theshivroy

[mellosdrawings]

I am regularly annoyed at AI generated art, but I think nothing compares to doing researches of traditional clothes and only finding sexualised AI stuff that is most definitely not traditional apparel.

[igotanidea]

Dating Sam Winchester headcanons.

Requested: I was wondering if you could write something supernatural with Sam Winchester, what kind of boyfriend would Sam be? Thank you anon, made that as expanded headcanons starting from meeting and going further in the relationship.

A little NSFW in point 16.

***

1.Bookshops dates

I mean come on, all things considered I am pretty sure you would meet him in the library rather than any place else. And even if you weren’t actually reaching for mythological monsters encyclopaedia or the yearbook of the city from 1456, you were bound to meet at the counter. It wasn’t that big bookshop after all and Sam, with his tall, muscular silhouette was definitely filling most of the space, forcing you to sneak under his arm to get what you were aiming for. Not that you complained, cause he does smell good.

2. Soul longing – as silly as that may sound. Ok listen up. He had women, that’s for sure. But one night stands is only good for so long. And unlike Dean he needed stability from the beginning. Sam is not a player nor a playboy. And as for you? You’re not just gonna jump into the bed of a very handsome, tall and broad shouldered man you met briefly while buying a book, right?

Even if you can imagine so many things he could do with those hands….

Even if you can tell just by looking at him that he’s got enough experience and skills to keep you up all night and –

“Miss? Miss are you all right?”

Damn, seem like you just spaced out in front of the guy who’s been currently eyeing you with those deep eyes piercing right into your soul.

Impossible to forget and even more impossible to let go.

3. Cliché scenario – you actually became a part of team free will after getting into a demon related accident serving the part of a lady in distress perfectly. Got hurt so bad the boys Sam felt guilty enough to look for you for a couple weeks while getting too attached.

4. Obviously wanting to keep you out of the family business. Too bad he got himself a persistent badass, who refused to sit cases out. You may not be a hunter, but you’re a girl. And who’s better than a woman when it comes to making scenes and getting man to mansplain to the poor, innocent soul that knows nothing? The first time you faked cried he fell for it all the way and never questioned your skills again.

5. Probably making you get an anti-possession tattoo. Just for safety, of course. And holding your hand all time while getting it done, caressing your palm in that special reassuring way. And then kissing it better after, regardless of the place it was inked on.  

6. Funny thing he was hesitant to put a tag on your relationship. At first. Can’t blame him given all that happened to his mother and Jess. But his emotional side finally took over and he blurted something in the middle of an argument.

“You’re staying here tonight.”

“The hell I am, Sam.”

“I’m not asking.”

‘You’re not my boss.”

“Well I am your boyfriend!”

“Did you just-? Sam? Sam, did you just - ?”

You never got to finish that sentence. And just that one time you stayed behind.

Behind being on the backseat, no further.

7. Bantering over silly stuff while making Dean crazy, cause since you two got together there’s no one to bring him pie.  

8. Knowledge duels – as long as you pick the theme, cause no way you’re going against him in history or demonology.  It is however possible to beat him in popculture or modern cinematography.

“How am I supposed to know all those –“

“Educate yourself Sammy.”

“Oh I will educate you on something –“

9. Merciless teasing from Dean about stuff that should not ever be his business.

“Hey, whose underwear is that?”

“Brought you two some protection.”

“Hey maybe we can get a threesome?”

“Is that a hickey on your neck Y/N? God, girl, you are loud.”

(but we all know that’s the way Dean’s inner soft side is showing)

10. Doing research while laying head on his chest, tracing patterns on his skin. (making him distracted and locked up in another room until you start to behave.)

11. Doing research in the various libraries. You have no idea but he raises his gaze from the book way too often to actually comprehend any of the text. The way you are frowning, scrunching your nose and the way your eyes shine every time you come upon a clue or a helpful fact seem to be more interesting.

12. Fights – oh, damn, it was bound to happen right?

Arguing with Sam is impossible. He always keeps his cool, not letting the blood boil no matter how many needles you gives him. Sometimes it feels like he’s wearing that stupid armour turning into stone just to infuriate you.

But not for long, cause Sammy can’t stand to see you hurt or broken. That’s not him. It doesn’t matter if you started the fight (you’re being reckless, you’re gonna get killed, you need some rest) or he was the part to initiate it (you’re not the hunter, I know better, I’ll handle it) he’ll be all up for communication. Talking through.

Being a Winchester comes with toughness and roughness sometimes, but Sam doesn’t deny having feelings he want to work on. With you.

It’s not a perfect relationship but you’re patching it up with all the best and most resistant fabric.

13. Subtle hand holding while driving on a hunt. You may be in the backseat while both brothers take the front ones, but who cares. The blank between the driver and shotgun is for something, right? And who cares about the gearbox?

14. Forehead kisses and cuddling – you have actually seen Sam right? If that’s not a giant teddy bear than I don’t know who is. Definition of safety and warmth. Just imagine nuzzling into him with those strong arms around you keeping you safe from any demon, angel, witch, wendigo, shapeshifter or whatever else monster might come for you.

