#but like sometimes just for example it's illegal to be gay

[whetstonefires]

You know I'm realizing one reason you keep seeing mdzs modern AUs where the Jiang parents are alive mainly so they can dramatically fail and betray Wei Wuxian by cutting him off financially--defaulting on his college tuition or formally disowning him etc--isn't just that people want to translate the Burial Mounds II arc into modern terms while keeping Jiang Cheng clean of it.

(Despite the fact that the internal logic of Jiang Cheng's character is largely built around him being a person who would abandon someone he intensely cared about under these specific circumstances.)

It's because it's hard to set up a modern analogue for the way that Jiang Cheng is responsible for Wei Wuxian, as his Sect Leader.

We live in a highly individualistic society. People are trying to write Wei Wuxian Tragically Wronged, and because there's a normative expectation that people in the position of parents will provide you with resources, and certainly won't withdraw them without warning, but no such assumption that people in the position of siblings necessarily owe each other support, making this work in modern setting with Jiang Cheng in his canon role would require a lot of extra work, just to get a less readily resonant result.

But I keep thinking about it. Because something that's getting lost here is, not just the nuances of character and relationship, but like...it's sort of key to the story that cutting Wei Wuxian off was, in fact, Completely Socially Appropriate.

The level on which it was a betrayal is subtle, and deeply cutting. And intensely tied up in the very different opinions each of Jiang Cheng's parents had about what obligations existed in their family wrt Wei Wuxian, and what these meant.

The level on which it was the obvious, normal course of action is blatant. That is to a huge extent why it happens: because Jiang Cheng's instinct to conform is a survival instinct, reinforced by trauma, and Wei Wuxian's choices meant he had no coherently compelling reason not to obey it, and enormous peer pressure to do so.

The fact is that Jiang Cheng was making a reasonable choice, the actual thing 'anyone would do in that situation,' unlike Wei Wuxian and Jin Guangyao's respective wildly warped ideas about what that is.

Wei Wuxian wasn't betrayed by Jiang Sect like your foster parents cutting you off because you're disobedient. Wei Wuxian was betrayed by Jiang Sect like your brother refusing to drop fifty grand to bail you out of jail.

Of course Wei Wuxian tells him not to. And of course the fact that Jiang Cheng already chose in the moment not to pay a cent because Fuck You Wei Ying still stands there glaring, a precedent that can never be taken back.

And then later he's betrayed by Jiang Cheng like your brother cooperating with a police investigation into a manslaughter you really did commit, that's being handled like domestic terrorism. And then like your brother calling the cops on you. And then like your brother helping the cops find where you're hiding.

I'm personally fascinated by the way Jiang Cheng's lifelong resentment for the way Jiang Fengmian reliably bailed Wei Wuxian out of everything informed those decisions to do the normal thing, the way he's reacting against his dead father as well as against Wei Wuxian and the actual situation.

But even without that daddy issues angle, the fact that the person who made that choice was Jiang Cheng, and that it was simultaneously the reasonable appropriate normal upstanding citizen rational thing to do and so shitty Wei Wuxian would be entitled never to forgive it is sort of. The Point.

Of the scenario, and also to a considerable degree of the entire finely tuned narrative construct that is Jiang Cheng.

[liquid-bonhomme]

Think you can take a look on this video on villains like Magneto? To say she misses the point is an understatement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YouOhoCDVkw&pp=ygUUbGlseSBvcmNoYXJkIG1hZ25ldG8%3D

Oh fuck I saw the thumbnail of this video manifest a few times and I avoided watching it because I knew it was going to make me mad.

I'm going to do this one as a "real time reaction." Unlike the Harley video, I'm going in blind. Might edit a bit after I'm done writing it all out, but.

Lily Commits Elder Gay Mutant Abuse, feat. "Eldritch Lily" (Part 1)

[Part 2] [Part 3]

Get ready DILF fuckers. We 'bout to go to war for our beloved magnet man.

-0:30: Lily rambles about dumb bullshit to do with tropes, and fandom, and inventing problems. . . Oh my god, why.

So like, right at the beginning here she's just . . . Making noise? Waisting oxygen? I THINK what she's trying to say is people like tropes . . . And that's illegal if it isn't the tropes she likes . . . I don't . . . Lily.

She's using way too many words to say, in essence, I presume, Magneto is dumb, "fanboys" just like him because they like "sympathetic villians." But her rational here is a degree of reductive it makes it almost impossible to respond to. Lily is arguing against a theoretical hivemind of a strawman from another dimension - totally divorced from the one the rest of us live in.

I may hazard a guess that I, conceptually, as someone who both likes sympathetic antagonists and likes Magneto, am from Lily's point of view a part of this "fandom" hivemind she's hallucinating.

I don't know what to say to that other than, no Lily. No. That's not why I like Magneto. I am much more likely to enjoy sympathetic antagonists, as that is my personal taste. I am less likely to enjoy mustache twirling cartoon villans, for as it were, that is not my personal taste. But that is not the beginning and the end of my preferences. Bby grill, I don't know what to tell yah.

Also, a "sympathetic villian/antagonist" isn't really so much a trope as it is a description. I understand why like, TV tropes and for other cataloging purposes the definition of "trope" gets stretched a bit-- however. It's like calling "first person limited" a trope.

-1:21: Lily's "favorite villains,"

I try not to roast Lily on her just strictly expressing her personal taste (when she's not trying to argue her personal taste is superior), but considering the topic of the video-- I gotta laugh. Lily's examples for villains she likes is that one fucker from Kingdom Hearts who's only notable trait compared to the rest of the antagonists is him not being an evil twink (or Pete, or Maleficent) and the Lich King.

I have played at least most of the Kingdom Hearts games. I played WoW when Wrath came out. I played the Warcraft games where he was originally introduced as Arthas.

I guess I can see in a very superficial way why Lily identifies with Fabio Night's King maybe . . . Hot Topic Heidelberg though, I'm at a loss. I can't even remember his name, and I don't care to look it up.

-1:30: "Sympathetic villains are a double edged sword [ . . . ] you can only make them so sympathetic before their status as a villain starts to be questioned."

Might as well bring this up now-- Lily is currently engaging with one of my all-time pet peeves with media discussion: calling all antagonists "villains."

I try to be careful as to when I correct people on this. I don't like nitpicking the language people use. If their meaning is getting across just fine, what ever. I don't want to make them feel stupid for confusing to very similar concepts. Sometimes, my brain shits out too, and I use a suitable substitute even if it's not exactly the right word for the thing I'm trying to refer to. Everyone does it sometimes.

However, villains and anotagonists aren't the same thing. The exact definition as to what makes a character a true "villain" is very subjective-- more often than not vibes based. Where as an antagonist is very concretely the protagonist's foil and/or a source of external conflict. A villain is more defined by the framing, an antagonist is identified by their utility in a narrative. You can have protagonists who are arguably villains and antagonists who are arguably heroes as well. Stories where there isn't enough moral framing and judgment either way, so the protagonist and the antagonist can't really be described as heros or villains. Before we get into discussing whether or not Magneto is truly a "villain" or not, I have to point out Lily's confusing those two concepts. I'm going to surmise the majority of her arguments in this video could have been dismissed if she understood the difference.

So, yes, if you make a villain too sympathetic, they're no longer a villain . . . They're just the antagonist.

I also need to preface all this by saying that Magneto is a particularly complicated case in this regard. He's been around as the "Malcom X" analog in the very messy civil rights allegory of the mutants since the 1960s. He has, in a lot of ways, mirrored the very challenging feelings people have had towards more aggressive and violent forms of activism.

I don't think iterations of Magneto where the narrative condemns his methods outright are wholly invalid-- though I have personally soured towards them. That doesn't align with my perception of what Magento represents. And on a narrative perspective, I think it's always more interesting when the moral question as to whether the X-Men/Charles's position is correct or the BoM/Erik's position is correct is left as ambiguous as possible for the audience to decide for themselves. I think both forms of activism Charles and Erik represent are equally flawed as they are important. Fighting for civil rights is a thing of chaos historically, and there's no real clear "right answer" in most circumstances. A lot of messy incoherence of effort and resistance that slowly over time collectively move the dial-- often in a round-about way.

It also doesn't help that most non-comic reader's perceptions of Magneto are so heavily colored by the movies. As much as the ever effervescent Sir Ian Mekellen elevates that version of the character with his outstanding performance. . . That Magneto is a much messier bitch than his comic counterpart. Much less calculated and considerate in his violence. Same thing overall by the Michael Fassbender version, though he's characterized a little better.

I feel it's pretty safe to assume Lily's going to be arguing mostly against her vague memory of Fox movies while confidently being wrong about the comic version being the same.

Oh my god we're fucking 2 minutes in.

1:52: "It's a very dated metaphor for racism in the 60s, and the film are a very dated metaphor for LGBT youth in the 2000s."

Sorry, we're nitpicking Lily's word choices again. She's getting allegory and metaphor confused. The X-Men are intended as an allegory-- traditionally. Not always, but traditionally.

And as a blanket statement I'm sort of in agreement with her . . . But also not really. Again, the X-Men have been around for so long there's a diverse range in the ways the civil rights analog has been handled. I think typically the mutants are at their best when they are being treated more as a metaphor than an allegory, and for no real specific civil rights issue. Something more organic to the Marvel universe itself the audience can take away from as a meditation in a none-direct one-to-one.

