn’t as obvious. Like what it meant when we went out to lunch in a nice restaurant in Santa Fe and got terrible service. My impulse was to just chalk that up to the fact that we were all in our 20s and didn’t look like we had money — particularly after spending more than a week’s worth of nights either camping, sleeping on friends’ floors, or in Motel 6s (the night we splurged on the $40/night Excalibur in Vegas, it felt like we were staying at the Plaza). Because that was what I’d dealt with before. My friends, however, felt pretty strongly that the way we were being ignored and slighted had something to do with race, because they’d dealt with that before. And so, while it’s not like this had never occurred to me until then, that trip helped drive home in a tangible way that 1) my experience of going through the world was not the same as everyone else’s, and 2) that that body of experience, that history that each of us had, was going to lead us to view the same situations very differently.

These concepts weren’t hard for me to get, not just because I had friends of color, but because of what I’d been experiencing in my own life and career, starting with graduate school. Since moving to New York to become a filmmaker six years earlier, I’d often had this feeling that I was being treated differently, but in ways so hard to prove, even to myself, that I'd mostly just accepted it was all in my head. When guys I’d shot films for as a first year at NYU, who’d been really happy with my work, instead chose the same other guy to shoot for them in second year, I chalked it up to my not being “technical enough,” or not having the confident decisiveness to take charge of the set the way the DP was supposed to — until I realized that no women were shooting films for men at all, unless they were their girlfriends. When I arrived on professional sets, it started sinking in more and more that men really were always telling me to smile, or offering to “help” me with my job when their jobs were unrelated to mine and I hadn’t asked for their help, or treating me as an object of flirtation, even if they were my superiors. I eventually learned to handle all of that by being more tolerant, competent, and professional than they were, but what I had the hardest time with was what I cared about the most: sending out scripts, or soliciting constructive feedback from peers in writing workshops, and receiving constant rejection or rude/patronizing remarks. Okay sure, cruelty is considered par for the course in a business where success is so elusive and so coveted that people are just expected to accept all kinds of abuse — verbal, sexual, physical — in order to get somewhere. But that only makes it more infuriating when there are additional comments or obstacles that other people don’t seem to be dealing with. Like when I wrote a film about a friendship between two teenaged girls, and one of the men in my writing group couldn’t understand the point of the script unless they had a lesbian relationship. Or when I submitted a script to a production company and the coverage I received said that the reader had no interest in the story, which featured two female main characters and one love interest who was a man of color, until the second love interest, a white guy, showed up. Yeah, that's when things got good, he said. I was starting to see that I was stuck in a system where the white male arbiters of good and bad had all the power not just to decide whether my work was one or the other, but to define what the terms “good” and “bad” even meant. So it was easy for them to claim — and fully believe — that the failure of women to scale their ranks wasn’t due to our gender, it was due to their inability to master “the craft.” All they had to say was, “I couldn't get into the story,” or, “I didn't care about the characters,” and those were considered legitimate critiques based on merit, when of course there was way, way, way…basically everything more to it than that.

This is what makes unequal treatment such a hard thing to pinpoint: it has everything to do with who’s distinguishing and quantifying “good” and “bad” in an entrenched system. So it's only when you look at the big picture over time, quantified in data, and see the work of women and people of color highly underrepresented in nearly every area of the arts — music, painting, sculpture, literature, theater, cinema, etc — that you can see discrimination is happening because the system itself is fucked.

What I was going through wasn’t the same as what my friends from that trip were going through, not at all. Each of us is a different person. But we all knew that we were being treated differently, based on countless experiences we’d had that added up. And we knew, because we’d experienced that too, that the kind of discrimination we were dealing with was so insidious and damaging precisely because people who hadn’t faced it were going to scoff and chalk it up to something entirely innocuous, and say it didn’t even exist.

I was reminded of all this last weekend, when I watched the women’s final of the 2018 U.S. Open. I don’t think most people would say that Serena Williams behaved perfectly when she argued with umpire Carlos Ramos and then later broke her racket when she threw it down in anger. But the question is not whether she did something wrong, it’s whether she was treated differently. Of course you can say that Ramos was just following the rules, that she shouldn’t be getting special treatment because she’s the great Serena Williams, and that plenty of men have been penalized like she was — with articles like this jumping on opportunities to bring all of that up and say “What about…?” But if you dig a little deeper, you find way more examples of white men behaving worse in less important matches, even toward that same umpire, and not having him penalize them so severely as to ruin a tournament final for everyone involved. In other words, yes, there are rules, but if they aren’t applied in the same way across the board, we are back at “He said, she said,” and it's always the “He said” that comes first. Always.

The Whatabouters always say, “Why does everything have to be about race/sex?” Well, yeah, it’d be great not to have to talk about discrimination, but you can’t when it won’t leave you alone – even when you’re arguably the best athlete in the world. If you’re a woman and/or a person of color, your experience has told you that it nearly always is about that. It just is. Then the Whatabouters say, “Then you’re asking for special treatment when you break the rules.” Well, that’s because the rules, by which I mean all of the laws of this country dating back to the Constitution, were, from the very beginning, designed to treat women and people of color differently – creating a world in which the norm is special treatment for white men. Again, it just is.

