#and YES even if you want to accept it or not those few feminists who are assholes paint the movement for them. which is why labels

[snekdood]

ill say for me, as a guy, even tho it might be a bit different since im trans, im being repelled by the left bc a lot of them are assholes.

[sammysficfactory]

JJK men’s reaction to you calling them a whore/slut

characters: nanami, gojo, geto, and toji

notes: if you want me to go more in depth for a character lmk!

Nanami Kento

oh em gee

he is SHOCKED

have you no shame? no decorum?

“You look like a whore when you wear your suit without a blazer.” you deadpanned.

“Excuse me?” Nanami is thoroughly confused, hoping he didn’t hear you correctly. But he did. And who could blame you?

“You heard what I said.” You shrug.

he would never admit it, but he liked it

the way you said it so outright threw him for a LOOP honey

if he were a rich woman he’d be clutching his pearls

“Don’t say it like that. Just say you think it’s nice and move on like normal people do.” Nanami rolls his eyes at you. If you looked close enough you could see a light pink dusting the tips of his ears.

you laugh at him for being flustered

but you’re a good person so you suppress it a little bit

as you call him a whore more often he gets used to it

don’t get me wrong, it still flusters the hell out of him

but he’s accepted it as part of your relationship dynamic

Satoru Gojo

i can’t even lie to you

gojo would like it

“You look like a slut in that outfit.” You say in a nonchalant fashion. Gojo smirks.

“Do I look like a slut? Or do you see something you like.” he leans forward to you, the proximity of your faces distressingly close.

if you thought his ego was big then

i can promise you it’s 10x bigger now

“You want me so bad.” Gojo laughs smugly. You scoff.

“You wish.”

the truth is you DID want him

he was in that black tee and wearing sweats😩

I CANT BLAME YOU

despite the two of you being in a relationship gojo loved to tease you like you were still single

gojo probably bites his finger every time he thinks about the first time you called him a slut

every few weeks he texts you ‘remember that time you wanted me so bad that you said i looked like a slut? i do🤭’

he be swinging his feet back and forth as he types it out

Geto Suguru

if he’s nothing else, he’s definitely gojo’s friend

he’s a good sport about it

“You look like a whore when your hair is in a bun.” Geto does a double take.

“I- what?” He’s confused. One moment you were sitting in a peaceful silence with your boyfriend, and the next you’re calling him a slut?

very confused about the train of thought you took to get to that conclusion

but after a few times he gets used to it

and his replies are definitely something

“You look like a slut in those glasses.” you say flatly. Geto sighs,

“Come slut me out then.” he says, leaning back and spreading his legs slightly on the couch.

when you hear him say it for the first time you almost caught whiplash

you for the first time in the entirety of your relationship, were at a loss for words

it was BAD

you opened and closed your mouth like a goldfish bc you couldn’t find anything to say

you in fact do slut him out once you gather yourself

he’s smug asf for the next week

Toji Fushiguro

he’s shocked too

but his reaction was a lot different

“Toji, you look really slutty in that outfit.” You eye him up and down.

“Bitch?” he quickly apologizes for his knee-jerk reaction.

“Watch that bitch word, Toji! Deadass.” You narrow your eyes at him. He already knew how you felt about that word.

he saw his life flash before his eyes when he said ‘bitch’

he’s super smug too

he isn’t as bad as gojo or geto though

it becomes a running inside joke between the two of you

toji would do shit like send photos of his outfit and say ‘feeling extra slutty today’

and it might make you chuckle a little when he sends them

“You’re not going to the market with me looking like a whore Toji, go change.” you joked.

“Wow, are you slut shaming me right now? I thought you were a feminist.” He accuses you in fake shock.

“I’m getting women’s lick back.” you justify yourself.

does it sound kinda weird to other people? yes

but did you care is the real question

the answer is no

[my-castles-crumbling]

I have a question cas. 

trans women say they’re women because they are a women, they’re body just doesn’t reflect that… I guess? 

but terfs say that a women isn’t a women unless the body shows that- eg, uterus. 

so either terfs are trying to tell trans women that what they finally know about themselves, that they’re a women, is just not true because they say so? or that a women is only defined by her uterus.

cause that doesn’t feel very feminist. 

i’m not thinking of becoming a terf or anything, trans women are women- i’m not fucking rishi sunak or jkr, but like, what is their argument? I know it’s wrong but what ACTUALLY is it? Cause you’d think, given most of them are so proud to be terfs, they’d have a definition?

so what is it? i’m confused. I know there’s no need to make sense of these people but why?  

Hi! I'm gonna address this point-by-point. Also, TW: discussion of transphobia, genitalia, etc.

I have a question cas. 

trans women say they’re women because they are a women, they’re body just doesn’t reflect that… I guess? 

Yeah, to put it simply. Trans women are (usually) assigned male at birth and sometimes start out with male genitals. There are exceptions to this (intersex people). And some trans people, of course, choose to get surgery.

but terfs say that a women isn’t a women unless the body shows that- eg, uterus. 

Yeah, that tends to be the usual argument. There's more to it, but yeah.

so either terfs are trying to tell trans women that what they finally know about themselves, that they’re a women, is just not true because they say so? or that a women is only defined by her uterus.

Both. They insist that trans women are mentally ill or perverted, and that a woman is defined by her uterus and genitalia. Which is so wrong, because not all people with XX chromosomes or assigned female at birth even have those things.

cause that doesn’t feel very feminist. 

HALLELUJAH! SAY IT FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK!

i’m not thinking of becoming a terf or anything, trans women are women- i’m not fucking rishi sunak or jkr, but like, what is their argument? I know it’s wrong but what ACTUALLY is it? Cause you’d think, given most of them are so proud to be terfs, they’d have a definition?

so what is it? i’m confused. I know there’s no need to make sense of these people but why?  

Basically, from my limited knowledge on the subject, terfs argue that to be a woman, you have to have XX chromosomes, have a uterus, a vag*na, etc. You have to have been raised as a woman and experienced womanhood (whatever the fuck that means).

It's a lot of bullshit. I think it's based on a few things:

Fear. A lot of terfs are very uneducated and assume trans people are actually cis men trying to assault cis women or take away from cis women in some way.. Which is obviously so wrong. trans women are just women who want to live their lives.

Ignorance. Again, terfs are uneducated and don't understand what it means to be trans. They also don't understand their own arguments and the fallacies in them: not all people with XX chromosomes, for example, have uteruses.

Transphobia. A lot of people see being trans as very taboo, and don't want to be associated with it or accept it. So of course, they don't want trans women as a part of the feminist movement.

This is a stretch, but I also think it has to do with sexism. Stay with me here, but terfs see trans women as men, right? (They're not, but just stay with me). And when men do feminine things, it's always SO deeply frowned upon. Because how DARE someone AMAB act feminine. It's seen as disgusting. Men need to be men- protectors, not emotional, not weak (yes, I know being fem isn't weak, but from their POV...). SO I think it's actually deeply-ingrained sexism as well, if that makes sense.