My favorite X-Men Rogue is a character I deeply identify with on multiple layers personally as a queer person, a survivor of abuse, someone who's had struggles with both platonic and romantic intimacy. There's a lot of ways someone could connect with her that aren't direct translations of who she is in canon.

Also, the 2000s Fox movies was not the first time the X-Men were interpreted as a queer allegory instead of a racial one. I can't tell you when the first time was, if there is an official "first time" as POC and LGBTQ+ rights issues have overlapped quite a few times-- but the Legacy Virus was quite literally mutant AIDS. Unambiguously.

I'll sort of agree with Lily, just a little, as a treat here-- a fair bit of X-Men shit is real dated.

-2:32: "Now while Magneto was around since the 60s, this wasn't an established part of his character until about 1980s. 10 years after the man who created him Jack Kurby left Marvel."

UM, ACTUALLY.

Magneto wasn't always a holocaust survivor-- that is true. Quickly googling it, that element of Magneto's backstory was first established in Uncanny X-Men in 1981. Some part of me feels like it was at least hinted at earlier, but let's just call that about right. It doesn't really matter.

This quote from Jack Kurby is so ubiquitous I knew I could find it just by going to Magneto's Wikipedia page:

"I saw my villains not as villains. I knew villains had to come from somewhere and they came from people. My villains were people that developed problems." -- Jack Kurby, Jack Kurby Collector #22

Not a surprise but, this tells me Lily is not familiar with Kurby's work as a whole.

And guess what, this wasn't the quote I was looking for, but it was right underneath, and the source checks out:

"[Stan Lee] did not think of Magneto as a bad guy. He just wanted to strike back at the people who were so bigoted and racist...he was trying to defend the mutants, and because society was not treating them fairly he was going to teach society a lesson. He was a danger of course...but I never thought of him as a villain." --Marvel Spotlight: Uncanny X-Men 500 Issues Celebration, pp. 5-7

You're now arguing against BOTH Magneto's daddies, Lillian.

3:16: " 'You're just one bad day away from being me' - Erik Killmonger, probably"

Oh haha yes Lily so funny you put the Punisher line but said it was Killmonger, that's so funny--

EXCEPT THAT QUOTE IS A REFERENCE TO THE JOKER'S FAMOUS MONOLOG IN THE KILLING JOKE. LILY NOT AGAIN WITH THIS, OH MY GOD, YOU'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY KILL ME. JUST ADMIT YOU HAVE NOT READ A FUCKING COMIC EVER.

3:28: "Where even though Magneto has long since stopped being a Villian in the comics. . ."

According to Lily's definition of "villain," that is not true. As in, he's still mostly used as an antagonist. And he was arguably never really a villain, he's just become less villianized, evolving with our cultural perception of activism-- but I'll give Lily this one.

3:30: " . . . in film adaptations, he's still a holocaust survivor, and still the bad guy for no reason."

LILY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING COMICS OR THE MOVIES!? I take issue with how Erik is characterized in the movies too, especially in the Bryan Singer (fuck him btw, he's a predator, look it up) movies. BUT YOU'RE ALL OVER THE PLACE HERE LILY, GOD DAMN. Is Magneto as a concept bad, or do you not like the FoX-men movies, which is it!?

3:49: [The prelude to the Kevin Bacon coin murder from First Class.]

Lily, people criticized the choice to make Charles argue with Erik here and how it's framed when this movie came out. Who are you arguing with?

With the themes of the movie they tried to play the angle of Charles' more privileged life giving him the luxury of the pacifist position that Erik does not have. I really like this in concept, this has been explored before in other X-Men media, but they fumbled the bag here with the framing. There's some issues with the cinematic language used. I don't blame people for getting the impression you're supposed to wholly side with ol' Chuck here, even if the text implies otherwise. I agree with her that this is a problem with mainstream films overall havin' a hard time kicking bad habits from the Hays Code.

But that's not really the argument She's making. I don't know if Lily knows what argument she's making.

God forgive me I am at the four minute mark and this post is already this long. Okay, I'm gunna have to split this up into 2 or 3 posts. I'll add the various links to each part as I finish them to each post. Lily gishgallops this fucking badly. . . Stay tuned for part 2.

[anamericangirl]

If same-sex marriages should be overturned what are you saying? That states should just go back to being homophobes or something? That gay people's rights shouldn't be cared about because it isn't part of the Constitution? I think I really need a clear stance on this since I can't really just simply agree with people with a opposing opinion that frames that people on the left or liberals are bad and people on the right and conservatives are good, which is really fucking with my mind right now

1. Marriage isn’t a right.

2. No marriages are protected by the constitution.

3. Putting issues back to the states does not mean less freedom, it means more. I don’t know why people always think they are losing rights the second the federal government isn’t involved.

4. It’s not the job of the federal government to keep states from being “homophobic.” Besides, at this point in time there’s really no way a state could benefit from just not recognizing same sex marriage.

5. And also one of the great things about America is if a state does something you don’t approve of, for example banning same sex marriage, you are free to move to another state that has not banned it.

6. Sometimes issues are a little more nuanced then Good Side and Bad Side. I just think the less federal government is involved in most things the better.

7. This is ultimately about freedom. Since we are a free people and we can think, say and do what we please (as long as we’re aren’t harming others) that automatically means some people are going to express things you disagree with and do things you don’t like. Being homophobic isn’t illegal. It’s a social ill but it’s not legally wrong and the government has no business forcing an entity to not be homophobic. People should not be forced to participate in something they don’t want to participate in and with this issue belonging to the states, as it should, instead of forcing people to violate their beliefs if someone won’t bake the cake or perform the ceremony you can go to someone else who will.

[sunnysidezblog]

I just saw the worst post comparing the donation drive of ao3 to donation campaigns for people in Gaza. The post basically boiled down to being angry that the ao3 fundraiser over-filled within a day but people won't pay to help people and Gaza with bullshit ass takes. Like they were guilt tripping you for spending YOUR money how YOU want to spend it. Incoming rant below, please read the whole thing if you're going to bash my ass in the comments.

I don't think these two are even comparable anyway. Like I'm not condoning doing nothing about genocide, but let people do what they fucking want man.

Donating to Ao3 isn't the same as all those charities for Gazan people anyway. Ao3 is a centralized, singular fundraiser for a nonprofit archive (very much like the internet archive) that was specifically founded to combat rampant censorship of fics (because of the fanfiction purges, especially on ff.net). This fundraiser happens every year, and they post where it will be allocated as well. The Gaza charities are thousands in number, and it's not guaranteed that these people are real or if the money will go to them. It is so much easier to see the impact on a singular fundraiser that happens yearly than it is to see on a million one-time go-fund-me's or PayPals. That's not even counting the scams that have made people wary.

Also, don't guilt trip people into donating. It's almost worse than not donating at all because you don't know people's situations. Things that make you feel good and human, like fanfiction, are a must in the current climate of the world. Otherwise all you will be is depressed and unable to help yourself, let alone other people. All work and no play will get you killed.

That's also to say that sometimes you have to worry about yourself before you can worry about other people. Making sure that you feel good, that you feel human, that you have something to cling to in a time of need where you might be in a depressing or in bad situation is a must. A hobby like writing, crafting, reading, etc is vital for the human spirit. Spending money on a fanfiction site like ao3, so that this site can continue being accessed for free so other people can share in the joy of creation and the joy of reading (a hobby that has become expensive lately) is not something that should be condemned. And because the archive is against censorship, many works that you wouldn't be able to post otherwise make it here. It contains things that could be illegal in some other countries, like being trans or gay, for example. It provides solace for people. Who are you to condemn that and take it away? Fanfiction has saved me in the darkest times of my life, and I will defend my right to have it until I don't even have breath in my lungs anymore. Who are you to tell me that I can't give back to something that has quite literally saved my life?

I'm from the US and that orange fuck in the white house I didn't vote for is making a dictatorship of my country and trying to take away MY RIGHTS as a Trans man and AFAB person. The SAVE act (the act that requires you to have the same name as whats on your birth cirtificate to vote) targets trans people AND married women and anyone else thats had a legal name change and it's already passed the house. Do you think I have time to worry about and donate to fundraisers overseas that aren't guaranteed to even reach the people in Gaza? I'd much rather spend 1 dollar on a nonprofit fanfiction site's optional fundraiser and then allocate my resources to other nonprofits in my country to try to help avoid ANOTHER genocide of people in MY OWN COUNTRY. You know, because the orange man is trying to deport citizens now, and it won't be long before my people and other minorities are massacred in the streets. Not like we haven't been already.

There are also other forms of activism other than charities and fundraisers. I could march in the streets of my country and write my legislators and send letters to my president repeatedly asking to stop support to Israel. I could fund reputable humanitarian aid programs rather than personal fundraisers. I could do on the ground work that you can't see with your guilt tripping eyes online. I could educate myself and others on what's happening. But again, doing this constantly isn't something that some people can afford to do. Whether it be their mental state, economic state, emotional state, etc. Don't assume you know everything about everybody and target people with shame for doing something to help themselves.