And how often have our laws and rules that were not designed to be unfair been applied evenly and fairly? Let’s face it, the U.S. Open’s got nothing on the American justice system. Why do we refuse to recognize that when fallible people who do “bad” have to be punished, and when other fallible humans are doing the judging about how “bad” they are, there's going to be all sorts of bias and unequal treatment? If the recent news isn’t convincing to you, we’ve now got data to prove that Black people are much more likely to be on the receiving end of police violence; have been far more likely to receive the death penalty in capital cases; that crack users in the 80s, who were more often Black, received far stiffer sentences than white users of powdered cocaine; that Black people were far more likely be searched and arrested for possession of marijuana than white people (two of the reasons, in case you were wondering, why so many more people of color have been incarcerated en mass during the War on Drugs); and that Black schoolchildren are likely to be more severely punished, suspended, or even have the cops called on them than white children for the same transgressive behavior. 

And systems by which people are considered “good,” like at their jobs, and promoted? Again, completely dependent on the fallible judgments of those in power, so that only in the aggregate can we see how Black employees receive extra scrutiny from their bosses, Asian Americans are the least likely racial group to be promoted to management positions, women are punished and considered “bad” at their jobs for traits that are considered “good” in men, like ambition, speaking up, or doing too well in school; and how, of course, women of color are the least likely to be supported or promoted for equally good work.

I know what the Whatabouters are saying now: “Yes, people in the past were wrong, but now, moving forward, we’re the ones trying to treat everyone the same.” Um, really? We’re supposed to believe that? We’ve had this whole lifetime of experience that tells us otherwise, and you’re dismissing that, again? You’re claiming that, at long last, in this tennis match, or court of law, or screenwriting competition, or job review, or state senate, when it comes down to questions of “rules” and “fairness” and “objectivity,” we should continue to just trust the white guys? Yeah, right.

If you’ve been wondering why so many women and people of color are running for office this election season, well, here you go: we’re just sick of being treated differently. For a long time, we’ve trusted the white guys who say they’re going to fix things and finally respect our rights the same way they respect their own. Now we’re finally deciding that the only way things are going to change is for us to get in there and make the rules, and apply them ourselves.

Can you blame us?

[herdustisverypretty]

“Kuroko no Basket is not gay” - and why that statement is bullshit

I know I said I was leaving for today but this is something that has bothered me for a long time and I would like to say this. 

I take issue with the title statement, and I’m going to explain why. This is going to be a very long post so grab a snack and get comfy. 

Okay. To begin with, I’m going to talk about Kagami. He, along with Kuroko (but that’s another story), are the only male characters on the Seirin team who show no interest in Momoi. There are plenty of things that make this odd. One is the fact that Hyuuga has said he doesn’t like girly girls, yet even he salivates over Momoi. So Momoi is hot stuff. Yet Kagami shows zero attraction to her. He says to Kuroko that she’s cute, but that doesn’t mean he’s interested in her. Kuroko agrees she’s cute, but we know he isn’t interested in her at all. You can be aesthetically attracted to someone but not romantically or sexually. Secondly, his interactions with Alex. Kagami seems thoroughly disturbed by Alex when she does things such as try to kiss him or when she walks around naked. First of all this is odd for a teenage boy. It’s not that Alex isn’t attractive. The Seirin members also go gaga over her similar to Momoi. And I don’t believe it’s that she’s a mentor/parent/older sister figure, because of Himuro’s interactions with her. Himuro is not bothered by her behaviour at all, he just seems amused. When she tries to kiss him, he stops her and says people don’t do that casually here. This implies he’d be fine for her to kiss him if they were back in America. You could explain this as ‘maybe Kagami is just a prude’, and yeah, maybe he is. That’s one option. However there’s more. In Kurofes, his answer to ‘what is your type (as in romantic partner)’ is very odd. I have spoken to other people who speak Japanese and they also agree his answer is very strange. So, Kagami responds that he is attracted to “an elegant gir- person”. He starts saying the word girl, and then stops and changes to a gender neutral term. This is odd. The change from female to neutral seems significant. Why did he feel the need to stop saying a female term and change to a neutral term? Plenty of other characters in Kurofes say gender neutral person instead of girl (male characters) or boy (female characters) but that’s a normal response and they most likely are still straight. However that Kagami felt the need to specifically change his answer is very strange. My personal theory is that he just doesn’t think about his sexuality. He doesn’t seem the type to think about that kind of thing. All he cares about is basketball, not who he’s going to date. My theory is that he started saying girl because most people default that everyone is straight (shitty but true), and since Kagami doesn’t think about this he just automatically began to say girl. However, he changed his mind. So I think in that moment he realised “wait I do like guys” and thus changed his answer. You could take his answer two ways. That he’s bisexual, and wanted to use a neutral term to say he likes both girls and guys. Or you could take it that he is gay. Reo for example uses a gender neutral term in his answer, but we know he’s canonically gay. I would believe either, that Kagami is gay or bi, but personally I think it’s entirely possible that he’s gay judging by his interaction with female characters. 

We’re going to move onto another topic. The topic is that Fujimaki knows jack shit. 

