#bc all fires end

[the-cats-noodles]

Everytime I see this, everytime, someone brings up marriage as an exception and I can't help but think, really?

I get it, promises are important (to death do us part, which is in and of itself an unrealistic standard but whatever i dont have time to talk abt that) but I feel like people forget that marriage for love is relatively recent? The point of marriage being to join households and pass on property is much older (and the origin of the whole "only death can make us separate" bc property and inheritance) like, the reason people stayed together was bc of duty not love and that was a very different environment than the one now (which is good) but it still means we're talking about a standard that is unrealistic in our current environment (not to mention the insane amount of murder over not being able to get divorced in the past, like it's a very good thing we can end marriages now)

There's nothing wrong with marrying someone and wanting to stay with them forever (we chose to do this for love and that was good actually), but can we stop pretending this idea is universal?

Making a promise is all well and good, but people change and their promises do too.

Like, yes you keep growing as you get older and yes you might grow closer with your partner (and that's perfectly normal and okay) BUT you might also grow apart and that is ALSO PERFECTLY OKAY

Saying that marriage is something to exclude from the idea of decentering permanence is kinda ignoring all the people who really shouldn't be staying together but "have" to (for the kids, reputation, etc) and anybody involved definitely feels that dynamic shift...

Just, yeah "keep your promises" but also know that breaking them is a part of life and its much better for both parties if you break a promise instead of wither away trying to uphold it for some perceived sense of duty or obligation to people whose opinions literally DO NOT matter

(If you wanna be with one person forever? great! If they don't agree bc they don't love you anymore? Oh well, tough luck, I guarantee you'll be better off letting them go then forcing them to stay in a legal contract, which is what marriage becomes when you don't feel love for the other party anymore)

Also I get most people don't want to force someone to stay in a situation that makes them miserable, at least I really hope they don't, but when (as a society) we place more importance on the whole 'till death do us part' bit and less on the 'I love you and want to show it' (or even say the only way to show it is to hold onto that person forever) then it kinda forces people into this idea of "having" to stay

And look, counseling is great, it can work wonders, but it is NOT a miracle worker. It can't fix everything and it doesn't have to bc A LOT of marriages aren't broken they're just fizzling out

Am I making any sense? Who knows, but I was raised in a community where ending a marriage or relationship was worse than cheating bc "marriages are work"

They are, but you also retire from work when it becomes a strain and you can't do it anymore. You can quit a job if it doesn't fit. I'm not saying marriage is a job, but I am saying that if we expect marriage to involve work we can expect it to reach the point where people just DONT WANT TO DO THAT ANYMORE and that's okay

I'm begging: please stop insisting marriage is different from other relationships in this regard bc it isn't. It's sweet and a wonderful experience but it's still just a love between two people and we can't expect that to be magically enough to stop the natural progression all relationships go through.

You lose friends over time but some stay around. You lose family over time (like, no contact in this case not necessarily through death) but some stay around. You lose lovers and partners over time but some stay around. And that's okay, u just don't see how the last one is somehow expected to have more weight.

(Which I believe was op's point? That they're all temporary and that's a good thing actually)

Like everything is temporary, it's just sometimes that temporary lines up with our lives bc we ourselves are temporary beings, and it's okay if it does and it's okay if it doesn't.

I think a lot about how we as a culture have turned “forever” into the only acceptable definition of success.

Like… if you open a coffee shop and run it for a while and it makes you happy but then stuff gets too expensive and stressful and you want to do something else so you close it, it’s a “failed” business. If you write a book or two, then decide that you don’t actually want to keep doing that, you’re a “failed” writer. If you marry someone, and that marriage is good for a while, and then stops working and you get divorced, it’s a “failed” marriage.

The only acceptable “win condition” is “you keep doing that thing forever”. A friendship that lasts for a few years but then its time is done and you move on is considered less valuable or not a “real” friendship. A hobby that you do for a while and then are done with is a “phase” - or, alternatively, a “pity” that you don’t do that thing any more. A fandom is “dying” because people have had a lot of fun with it but are now moving on to other things.

I just think that something can be good, and also end, and that thing was still good. And it’s okay to be sad that it ended, too. But the idea that anything that ends is automatically less than this hypothetical eternal state of success… I don’t think that’s doing us any good at all.

[opens-up-4-nobody]

When this kind of fire starts, it is very hard to put out.

[ryllen]

i had this (undefinitive) thought once in my head

[bacchuschucklefuck]

we let the ocean drown out our voices/enjoying the bitterness/in the chaotic light, I close my eyes and see

[blurbery]

🛫☁️ going on a trip

[buttered-toasty]

Ignore the half-assed background, it’s not actually supposed to Be the background, I just wanted to post this in case I never finish the second half (maglor)

I have thoughts about them. Many thoughts.