And because we live in a time where rapid censorship and hatred exists, it's all the more reason to keep nonprofits like ao3 alive. The phrases "dead dove: do not eat" and "don't like don't read" are very true there. If you read something that is properly tagged of your own volition then that is on YOU, dear reader. Ao3 has a sophisticated and extensive tagging system. You can filter out any tags or warnings you want to and they won't show up on your page. Learn how to use the tagging system.

The majority of works on ao3 are NOT sexist, are NOT child porn, are NOT zionist or racist or homophobic or transphobic or whatever other -ist or -phobe there is. The works on ao3 are the works of regular people who want to express their love for their favorite shows, or even to show off their own original works, and want to do so freely without fear of censorship.

I'm not condoning all those -ists or -phobes either. I too, agree child porn, racism, sexism, zionism, homophobia, transphobia, etc is bad. I don't think those works should have ever been written in my humble opinion. But I will always, and I mean always, defend people's rights to free speech. Especially in an age where censorship is rampant in the media and in the world. If you can strike down a work for say...explicit material? Then you can strike down a beautiful 100,000+ word fanfiction exploring the complex relationship between two adult age men simply because they held hands. And there's nothing you would be able to do about it because the website said you can't under the guise that you had "explicit material" in your work. Generalizing a group of people based on the minority is widely agreed to be bad, so why must you assume that all people that support ao3 support or condone child porn or racism or sexism or rape?

Free speech applies to everyone or it applies to no one. This is something that has been told to me and it rings true everywhere. I believe that free speech should be a given, and that everyone should have to right to this kind of speech even if they use it to say deplorable things.

Again, I'm not against donating to help gaza. I'm not against activism for a country going through one of the worst horrors imaginable. The genocide in Gaza is an horrific tragedy where cruelty is the whole point, and it shouldn't be happening. It should never happen to anyone ever. And I say this as someone who's country is very much starting to tip into that direction.

But again, I do not think that you can condemn people for not donating to those charities. There is nothing morally wrong about not donating to those millions of charities and choosing to donate something to an archive nonprofit instead. Especially if they are worrying about the state of their own government, if they are homeless and down on their luck in need of free entertainment, sick, or even doing other activism work other than just simply donating. Making sure that you are ok, even emotionally, before helping others is not morally wrong. Everyone needs something to cling to, and fanfiction could be that thing for some people. And that is not morally wrong.

(P.S. And even if they just don't want to donate to Gaza or be an activist, then that's fine too because it's *their* life. Guilt tripping them over something that they didn't feel compelled to do in the first place isn't going to make someone want to donate. All it's going to do is make them hate you and your cause. Anyone remember Jake Dolittle?? Case and point)

[narrativelysignificantturtleduck]

ok i know the sex ed post was ages ago but I saw it in your most liked tab and it got me thinking, particularly with zukka, that even though they had sex ed they wouldn't have had gay sex ed. zuko grew up with sailors + the royal family in homophobic fire nation, and sokka got probably taught by gran gran about having babies. so all i can think is that if they decided to take that step when older, they are gonna have no clue what to do. queue sokka very very awkwardly shuffling up to bato who he knows is in a relationship with his dad and saying can I ask a question. promise not to laugh at me. except bato is less amused and more mildly horrified that sokka has chosen him to answer these questions

oh my god yeah. like, i'm not sure gran-gran's sex ed would've been heteronormative - depends on what you think the southern water tribe's attitudes are - but there's a very strong possibility that sokka, as a sexist teenage boy who thought he was straight, may have been like GRAN-GRAN EWWW STOP LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING

like the convo went: here's how babies happen -> sometimes grown-ups do this without the intent to make babies -> people can also do it with people of the same physical sex -> sokka running away screaming

he now regrets that.

for zuko, i think he might have. um. hands-on experience. y'know. on the ferry. with jet. does that prepare him for being in an actual relationship? probably not.

i'm not sure either of them would want to ask for guidance tbh. both of them canonically have experience with women (azula saying "mai seems to be in a good mood lately" had an undertone to it, sokka and suki in "the southern raiders") and zuko has some experience with men, so they'd probably just assume it's fine. figure it out as they go. it can't be that hard, right?

that said the image of sokka asking bato for advice on having gay sex is SO funny. bato knew he was signing up to be a dad when he started dating hakoda but he didn't think he'd have to give The Talk. also he has to be really careful about what examples he uses since his current gay sex partner is sokka's dad. (i imagine bato had some other relationships, but they all ended bc they realized he'd never value them above hakoda.) also sokka is asking specifically because he wants to have sex with the fire lord and like bato knew they were dating but he's never gonna get over how weird his life is now. "my stepson is asking me advice on gay sex so he can fuck the fire lord". truly wild.

meanwhile zuko has started spending time at piandao's bc he needs a father figure since iroh fucked off to ba sing se (plus piandao knows fire nation politics & can help him navigate being the fire lord) so he walks in one day and is like "yeah i have a question. not about politics but uhh. personal stuff" and piandao's like "oh what is it" and zuko tells him and piandao is like "i'm so honored you're asking me" and goes to his library and finds him a guide to gay sex that got banned in the fire nation but piandao managed to find a copy (he has a lot of illegal gay lit) and hands it to him like. go have fun kiddo. i'm rooting for you guys.

the other possibility is that suki (who is still dating sokka, they have an open relationship) finds out they want to have sex and knowing the state of their sex ed decides that they need a Lesson. it's a very good lesson because kyoshi island has very good queer positive sex ed but sokka has some interesting feelings about his girlfriend teaching him how to have sex with his boyfriend. not bad feelings. just interesting

ANYWAYS this is a fun topic and thank you for the mental image of sokka asking bato about gay sex

[lieutenantselnia]

Okay this is a bit of a different post, but I've been obsessed with this book for months and honestly, for me it was a one of a kind experience, and I feel like I just need to spread the word because it's terribly underrated and deserves so much more.

So, sometime last year, I came across the book "Alf" by Bruno Vogel - I don't even remember exactly how or where I found it, but my old interest in the early 20th century history somehow sparked up again a few months prior, so I probably stumbled upon it while researching about something related. It took a while until I got my hands on it, I really wanted a physical copy, but those seem hard to come by, so I eventually gave in and bought the e-book. The following paragraphs may contain spoilers, so if you want to experience the book without those, please stop here and go read it.

The book tells the story of Felix and Alf, two teenage boys growing up in Wilhelmine Germany at the dawn of World War I. They meet at Felix' new school after his family moved to a new city and quickly become friends, and not long after, lovers. It ends tragically for them though for them though, as the conventions of their time don't allow a relationship like theirs.

What got me so intrigued with this book other than being interested in the time period in general, was the fact that it is a vehemently anti-war and very openly queer story published in 1929. The story itself is fictional, but in parts inspired by the author's own background. Bruno Vogel, a gay man himself, was a volunteer in World War I, like so many other young men at the time, but the horrifying experiences that were so different from the glamorous stories told at home only made him become a firm pacifist. This book is almost 100 years old, but in my opinion it doesn't feel like that at all because so many of the topics that are talked about - and criticised - are still very much relevant today. That doesn't mean it's perfect, and of course you have to take into consideration that the author simply couldn't have all the knowledge we have today, but I think there were many books far less progressive published in later decades as well. Some of the topics are for example criticism of blind nationalism, the hypocrisy of religion (this was one where I could especially relate to the protagonist), sexuality and masturbation (in regard to the latter also heavy criticism of the shame and outright fear spread by religious authorities), homophobia (sexual acts between men were illegal at the time as per §175), among others. I think this quote I translated from the author's German Wikipedia page summarises it quite well:

"Alf is an anti-militaristic youth novel directed against the zeitgeist of the Weimar Republic, which gives expression to the unmitigated hatred of a pacifist against the authorities of any observance. It is the work of an opponent of war, and it is more: Alf fights against all regimentation, against that of conscience, conviction, religion, friendship and the body. Vogel castigates everything that has outraged him up to the time of writing: a petit-bourgeois, narrow-minded home, an obdurate school, religion and bourgeois morality."

Above the cover of the most recent publishing edition (also those that I own), with a photo of the author himself as a young soldier in World War I.

I absolutely love this book, and it also absolutely broke my heart. I already kind of knew what would happen as many online book stores basically already tell the ending in the description, but actually reading it in detail, and still hoping alongside the characters with every page even though I knew it was to no avail - to describe it in a way that fits the story, it felt like I was being stabbed with a bayonet right through the heart. I don't remember the last time a book made me cry this hard. I'm someone who sometimes struggles with showing emotional reactions like crying (even if I want to), but it just touched something deep inside me that made the dam break.

I absolutely recommend reading this book. It's tragic, but some parts also really made me laugh, and Felix and Alf are the sweetest. I already know I'll cry again, when I re-read it, and yet I can't wait. If you understand German, I'd definitely recommend reading the original. Also if you have the means to please buy the book from a store or lend from a library to show that there's interest in it because it's criminally underrated. However, there are also e-book versions to be found online in both German and English (e.g. on Anna's Archive). It's not a long read (barely 250 pages), and I really think it deserves more attention.