Example one. Murasakibara. Murasakibara is autistic. There is no doubt. There is no argument. He is. He is autistic. However, I don’t think Fujimaki intended for him to be autistic. And by that I mean, Fujimaki does not know what autism is. He doesn’t know it is a thing that exists. There are a few reasons to support this. First, the way other characters talk about Murasakibara. Kuroko for example. Kuroko’s a smart kid. He likely would be aware that Murasakibara is autistic. However, when Kuroko describes Murasakibara and his personality, he makes no mention of this condition. Murasakibara is essentially described by characters as to be ‘just weird’. Things such as autism and mental illnesses are not understood well in Asian countries. I honestly do not have much knowledge of the way such things are treated in Japan, but in South Korea these things are barely acknowledged. Martina from EatYourKimchi has spoken about her experiences as a teacher in S.Korea. She mentioned that she had students she was convinced were autistic, and when she brought this up to the other teachers they responded “No they’re just a troublemaker. There’s nothing wrong with them.” I assume this view is the same in Japan (especially going by Fujimaki’s opinion of LGBT culture - which we’ll get to later). So, Fujimaki likely doesn’t even know autism exists, he just thinks it’s a weird personality some kids have, and gave it to Murasakibara for variety, without realising his character actually has a medical condition. 

Example two. Reo. I love Reo. He is beautiful and lovely and I love him. But he is THE SHITTIEST AND LAZIEST attempt at a gay character I have ever seen. Fujimaki has NO IDEA about anything LGBT. There have been discussions on this already, for example here. I highly recommend you read this post, but I’ll also go into this as well. So in Japan, for many people who are not in the gay community, being gay, transgender, or even just a crossdresser are considered the same thing. If you’re gay you’re trans. If you’re a male who wears dresses, you’re gay and trans. And so on. That’s the opinion. It’s fucking stupid. But that’s how it is.  Now let’s look back at Reo. First of all, Hayama refers to him with a female honorific, ‘nee’ meaning older sister. This does not necessarily mean Reo identifies as female. In Asian countries, many males who exhibit motherly qualities are often referred to with female terms. For example, my fav kpop group of VIXX. The leader, Hakyeon, is very motherly to the younger members, and the younger members sometimes refer to him as their mother. Does that mean he’s gay or identifies as female? Of course not. The same is with Reo. He’s motherly to the other members of Rakuzan, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s transgender. He certainly could be, but he also could not be. The combination of multiple things, the female honorific, the fact that Reo has been depicted with the other female characters in art and omake panels, and that Hyuuga uses a transphobic slur with him, all suggests that Fujimaki shares that stereotypical opinion of if you’re gay you’re also trans, and so on. I’m not saying Reo is or is not trans, I don’t know and I will never know, because Fujimaki doesn’t fucking know either. 

More on sexuality and why Fujimaki knows nothing about LGBT. Alex. Her answer as to what is her type in Kurofes is that she likes assertive men. However we know Alex is bisexual. She is attracted to females as well. She states this plainly. You could say she only platonically kisses girls and while I recognise platonic kisses are a thing (I’m aroace so ofc I do) I don’t think it applies here, and I will tell you why. To most of us modern kids on tumblr, sexuality and gender are all very normal things that we know a lot about. But to most what I’m going to call ‘normal’ people not on tumblr, they are not educated in such topics. A straight man is just not going to kiss another man. Maybe if he’s an actor playing a gay character, but I don’t think many straight guys are going to be pashing other guys just for fun. If they were into that, they’d be bi. Same with straight girls. I know plenty of straight girls who just would not kiss another girl. It’s not homophobic, it’s just their preference, similar to a lesbian or a gay male not wanting to kiss someone of the opposite gender. It’s just preference. And that’s fine. Fujimaki does has the stereotypical opinion of westerners which is “we’re all gay, we all make out with everyone, and we love taking our clothes off”. And yeah. That’s what Alex is. I love her, but she’s the stereotypical Japanese idea of what an American is. Which is highly inaccurate. However, this does not change the fact that she is bisexual. Again, Fujimaki may not have intended that, but as the same with Murasakibara, it’s true whether he knows it or not. 

So. We have established that Fujimaki knows nothing about his own characters. By all this information, it’s entirely possible other characters could have different gender identities or sexualities. Fujimaki would probably say ‘no, they’re all straight’, but tbh, I’m not going to listen to anything he says judging on the way he wrote Murasakibara, Reo, and Alex. I’m just not. 

My point here after all that is: if you know the characters better than the author does, do whatever the fuck you want with them. Say they’re gay, say they’re trans. Whatever. Do what you want with them. Fujimaki has no fucking clue what he’s doing with them, so feel free to take his characters and do what you want. If you want to say Takao is gay, go for it, he’s certainly homo with Midorima. If you want to say Kuroko is aromantic, go for it. I get that vibe too. 

Basically, do what you want with them, and let others do the same. These are fictional characters. They’re meant to be enjoyed. If you feel the need to snap at people and police them for identifying with a character and saying they are *insert identity here* then you’re an asshole and you need to reevaluate your life choices. 