15. Steamy make out session in the impala just to get some privacy. Honestly I believe at some point this would be used as a threat for alone time.

"Get out Dean.”

“ Mmm. Nope. Not happening. I got stuff to do here.”

“I said get out.”

“Make me.”

“Well I think you should go and check on your car before I take care of the backseat.”

Wide eyes, rushing out and not getting back for hours.

Mission completed.

16. Getting intimate with Sam is indescribable. You don’t even need words and yet he seems to understand everything your body tries to convey. Soft, slow, sensual and tender love making while looking into your eyes, refusing to let your gaze drop? Tracing your body and kissing all over your soft skin? Making you feel fragile, small and delicate no matter your size?

All done.

I see Sam as a soft dom. He could break your boundaries easily and probably would, but never to the point of hurting you.

Rough play, BDSM, kinks, making love on any flat surface possible? Not exactly his style.

Stretching you out, wrapping your legs around his waist, pressing you into the mattress, marking you? Absolutely.

He’s fine with pleasuring you, getting to know what turns you on (hitting and finding all the sensitive spots that makes you mewl and rake nails down his body), never failing to make you see stars.

He may not be talking too much and not use a lot of dirty talk, but hey, a few thrusts, a few flicks of his tongue, his muscles flexing under your fingersand the feel of him so freaking deep and you forget something such as words exist.

17. Getting just the right amount of aftercare cuddles, kisses and hugs. Duties are calling and Sam may be a bit of a workaholic, but you’re on top of the “to-do-list.” Taking just the right amount of time to help you get back to reality, getting your floating soul back into your thoroughly loved out body by caresses, kisses, touches, strokes. Whatever you need.

He loves you.

[thecrimsondandelion]

yknow the what’re the odds game

where you’ll be like “what’re the odds you’ll down your entire drink” and you both choose 1-10 1-100 1-20 etc etc, and if you choose the same number you have to do it?

Stan and Richie play this constantly,

Stan sees Patty in a bookshop, and he’s heart eyeing here. Every time he looks away she looks at Stan, so Richie leans against one of the shelves and says

“odds of you going over there and flirting?”

Stan rolls his eyes, “1-1000” bc he’s not going to do it, the odds are slim, he’s way too awkward and shy to go and initiate a conversation

so Stan is absolutely mortified when they both say the same number, and he’s not backing down he refuses, neither of them have ever backed down, and he won’t let Richie win

Richie’s absolutely elated, he’s shaking with excitement bc, he obviously didn’t expect to actually get the same number

and that’s how Patty and Stan meet in this AU, Stan goes over and asks about the book she’s reading, she asks about the bird encyclopaedia Stan plans to buy

and the rest is history, bc they’re in love and meant to be, and Richie never shuts up about it, he talks about it at Stans wedding as his best man

Stan totally gets him back by pulling the same thing with Richie and Eddie, Richie says “1-10000” and by chance they both say “69”

[makingscipub]

Making science public: Our edited collection

As our Making Making Science Public programme has come to an end, it’s time to take stock across all projects and beyond. This is exactly what we have done in an (open access) book coming out with Manchester University Press in January, entitled Science and the Politics of Openness: Here be monsters.

The chapters in this volume are mainly based on work carried out by the Making Science Public team during the Leverhulme Trust-funded ‘Making Science Public’ research programme (2012-2017); some of the chapters have in addition been written by other experts on the topics covered in the book.

The chapters explore the relationship between science, politics and publics through a number of topical case studies which challenge received wisdoms about openness and transparency and map the pitfalls, dangers and, indeed, the monsters lurking behind some of these buzzwords (see the book cover).

We argue that the time is ripe to examine the positive and negative effects of contemporary policy innovations and institutions which purport to bring science, society and publics closer together through processes of openness, access and transparency. Developed as solutions to perceived crises in science/society relations, these initiatives might hide dilemmas that need to be made visible and need to be discussed out in the open. The chapters in this book therefore explore the unfolding contradictions around efforts to ‘make science public’.

Themes

Following an introduction by the editors and a coda reflecting on recent development in science and politics in the US by Alexander Smith, the book is organised around the four themes/sections: (1) transparency in the context of science in the public sphere, (2) responsibility in the context of contemporary research practice and governance, both globally and more locally, (3) expertise in the context of policy-making, risk assessment and the regulation of science, and finally (4) faith in the context of emerging tensions and misunderstandings between science, politics and publics regarding issues of faith.

Each section of the book contains an opening essay by an expert on the theme and the book closes with an afterword thinking through the impact of the marketisation of universities and an epilogue reflecting on the contributions to the book in the four themed sections.

Transparency

This section opens the book with an exploration of one its core topics, namely transparency and openness, and how they play out within various institutional and policy domains. Three chapters circle these concepts in different ways. Stephen Curry deals with an issue that has risen to prominence in science and university research in recent years, namely ‘open access’. He examines not only the potential of Open Access to academic research to break down barriers and open up research and knowledge to the wider public but also the many barriers that exist or are emerging to impede the open access movement. Carmen McLeod deals with issues of transparency and secrecy in the context of animal research through the lens of two transparency initiatives: the Swiss Basel Declaration announced in 2011, and the UK Concordat on Openness in Animal Research launched in 2012. In the final chapter of this section, Roda Madziva and Vivien Lowndes deal with transparency, evidence and publics in the context of a very topical issue, namely immigration. This chapter also contributes indirectly to the last section of the book, which deals with faith, as Madzvia and Lowndes investigate faith-based claims being used when adjudicating asylum applications.