I could go on talking about this book and maybe I will in another post, but I'm finishing this one with the closing quote of the book as said/written by the protagonist Felix. I kid you not when I say this sentence alone is already brings tears to my eyes again:

»Ich will mitkämpfen gegen Bosheit und Dummheit, mithelfen, daß andere Menschen nicht, wie wir beide, aus Unwissenheit so Schweres durchmachen müssen. Das verspreche ich dir, Alf.« »I will join in the fight against evil and stupidity, I will do my part so that no one else is forced by ignorance to go through the hard times the two of us went through. I promise you that, Alf.«

[beautifulpersonpeach]

Hi BPP. I have a question running through my mind lately, and I think it’s a little bit stupid, a little bit legit. I read your thoughts and like your opinions. I think you’re one of the best people who could answer, if not the most appropriate one. Sorry if it sounds dumb, tho.

I’ve been into kpop for a while, now. I can’t say i know the way it works, i can’t say i’m a master of it. But i notice things. I notice the big big impact fanservice has in the industry, for example. It’s literally fundamental. There are a few few companies with sex-mixed groups. Put them apart, the majority are same sex groups. Because with opposite genders in the same group there could be problems, unease, relationships etc.

Then they push same sex fantasies with fanservice and amplified skinship (already present in Korea). And until this point, everything is normal. I mean, we know things work this way.

But here i already notice a controversy. Homophobia is present and rooted in Korea and in the industry, but still they push gay narratives/don’t do anything to debunk them. So they try to “feed” everyone, people who like gay scenarios/moments included.

Then i think about girl groups. Twice, black pink. There’s a lot of explicit touching, explicit affirmations (i like you, your body is stunning, let’s go on a date, you make me blush etc). There’s in bts too, the guys did some nasty things too on cameras, i know. But with girl groups, you can easily notice it’s made up for the cameras but it still happens, and unless i’m missing it, i never saw someone hating or heavily hating on members because of it. Because of some easily misunderstanable sentences/acts.

The same goes for boy groups. I’m thinking of ateez. On of the members (i’m not into them so i don’t know his name) loudly read a comment saying “marry (insert another member’s name)”. And he said “you want me to marry *? You know it’s illegal here”. Then i’m thinking of enyphen, again, i’m not into them, but i saw this clip of two members going live and reading comments about them being a couple/being romantically involved. Shipping.

I’m sorry this is gonna be a long one, but before making my point i need to say these things.

Then we have Somi. She explicitly said she has a lot of women flirting with her, and she said she wants to conquer women too. She said she likes Han SoHee and dmed her on insta, but she didn’t reply. She even kissed Hyuna in a video posted on the internet less than a month ago.

Then we have Bibi. She kisses girl fans during her concerts and pictures of it are shared everywhere. She’s still famous, all of these people i’m mentioning are famous, are known, are in the korean spotlight, more or less. And their careers are not fucked up. Sometimes it’s fanservice, some others it’s who they are. Somi really likes women too, imo, and Bibi as well.

I get that for women it might be easier. There’s a group (a big group) of people who prefers gay interactions between women than gay interactions between men. They find it pleasing, and it’s an homophobic, toxic masculinity and women fetishization related preference.

But still, most people are fine with it. Yeah someone probably criticized it, probably hated on them because of these behaviours, but at the end of the day everything is fine for them.

I’m thinking about J-Hope too, who has gay friends and publicly shares pictures with them. He even visited a gay club and, again, probably some people criticized him for it and i’m just not on that side of the internet and the fandom, but at the end of the day his career is not gonna end because of it. Most People are fine with that too. He wears nail polish, tae does too. Can you imagine Jm or Jk doing that publicly? The hate they’d get? Maybe i’m wrong and it wouldn’t be like that; but that’s how i feel.

Then i think about Holland. His coming out had a huge impact on his career, his life. The aggressions he was victim of; his music not being so followed and famous, probably also because of said coming out.

I think about every kpop artist who is closeted and can’t say it. I think about Jikook, about Jimin who had to “play” with colors, lyrics, temporary tattoos and playful interviews (such as the “I think he likes men-> I don’t like you” one) in order to silently whisper that he’s not straight. That there’s more he can’t show.

And then Jikook in general. They could never afford to do what ateez and enhypen did. Never, bpp. We know that. So why?

Why is there this difference, why is it so… difficult for me to get how this works. Why can they do it, but Jikook can’t? But bts can’t? Why is there a limit for some idols, and some others are almost completely free? What am I missing?

I hope my question is clear, bpp. I really do, because i feel like i made a mess here all over the place. I’m sorry about it, thank you for reading this, if you did.

I appreciate you🫶

***

Hi Anon,

Don’t apologize.

So if I’m reading this right, you’re asking why the reaction to jikook showing queer expression is so much more negative than you see it for anyone else / other duos and groups?

Or, maybe quoting you is better:

“And then Jikook in general. They could never afford to do what ateez and enhypen did. Never, bpp. We know that. So why?”

I’m not sure if what I’ll say will make sense, and this might seem silly, but I think one reason jikook/BTS appear to have fewer liberties on things like explicit/overt shows of love/attraction between them, even under the umbrella of ‘fan service’ and compared to other groups, is because BTS is the biggest group in the world. Just by virtue of the group’s prominence, BTS being very closely tied with several government appointments and massive brands in Korea (Samsung and Hyundai)… there’s a greater expectation of conformity for them compared to other groups. There’s just more at stake for them.

I mean, do you recall the lead up to the enlistment news? How people were picking them apart, people who didn’t think they should be exempt where digging into their old footage trying to find anything to turn public opinion against the group. It was kinda crazy. In that sort of environment and in any case, the prudent thing would be to wait till after military service to expect more freedom in expression for a boy group. And perhaps that’s what we’ll see with jikook and BTS in general come 2026.

But also, the thing is, jikook have still been quite loud… in some ways even louder than Somi’s declarations (but certainly not Holland’s and the cost to him and any openly gay artist is apparent to see). GCF in Tokyo is so loud, it couldn’t be louder if JK got a megaphone, climbed to the top of the Eiffel Tower and screamed that he loves Jimin in the four cardinal directions. No matter what anybody says about GCF in Tokyo, that video itself is very clear and it says it all.

Then there’s the gesture of Jimin flying from Paris to Korea just to spend some time with Jungkook on his birthday, and then more recently, flying to NYC to be with JK during Seven debut. There’s the way their families treat them both. There’s that OT7 live where Jimin kept one half of his body literally glued to Jungkook’s on the couch, hooking his arms to keep their thighs together that not even air could pass between them. Then there’s fucking Rosebowl, pardon my French.

Like, even with all the scrutiny, jikook have still been able to say what they actually want about what they each mean to each other. Jimin is usually private and careful with how he speaks in general, he’s not the kind of person to talk the way Somi did about anything, really. So expecting a similar level and style of communication/queer expression, for jikook compared to these other people, really isn’t fair to Jimin or Jungkook to begin with, I think.

It’s totally okay if as a fan you’d like to see more open, simple and consistent expressions of queerness the way we have it in OnlyOneOf, Ateez, Bibi, etc. Those groups are made in some ways precisely to scratch that itch. It’s good the way they talk about queer attraction draws you in or resonates with you, but I’m not sure it’s fair to expect other people, in this case jikook and/or BTS, to express their relationship and queer feelings the same way.

If you’re approaching this solely from the point of concern for jikook, I totally get it. Korea is very homophobic. But within their immediate team, I hope and trust they are surrounded by more good people than bad, people who will aim to protect the queer members. There’s no use worrying about this for long, since they’ll just have to learn to take care of themselves.

I could’ve totally missed your question or what you’re actually asking, Anon. If so let me know. But the above is also what I think.

[beesandwasps]

The post about the Reddit thread where the religious family ignored their estranged gay brother’s will and stole all his money crossed my feed again, and I was just thinking about that. It feels like a majority of Americans have one of two attitudes towards the legal profession:

“Yes, I know that this [law/contract] literally and directly says ‘don’t put toxic waste in the refrigerator’ but I have this toxic waste here and I need a container to put it in and the refrigerator is right there so obviously they couldn’t have been talking about me.”

“Oh my god, lawyers are witches, if you don’t read the fine print in a contract they can literally have you deported!”

Both of these are annoying (and sometimes dangerous to deal with) but what is absolutely infuriating is that the legal profession regularly does stuff which encourages both of these ideas.

Like, our ridiculous gun problem in the US comes down to the Supreme Court having spent decades deciding that somebody who stockpiles unlicensed and unsecured weapons until at some point they or one of their family members goes on a rampage in a school or a business is “a well-regulated militia”. The law can literally say “[Thing A] is illegal” and the Supreme Court will come up with a way to claim that actually, no, [Thing A] is legal, it’s only [Thing B], which is not [Thing A] at all, which is actually illegal, because [Thing A] is something rich people want to do whereas [Thing B] is either something poor people might do or else is something which is hypothetically possible but which nobody would ever want to do unless they were specifically trying to break the law after this judgement.

And of course every contract that you encounter tends to contain things which are probably unenforceable overreach (software licenses and NDAs are good examples) but to be certain about what they really could sue you for means either a lot of tedious research or a consultation with an expensive specialized lawyer. How can you ever trust that contracts aren’t witchcraft when the Disney legal team can argue in court — without, apparently, having to worry that they will be disbarred over it — that the terms of service for Disney’s video streaming service will let Disney-owned restaurants poison you to death without significant penalty? Just running through any list of notable corporate lawsuits will give you a list of claims made by lawyers which are so ridiculous that they would justify almost any level of paranoia.