Good day. 

btw, Kuroko no Basket is gay af

[reblogthiscrapkay]

a tolkien-proof character meme: 1. Haleth 2. Caranthir 3. Prince Imrahil (of Dol Amroth, not the other one)

Haleth

1-3 things I enjoy about them1. That she was really the only female leader in Beleraind. There wasn’t another female ruler until Tar- Ancalime hundreds of years later. And she was so important the Haladin became known as the House Of Haleth.2. The fact that she was independent and wouldn’t take handouts but the Haladin overall were really open to outsiders (they let the Druedain run with them when everyone else thought they were weird).3. Her personal guard of women warriors.

Something interesting about them based on tenuous circumstantial evidenceI think Haleth specifically didn’t want to get married because she was cautious of the fact that a man might reduce her power. I also think she was barren as a result of a wound and so the idea of marrying never made sense. Instead she raised her nephew like her son.I know a lot of people headcanon her as a lesbian and I totally get why but I always saw her as kind of bi and demisexual. Like, she had sex with a man and then a woman and both times thought, “that was fine but whatever.” She doesn’t fall in love easily at all. But I also headcanon her as Caranthir’s secret wife so yeah.

A question I have about themHow did she convince Thingol to let the Haladin stay on his lands. He hates everyone. What did she even SAYA random relevant line I likeAny line about her honestly.My preferred version, if there is more than one version of their story (or part of their story)There aren’t different versions as far as I know but I think I do have a tedency to age her down in my mind. I think she’s supposed to lose her father and brother when she’s in her forties but I alays age her down to anywhere in the 23-35 range.Favorite relationship(s)With Caranthir, either platonic or not. I like how they learned a lot from each other and Caranthir became more tolerant of Men as a result (although this did bite him in the butt later). I like how they seemed to form a real alliance. I like how they are both very stubborn and strong leaders. In a non-platonic sense, I like the idea of them marrying in secret and then having limited contact after she leaves Thargelion because they both know their relationship is doomed anyway because she will die. I like the idea of Caranthir telling people he’s married but never getting into specifics about how she was a human. I like the idea that they were able to sort of feel each other’s thoughts from far away because of the bond so they never really left each other in a way.How would they react to Tom BombadilCuriousity. First she’d want to know if he was friend or foe and be ready to fight but then she’d just want to know what he is and why he’s here. She’d probably offer to let him roll with her crew and then become disinterested when he says no.Optional: Something about them that I think people forgetI already included a bunch of these before so I’ll go broader. I think people forget that the Dunlendings are descended from the Haladin. This is actually really importat to be especially because of the fact that the Dunlendings are portrayed in LOTR as the aggressors against Rohan when from their perspecive Rohan stole their land. This is made even more interesting when you consider that the Dunlendings are often portrayed as people of color (usually kind of hispanic looking). As a result I think of the Haladin as people of color too (in canon they are described as having dark hair and eyes and being shorter than the Beorians or Hadorians).

Caranthir

1-3 things I enjoy about them1. His capacity to learn and change his opinions about others. He shows so much personal growth for a Feanorian. Possibly the most. He might be the only one who becomes an actively better person.2. The fact that he is really independent compared to his brothers. He ruled his land entirely alone and showed very little interest in the Oath.3. The fact that he’s the only person in Beleraind who seems to know how to run an economy.

Something interesting about them based on tenuous circumstantial evidenceI have tons of these.I imagine that he likes the finer things in life but is not excessive or flashy. He’ll spend money on good food but his home and clothing are very elegent and understated. He also wears darker colors which I kind of base on his insular, independent-ness.I imagine he was trained in smithing but that he was not very technically skilled. Specifically I think aside from Curufin that Maedhros and Caranthir got the most smith training (Maglor’s early musical talent excused him from it and Celegorm kept fucking off to hunt). I think Maedhros had expert percision and could made superior weaponry but he had no creativity or innovation to truely make him Feanor’s heir. Caranthir was the opposite: sloppy execusion but very creative. I imagine he made things for the Haladin (specifically a crown type thing for Haleth).He was closer with his mother. She seemed to have some slight foresight (i.e. let one of the twins stay) and that Caranthir was the one who inheirted it. This made him a little weird as a kid and made him closer with his mom especially after Feanor directed his attention to Curufin. She was more appreciative of his logical and mathmatical skills than Feanor who prioritizes the ability to invent over the ability to know.Caranthir’s famous anger is not always of the “throw things across the room” variety. It is often quiet and judgemental.

A question I have about themThis is so dumb but I want to know if you can swim in the black lake. Is it dangerous. What lives in it.A random relevant line I likeThe one where he goes off on Angrod.My preferred version, if there is more than one version of their story (or part of their story)Well in the History Of Middle Earth it said Caranthir had a wife but there was absolutely no information given about her. It’s Haleth. Fight me.Favorite relationship(s)See everything I wrote above under “Haleth.”How would they react to Tom BombadilHe’d try to trade with him.Optional: Something about them that I think people forgetHe constantly gets thrown in with Celegorm and Curufin as a set but Caranthir has virtually nothing in common with them. Celegorm is an attempted rapist and kidnapper and Curufin is his dumbass accomplice. The strongest connection Caranthir has to them was that the three of them died during the Second Kinslaying.