I hope that helps a bit! It's a horrible, horrible mindset, and the fact that JKR promotes it is so upsetting, tbh.

[juniperhillpatient]

talk to me about bojack horseman! Specifically your most unpopular opinions. I was on the Diane Defender Team for a long time and I remember a lot of men hated me for that lol. Luckily tumblr was cool.

Oh god how I love Bojack Horseman! It’s one of those very few shows that I would just….highly highly recommend to anyone & everyone to watch from start to finish & that I have very very few criticisms of like. It just had a perfect arc & every character was explored so thoughtfully & the ending hit every note I could’ve ever wanted. One of my top favorite shows of all time.

It’s SO hard to know what opinions I have that are unpopular given the lack of “fandom” the show has - which makes sense, it’s not really the type of show I’d read fanfic or “ship” characters in so like. I GET it but I also don’t know what opinions I have that are unpopular because I’m not familiar with the fandom opinions lol!

Like. People hate my best friend Diane??? I’ve heard it said that she’s hated before & I’ve watched a LOT of “in defense of Diane Nguyen” type video essays but I’ve also (thankfully) not seen people hating on her. I’m sorry I hate to be that person because subjective taste is a thing but I’m sorry if you hate Diane you’ve entirely missed the point? She’s so integral! Diane’s arc is so important!

Diane is the kind of character that a lesser show would make the “good kind feminist counterpart to BJ” but that Bojack Horseman (the show not necessarily always the character) recognized as a real messy flawed three dimensional human who YES calls Bojack on his shit but is often accidentally awful to both Bojack & everyone else in her mission to be a “good” person.

Diane is the picture of what idealism in a cynical world can lead to in a negative way. She wants to be this bold feminist with strong beliefs that will fight for what’s right but she often forgets the people around her in the frenzy of her fight to do what she perceives as “good.” And her arc!!!! I get so emotional thinking about Diane’s arc - about her relationship with Princess Carolyne & how Carolyn advised her to just write the schlocky detective books that made her happy because it’s the kind of stuff she’d want her daughter to get to read & about how she realizes that she doesn’t have to make her trauma beautiful she doesn’t have to make it her whole personality she can just write & have fun! And like. We see her give up on some of her ambitions & gain weight & accept that she needs to let go of her incredibly toxic friendship with Bojack & that’s okay & doesn’t have to mean she hates him or that either of them are evil - her arc is so incredibly real & relatable & unlike anything we typically see on TV & I love it.

Okay that wasn’t an unpopular opinion(or maybe it was? I hope not) it was just me rambling about how much I love Diane Nguyen but like. I really really do.

Bojack Horseman depicts so many things - generational trauma & toxic friendships & romantic & familial relationships & the way we traumatize other people because of our own trauma & the ability of ANYONE to grow & change even the most toxic horrible person you can imagine even if it takes decades to get there - that you just don’t see on regular tv. And it does it through funny talking cartoon animals so it’s not boring & it never feels pretentious just like it’s telling a story. And while it CAN be depressing it knows how to perfectly balance the vibe of comedy & absurdity so it’s not just painful to watch like it would be in live action or with human characters without the absurdist comedy aspect & it just perfectly balances entertainment with hard hitting themes.

Anyway. I don’t know what the popular & unpopular opinions are this just turned into me rambling about my love for the show. Thank you for coming to my ted talk & thank you for sending an ask 🫶🫶🫶

[katharinepar]

well, now I will have to ask your opinion 👀

Lol! Okay, I’ll fold. I already talked about this a bit on my Instagram, but beware the 500 year old spoilers ahead! (Also, I’m writing this from my phone as I am still in the hospital so bear with me in terms of typos!)

Here is what I did like: the soundtrack was tolerable (modern, but not terrible); Anne and Henry’s respective actors had palpable chemistry as performers; the filming locations are all visually sumptuous; it’s flush with well-known historians with keen insight into the Tudor court. Tracy Borman, one of the ‘talking heads historians’ and a leading voice in BS&R, is also the author behind Private Lives of the Tudors, a book I continuously go back to in my own research (it isn’t infallible - but it is incredibly detail-oriented and I hold Borman in some esteem for that). I am also one of those people who happens to enjoy dual perspective docuseries - this one, in particular, is split between the actors in all their regalia and the grounding, guiding hands of the historians. The manner of filming was similar to The Boleyns on PBS, except more of an emphasis is placed on the actors in BS&R, and it is certainly a great deal fluffier.

Here’s where you’ll allow me to nitpick, though: there were a few hits within the costuming department, I’ll allow them that. Some of the bodices worked in reflecting the Tudors’ love of tapering, V-shaped waists, and square décolletages adorned with jewels. However, as the show progressed, the hits became fewer and far between - and from the very start, the headdresses were atrocious. There was nothing remotely Tudor about them.

And here is what I loathed:

The driving ideology behind BS&R - especially from Borman’s perspective - encompasses the idea that Anne was ‘not like other girls’ (taken verbatim), an ideology that is both lazy, obsolete and downright frustrating ESPECIALLY considering this program was meant to be from a ‘feminist’s’ point of view. I would pay good money to scrape that phrase from every historian’s lexicon, for the love of God. It is especially tasteless when done in unison with tearing down Catherine of Aragon, Jane Seymour, & Jane Boleyn. Ir seems the only appropriate analysis for a woman like Anne Boleyn is that of comparison to her female contemporaries, in which Anne is always depicted as a woman ahead of her time and her rivals and peers as unthinking, unblinking paperweights. The show also strangely chose to go down the route of depicting Anne as coming from literally nothing - “plucked from obscurity” - which is laughable?? The Boleyns were well-connected and Anne was privileged enough to enjoy an education abroad, so I’m genuinely baffled that the idea Anne was a mangy lil peasant was even mentioned? And oh, yes, didn’t you hear that Anne introduced the idea of charity to the monarchy? 🙄

With this in mind, I also had trouble believing that the powers that be behind BS&R have any concept of ‘feminism’ at all - at least, not the intersectional kind. Anne’s portrayal as a hyper-proto-feminist is a very far take from existent 16th century sources and the contexts of Early Modern England. Anne was not a feminist. We may view her actions as being triumphant through the lens of women’s history, but none of her behaviours suggested she was anything more than influenced by the lofty standards set by medieval queens - such as the distribution of charity, care for the poor, interest in the spread & heartiness of religion, etc. I could understand if the directors sought to paint Anne as an independent woman through her influence of Henry’s state affairs, but we know from primary sources that Henry did not welcome her input - he wanted a quintessential queen, giving birth and sustaining the Tudors image of strength and unity - in the way that he had formerly accepted Catherine’s (at least for a time, particularly in matters of international warfare.)