[lemonade-luvr]

I MEAN THATS AS FAR AS I KNOW. to be fair all i’ve heard abt it is You fucking hallucinate shit .thats literally it .

where the fuck did i get the idea you were having hallucinations then......... hmmm. however, i also dont get many hallucinations! at least not visual ones. im much more privy to tactile and auditory stuff!

im gonna infodump. autistic style. and if i accidentally desstroy your worldview, im so sorry. you have been warned.

IT GOT REALLY LONG SORRY FUCKKKKKKKK

schizophrenia is actually very similar to an autism diagnosis! at least from an outside perspective. it comes with flat tone and struggles with facial expressions and all that jazz! it can also make it really hard to think and leads to a very scattered mind??? idk how to describe it . because of the . well we call it brain scramble! i think its called something like word salad though.

the main defining thing about schizophrenia is the presence of psychosis, which is further defined by hallucinations, delusions and paranoia o^_^o

hallucinations CAN include seeing stuff that isnt there, though thats a really simple understanding of visual hallucinations. the visual hallucinations i tend to get are stuff in the corner of my eye and the walls kinda.. Shifting. nothing immediately distressing. but i know there are people with way more scarier things going on.

auditory hallucinations are something i experience a lot more, and theyre just.. hearin stuff that wasnt ever there. my brain loves the discord notification sound and like. splatoon sound effects. sometimes i hear someone yell the body's name!

there are also tactile hallucinations which is feeling a sensation that wasnt real. we get these ones the most. a good example isssss well rn im getting The Bugs. like buddy theres no bugs here you are feeling hair probably and yet even then i still feel it eugh eugh eugh. our headmates can make use of our tactile hallucinations to give me pats on the head though, which is nice o^_^o

delusions are simply believing something that isnt true wholeheartedly. i dont reallly like to share mine because im scared of people playing into them or thinking theyre cringe BUT i will share that we have fully believed ourselves to be in future london before. which is really fucking funny you are allowed to think this is funny. we are in the wrong country for that buddy. you can be fully aware that somethiing isnt true and still believe it! its fucked up! they should make that illegal. these are the mind killer i hate these little bastardsssssss... delusions are very versatile. its also like thinking mundane things are signs.... theres a lot to say on delusions.

paranoia is the one thats really easy to comprehend its just intense and unfounded anxiety. me when i overthink everything to death. me when everyone on the bus knows im gay.

also it makes it really hard to Word Shit. sometimes i cannot comprehend the english language despite it being the only one i fucking know. On that Topic. Sorry if this is Incomprehensible. i actually genuinely Cannot Tell. its usually fine but sometimes i just feel like i cant get ANYTHING across correctly.

impaired motor coordination is also a thing? which makes it hard for me to type sometimes and also do things like, idk, drink my monster energy without spilling it and pissing off charles. sorry charles. damn. UH theres also a lot of repetitive behaviours, and catatonia. it can come with memory issues and FATIGUE BIIIIITCH and BUDDY am i FEELING the fatigue today. AUGH AUGH AUGH.

oki think thats all i have to say on the matter unless u have questions

i feel so fucking nuts right now i dont know if its the rush of i just got to infodump or if im manic :sosonormal: <you are manic <thanks babygirl in my head. god i hope this is comprehensible

ONE TWENTY ONE GUNS 💥

[cherokeegal1975]

The Degan Incident series, trilogy review, it's mostly okay...

...and parts of it are on the icky side. Worth overlooking because the overall plot is okay.

The Degan Incident, The Cassini Mission and The Degan Paradox by Rob Calton. I have been looking and thinking about whether or not to buy them for a few years now. Finally I got them on Kindle.

I am off and on exploring books I normally don't pick. More often than not I do this on YouTube and found some really good ones I'd love to buy. I'll list those off later for you to check out later.

My favorite books are by authors like Mercedies Lacky, Heather Graham, Terry Brooks, Terry Goodkind, Robert Aspirin, Stephen King, Anne McCaffery, Dean Koontz...well, you get the idea.

So, in an effort to get out of my comfort zone I went exploring and found these three books. Now I don't mind this book is gay oriented, not to my taste, but I no, I really don't mind it. And I don't care how it's oriented, I generally don't care for romances. Stories with romance mixed in is fine, but the focus of the story has to be balanced...like The Outlander series by Diana Gabbledon for example.

In spite of being gay (no offense intended and I have no room to talk because I'm in the ace spectrum and some would argue that I am part of the LBGQ+ community in spite of being hetro as well as demi...it's really a matter of taste and nothing more) the overall story is a good one. Nicely balanced and has a good story plot.

The parts I didn't like has to do with the love scenes. Ugh. No class. It's not that there were two men making out that was off putting, it was the highly detailed spurting described that could have been toned down and left purely to the readers imagination. Any adult knows how disgusting anything primal a human does is. Even eating if you think about it. So that was over kill...and it seems to be a common thread with the few gay romances I've run across on YouTube and listed to because I was extremely bored and I am exploring. Haven't tried romances between two women yet, but there was a sci-fi story about a woman who loved her land and had to choose between it and the woman she loves. I saved the listing to check out in more detail later, but it seemed interesting. Another common thread is one man is more dominant than the other in some way. Why?

Fortunately I don't buy books like this except this trilogy and one other book, and after that I'm done. So done. I'd rather go back to the more mainstream stuff. Not that I hated the books, even the one I'm reading now seems like a good story so far. As I said, matter of taste, not prejudice. I don't even understand prejudices anyway.

So, I don't remember all the details exactly, just general plot lines (and yeah, I'd read this story again sometime). So there won't be too many spoilers. The main character is a war orphan all grown up living and working in a space station with his best friend and adopted brother on the same station. He meets an alien that's wearing a cloak and on a mysterious mission. They hit it off and that leads to the adventure.

Eventually the main character is mistakenly seen as a threat and kidnap him and hold him prisoner...I'll leave the why of that for you to find out.

And in the second book, the main character's adopted brother gets involved with another alien of the same species and both their DNA stolen for an illegal experiment involving the making of cyborgs. Or was that the third book?

Anyway, in spite of the over descriptive bits about sex fluids. And for me, strongly suggested sex or just implied is enough and have more focus on the adventure is more my speed. Not that I'd turn my nose up at a book with smut in it, so long as that's not the main focus of the book. Balance is key...and I'm not so bothered by smut that I won't enjoy something by Laurel K. Hamelton or the Earth's Children series by Jean Auel. I just prefer not to focus on...people doing it. Some people love that sort of thing, I just don't care and would prefer to leave it to the imagination rather than having it described in detail...and if it is, have some class by not describing bodily fluids in too much detail. Strongly suggest it and then move on.

This is my only complaint about the stories in this trilogy. Other than that, the overall plot is just good sci-fi. I'll hopefully get better at these reviews and still be mostly spoiler free. There is a balance to the romance, sex and the plot as a whole, so no problem there. But, just eww sometimes.

[sapphos-darlings]

In a wlw relationship, does one person usually has preferences in regards to things that would often be gendered in straight couples, like lifting the other up, guiding or being guided in a dance, having your hands on her waist or hers on yours, or do most just don't really have much of a preference and enjoy doing either? Do those gestures mean something, is the one doing the 'top' and the other the 'bottom'? In straight relationships, people often atribute meaning to those things, but I don't know how that works between women. I'm figuring out my sexuality now and I want to date women from now on, but I'm trying to concile that with the heteronormative context I've been in until now, because I keep trying to understand, but I don't, and I think I have to if I'll be dating other women.

It's not quite that black and white and definitely not as rigid as it may seem! There is a culture of butch/femme in the dating scene for gay women, and a more widely spread idea of top/switch/bottom from the gay scene in general, though this one is more relevant to gay men than it is women. The reasons to why this exist are complex and historical, and our other mod (Lavender) may be better equipped to tackle that side, but contemporarily speaking, these roles are not as relevant as they were earlier in lesbian/bi history and subculture.

To establish first: there is generally a celebration of "true" equality in gay relationships, of being free of the sexist implications that have been placed on straight relationships, and the ability to move on the spectrum from feminine to masculine in terms of behaviours, activities and appearance freely. Particularly in relationships between women, the lack of a direct patriarchal influence in the relationship is generally celebrated as a positive. However, in the past, the butch party would assume the traditionally masculine role. Femmes had the appearance and behaviour of more socially acceptable women and provided "shelter" for the gender non-conforming butch lesbians, who dressed and behaved in a masculine manner, sometimes living in the male role in society altogether, regardless of the actual gender identity of the butch in question. These roles were often assumed for survival, and we're talking pre-80s culture here, from the 1900s upwards, during very "nuclear family" and "traditional values" times, the majority of which homosexuality was labeled as a mental illness or was illegal altogether. But it's our cultural heritage, which in better times has become less of a cornerstone of survival and hiding in plain sight and more of an identity, a celebration of who we are - so butch and femme survive to date, and are mostly regarded as valid and beautiful identities to take on in the community.