Prince Imrahil(This is going to be hard since I remember very little about him)

1-3 things I enjoy about them1. That he carried Faramir back to Minas Tirith after he nearly died AND that he noticed that Eowyn wasn’t dead yet. They kind of owe him.2. He was pretty much third in line to the throne of Gondor after Aragorn and Faramir.3… . that he’s from Dol Amroth and I would want to live there if I was in Middle Earth. Wait, am I misremembering this or was Imrahil the one who told Legolas about the sea and Legolas knew he wasn’t supposed to go there because then he’d never want to return to the forest but Imrahil made it sound so great that Legolas basically messed up his life. Not sure.

Something interesting about them based on tenuous circumstantial evidenceThis is definitely coming from fanfiction but I feel like Imrahil was a cool uncle. I imagine that he and Faramir had a close relationship specifically because of the way that Denethor kind of ignored him and because I always imagined that Faramir reminded Imrahil more of Finduilas than Boromir did.I imagine all his kids are really educated because he made this a specific priority for them. 

A question I have about themI kind of wonder how he gets along with Eomer since his daughter married him and I view Rohan culture and Gondor culture as being different enough that marriages between the two can be awkward.A random relevant line I likeThat line about how they are nuts for attacking the Black Gate with so few soldiers.My preferred version, if there is more than one version of their story (or part of their story)As far as I know, this is all we got.Favorite relationship(s)Well we don’t see much in the story so I’m going with Imrahil and Faramir.How would they react to Tom BombadilHe’d be very respectful and polite and not badger him with questions.Optional: Something about them that I think people forgetThat his army were called Swan Knights and I’m guessing they had some pretty silly uniforms.

[backwardabyss]

i’ve been free of the sh*rlock fandom for many blissful years now and i try not to like, write things on this useless blog of mine but i’ve seen more reactionary anger to the season four finale than i was expecting so i feel compelled to Share My Thoughts regardless of whether or not anyone wants to hear them. full disclosure: i am not a fan of j*hnlock or the conspiracy movement it has inspired so you may not want to read this if you are. 

i guess the major thing for me is.........confusion. shipping holmes/watson i wholeheartedly understand, of course, there’s a long and beautiful history of doing it and i’ve always adored the ambiguous queerness of the Canon’s holmes and how that’s been adapted or not adapted in the thousands of films/tv shows/pastiches/etc that have followed it. what i dont?? fucking understand??? is the people who genuinely thought it would become canon, on bbc sh*rlock (2010) OF ALL FUCKING THINGS????

i’m pretty damn far from being a “casual” viewer of the show, it was my primary fandom for several years and i was once-upon-a-midnight-fuckin-dreary completely consumed by my love for it. so as someone for whom that is true but who, unlike most fandom people for whom it is true, has not been sucked into the J*hnlock Meta Echo Chamber, i feel pretty confident in my assertion that there has been really very little in the series itself to suggest a romantic john/sh*rlock endgame. sure, their relationship is at the center of the show and they ofc have been shown to care for each other deeply and enduringly, as holmeses and watsons always do....and, sure, there are without question lines and moments that could be read as revealing a romantic undercurrent to their devotion to each other (particularly on sh*rlock’s end, i think). but that there was a legitimate conspiracy movement convinced beyond all shadow of a doubt that they were going to explicitly get bbc’s sh*rlock and john making out onscreen...i just do not get it, and do not see it, and yes i’ve read the metas, and no they did not convince me and i’m not entirely sure how they convinced anyone but whatever, it’s fine, that’s not the point.

like, for example, i keep seeing people shocked that after the ~EXPLICIT TEXTUAL GAYNESS~ of the lying detective they couldn’t believe the final problem would follow. and i’m just like??? huh? you mean, the hug? the one that happened in the context of a) john mourning his dead wife who he clearly loved very genuinely and b) john hearing sh*rlock receive a text from irene adler and urging him, quite explicitly, to go fuck her and telling him he’d be an idiot not to?? that explicit textual gayness?? WHAT? (i know the Conspiracy People have composed all these half-assed metas about how irene isn’t Really A Character and is just a mirror for sh*rlock or a symbol of his desire to bone john or something, but, lol no offense but fuck that misogynistic bullshit that treats every woman on the show as a literal empty signifier only sitting there to reflect something about sh*rlock and/or john. it’s just not a good reading or a valid interpretation and it’s so sexist i don’t even know where to start lmao. john genuinely wants sh*rlock to find the love of A Good Woman bc he is a hetero and well, the worst, and there was nothing about that scene that felt like a lead-up to the two men in it falling in love like ohhh my god. oh my god.)

and like ok, i got off course there, but how did ANYONE expect a different outcome after this interview, in which gatiss and moffat both told you all in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that they had no romance planned and in fact seemed incredibly miffed by the refusal to be believed when they said that?? gatiss literally says that there is no conspiracy and that even tho they lie about some things in interviews they are not lying about this. and look, i don’t want to defend them, i think the writers of this show are assholes and bigoted in ways they can’t see, but how anyone could accuse them of “baiting them into thinking j*hnlock would be endgame” when they’ve been saying it won’t be the case (often in unnecessarily rude and offensive terms) for literal YEARS??? i don’t get it. I REALLY DON’T. and no, gatiss doesn’t Owe you a holmes/watson relationship just because he’s a gay man himself lmao and when he’s expressed his feelings on the matter countless, countless times. you all chose not to believe him, for whatever reason, so i mean i’m sorry if some of you are hurting but i’m also feeling very congratulationsyouplayedyourself.jpeg about the whole thing.