The prolific use of modern speech also becomes, at times, grating - at others, it makes Anne seem like an idiot. George Boleyn uttering the phrase ‘haters gonna hate’ caused my skin to crawl (despite this I liked the casting for both George and Jane - wish they had been given more of a spotlight). When the academics are using formal speech and the actors are using phrases like ‘bestie’ and ‘screw the Pope’ it’s like… are we designing these characters to seem relatable or just plain stupid?

I also found myself stretching my imagination in order to believe the actress who plays Anne is ‘actually’ Anne Boleyn. She plays Anne as a quirky Bridget Jones type instead of the cool, charismatic, and intriguing firebrand we have come to know. In that vein, I did enjoy certain glimpses of Anne’s more ‘charismatic’ and fun-loving side: these traits are almost always done away with in order to portray Anne as a slick femme fatale, but we know it was to boisterous, convivial courtiers that Henry was most attracted. Showing Anne laughing, having female relationships, and bantering with members of the court from high to low status is perhaps the most ‘revolutionary’ thing BS&R accomplished - it is, in my opinion, one of the better parts of the show.

But what I was really looking forward to in BS&R - considering we were promised a ‘feminist’s’ take on Tudor history - was a fleshy portrayal of Catherine of Aragon. I didn’t dare dream we would have this in Jane Seymour, and indeed, Jane only appears on the sidelines for a single scene. Anyway, I had hoped with names like Borman, Lipscomb, and Emmmerson attached, the show would have opted not to revive Catherine as the dark-haired shrew we were so close to burying. Alas, Catherine was only given two lines - all dripping with jealousy and hatred towards Anne and Henry - before she is erased from the narrative completely. She is only mentioned again when Anne sports flamboyant yellow tulle at her death. But let me tell you, Anne hammers in that neither Catherine nor Henry ever loved each other in every episode - which is just… not true.

If BS&R is what the producers had hoped to be a ‘gateway drug’ into Tudor history, they succeeded; I can understand why casual watchers may enjoy the story of two sex-obsessed, madly in love, desperate to break the mold royals. But for anyone looking for a nuanced, meaty, comprehensive view of Anne Boleyn and the Tudor court, Blood Sex and Royalty is a resounding disappointment. 🥲

[bookofmirth]

When people say Elain is an introvert (and it’s why she’s well suited for Azriel) and is currently thriving/happy…it makes me laugh a little and it’s kind of annoying. Compare ACOTAR & ACOMAF Elain to ACOWAR - ACOSF Elain and there is a massive difference. She is traumatized. In the beginning, Elain is described as laughing, talking, interacting and dancing with multiple people at parties. She personally greets them. She can convince anyone to do anything with a few smiles. In the human lands she was happy and the farthest thing from introverted. After being turned by the Cauldron, she becomes quiet. She has unresolved trauma. I think in SF, it’s stated that Elain is overwhelmed by crowds and she didn’t use to be that way; she loved balls and parties. That joy was taken away from her. Elain in the Night Court seems out of place. Shippers argue we’re being “anti-feminist” (or that we hate her) when we say Elain shouldn’t be in the NC (or with Azriel) even though she has became friends with the wraith twins and is making a home there for herself. Elain doesn’t seem like herself and as if she’s not happy. How can someone read SF and conclude that she’s fine and is meant to be in a court that “sucks the life from her.” Also adding, shippers say we really don’t care about Elain because we say she should choose who/what she wants and when she chooses to kiss Azriel we don’t agree with it. Well, we don’t know if she really wants him, because it wasn’t in her pov. She wanted to kiss him, yes, but is it only lust or is there romantic feelings? For Az, I only picked up on jealousy and lust.

Honestly some people learned about feminism from wikipedia and it shows. That's a rich criticism coming from a fandom who can't extend that same grace to other female characters, though. Just saying. Everyone is a feminist when it comes to Elain, but Mor? Nesta? Feyre? They forgot how to read.

Elain in acowar-acosf is a shell of who she used to be. in acosf it's described a couple of times that she is starting to seem more like her old self, but that old self goes away so quickly. She's being sly about something, we just don't know what. She has zero relationship with Nesta, whom she was closest with before. She's trying to help the IC when trouble comes, but gets shut down. She's not friends with anyone in the IC, which is weird to me considering how much time she spends with them. Something isn't clicking in the Night Court!

In fact, sjm said in an interview (in the back of the paperback of acofas, I think?) that Elain has been having nightmares about vines choking her. We haven't read about those in canon yet, so where are they? I assume she's still having them because we haven't had her story yet. We haven't even had a chapter that tells us her thoughts yet, like you mentioned.

I've never seen anyone argue that Elain shouldn't have tried to kiss Az - not saying it's never happened, I just can't speak on it. Personally, I've even said that I don't really care if she was hurting Lucien's feelings by doing so. Be messy, do what you want, follow your heart or vagina or whatever Elain, do it. But like you said, we don't know how she actually feels. There's nothing wrong with her (or Az's) sexual desires, no one has ever said that that in itself is a problem. It's the utter lack of romantic feelings that is putting us off, when paired with the idea that supposedly, they are in love? I can accept that they are sexually attracted to one another, but chafe at the idea of them being so in love when Az couldn't think of a single positive thing to say/think about her beyond that physical attraction.

[every-dayiwakeup]

I've got a few things to get off my chest:

🔵The next time I see anyone saying "yeah he died and apologized but it's still not enough" my response will be:

So tell Jesus that sacrifice isn't enough and neither is "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing".

Actions speak louder than words, and on top of that Billy's last words were an apology.

But I guess when you add it all up in the Catholic calculator, it means absolutely nothing.

Too much talk of change without mentioning the integral step for change, which would be getting Billy support and him leaving his abusers.

We write fanfictions where he gets to do that because canon would not give it to us, which is ultimately what fanfiction's sole purpose is.

Unpopular opinion maybe, but I don't think Billy is the one that needs to change here. I believe that his environment makes all the difference, and even then it sure as hell won't be easy.

There's nothing wrong with him, and I often see people overexaggerating "what he's done".

Why aren't other characters in the hot seat? Why specifically Billy? Why are any characters obligated to make up for whatever they've done?

Fiction gifts us escapism, and I've seen an uptake in people blurring the lines between the two.

I don't want Billy to change who he is, and I think it's kind of funny that to some, being in a relationship with Steve (or anyone) will "fix him". Let's not act like Steve Harrington doesn't repress his emotions. He's also like 19, and it makes no sense to me that anyone would want to be in a relationship with someone who's goal isn't to love you, but to "fix you" somehow until you're "worthy of love".

You're basically dating a therapist.

🔵Let Billy Hargrove be messy. Quite frankly other characters should be, too! He is a textbook abuse victim, and if you can't accept or bother to understand what abuse does to someone, that's a you problem.