[mashmouths]

what? oh yeah i'm a huge swiftie :) i loved "a modest proposal" and though "gulliver's travels" was really context-dependent, once you parse it it's a truly brilliant work of satire

[emiliosandozsequence]

ever since i was a little girl i've known i've wanted to watch movies where men cry

[momomallowart]

Happy International Women's Day! I love women and I love Tomura so I drew him as a beautiful woman ʕ⁠ ⁠ꈍ⁠ᴥ⁠ꈍ⁠ʔっ💗

Close up 🫶💗

[bigidiotenergytm]

ody being dragged to the river of fire at the end of no longer you to directly foreshadow what happens at the end of odysseus what if i make myself SICK.

[sieglinde-freud]

sorry u had to find out this way girl

[unknown-cold]

Caitlyn is definitely water, and anyone who says otherwise needs to watch the show again. Caitlyn has changed from a normal, somewhat naive girl, to a vengeful, sad girl, to a girl who takes on the position of leader to protect her people, then turns on Ambessa to protect Vi and Vi's family, and then forgives Jinx, the person who ruined her life and has Vi free her. All this and some people say that she hasn't changed and that she's just like fire because she's a person with power. It's not about power or conquest, it's about destruction. Fire always symbolizes destruction in most cultures, and this suits Jinx very well. Jinx is always destroying and spoiling things and most of the time she does it just for fun, not for a clear purpose. Even if Caitlyn does something bad, her actions are less harmful than the rest of the characters in the show, including Jinx.

Video by: ( @homelanderwuvsyouv2 ) on Instagram

I say this because I saw many comments on this video saying that Caitlyn should be fire and Jinx should be water, and their reason is because Caitlyn is a leader and she was seeking to destroy and invade Zaun, and she never changed, I really was wondering (did these idiots actually watch the show? Or do they watch with they asses not eyes ) because they literally forgot what Caitlyn did to prevent destruction or anything that harmed innocent people, we saw her in episode 1 preventing the invasion and went with a small team to minimize the losses, even when Caitlyn took over the position of leader, she did not use her power to do bad things "like Ambessa and Silco". Caitlyn always opposed Ambessa for using violent methods.

What I love about Caitlyn's character, despite her sadness and anger, she never lost her principles and seeks justice, even in the game Caitlyn is always symbolized as a character who always seeks justice.

I personally think that all the hate towards Cait is, misogyny and homophobia aside for a moment, also due to the fact that she is not a static character. She moves and changes a lot, but she is one of the few characters in Arcane who also CHANGES FOR THE BETTER, who ACTIVELY MOVES to change things. And a lot of people do not understand this, she is not a villain, she is not always in the good side. She does the right things, but she also does the wrong things, the important thing is that at the end she accepts her mistakes, her emotions, and she is willing to sacrifice herself to do better. THIS is what makes her a dynamic character, makes her aware. This is what makes her so resilient and caring and it is really bad to notice how people are so unused to this representation that they criticize her to the point of hating her. She moves and changes a lot, but she is one of the few characters in Arcane who also CHANGES FOR THE BETTER, who ACTIVELY MOVES to change things. And a lot of people do not understand this, she is not a villain, she is not always in the good side. She does the right things, but she also does the wrong things, the important thing is that at the end she accepts her mistakes, her emotions, and she is willing to sacrifice herself to do better. THIS is what makes her a dynamic character, makes her aware. This is what makes her so resilient and caring and it is really bad to notice how people are so unused to this representation that they criticize her to the point of hating her. She's complex, ofc, but try to do better from every mistake. It is so rare.

So I agree with the rest of the comparisons like Vi symbolizes the earth, and Ekko symbolizes the air, I really love this.

[kagoutiss]

the shadow gathers you unto itself

[erumai-maadu]

Here is every episode of Naruto and Shippuden that Tenten appears in. skipped two episodes where she only appears in a single frame (naruto 158, and shippuden 450). EDIT: filler episodes are now highlighted in blue.

Original:

21, 23, 24, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 80, 98, 100, 124, 142, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 161, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 214, 215, 220

Shippuden:

10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 82, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 162, 166, 168, 169, 175, 183, 184, 192, 201, 219, 231, 232, 237, 256, 261, 267, 271, 273, 276, 293, 294, 306, 311, 312, 330, 360, 365, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 404, 405, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 426, 427, 428, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 444, 445, 447, 449, 469, 479, 494, 495, 497, 499, 500

[aethersea]

it is funny though how kids' shows are so so so careful about death, no one's ever killed except MAYYYYBE the big bad, all those random side characters are fine, here have a quick shot of them before we leave just so you know they really did survive that 50-foot drop into a stormy sea,

and meanwhile kids' books nearly all agree that it's not an adventure until it has a body count.

[turbo-tsundere]

Chibi Gonta for the soul <3