which brings me to my last major point really, which is: WHY WOULD YOU WANT THESE HORRIBLE PEOPLE TO BE THE ONES TO DELIVER YOU YOUR QUEER REPRESENTATION?? moffat in particular is just, UGH, i mean, for fuck’s sake, the man wrote an adaptation of a scandal in bohemia where irene identified herself as a lesbian and yet, in the very same episode, fell in love with sh*rlock to such an all-consuming degree that she Lost Her Head and made a silly mistake in their game and got humiliated in defeat. like, what kind of lesbophobic, misogynistic fucking NONSENSE that btw completely deviates from the plot of the actual story in which she beats holmes’ ass and flees away into the night, victorious and safe. that’s the writer you thought was orchestrating a queer endgame for his beloved sh*rlock holmes???? that’s the writer you wanted orchestrating a queer endgame for his beloved sh*rlock holmes?? l o l....ok. that’s not even taking into account all the nasty things he’s said in interviews, like how sh*rlock is ofc not interested in men and ofc he’s not asexual bc asexual people are BORING, sh*rlock is just a latent straight man repressing his urge to bone women!! maybe he’ll marry mrs. hudson in the end tho!! lmao. i....cannot.

and i guess i’m also irritated by this guilting wave on my dash, like i’m obligated to feel sympathy for all these shippers who get duped, or whatever. like, look, even putting my personal feelings about the j*hnlock fandom aside (YOUR SMUG ASSES MADE THE FANDOM LIVES OF ALL RAREPAIR SHIPPERS HELL FOR YEARS, YOU ASSHOLES), after going through what, say, the 100 did to lexa, i’m just.....having a hard time feeling sympathy, i am sorry. oh, your two favorite characters get to live happily together raising a baby in 221b in a scenario that leaves them ripe and open for no end of headcanon and fic that can be totally canon-compliant? boooooo frickin hoooo. HEARTBREAKING. 

i realize this probably is like, rude and condescending and invalidating or whatever and well what can i tell u, i’m a rude bitch, but i am tiiiired of reading all these posts like this is the biggest slight against the lgbtqa+ community in media history. it’s not. yeah, you should all be expecting better from your media, for sure. but you should not have been expecting better from this shitpile of a show, which has proven its disregard for women, racial/ethnic minorities, and queer ppl for seasons upon seasons now. it’s 2017, and the tv landscape still isn’t great but there are so many shows out there with actual canonical lgbtqa+ characters that you can be looking to for the representation you want, deserve, etc. 

sh*rlock isn’t the queer love story you all wanted it to be, and if i’m not empathetic abt that it’s bc i’m SO DAMN RELIEVED that’s the case, bc it and most of the people involved in its production are hmm, what’s the word.....THE. DAMN. WORST. 

[cynthiajayusa]

Six Reasons Gays Are a Higher Form of Evolution

Science has yet to definitively declare a “gay gene” – probably because all those evil-gelicals would abort their gaybies left and right and all hell would break loose (hallelujah?) – but just because the argument for biological evidence that determines sexual orientation hasn’t been substantiated doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Barring the discovery of an actual genetic modification that predisposes people to being gay, studies have shown that homosexuality is a heritable trait. Nonetheless, the research as it stands now is still just a bunch of lab-coat mumbo jumbo caught up in a tornado of politics.

Personally, I believe I’m a higher form of evolution. Not just me, though, but all gay people. I look at our community as a whole and, well, we do just about everything better than those who are not inherently equipped to think above the status quo.

I’m not a kook, either. Rather, I’m skeptical of most oddball concepts – like psychics, paranormal activity, crop circles, and whoever convinced Bill Cosby it’s a good idea to launch a speaking tour about sexual assault. But I do earnestly believe that you and I are genetically superior to our heterosexual counterparts.

Here are six reasons why:

We encourage, adapt to, and continue the pursuit of progression

Since the earliest recorded history – about 97th-century BCE when Mesolithic rock in Sicily is said to depict male homosexual intercourse – gays have infiltrated and influenced all aspects of life, from art to government. We’re drawn to positions of power because we affect change more swiftly and more democratically than those seeking to rule, often iron-fistedly, simply to make up for their lack of anatomical endowment (which isn’t just conjecture, by the way; a study by the Kinsey Institute reported that gay guys typically have bigger dicks than straight guys) and we don’t have to look any further than our own current administration to see this time-honored tradition in practice. It stands to reason then that we have less to prove than straight men seeking power, who much of the time want to stifle progression, while we advocate on behalf of forging ahead, quite happy with what’s been bestowed between our legs. In the meantime, we may have already answered the age-old question: Does size matter? All the world’s conflicts started by cranky old straight men decidedly point to yes.