Let characters make mistakes. Relating to Billy aside, I enjoy him because he stands alone among npc characters, and I firmly believe if not for the narrative:

not being able to handle him

trying to reduce him to a joke like damn near every other character (yes hahaha have a bunch of forty year olds creepily watch a teenager, and just for extra laughs let's make him look like a homewrecker and his groomer a feminist!)

framing said victim repeatedly as the big bad teenage "oh he's mature looking" boy (like we don't have enough of that bullshit 😒)

going directly against Dacre's Billy (pushing the whole womanizer thing for one... "happy screams" 😑)

guiding an immature audience to hating a character because he's not a main

refusing to condemn canon abusers while shitting on an abuse victim (for the love of fucking hell, if you feel the need to tell your audience who to hate and who to root for, then I guess you don't think you've done enough of a job as a writer)

... maybe just maybe viewers wouldn't hate or misunderstand Billy as much. Plus in addition to overexaggerating they also tell blatant untruths, so there's that.

I don't know about y'all, but I don't see the point in herding people to like or dislike characters. Let them come up with a conclusion on their own.

I wouldn't even give a flying fuck about what other characters in ST have done, had it not been for the general fandom demonizing one character while putting on their hypocrite hats and their bloated sense of self morality.

They act like Billy is worse than Vecna, Brenner, those bullies in season 1... They refuse to even bring up Neil, and conveniently "forget" that Billy was possessed for most of s3.

The only people I really see making excuses are Brenner and Vecna stans. Oh, and Jason, too.

I don't really care who stans who, but if we're going to keep playing this bullshit morality policing game (with fictional characters 💀), let's not act like the worst character on TV is Billy Hargrove.

Seriously, I can come up with a list of characters (Stranger Things included) who are worse.

The difference being it doesn't keep me up at night... because they're not fucking real.

[gretakatharinaa]

Scorpios and eye rolls - about The Barnum Effect

I don’t think that anything has earned me more eye rolls from others than me (1) saying I’m a feminist or (2) asking someone about their zodiac sign.

The way I see it, there are two groups of people: The ones who like talking about zodiac signs and the ones that absolutely detest it.

While I’m not here to slander either of these groups, I would like to talk about what makes zodiac signs so compelling. 

Yes, I know, everybody has the same answer in their head, making me look like a fool for dedicating an article to a question to which the answer is so evident.

”They don’t mean anything, they’re just general statements anybody can relate to“

Obviously, that’s how they work. 

Looking further as to why zodiac signs, psychic readings or even self help books seem to perfectly hit the mark for every person reading/listening, is actually due to a very compelling psychological phenomenon.

The Barnum Effect was named after P.T. Barnum in 1965 by psychologist Paul Meehl. 

P.T. Barnum, an American showman and politician originally inspired Bertram Forer, who named the now known Barnum effect ”fallacy of personal validation”. Essentially, the effect applied to general characterizations attributed to an individual, making said individual perceive specific description, ignoring the universality of the statement made.

To simplify: The Barnum effect makes you believe someone is specifically describing your personality, when really it’s just a general statement that could apply to most people.

Forer listed some of these general statements in a classic experiment in 1948. To name a few:

You have the tendency to be critical of yourself.

Security is one of your major goals in life.

You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others’ statements without satisfactory proof.

The last one was too ironic not to be included.

 Barnum - the showman who actually partly inspired the Greatest showman - advertised his show by saying it’s ”something for everyone”, insinuating personal interest and promising entertainment, no matter for whom. It ensured people, intrigued them and essentially - worked. 

The Barnum effect doesn’t only take place in horoscopes or psychic readings: 

It’s used in many forms of marketing.

”Because you desire security in the future“ - marketing for life insurance.

”You deserve some time for yourself” - marketing spa products, such as face masks or bath salts.

”Looking for a getaway?” - marketing for vacations.

General statements are general simply because they always apply to the masses. Everybody tends to be self-critical, to crave security, to want a vacation. That’s why Barnum’s statements worked, that’s how ads work. 

Coming back to zodiac signs and eye rolls. Two reasons as to  why some people genuinely believe in them is (1) people love to learn or hear about themselves and (2) people begin to get proof.

About (1): When people describe you, say positive things about you, it tends to be intriguing simply because human brains suck up being perceived. You learn so much about yourself when you are actively perceived and told about, whether it’s good things or bad.

About (2): Say you had an ex, and they were kind of shitty. Say you knew their zodiac sign. Say you meet more people with that zodiac sign. Selective perception will make you hyper aware to the connection between the bad traits your ex had and other people, sharing their zodiac sign, sharing those traits. 

And right there, another phenomenon takes place, besides the Barnum effect and selective perception: The Illusory Truth Effect, essentially meaning that information tends to be believed faster and easier after repeated exposure, regardless of its accuracy.

Our brain is simply wired to find solutions, explanations and reasons for anything and everything, taking in every information possible. That is why horoscopes work, that is how people believe in them and that is how they spread and cause eye rolls and articles by a bored law student on a Tuesday night.

When it comes to me and horoscopes, I actually, truthfully do not believe in them. It’s like the Kardashians: It’s not real, but extremely entertaining.

Still, I love getting into zodiac signs and (jokingly) judging people, but maybe that’s just because I’m a scorpio. (I really hope you just rolled your eyes).

[my-own-lilypad]

I found Bret’s words before and after Armie’s name in that article problematic/concerning. Yet, I was not surprised in the least. Even just him comparing allegations against Armie to those against Kevin Spacey and the end results.

Glad to your thoughts on ‘The Shards’. If Luca is able to rework the adaptation to something more palatable then so be it. It would not be the first time Bret would be disappointed in someone not being faithful to one of his works when adapted to a movie.

Bret Easton Ellis has an old (Boomer generation), privileged, and misogynistic white male mindset that has not evolved. It was full on display in 2019 here:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/bret-easton-ellis-thinks-youre-overreacting-to-donald-trump

Extremely disappointed in a few other Timothée-themed blogs that seem to be praising Bret’s comments not knowing his past.

Yes! He mentioned Armie and then suddenly Charmie fans are quoting him. This is not a person to be championing. 

That mindset that you describe is exactly what shines through in The Shards. I started to question why Luca has taken it on, I can't imagine there is anything in it worth saving, and I don't see where the challenge or the art is in it. It can't be the gay connection; the main character's sexuality is irrelevant to the story, unless Luca wants to deal with the lack of acceptance in the 80s compared to today, but I doubt Luca can take just that one aspect - be so unfaithful to the rest of the work -that he makes a good film out of it. Especially after what I consider to be an unsuccessful adaptation of Bones and All.

The article you included is pretty spot on, isn't it. "..raised questions regarding the depth of his critique". Yes, that's why I mentioned American Psycho in relation to The Shards. The former having tapped into a stream of consciousness that existed outside of Bret as the author, but the latter being an extremely shallow and sleazy exploration of nothing. Ironic? Satirical? Nah, just good old-fashioned sleaze. But of course even American Psycho can be condemned, as described in the article, through a feminist lens. 