I'd still say that in modern dating, they're less prevalent than they were before. We still have masculine women and feminine women dating each other, surely, but we also have masculine women dating masculine women and feminine women dating feminine women and women dating women who just don't fit anywhere specific on that spectrum. It's very much up to a person's nature and preference; playing into each other's strengths, rather than holding onto a specific role. For example, I'm naturally quite strong, and love picking up my small partner and hauling them around the house for the sheer joy of it. Picking people up is delightful and my partner loves to be picked up. Meanwhile, we do house maintenance together as a team, both of us know how to wield a hammer and work with nails, and if we had a car, we'd be tinkering with that together.

When it comes to roles in dancing or such, it's up to a person's personality and their level of confidence - the one who is confident and tends to take a leadership role in general will likely feel more in their element leading the dance as well. Similarly, in sex, it's up to personal preference: what you like doing, what you don't, and what experiences feel good to you and what doesn't work out. Some people are natural tops, some are natural bottoms, most people like to switch around depending on what the specific activity is all about. Sometimes a top is a dominant personality, sometimes they're a very soft person who simply enjoys to be in "lead" of the act, similarly for bottoms, they may be masculine or feminine or anything inbetween, there isn't a set place for "the woman" or "the man" in a relationship between two women, as it is, and as it should be, a relationship between two women.

In my experience, there isn't an expectation that in any given couple, one of them will assume a masculine or a feminine role and vice versa. This tends to come from the heterosexual world, and is often summed up in the rather unintentionally homophobic, ever-repeating question of "so, who's the man?" Nobody in a relationship with two women is the man, unless one of them or both of them specifically want to be the man, or feel like "the man" is an identity for them. Same with being "the woman". Ultimately, we are all just people, and these are gender roles that patriarchy and heteronormativity enforce across the gender and sexuality spectrum. Inherently, all of us share some traits in common with these roles, but very few of us fit into the set boxes neatly with all our limbs comfortably inside. In gay relationships, one of the most freeing things is to be able to let go of all of that and focus on who you are as a person, and who your partner is, and what you two have together, how you fit each other, how your strengths work into each other's weaknesses, how you support one another as a team.

Restricting yourselves down to one party being "a man" and the other being "a woman" in all things would be unnatural and clip the wings off of the potential you two have together to be strong exactly as you are, regardless of societal expectations.

Hope this answers your question!

[femalemonsterhunter]

Info about me

Hello! And welcome to my main page/blog, though. And also, you already know me well as Missy-Khrysty-Art (formerly Hrystina) on DeviantArt or khrystynahirdraws (formerly hrysti-howl) on Instagram, so here I am now finally, last month, back more than five years ago when my account was locked out by TFA until now thanks to Tumblr's management accepting my request by enabling TFA lock through on messages in my Gmail page. And also, from my accounts of other social networks, I like to publish older and newer pictures I had from time to time (however, despite the fact that the Tumblr algorithm is quite likely to blur the perishable qualities of the sizes of my photos in the posts).

~~~

By the way, if you wanted to contact me on individual sites/social networks/etc, mainly interested in my other works such as drawings and writings/fanfic, so here are my usernames on individual sites to find me:

Khrysty-draw-stuff on Fur Affinity

Khrystydraws on Twitter/X

khrystydraws279 on Bluesky

Khrysty_Nahir_Is_Writing_Fics on AO3

Khrysty_Write on Wattpad

MissKhrystya279 on toyhou.se and Khrystyna on Art Fight site and so on.

~~~

And also, I have to slightly reinforce the rules that you (or what if you are new followers) should have known carefully in a better way:

This blog is allowed to pass as:

- Multi-fandom/media or original-related arts (including Corpse Bride as my most favorite Tim Burton’s movie of all time along with Monsters Inc., CatDog and more).

- AUs or Crossover-related stuff (including if applicable: AHiT Role Swap AU, AHiT Cursed Birds AU, Corpse Bride Monster AU, my unfinished/upcoming crossover AU fanstory/fanfic/project called Star Heart, etc.).

- Ship-related (this is like: OCXCanon, OCXOC, Self InsertXCanon, Canon and Fanon (AU version only), Crossover, MaleXFemale, Gay/LGBTQIA+, HumanXMonster, HumanXAnthro, HumanXAlien ships that I like to do this).

- Pregnancy or Male Pregnancy/Mpreg-related; however, I am sometimes a bit shy to use this clearly, however, it should be comfortable and generally fluffy for me to arrange; yet, regarding mpreg, if you don't like it rather than a basic female pregnancy, I will respect your opinions then don't comment on it and look away from it! Thank you (But as a non-fetish/kink and SFW only; but also, without such unpleasant topics as just kink, fetish and NSFW, which is make me very uncomfortable to do this; and even again about mpreg for each ships, I only prefer MaleXFemale ships than gay ships, but I do like gay couples, but I immediately to draw them if they were together or with their children without any fetishes/NSFWs that I will not allow to do this, mainly pregnancy; I also rarely draw male characters as pregnant if they are supposed to be just as males or trans in the general AUs or HCs; and please, DNI if you feel too horny about my stuff if it is not convenient for me to suffer like this, because I persistently block you if you inadvertently violate my rules!).

- Tim Burton's creative stuff and the dark/gothic themes/vibes.

- Historical and periodic creativities (It's more like, Victorian/Romantic era, Roaring 20's, Soviet times (sometimes; but with the dark/devilish theme only), etc.).

And this blog is not allowed to pass as:

- Fetishes/kinks or NSFW/sexual contents/topics are not welcome!

- Every proship or other illegal/problematic ship are not welcome in my blog, such as: pedo/hebe/ephebophilia (mostly AdultXMinor/Child; and, of course, AdultXAged-up Minor/Child, which is still not okay at all, which you have to understand for sure), zoophilia/beastiality (mostly HumanXFeral/Animal), necrophilia (mostly Human/Living BeingXZombie/Dead Being; for example, Victor Van DortXEmily from the Corpse Bride), incest/selfcest, etc.; And especially on proshippers, otherwise I would block them at once!

- NFT and AI-related “arts” (if some of you support them, then get the F*** out of here on my account or you’ll be permanently blocked for that!)

- No spamming or scamming!

- Do not copy, tracing, reposting or stealing my arts WITHOUT my permission!

- No causing drama, death threats, stalking, whiteknighting, bullying, swearing at me or anything for any reasons!

- Racist/Anti-LGBTQIA+/Hate/R*pe-related arts

- RPs; because now I don't do roleplays with anyone anymore, because it will also lead to my stressful and nervous problems (such as, scandal, getting irritated, squirm in confusion, uncontrollable denial, etc.) as if to disturb my peace and long rest for such reasons; and please don't ask why again!

- Do not interact with me if you are a minor, which will make me uncomfortable as you suddenly encountered me on my page with my suspicious habit if I am now an adult. But please be careful for your safety and also be nice to communicate and respect me only with very friendly ways rather than anything else. Or if you disrespectfully started to violate or do not want to listen to my important advice and rules, then you will literally be blocked and ignored, even go on and leave me alone for better than sorry!

- And anything that made me very uncomfortable.

And therefore, these are all the rules and it is important for you to understand them exactly. I wanted you to be very respectful and nice to me, or if not, when you excessively broke all the rules that did not affect you at all, then I immediately unfollow you and block you with your bad or toxic behavior!

In addition, let's start with art statuses:

- Request: I, unfortunately, am not taking requests anymore and as well as for use in the Q&A box and all that, just don't ask me why for multiple times!

- Commission: No! I'm not taking commissions anymore, because I haven't opened to earn money yet, okay?

- Art Trade: I will, but with friends/mutuals only; however, regarding new encounters like other artists who always appeared in the note/chat/profile comment with interest to ask me to AT with them, but it doesn't bother me or don’t mind me to try that, after if they fully understood my rules so properly.

- Art Gift: I will, however, it is with friends only, as I occasionally draw for someone myself without accepting their requests. I'm serious!

- Collab: I could try, but with friends only; However, I only tried it with my friend on DeviantArt for the first time in two or three years, but I would definitely ask someone else to accept my sincere offer!

And that's all I had so logically. Well then, thank you very much for reading and understanding my rules. I wish you have a nice day/night.

- Khrystyna A. Nahirna.

[mymanymerrymuses]

Once again I spent MUCH too long on an incorrect quote generator - only this time it was with my Hobbit muses (plus Dori and occassionally Thorin because it seemed right) so now I have many quotes to share with you because I found them funny.

Also because there are many I have categorised them. The categories are: The Ri brothers being amazing; The Ri brothers being brothers; The Ri brothers dealing with the princes; Fili and Ori playing as children; Fili and Nori hating each other for some reason; and Royal Family interactions.

There's a LOT of Ri brothers content. Enjoy.

The Ri Brothers being amazing:

Nori: "Does anyone know how to relax? Asking for a friend."

Nori: "I never tell people off the bat that I'm gay. I wait until they say some homophobic shit and then I laugh and am like 'you know I'm gay, right?' and watch the look of terror on their face. Thorin: Thorin: "I like you."

Nori: "This is a safety pin." cuts off end Nori: "It is now a danger pin."

Ori: "Be right back, gonna hit the toilet for a quick power sob."

The Ri Brothers being brothers:

Ori: "You spent all our money on THIS??" Nori: putting tiny raincoats on ducklings "They live outside. They need this."

Dori: knocking on the door "Ori, open up!" Ori: "It all started when I was a kid." Dori: "That's not what I-" Nori: "Let them finish!"