We have an “eye” for just about everything

You can’t teach imagination or creativity; you’re either born with it or you aren’t. Certainly there’s a case to be made for the cultivation of our own capacities – which requires encouragement from those who raise us during our most vital developmental stages – but once we’re in tune with our own intelligence, we’re unstoppable. We corner the market on creative expression, from home design and culinary arts to science and movie making, and our insight is unrivaled because we won’t allow it to be muted, even when some around us demanded it growing up. The downside to this, of course, includes our rampant daddy issues (for some of us, least) – but let’s be honest, we make the most of that, too.

Before I wrote this column, I asked my friends why they thought gay people were a higher form of evolution. It was mostly because I needed validation that my own ego wasn’t out of control. It is, mind you – everybody who knows me will tell you that – but in this case, I at least have comrades on my side. My buddy Jason provided his thoughts on this particular matter – why we seem to get “it” and ourselves more than straight people understand themselves and their place in this world.

“For thousands of years, we have been systematically oppressed and persecuted by every major religion and every government,” he said. “Attempts have been made to eradicate our kind for millennia, quite unsuccessfully. I believe we are feared most because we are, and always have been, the most powerful beings on this planet. We give you your culture, your beauty, your fashion, your art. We know no bounds, and exist in every corner of the earth, from your governments to your churches to your families, and all of your institutions. We cover every race, every gender and every class.”

In laymen’s terms, we’re here and we’re queer – and we will inherit this earth.

Bullying and oppression has informed our sense of humor and self-worth

I use humor as a defense mechanism. Many of us do. But that’s because we were forced to find the happiness in an otherwise depressing situation. We’re made fun of, taunted, bullied, and put down everywhere we go – even today. But it’s because of that we’re able to evaluate and identify our self-worth when nobody else will, and the sense of humor that evolves from that oppression is what makes us likeable, self-aware beings who can and will read another to filth just for kicks.

People are naturally drawn to us – for one reason or another

Straight women follow us around like tongues-out Frenchies, and straight men envy all the things we possess that they desperately want, like the devotion of those straight women. Whether they’ll admit it or not, heterosexuals envy us – and we should all sleep better accepting that as pseudo-scientific fact.

We are emotionally more advanced because of circumstance

My beautiful lesbian friend Leslie laid this one out bare: “The strength one must possess to ‘come out’ as different from the norm is pretty much as powerful as one can be,” she said. “As humans we want to belong and be accepted by our tribe. It takes incredible strength and resilience to risk being literally abandoned by your tribe and surviving. It defies evolution as we know it, thus making us a whole new breed of fucking fabulous.”

We are, in fact, essential to humanity

Dr. James O’Keefe delivered a TED Talk at TEDxTallaght in Dublin last year, and he related a story that was covered by NewNowNext about how his own son came out 13 years ago. Initially, Dr. O’Keefe feared for his son’s safety and happiness, but then his own analytic abilities led him to surmise that his boy was going to be just fine – because gay people are goddamned remarkable.

“Viewed in the light of evolution, homosexuality seems to be a real self-defeating non-productive strategy,” O’Keefe told the audience at his TED talk. “Gays have 80 percent fewer kids than heterosexuals. This is a trait that ought to go extinct in a few generations, yet down through recorded history in every culture and many animal species as well, homosexuality has been a small but distinct subgroup. If this were a genetic error, natural selection should have long ago culled this from the gene pool.”

Dr. O’Keefe went on to discuss how everyone probably has gay genes in their DNA, but they only would have been activated as a means of survival, like stressful external circumstances while in the womb. You can watch his talk about how homos are motherfucking gods among men on YouTube; the talk is titled “Homosexuality: it’s about survival – not sex,” because that’s the truthiest truth there is.

Mikey Rox is an award-winning journalist and LGBT lifestyle expert whose work has been published in more than 100 outlets across the world. He splits his time between homes in New York City and the Jersey Shore with his dog Jaxon. Connect with Mikey on Twitter @mikeyrox.

source https://hotspotsmagazine.com/2017/08/16/six-reasons-gays-are-a-higher-form-of-evolution/ from Hot Spots Magazine http://hotspotsmagazin.blogspot.com/2017/08/six-reasons-gays-are-higher-form-of.html

[demitgibbs]

Six Reasons Gays Are a Higher Form of Evolution

Science has yet to definitively declare a “gay gene” – probably because all those evil-gelicals would abort their gaybies left and right and all hell would break loose (hallelujah?) – but just because the argument for biological evidence that determines sexual orientation hasn’t been substantiated doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Barring the discovery of an actual genetic modification that predisposes people to being gay, studies have shown that homosexuality is a heritable trait. Nonetheless, the research as it stands now is still just a bunch of lab-coat mumbo jumbo caught up in a tornado of politics.

Personally, I believe I’m a higher form of evolution. Not just me, though, but all gay people. I look at our community as a whole and, well, we do just about everything better than those who are not inherently equipped to think above the status quo.

I’m not a kook, either. Rather, I’m skeptical of most oddball concepts – like psychics, paranormal activity, crop circles, and whoever convinced Bill Cosby it’s a good idea to launch a speaking tour about sexual assault. But I do earnestly believe that you and I are genetically superior to our heterosexual counterparts.