For someone who makes his living out of the written word,  he seems to think that people's words and the things they say, especially prominent people, don't matter. I mean Trump was caught on tape saying groping women was one of the perks of the job so I can't understand where BEE is coming from playing the sexual assaults down. He admitted he didn't know what he was talking about and couldn't really defend himself. That attitude is really no surprise for someone with his mindset. 

I was wondering after I made that post, if I was wrong not to separate author from character. This article and your comments let me know I wasn't wrong. Thanks for sharing.

[cl0ckworkqueerness]

this. all the way this

trying to define "safe genders" and "unsafe genders" (let's be honest, i shouldn't even say "gender", bc these types of groups still view the proximity of safeness of an individual's gender as "how much testosterone do we think they have in their body", but for these purposes i will) will always lead to exclusion and neglecting the safety of trans people.

trans women, and people these groups perceive as amab, experience this in the sense that they're always being watched to see if they are "trans enough". are they on estrogen? do they even WANT estrogen? how well do they know their own gender? how close are they to masculinity? are they comfortable with certain parts of their body that "aren't acceptable" for women to have, like facial hair or penises? are they ABLE to medically transition, even if they want to? are they "enough" of a woman to make cis women with unchecked transmisogynistic mindsets feel "safe"? if the answer to any of these questions is "no", they'll be distrusted at best, and outright shunned at worst.

trans men, and people these groups perceive as afab, suffer because of this, too, but in this case, we're being watched to ensure we don't ever become too trans. are we on testosterone? do we want to be on testosterone? do we have or want facial hair? do we dress, act, or appear in a way that aligns with the masculinity of a typical cis man? are we uncomfortable with being called a trans boy over a trans man? god forbid, are we transhet? if the answer to any of these questions is "yes", oftentimes we can be shunned from these groups, or asked to leave, or be called cutesy nicknames in order to make us feel more palatable to the transandrophobes in those spaces.

this also intersects with plenty of other bigotry, too. just to name a few examples:

racism and antiblackness. if someone is a black person with any perceived masculinity, those people are often profiled as "dangerous" and thus someone to be avoided and kicked out of the group. black trans people experience a disgusting amount of racism from the trans community, and groups like this (even if they claim to be inclusive) target black trans people at a startling degree.

fatphobia. think about how often people who are perceived as fat men get shit on, get called perverts or predators, etc. simply for existing. this happens everywhere, not just in queer spaces, but when someone is looking for a place with solidarity and support and they get called a "neckbeard weirdo discord moderator" or anything else, that completely defeats the point of having a fucking support group, doesn't it

transmedicalism, too. i don't have much to specifically say about this that i didn't already say or imply, but basically if you're determining whether or not a trans person belongs in a queer space based on if they have the funds and ability and family support and willingness to transition then you're just straight up a classist and shitty person. transness is not defined by someone's body, it is defined by the person and the person alone.

those are just a few examples. i could go on for as long as i can list every type of bigotry, but the point is, allowing this kind of behaviour to slide, even if you say it's "just cis men", even if you pinkie promise that your group is different and it's just an "ew men" thing and it's TOTALLY feminist this time, you cannot confirm who is and is not a cis man just by looking at them. your discomfort with masculinity is NOT contained to cis men, no matter how much you want to say or believe it is. unlearn that terf shit before it poisons your entire brain beyond repair. you are hurting trans people.

Like my big problem with the whole "NO CIS MEN" specific policy that's so socially enforced in queer spaces (not like you putting that under your nudes or whatever the fuck, but the specific fear and ostracization of cis men as threats in trans groups online and irl) is that that policy is necessarily and unavoidably going to target trans women.

Its going to target questioning and closeted girls who are looking for a space to crack their egg. It's going to target out and proud transfems and amab nb people who are looked at with suspicion as just "faking it" to get access to "resources" or in order to take advantage of and assault the "real queer people" who are always necessarily assumed to be afab, petite, and only ever capable of being victims instead of perpetrators of abuse. And it covers up and hides the actual abuse that takes place in these places because abusers in these spaces are going to be inherently looked at as innocent because they are not cis men.

You can bring along your cis girlfriend to the trans support group but if anyone dares to bring their cis boyfriend then they're ignoring others boundaries and endangering the group. This group is for "women and femmes" but if that femme has a penis or facial hair then their really just a rapist in disguise. Damn has anyone noticed that everyone here only knows about what testosterone does to your body but no one in the room can define what "anti-androgen" means.

I've seen this play out time and time again in my damn near decade of experience in this community, on and offline. And it's especially painful whenever I see another trans woman talking about how all cis men need to be kept away for everyone's safety because it just feels so "fuck you got mine." I was able to do the right make up and voice training and get on hormones early enough that I'm only viewed with a little bit of suspicion. But this is overwhelmingly enforced by afab trans and nonbinary people who think they're feminists cause they get mad when a man says "bitch" but will absolutely never question why they view people with vaginas as inherently safe and people with penises as inherently dangerous. I'm sick of it

[fedorahead]

ok i originally posted this on facebook but imma overshare here too

hi my name is z yes the letter and i like vampires and pirates and movies about magic and cats

i hate nightmare before christmas because clay mation is weird but i really like wallace and gromit and other stuff aardman makes

i have 2 tattoos of a sun and a cloud on my knees and the cloud knee was aching real bad today because of the weather

i have naturally strawberry blonde hair but when i'm depressed and malnourished it turns brown. i usually dye it auburn but this most recent red was supposed to be black

my favourite animal is a dragon THEYRE NOT IMAGINARY THEY'RE EXTINCT and i also like goats and crows and cats

i collect fashion dolls like fashion polly and sometimes i'll buy a barbie if i like her outfit and i have one rainbow high doll too and i love her

i sew but i am usually too depressed to start and always too adhd to finish

i am diagnosed with adhd which is why i can be so rAnDuMm! but i am also a millenial and we were all like that. i also think i'm autistic and no i can't afford the assessment but everyone who's met me pretty much agrees.