Ori: "Nori, is that my mug you're drinking out of?" Nori: "No, it's mine." Ori: "It...looks just like the one I have...." Nori: "You don't have one like this anymore."

Nori: "Am I going too far?" Ori: "No, no, no. You went too far about seven hours ago. Now you're going to prison."

Nori: "Ori, get that hideous thing out of the living room, would you?" Ori: "Dori, Nori wants you to get out of the house."

Dori: "I don't mean to be rude-" Ori: "Yet, sadly, accidental rudeness occurs alarmingly often."

Nori: "I'm totally useless." Dori: "You're not totally useless." Dori: "You can be used as a bad example."

Ori: standing on a balcony and sneezes Nori: standing on the roof "Bless you." Ori: "God?!"

Dori: "Pick a card, any card." Nori: "Fine." Dori: "Wait, that's my credit card!" Nori: "You said any card."

Ori: "I trusted you!" Nori: "Why?"

The Ri Brothers dealing with the princes:

Dori: "Swear words are illegal now. If you say one you'll be fined." Kili: "Heck." Dori: "You're on thin fucking ice." Dori: "Oh no-"

Dori, pointing to Kili and Fili: "Distract them! I'll be right back!" Nori: "Okay!" five minutes later Dori: returns to see Kili and Fili unconscious on the ground "What did you do? I said distract them, not knock them out!" Nori: "There's just no pleasing you sometimes."

Kili: "Is the pink panther a lion?" Dori: "Say that again, but slower." Kili: "I don't get it." Dori: "He's a PANTHER." Kili: "Is that a type of lion?" Dori: "No, it's a fucking panther." Kili: googles panther "They aren't pink?" Dori: "AND LIONS ARE?!"

Kili: peeling a banana "May I take your jacket, sir? Hahahaha." Ori: "Do you think other people can't hear you?"

Kili: "Nori isn't talking to me." Dori: "Enjoy it while it lasts."

Fili: "The results are in, I'm afraid you have updog..." Dori: "What's updog?" Fili: "Kili! Get in here! I told you I could do it!"

Fili and Ori playing as children:

Ori: "Here comes the lightening!" Ori, whispering: "You've got to imagine it coming out my fingertipes, wherein I am an almighty wizard." Fili: "Ok, currently imagining that. Hmm, not bad. Not bad at all."

Fili and Nori hating each other for some reason:

Fili: "Remember what I told you." Nori: "Don't be a dick."

Fili: "What it wrong with you?" Nori: "Loaded question. Elaborate."

Nori: holding a box of Lunchables "Ah, I loved these when I was your age...fine dining." Fili: "Fix yourself."

Royal Family interactions:

Kili: "I wasn't that drunk." Fili: "You coloured my face with a highlighter because you said I was important." Kili: "BECAUSE YOU ARE!"

Fili: "You look mentally ill." Thorin: "I am. Let's go."

[elodieunderglass]

👆note that the reason that shaming/guilt trips are common is not because the person “doing them” to others necessarily expects them to be effective. People posting guilt trip activism aren’t going “oh gosh I really hope this methodology will help people the most.” (Because it doesn’t.) but laying shame on others does give some feelings of power and control. And many times that isn’t bad. For people who are powerless and have little control, it is understandable! Shame is a shortcut button you can press to try to get people to stop doing stuff. Often the stuff they’re doing is horrible. It’s natural to reach for it.

However…

That’s not to say it’s bad or done by bad people. Often it IS venting. Saying “shame on you” is cathartic. Many people posting guilt trip activism are beaten down or burned out. They might feel like shame is the only tool left in their box, or they might just need to vent. Calling out shameful behaviour is not an inherently bad thing.

But it’s important to remember that the impulse to shame others - especially if they listen, especially if they change - is a nasty rewarding little bastard. It’s rewarding, it feels good, it gives that person power and control. It’s a shortcut button! It’s an addictive one!

we can picture a parent/educator/leader who uses shaming too much as a tool, and we can understand how ineffective they are (and sometimes, how effective they are!) and the negative impact that they have on people. Leaning on the shortcut button is bad for your own character, too - it means you don’t develop your skills beyond shaming.

The trick is to disengage from that cycle of shame and reward; don’t let it become the only tool in your box! It’s bad for you as well.

Zooming out, shame is a dominance behaviour that relates to the rules of the society the person operates in. It’s tremendously ineffective to shame me for (for example) being bisexual, because according to my rules , it’s highly embarrassing and sad to be anything else. There are cultures with a framework that makes it extremely shameful to be bisexual, and people who are abused to make them fit into the framework; all of society is expected to participate in regular shaming and censure and guilting to ensure that nobody expresses bisexuality. Effective shaming requires there to be agreed-upon rules of what’s unacceptable; using shaming as a tool shows the framework of what’s considered unacceptable, and REQUIRES the framework to be in place.

It’s damn hard to kinkshame or bully furries on tumblr. Everyone has agreed that they aren’t doing anything shameful. But it is easy to shame them in an American megachurch.

But historically shame has worked, hasn’t it? How come you can easily picture a Victorian female activist shaming the powerful men of Parliament for their treatment of orphaned children? How come you can picture it working? Because they all operated in a Christian framework that stated children should be cared for, and women appealed to the religious authority as being above the authority of the state. Religious appeals have been effective in the past, offering a separate set of rules to control behaviour, hence the rise of right-wing attempts to consolidate religious power as well.

From this flow a couple of things:

1. a culture that relies on shame (and disgust and fear) to control people is going to be more oppressive than one that doesn’t. It’s also going to have very controlling, very detailed, very specific frameworks in place. To shame Gays, it has to be agreed-upon that it is Wrong to be Gay, so they’ll install a framework of Being Illegal to be Gay. You have to install the buttons in order to press them.

2. At any point, people can simply decide not to be ashamed. Despite tremendous social pressure in times and places, queer people have been proud. Despite knowing exactly what the public think of them, people practice hobbies, kinks, fashion, beliefs, and behaviours that other people don’t like. They always do and they always have. Shame stops being a weapon when people don’t care; they can simply decline to hold the button for you to press any more. Shame requires that everyone consent to the framework! Hence the anxiety about “normalising” queer liberation, or the existence of trans people - the fear is that if trans people stop being afraid and guilty, the buttons will break, and there will not only be more trans people, but they’ll be hard to control.

What flows from that are that people can resist shame effectively if they have a community that supports them. You can find this sympathetic (queer people support each other and resist shame) or distressing (a loved one falls down a conservative social media rabbit hole that turns them into a horrible person.) but it shows that shame wears off as a tool the instant that people decide to stop caring, especially if they have help. “Who cares if I lose YOUR good opinion, when that gives me THEIR good opinion?”

But finally - the reason shaming hasn’t fixed the world yet (by anyone’s definition) is because truly powerful people just don’t feel much shame. They don’t consent to the framework where other people’s opinion have any weight. They believe they’re in charge of society and therefore free of consequences or needing to care. Their first step when installing frameworks and buttons is to make a rule saying “I don’t have any buttons and nobody is allowed to press them.” This is what exactly why they sought the power to begin with. Shame requires that everyone agree that we are all social animals and our opinions of each other are worth something - powerful people do not think we are worth anything.

Conclusions: online activism using shame is ineffective for many reasons, including the fact that it’s a stopping behaviour and that people don’t really make positive actions based on it. it’s understandable why people do it, though. It’s one of the only real “rebalancing” tools for powerless people - if their society has frameworks that allow for the rebalancing of social power. Next, shaming feels good, especially when it works. It’s understandable to reach for it as a shortcut, but good leaders shouldn’t rely on it. Shame stops working when people stop caring about it. People can resist shaming with support, if they don’t care about other people’s opinions, or if they have enough power to insulate themselves. Powerful people have already decided that they do not care about being shamed.

Not that anybody asked, but I think it's important to understand how shame and guilt actually work before you try to use it for good.

It's a necessary emotion. There are reasons we have it. It makes everything so. much. worse. when you use it wrong.

Shame and guilt are DE-motivators. They are meant to stop behavior, not promote it. You cannot, ever, in any meaningful way, guilt someone into doing good. You can only shame them into not doing bad.

Let's say you're a parent and your kid is having issues.

Swearing in class? Shame could work. You want them to stop it. Keep it in proportion*, and it might help. *(KEEP IT IN PROPORTION!!!)

Not doing their homework? NO! STOP! NO NOT DO THAT! EVER! EVER! EVER! You want them to start to do their homework. Shaming them will have to opposite effect! You have demotivated them! They will double down on NOT doing it. Not because they are being oppositional, but because that's what shame does!

You can't guilt people into building better habits, being more successful, or getting more involved. That requires encouragement. You need to motivate for that stuff!

If you want it in a simple phrase:

You can shame someone out of being a bad person, but you can't shame them into being a good person.

[gymbrogaymersadfag]

The way I stopped caring some gays treat me different now I’ve had a colossal “glow-up.” Like, you wanna party with me now? Oh you party with ppl u wanna fuck? We can play this game. I’ll let u snort my blow if u suck my dick, is that how you want things to be?? Get on your knees 😭😭😭

For context I think I was always so cute. Hair used to be thinner and I had a slight chubbiness that went nicely over my muscles and sometimes I looked like a borderline bara hunk. Super innocent face with amazing smile and luckily some really nice teeth. I could get laid with other cute guys pretty often, but when I’d go clubbing, the rudeness came out of no where for no reason from some gay ringleaders of various friend groups who didn’t want to be seen with me or in some cases for their friends to be seen with me.