Here are six reasons why:

We encourage, adapt to, and continue the pursuit of progression

Since the earliest recorded history – about 97th-century BCE when Mesolithic rock in Sicily is said to depict male homosexual intercourse – gays have infiltrated and influenced all aspects of life, from art to government. We’re drawn to positions of power because we affect change more swiftly and more democratically than those seeking to rule, often iron-fistedly, simply to make up for their lack of anatomical endowment (which isn’t just conjecture, by the way; a study by the Kinsey Institute reported that gay guys typically have bigger dicks than straight guys) and we don’t have to look any further than our own current administration to see this time-honored tradition in practice. It stands to reason then that we have less to prove than straight men seeking power, who much of the time want to stifle progression, while we advocate on behalf of forging ahead, quite happy with what’s been bestowed between our legs. In the meantime, we may have already answered the age-old question: Does size matter? All the world’s conflicts started by cranky old straight men decidedly point to yes.

We have an “eye” for just about everything

You can’t teach imagination or creativity; you’re either born with it or you aren’t. Certainly there’s a case to be made for the cultivation of our own capacities – which requires encouragement from those who raise us during our most vital developmental stages – but once we’re in tune with our own intelligence, we’re unstoppable. We corner the market on creative expression, from home design and culinary arts to science and movie making, and our insight is unrivaled because we won’t allow it to be muted, even when some around us demanded it growing up. The downside to this, of course, includes our rampant daddy issues (for some of us, least) – but let’s be honest, we make the most of that, too.

Before I wrote this column, I asked my friends why they thought gay people were a higher form of evolution. It was mostly because I needed validation that my own ego wasn’t out of control. It is, mind you – everybody who knows me will tell you that – but in this case, I at least have comrades on my side. My buddy Jason provided his thoughts on this particular matter – why we seem to get “it” and ourselves more than straight people understand themselves and their place in this world.

“For thousands of years, we have been systematically oppressed and persecuted by every major religion and every government,” he said. “Attempts have been made to eradicate our kind for millennia, quite unsuccessfully. I believe we are feared most because we are, and always have been, the most powerful beings on this planet. We give you your culture, your beauty, your fashion, your art. We know no bounds, and exist in every corner of the earth, from your governments to your churches to your families, and all of your institutions. We cover every race, every gender and every class.”

In laymen’s terms, we’re here and we’re queer – and we will inherit this earth.

Bullying and oppression has informed our sense of humor and self-worth

I use humor as a defense mechanism. Many of us do. But that’s because we were forced to find the happiness in an otherwise depressing situation. We’re made fun of, taunted, bullied, and put down everywhere we go – even today. But it’s because of that we’re able to evaluate and identify our self-worth when nobody else will, and the sense of humor that evolves from that oppression is what makes us likeable, self-aware beings who can and will read another to filth just for kicks.

People are naturally drawn to us – for one reason or another

Straight women follow us around like tongues-out Frenchies, and straight men envy all the things we possess that they desperately want, like the devotion of those straight women. Whether they’ll admit it or not, heterosexuals envy us – and we should all sleep better accepting that as pseudo-scientific fact.

We are emotionally more advanced because of circumstance

My beautiful lesbian friend Leslie laid this one out bare: “The strength one must possess to ‘come out’ as different from the norm is pretty much as powerful as one can be,” she said. “As humans we want to belong and be accepted by our tribe. It takes incredible strength and resilience to risk being literally abandoned by your tribe and surviving. It defies evolution as we know it, thus making us a whole new breed of fucking fabulous.”

We are, in fact, essential to humanity

Dr. James O’Keefe delivered a TED Talk at TEDxTallaght in Dublin last year, and he related a story that was covered by NewNowNext about how his own son came out 13 years ago. Initially, Dr. O’Keefe feared for his son’s safety and happiness, but then his own analytic abilities led him to surmise that his boy was going to be just fine – because gay people are goddamned remarkable.

“Viewed in the light of evolution, homosexuality seems to be a real self-defeating non-productive strategy,” O’Keefe told the audience at his TED talk. “Gays have 80 percent fewer kids than heterosexuals. This is a trait that ought to go extinct in a few generations, yet down through recorded history in every culture and many animal species as well, homosexuality has been a small but distinct subgroup. If this were a genetic error, natural selection should have long ago culled this from the gene pool.”

Dr. O’Keefe went on to discuss how everyone probably has gay genes in their DNA, but they only would have been activated as a means of survival, like stressful external circumstances while in the womb. You can watch his talk about how homos are motherfucking gods among men on YouTube; the talk is titled “Homosexuality: it’s about survival – not sex,” because that’s the truthiest truth there is.

Mikey Rox is an award-winning journalist and LGBT lifestyle expert whose work has been published in more than 100 outlets across the world. He splits his time between homes in New York City and the Jersey Shore with his dog Jaxon. Connect with Mikey on Twitter @mikeyrox.

from Hotspots! Magazine https://hotspotsmagazine.com/2017/08/16/six-reasons-gays-are-a-higher-form-of-evolution/ from Hot Spots Magazine https://hotspotsmagazine.tumblr.com/post/164264870605