i spent a long time behaving how people want me to, i'm real good at guessing that and adapting to it, and it was crushing my soul and i only did it because any form of social rejection feels like being in life threatening danger to my brain which was comppunded by spending years in extremely abusive situations and online in social circles where rejection could lead to your livelihood and maybe even your life being interrupted making me keep feeling like my fears were more and more valid and real until every part of me that made peiple visibly uncomfortable was cut away and i was charming, clever, and expressed emotions in socially appropriate ways like being mean or asking as many people as possible for their opinion on something before forming mine even though when i actually would then express that stance nobody would back me up becaus people arent honest avout their intentions or expectations which leads to those of us with a strong sense of justice standing up for causes the people who set us at them don't even really believe in

i spent most of my life stuck in this zone of knowing that whatever makes me me leads to isolation and social rejection whcih in turn is dangerous to my physical abd mental health and wellbeing and every hint of rejection sent off cascades of cortisol and adrenaline in my brain and would cause panic attacks and complete non functionality and so ive suppressed that stuff and became someone at lwast the barest amount of acceptable by reading the cues of what people appreciate and approve of and enjoy heing around to the point where i think i can see the real me through a fogged coke bottle glass of memory but i cant make out many details and i'm pretty sure that kid is dead

but the bits of me that have poked through against my efforts are still bouncing around and maybe i can build someone i like out of those instead of resenting them for being unshakable

the first step is embracing the annoying and spontaneous and oversharing side of myself that has been screaming to come out and is constantly locked back in when i wait for someone else's approval

so here you go

i'm 31, and i'm still proc3ssing a lot of my teenage emotions and probably will be for the rest of my life. i am angsty and bitchy and hungry all the time and i love fashion and art and expression and have a passion for weilding the written word with different stances and flourishes to really get a point across stylistically

and it's interesting to think how mcuh of me jas been suppressed for my own safety, even when i didn't know who i was hiding from.

like, some of the safety mechanisms just turned bacn the fuck on a few years ago and nobody really noticed or knew why. and i can track what bad relationship lead me to go from being a super sex positive out loud feminist with strong political convictions and a come at me bro attitude towards censorship, morality, and sexuality to being someone afraid to have anyone know anything i was passionate about, especially when it came to relationships or sex or social justice because those things had been used against me in pretty awful ways, but i was getting better and healing and then that all got shut back up into that tiny box because i had someone in my friends circle who was predatory and sadistic and i didn't even realize how unsafe i felt around him until he started hurting my friends. and even while i was singing his virtues and trying to sell people on his good side i still was uneasy and i just didn't attribute it to him until *his* mask dropped (a secondntime) and i put the pieces together. and honestly? if i had been open in the ways i'd been before all the trauma, i would have been a perfect victim for him. which is, i'm sure, why he started talking to me every week, making sure i'd be at amtgard, right around the time i was starting to come back into my own and start opening up to the world a little more. but that whole part of me got fucked up for a little while by life and by the general bad vibe i had, like i knew being open about sexuality and sex would put me in danger even though i could not see by whom

anyway i quit amtgard. whether he comes back or not, i dont really care, i dont want to be in a community that isn't vigilant and while i wasnt in real danger because i choose to surround myself with people who watch me like a hawk, that's not a community thing and if i hadnt been there when i was, watching someone else like a hawk, some worse shit would have happened.

i'd rather be myself, with all the risks that come with that, and stay safe with my circle rather than being comfortable in a place i have no business being comfortable with people i don't truly know, suppressing who i am because i know that that person is in danger. for wahtever reason, social or physical.

anyway today i'm trying to be honest and true to myself an dthat means a lot of dunb posts that i'll definitely be judged for, and i gotta practice being judged without wanting to kill myself ao here are my cards on the table i guess.

[madhogthymaster]

A Non-Committal, Short Review of the "Barbie" Film

After many tribulations, I finally managed to watch the Barbie film, in an arena with annexed bar, atop a small hill, above the bustling of a small lake town. It's probably the second best environment for the showing right after a loudly coloured vacation villa. Life in Plastic is Fantastic and all that.

Since this is technically a film review in the loosest possible term, have a disclaimer! Just replace the word "video" and "filmed" with "random blog" and "typed."

Now, I shall begin this non-committal thought bubble on the Barbie experience by saying that I had an absolute blast, all throughout it: the impeccable set designs, casting choices, rapid-fire jokes that never miss ensured my time with it would be nothing short of delightful. Margot Robbie was the ideal choice both in breathing life into the "stereotypical doll" as well as humanizing her whilst Ryan Gosling redefined the very concept of "Simping" with his tragicomic Ken. That said, it has a few issues.

Director Greta Gerwig's vision is ambitiously incongruous in the sense that it attempts to capture on film the complete ethos of Barbie (TM), the very idea, its complicated status symbol within pop culture, its controversial yet ubiquitous role in Society, its meaning and iconography in relation to how the perceptions of Womanhood and Femininity have evolved since its creation, etcetera.

In doing so, too much meat is placed on the proverbial grill. Barbie tries to say something meaningful about the objectification of the female body perpetrated by Capitalism as well as the commodification of Feminism as another form of profit. It tries to be a satire of toxic masculinity, entitlement and The Patriarchy, the disillusionment of it all which then moves on to a semi-radical Feminist power fantasy, ultimately landing on the Existential question of what it means to be a "real" woman and the pressure to be "perfect" according to an ever changing and completely arbitrary ideal imposed by a male dominated world.

There is so much it wants to cover that it couldn't quite firmly land on most of its topics, resulting in a film that seems somewhat unfocused. So, we have an undeniably creative project, with a vision behind it, that crashes against its own weight. That's especially frustrating when it reaches the inevitable moment where the corporate interests behind it align with the theming of "relatability" - because it sells, you see, and that's the actual punchline. Make no mistake, though, it's still a great watch.

The points that actually do manage to resonate hit hard and the emotional throughline of "Stereotypical Barbie" as she gains self-awareness, and self-acceptance, is definitely there but, above all else, this is a legitimately funny film.

It would be easy to dismiss Barbie as a cynical PR campaign for a "Woke" brand who has embraced "Social Progress" and "Relatability" because there's money to be made by exploiting the very criticisms that were levied against its decisively checkered history - and yes, that's exactly what this film is, even as it acknowledges said history.

In truth, there's an actual heart to Barbie, a weird sincerity that comes out in spite (or because) of itself, of its mere existence. It's made with Love, with Passion and with Intent. It's imperfect and that's OK because being perfect is just a toxic projection. At the end of the day, it made me laugh and it made me pay attention when it mattered the most and those are the unmistakable signs of an enjoyable work of fiction. This one goes on the fridge, right next to The LEGO Movie - and not just because they share a Will Farrell between them.

Then again, they didn't play the original Barbie Girl song in the end credits, so it's a 0/10.

[hussyknee]

I have a feeling this post is less about women being objectified and more the popularity of the "strong independent woman who don't need no man". You can't deny that the pushback against the damsel trope has led to the overcorrection that's the Strong Female Character. In both cases it's the dismissal of the character's interiority that's the problem, not whether she's badass or not.

But we can't pretend that a large part of why society disdains women is because of the very vulnerability it subjects us to. You can see this with poor and disabled people as well. "Needing" and the inability to be self-sufficient is to endure pity, dismissal and dehumanisation; help and charity is only extended if you can assure that you will only need it until you can be self-sufficient and successful on your own.

For disabled and poor women, and especially trans women and Black women of whom white surpremacy strips softness and femininity, the fantasy of being cherished and valued simply for existing, of being treated like a delicate and vulnerable creature worth saving even when helpless, is really appealing. Yes, the damsel in distress trope has a heavy dose of objectification, but so does the Strong Female Character. And no, those aren't the only two ways a female character can be written.