I’ve worked on my hair for a couple years with finasteride and minoxidil and as long as it’s done nicely after a shower, it’s now as thick as it was when I was 15 - I’m 28. When I was 23, it was thin enough to see right to my scalp all over on a sunny day. For two years now I’ve been taking human growth hormone and a topical testosterone cream.

3 months ago, I started ozempic. Literally off the black market, but from a source I’ve trusted for other medications. I also cycle in some other peptides, similar meds to ozempic which all do various things as they target the pituitary gland to release different stuff in the body. (Melanotan 2, for example, makes me more tan and increases my libido. That one is illegal in the US and has random side effects on random people, so be careful before trying that one out.) Only two of my friends know I’m on ozempic. The fat has come off my body and the muscle I’ve been building with very regular gym workouts for 6+ years, 4-6x/week, is suddenly so obvious on me. I was soft all over but now I’ve got two bouncy pecs and a 6 pack I’ve never seen on myself even in my brief college twinky phase.

I might also add that I’ve been doing full service sex work since 2018, so like also 6 years. I’m just used to middle aged guys trading head with me, handing me a couple benjamins, and me driving home for the night. Sex is something I always just felt so natural partaking in, and I’ve enjoyed being a sex worker more than any other job, since my first full-time at 14 detassling in corn fields.

Going into gay raves the last month and a half, I can make out with pretty much any guy. It’s weird. I thought maybe I would feel more confident but it’s something else. Not confidence, not insecurity, but a secret third thing. I feel like some of these hot guys are like, just other clients. Like, ok you wanna fuck me?? Sure let’s do it. I’m just there. Yeah, I’m still enjoying myself. I’m being treated like I won something but I don’t feel like I’ve won something. And a lot of these guys didn’t give me the time of day 6 months ago. I remember which ones too, but they literally don’t remember me. Should I care??? It’s not even painful, it’s more just like “oh this whole game really is skin deep. I knew it all along, but didn’t realize the magnitude.”

The biggest crush I ever had has crippling self confidence issues that impacted the chance we had with each other even before this glow up of mine. Like I said I was always cute. I feel like I have less than zero chance with him now. He gets so anxious and nervous around me when we’re alone. He sometimes responds to my compliments of him with expressions of self hatred. He responds to my little flirts with great discomfort, so I stopped trying and made it clear I still enjoy him as a friend in the group and want him around in any context. This was months ago. I know he likes me. I know he jacks off at night thinking about me, a year and a half after the one passionate night we had. Sometimes I’ve gotten the impression that he doesn’t like standing next to me in pictures because he doesn’t like seeing our faces next to each other bc he doesn’t like his own face.

He’s gorgeous. I know I’m not the only one who thinks so. I think girls like his looks more than gay boys, I’ve had multiple instances where a girlfriend of mine hopefully asked me if he was straight. Loves his junk food and couch rotting and maybe oughtta start working out more just for his mental health, but physically I wouldn’t change a thing. He was a college athlete and I think he feels bad bc he was college-athlete-hot 5 years ago and had the opposite trajectory as me when it comes to technically-hot-body. He pushed me away so many times I’m at peace with the thought nothing may ever work out. But I still yearn to be his little spoon every night.

I blame these other skin-deep muscle gays

[cryingoflot49]

Book Review

Arabs Without God by Brian Whitaker

Being an atheist or agnostic in America isn’t easy. Bigotry, religious fanaticism, intolerance, and anti-intellectualism run rampant here and this is a country where the First Amendment is the cornerstone of our Constitution. Being secular-minded in Arab countries in the Middle East and Africa is even more dangerous, being a part of the world where human rights aren’t respected, governments are authoritarian and autocratic, and Islam is the dominant form of cultural expression. In most Arab countries, Christians, Jews, and members of other smaller religions like the Druze, Alawites, and Zoroastrians are regarded as second-class citizens. Muslim sectarian fighting between Sunnis, Shias, and various other denominations is common too. In a region permeated with religious strife, having a rationalistic, scientific, or skeptical outlook can be deadly for so most Arab atheists tend to stay silent or pretend to be religious to avoid persecution. In Arabs Without God, British journalist Brian Whitaker gives an in-depth analysis of the cultural and legal climate of Arab societies and explains what it means to be an atheist in such places.

As the internet penetrates Arab nations, people who had long been silent about their disbelief are coming into contact with others of like mind. Secular Muslims, mostly those who are highly educated and familiar with other cultures, find they aren’t alone and write blogs, discuss their beliefs in chat rooms, and use social media to contact other atheists and agnostics. When the governments and religious authorities learn about this, they crack down hard on free-thinking Arabs. They send atheists to prison, harass them and their families, and, in some cases, forcehem into exile in Europe or America. In many cases, the families and friends of atheists break off contact with them, although some find that they have parents or family members who have kept silent about their skepticism all their lives. In the patriarchal world of Islam, female atheists are in an even bigger bind because women are traditionally expected to be submissive and subservient to men so by coming out as atheists, they risk even more danger and degradation.

This book is divided into two sections. The first is about the history and culture of atheism in Arab nations. Whitaker examines the history of atheism in the Middle East, proving that such skepticism is nothing new in the region. This was the weakest part of the book as he does not provide any real sources of Arabs with arguments in favor of non-belief in God. He does provide some good examples of intellectuals and poets, going back to the dawn of Islam, who expressed doubts about religious belief without actually coming out and saying they disagree with Islam. Whitaker then goes on to examine reasons why Arabs turn to atheism and scientific thought, most of the time a result of listening to Muslims and observing their behavior. Religious leaders have often blamed the West for bringing science and skepticism into Arab countries or otherwise falling back on the old trope that Jews are spreading atheism amongst Muslims to destroy their religion. Yeah, as if Jews have nothing better to do with their lives. Some people have concluded that religion is just silly, hypocritical, and sometimes even dangerous. The whole section ends with a chapter on gender in Arab societes and the suppression of gays and lesbians who often risk imprisonment, violence, and even corporal punishment for coming out as non-heterosexuals. The whole point of this chapter is to show how dangerous it is to be secular in Arab countries.

The second section of this book is more dense and rigorous as it examines legal codes, morality, government autocracy, religious intolerance, and Arab traditions to show how complex Middle Eastern society is. Muslims can be fanatical about proselytizing Islam while often making it illegal to proselytize for any other religion. Conversions to other religions is usually frowned upon and sometimes not even recognized by government officials if it is even allowed at all. Sharia law and government practices are vague, confusing, and arbitrary. The Qur’an and the Hadiths are full of contradictions and outdated rules. Living as a Muslim in a theocratic or autocratic dictatorship requires submission to authority, even when the laws make no sense. If such is the case, then being an atheist, a member of a non-Muslims religion, or even a scientifically minded Muslim can be treacherous. Minorities run the risk of committing the crime of apostasy simply by being themselves and in many Arab countries, apostasy is punishable by death. It is no wonder that many Arab atheists emigrate to more tolerant countries in the West. This second section does not comment much about atheism in and of itself; what it does do successfully is show how complicated it can be to think for yourself in such repressive societies.

The book finally ends with Whitaker making a plea for greater respect for human rights in Arab societies and equality for those who disagree with the dominant modes of thought. Finally, he takes both the Western right and left to task for treating Arabs and Middle Eastern people as monolithic societies. The xenophobic right sees them as nothing but evil incarnate and the left sees them as being angelically perfect beings who can no no wrong. People on both sides do more harm than good by holding such attitudes. Leftist accusations of Islamophobia are extremely damaging because some Arab atheists, as well as some Muslim human rights activists, have been shunned and attacked by the left, using the epithet of Islamophobia to shut down conversations about human rights abuses in Islamic countries. This is inherently racist, preventing people in Arab nations from defending the rights of women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ people by forbidding discussion on these issues in the name of tolerance. These problems can never be solved if people, especially the people who are affected by them, are silenced in the name of tolerating Islam. A lot of Arab atheists immigrate to the West so they can have more safety and freedom of choice, but then find themselves being hated by leftists for not being authentically Arab in their rejection of Islam. Being a marginalized person in any society is not easy, but it is worse when marginalized people get rejected by those who claim to defend marginalized people because they don’t fit into the stereotype they are supposed to inhabit.

Arabs Without God is worth reading because it gives an in-depth look at Arab societies from an alternate point of view, one that you may not get from any other source. Even if you aren’t interested in atheism or agnosticism, it gives another perspective on Arab societies that is unique and provocative. In conclusion, it must be said that Brian Whitaker is not concerned with converting Muslims or people of any other religion to become atheists or abandon their cultures. He clearly states that he has nothing against religious people. What he wants is for people to tolerate atheists and repect their freedom to choose, allowing them right to human dignity that they deserve. If that bothers you then you might be a bigger problem than any secular humanist ever has been. If your belief in religion is so strong then it shouldn’t bother you when others hold opposing beliefs. If it does, then you aren’t as secure in your faith as you think you are.