The section introduction by Benjamin Worthy dissects the concepts of transparency and openness and puts them into the context of recent research on these topics, as well as work on related issues around security, privacy, confidentiality and accountability. Worthy also highlights problems with radical openness in a context where ‘people’ might not be willing, able or interested to make use of the opportunities such openness affords them.

Responsibility

This section continues to explore the topic of transparency and openness, but with an additional focus on responsibility and justice. Three chapters move from the global to the more local and from global environmental change and energy justice to concerns about responsible innovation in the context of Western concerns with genetically modified foods and crops.

Eleanor Hadley Kershaw presents us with an overview of the opportunities and challenges that emerge when trying to foster science/society or science/public co-production of research and engagement within a global institution, namely Future Earth. Alison Mohr, by contrast, deals with the tensions that emerge when Western energy technologies are distributed in the Global South and how co-production between energy experts, social science experts and local community experts can help in this context. In both cases openness is the condition sine qua non for such global enterprises to succeed. In the final chapter Stevienna de Saille and Paul Martin tackle in an almost playful but deadly serious way some of the potentially problematic (or monstrous) consequences of the ‘opening up’ agenda written into responsible research and innovation frameworks. They do this by inspecting stories about monsters that have been told and are being told around GM foods and crops.

The section is introduced by Barbara Prainsack and Sabina Leonelli who tease out the discursive promises and risks of using buzzwords such as openness and responsible innovation. They also examine the tensions explored in some of the chapters between efforts at centralisation on the one hand and opening up research and institutions to epistemic diversity, as well as between inclusiveness and social justice.

Expertise

This section goes on to examine issues around experts and publics in greater detail. The first chapter, by Sarah Hartley and Adam Kokotovich, focuses on the always hot topic of ‘risk’ and risk assessment. The authors make the claim that public involvement in risk assessment is not reaching its full potential and argue for a new role for experts and publics supported by a detailed analysis of a particular case study, namely, the European Food Safety Authority’s public consultations. We then move from food safety to emerging diseases, in this case the emergence of a plant/tree disease: ash die back. The chapter by Judith Tsouvalis finds a similar disconnect between experts and publics and a similar divorce between ‘risk’ assessment and public values. Both chapters make a plea for not dealing with risks from a purely expert and technoscientific perspective. Warren Pearce and Brigitte Nerlich in turn explore a particular case study, the release of the film An Inconvenient Truth in 2007, as an example where climate change expertise is taken out of the pages of science journals and into the public sphere and the opportunities and problems this generates. Sujatha Raman, Pru Hobson-West, Mimi Lam and Kate Millar use a famous political speech, Science Matters, as an opportunity to rethink the role of engagement by minority publics in constituting the public interest around science in alliance with expertise.

The section is introduced by Mark Brown, who sheds light on the tensions between experts and publics by providing an historical overview of the relationship between science and democracy. He examines the legitimacy of expertise in the current political climate and points out that ‘avoiding technocracy without fostering populism is a key challenge of our time’.

Faith

This section continues to explore some of the topics addressed in the previous one dealing with experts and publics but with a particular focus on science and religion. The chapter by Fern Elsdon-Baker questions the expertise of social scientists when dealing with a particular type of ‘public’, namely people who in one way or the other lean towards a creationist view of life on earth.  She makes a plea for researchers to not posit as a ‘fact’ a presumed clash between scientific and religious worldviews and to explore public perceptions of evolutionary science and religion without it being overshadowed by this prejudice. A second chapter by David Kirby and Amy Chambers, is a fascinating exploration of the struggle between film makers and religious communities over shaping public views of science, including evolution, through a history of censorship.

The section is introduced by Chris Toumey who combines reflections on science and religion with the themes of openness, expertise and responsibility in new and unexpected ways.

Afterword and epilogue

The book is rounded up with two closing statements, one a afterword by John Holmwood and Jan Balon reflecting on markets, neoliberalism, populism and the demise of the public university, which is one current issue that bedevils our (academic) lives. This is followed by an epilogue by Stephen Turner who weaves together all the chapters presented in this book into a coherent story, by projecting them against a much-needed historical background involving science, politics and publics.

We hope that readers will find all this interesting and stimulating, especially in a time of radical change in science, society and politics. You can buy the book at MUP or in any academic bookshop.

Image: Book cover, based on an illustration in Sebastian Münster’s Cosmographia (1545), which was a combination of an atlas, an encyclopaedia and a syllabus on math, language, history and ethnography. The image has the title: ‘Wonders of the sea and rare animals, as they are found in the midnight lands in the sea and on the land’.

The post Making science public: Our edited collection appeared first on Making Science Public.

via Making Science Public http://ift.tt/2m1K2an