It's also about the fact that female characters who do need rescue and protection of any sort are read as damsels in distress. And that mainstream feminism is predominantly cis, white and abled, and overlooks how feminist subversion requires paying attention to how different kinds of women are stereotyped differently. I personally remember a few years ago, at the height of my illness, believing that I represented a feminist failure because I couldn't help myself and wanted someone to save me so badly. I thought of my entire existence as an anti-feminist argument, and fearful that my own "faults" would be held up as a rebuttal to my advocacy for female empowerment. "You get live at home without a job because your husband takes care of you. It's acceptable for you to do that because people don't expect you to work, unlike your husband. How can you call yourself oppressed when you don't have to lift a finger to help yourself?" It was a good few years and a divorce before I was able to argue that being disabled was not a privileged state of being, and that being barred from the workforce was different to choosing not to work. And that most of the women accused of sitting at home worked full time taking care of it and everyone in it. It was disabled feminists and feminists of colour who finally taught me that, not mainstream feminists who were busy elevating girlbosses. And it takes a while even now to get deep enough into feminist discourse to encounter nuance. I think it's why so many younger women either get turned off feminism or get sucked down radfem holes.

The fact of the matter is that some of us want to be soft and delicate princesses. Some of us see ourselves in sad and lonely women locked away in high towers. Some of us very badly want to sought after and saved without having to justify why we should be. And when those things get sneered at, it's hard not to take it personally. Especially given the fact that we dont see ourselves and our fantasies represented more three-dimensionally anywhere else.

Im sick of people trashing the 'damsel in distress. That simply means a girl who can't save herself. If you want to write a story about a girl who saves the day do so, but don't stomp on those who can't help themselves that's not what heroes do.

[starksmedici]

Let’s talk about Philippa Gregory.

This video by the wonderful TikTok creator Fawzia Mariam explain most of my dislike for Philippa Gregory. I have tried to like her, I really have. I love her writing style and as some of you might know I am a huge fan of historical fiction, both in books and in tv shows, and it’s kind of hard to omit this woman who is praised as one of, if not its grandest name. This also means that I am pretty capable of accepting some historical inaccuracies, as there is no such thing as a fully accurate period drama.

My problem with Gregory however, is that she is being put forward as an authority on women’s history, when she writes FICTION, and she feels to me to be quite internally misogynistic. This I have mainly noticed in the tv shows by Starz.

I have to admit that I have not yet read those particular books, and I’m probably not going to due to my dislike and the reviews (maybe I will read The White Queen, definitely not The Red Queen). But to what I have heard the shows are a pretty accurate adaptation of the books.

Now my claim of Gregory being misogynistic is mainly coming from the relationships that women have in those shows. It seems that none of them get along, when in reality quite a few of them did get along well/they were cordial. It seems to be perpetuating an image that women in high positions just cannot get along. Furthermore, Gregory likes to have women be scheming masterminds, and the reasons that bad things happen - not the men who mostly are paragons of virtue and if they are not, they are forgiven, often make (only) small mistakes (of course there are exceptions). Margaret is a perfect example because Henry only gets on the throne because of her scheming and she even kills the princes in the tower (for which there is no evidence), and tells her son to r*pe his bride, which he does but she seems to be the only one getting judged for it. By the way Margaret was possibly sex repulsed after getting wedded and bedded AT TWELVE YEARS OLD. So to have her *tell* her son to rape his bride, makes me feel ill.

Margaret seems overall pretty frosty also, and comes across as a caricature of a religious fanatic when she was a complex woman who is said to have been funny and kind, and was overall a badass woman who was clever and was a tragic victim of her time (again she was married at 12, gave birth at 13). A lot of the things that Gregory shoved in her shoes were unlike to have been her at all, or at least only her.

My particular issue with The Spanish Princess is the modern “girlbossification” of Katherine of Aragon who comes across as arrogant, rude and impolite (and again kind of like a scheming liar) when this woman had HUMBLE in her motto. It’s almost as if PG/the show runners did not think Katherine interesting enough the way she was, not feminist enough in our modern views, which I highly disagree with. KATHERINE OF ARAGON WAS A TOTAL BADASS.

So my point with this post is not to say that you cannot enjoy PG shows/books, by all means enjoy what you want (I too enjoy TWQ & TWP), but please do not accept her as a truthful source of history. I am also not saying that I expect or want period drama to be 100% accurate, however I do expect some degree of accuracy, and if I want to watch a show about this or that historical person, I want that show to be about them, not about a random person with their name.

And yes I am extra pissed because I am super interested in historical Margaret Beaufort and I highly protest against the character assassination that Gregory’s books are.

[thebadboyfanclub]

It’s Alright Darling (Sherlock x Reader)

Ok... Was this requested? No. Am I writing it cause anything Henry Cavill related makes me feel happy? Yes. Enjoy!

Being Sherlock Holmes assistant was something a lot of people would kill for and that makes it even better if you think about the irony of it. However, since Sherlock wasn’t a normal person to mostly everything he did, he had decided to hire a woman as his assistant, Mycroft called him mad and unhinged almost every time he brought up her name. (Y/n) was one of the most intelligent people he had ever been around, combining that with a charming personality was the recipe to success.

“Well, well, well I see my brother is full of surprises”

“Hello there Mycroft is so nice to see you again as well”

She spoke in an clearly ironic tone as she took of her gloves, she was never a fan of hats other than the occasions she knew she would be under the sun for hours. As she walked in the living room area for what seemed like their childhood home, Sherlock had requested for (y/n) to arrive a day later than the brothers, knowing that her and his older brother were like oil and water he chose to “prepare the grounds” first.

“Where is the young little Holmes?”

“Inside, talking with miss Harrison”

“Alright... who is miss Harrison?”

“Miss Harrison is an excellent teacher and a friend of mine, come to think of it maybe you should go in and ask her to take you as well... you might be a bit old but I’m sure she can make an exception”

Mycroft found (y/n) intolerant, she was dismissive, unladylike, mouthy and a feminist, he still does not understand what asset do she brought to his younger brother. She only smiled while sitting at one of the chairs

“I will let you know I was an excellent student in all my academic achievements, although I suppose you were one as well that doesn’t really prove someone’s intelligence or manners, right mister Holmes?”

Sherlock let a laugh be heard at (y/n)’s quick response, even though he would never take sides and sometimes wanted them to get along, he had accepted that it would never happen and simply enjoyed the situation.

“Amused brother? Of course you are as mad as her since you didn’t only hire her, you kept her around and brought her in my home”

“Now Now mister Holmes, what type of gentleman would you be if you threaten to through out not just a lady but your younger brothers guest, unfortunately you are just further proving my point about our little quarrel”

Before he had the chance to respond a young girl walked in, wearing a white undergarment dress and looking disheveled. The girl who (y/n) could only assume was the infamous Enola didn’t even notice her being in this room.

“No, don’t do this to me. Let me remain happy, I am happy here”

“You are a young woman now Enola, you need an education”

“Test me, on anything you think I need to know in order to be sufficient for this world”

“If she taught you so well, you wouldn’t be standing in your undergarment in front of me”

Silence fell in the room for a quick second. His disgusting answer to his own sister made (Y/n) get on her feet, Enola quickly let her gaze fall on the young woman that was now in her house.

“Why is that a problem Mister Holmes? Undergarments are scandalous for the men when a woman they are interested in wears them, she is your underaged sister”

“This is a family matter, it does not- I repeat- does not concern you”

“Of course it does not concern me, but it does concern me when a young girl is being held accountable for walking in her home, to her brothers, completely covered and still being shamed for it”

Enola understood by that quick argument the lady was not here because of Mycroft, so it only meant she was Sherlocks company, she is not his wife since if not invited he would have at least informed their mother, so perhaps a girlfriend?

“Enola you have no hopes of making a husband out of your state, neither do you... miss (y/l/n)”

“I don’t want a husband”

Enola claimed, raising her voice at the ridiculous claim her brother made. Even though they haven’t been properly introduced they had developed a mutually liking for each other, at a brief look they seemed to have the same outlook on life.

“And that is another thing you need to have educated out of you”

At that Enola turned to look at her other brother, Sherlock, who had remained radio silent throughout this entire conversation. Enola kneeled in front of him, as Sherlock looked at her and then broke eye contact to look down at the book he was holding.

“Sherlock, Don’t let him do this to me”

“You are his ward”

“Make me yours. Guide me. Teach me. For him I am nuisance. For you-”

“Enola. I’m sorry, but it’s out of my hands”

“Just like his cruelty to our mother was out of your hands”

Cruelty to their mother? No, Sherlock would have never allowed his mother to go through anything, he is a man of honor... isn’t he? (Y/n) felt her stomach tighten as she saw this tragic scene unravel, she hoped Sherlock would have accepted and took her in.

“She is not dangerous. She is remarkable and always has been. And if you still can’t see that then shame on you both”

“So remarkable she left you in my care”

Mycroft shot back. (Y/n) could almost feel the pain the young girl felt, you could see it in her eyes how that was an arrow straight in her heart. (Y/n) decided to step up and try to help, she approached the young girl with a kind smile and placed a hand on her shoulder.

“Come on, let’s get you out of here to calm down. Seems like your brothers don’t share the same love and admiration you do for the woman that made them who they are”

“I am a self made successful man”

“but you wouldn’t be no man if the woman you frown upon had not broken her hips and went through hours of painful labor. Take that as some food for thought before you school me on my manners”

Sherlock looked at her in awe, as she stood proudly next to his sister and became the shield he should have been. Standing up for a girl you haven’t even spoken to or knew before this.

“Let’s go young Enola, seems like a woman’s presence is wanted here only when she does as she is told”

-

“Come in”

“Can I open this door and be promised that I will remain safe or are you holding a dagger and you are ready to take me out of this world?”

“Don’t be ridiculous, dagger you in your own household? I would probably wait to poison you a few days after we leave and write the paperwork of you firing me”

He smiled at her plan as he closed the door in her room. It was already nightfall and the only light here were a few candles, he had let her take a breather after the unfortunate event that had occurred previously. Even though he wasn’t the one that she went toe to toe with, his silence was as obnoxious to her as his brothers loud ignorance towards the female gender.

“You are upset”

“Of course not, why would I be? It’s not like you let that man embarrass his own sibling and talk down to his mother without her being in the room”

She had remained sited in the chair next to the table, a book open that seemed like she was writing on rather than reading it. He was aware she was holding a journal, he didn’t blame her for it, having a job like she did she was in desperate need of something to keep her sane.

“This is a very wary subject”

“I am aware of it, I just can’t seem to understand why not comfort her, try to change your brothers opinion, anything that will show you care for her, you do care for her, right Sherlock?”

“She is my baby sister (y/n), that’s a given”

She closed her book. She ran her hand through her  through her hair and got up from her sit, her hands going in front of her torso at a defensive demeanor, even when Sherlock should be cold or show his higher position to her, he couldn’t help but seek some type of truce with her, how could he not? She looked so beautiful even when she mad at him, the eyes he was so caught up in looked at him with fury, her delicate feature went harsh and she was dressed more... lightly now.

“I spoke with her earlier, she was in the garden”

“I know, I saw.”

“She asked me about you, asked me if you were my lady”

Her eyes went wide for a split second before regaining her composer and turned her back to him. She approached the window before she spoke.

“If you think of how she became familiar with me, she was probably certain I wasn’t even friends with your holier than God brother”

“You mustn't be angry at me”

“And why is that?”

“Because other than my sister and mother, I care for you and for your opinion about me”

She remained silent. Not only because she was caught off guard by his comment, she also didn’t know what he was talking about. Sherlock stepped closer to her, his steps making her heart flutter and her palms sweaty. He stopped when he was right behind her, he wanted to hug her, caress her, kiss her, still he was uncertain of how she would react.

“I still remember the night you got kidnapped”

Someone that Sherlock had helped uncover had escaped prison and kidnapped her. Luckily, she was retrieved safely yet again she was still shaken up by the scary experience, when Sherlock found her awake next to the fireplace she was so vulnerable and grateful to be alive she launched at him and kissed him passionately.

He shared his bed with her, in the middle of the night though she had gotten up and left, when morning came she acted like nothing had happened, barely even looked at him in the eyes for a week.

“Please Sherlock don’t pick at my brain”

“Why did you leave that night? Did you regret it that much”

“That night... was the most blissful I have ever been.... However you are still my boss Sherlock”

“That’s all I am to you? Your boss?”

(Y/n) turned to look at him, tears welling up in her eyes. Those eyes would be the death of him, it was with no doubt the window to her soul, that pure gentle soul of hers.

“What am I to you then Sherlock? This wasn’t just about me”

“You are.... what I never knew I needed”

His hands went up to her forearms instinctively, a soft caress that made her think his hands were made out of the finest silk, she felt goosebumps as he touched her. Her lips parted slightly as she took in a heavy breath, her eyes searching for a hint of a lie in his words.

“Sherlock”

“Shhhhh, It’s alright darling. You don’t have to say anything”

At that he slowly leaned in, his lips on top of hers at a shy and gentle kiss. Her hand went to his neck, bringing her torso to touch his as the kiss deepened, her entire body felt a rush go through it as they should the passion they held for each other with this kiss. As she pulled back her fingertips traveled to his face, taking in his attractive features

“I had almost forgotten how good of a kisser you are”

“Oh love, you will never forget it ever again”