#i can't look at it any longer

[wolfofartblock]

[heymrspatel]

hey, have you ever thought about the fact that ian gets the courage to come out to fiona while sitting in his little twin bed? the same little bed he sits on to get ready on the morning of his wedding? to yank his fiance forward? to kiss him and promise him their future? hmm?

[lotus-pear]

the fine people of bsd tumblr have asked for fem skk and i shall give it to them

[nerdy-talks]

I AM SCREAMING!!!!!!

Solomon is directly confronting Mammon!

Solomon is calling Mammon out without any hesitation, and even has proof/evidence!

Solomon is so jealous..... Please marry me right now, my darling teacher!!! ;u;

[platoapproved]

there is no other troy for you to burn.

[ashleyslorens]

AARON TVEIT (b. October 21, 1983) [ insp: ♡ ♡ ♡ ]

[ultipoter]

A little post spear pillar awkwardness between Volo and Jirou. I had this sitting around for a few weeks and finally polished it, t was a nice exercise in working with a limited palette

[firefletch]

The main takeaways from Dracula so far:

Communication is good and healthy and important and if you stop doing that everything will go horribly wrong and people will die (based of him honestly and I agree)

Everyone who is smart and intelligent keeps a diary

[trek-tracks]

Jim Kirk: Are we allowed to draft Doctor McCoy back into the service for this mission? I feel his expertise will be invaluable.

Admiral Nogura: Well...technically, according to one particular regulation, yes.

Jim (batting his eyelashes): Will you do it?

Nogura: Do I have to be there when he arrives?

Jim: ....no.

Nogura: ...can I watch it on camera from a safe distance?

Jim: Sure.

Nogura: Then yes.

[cuddlytogas]

there was some Twitter madness recently where someone left a comment on someone's art to the effect of, "Ed shouldn't wear a dress, he's a man!" which I do disagree with on principle, but unfortunately, it brought out one of my least favourite trends in the fandom

so, naturally, I had to write a twitter essay about it. and I already largely argued this in a post here, but the thread is clearer and better structured, so I thought I'd cross-post for those not on the Hellsite (derogatory). edited for formatting/structure's sake, since I no longer have to keep to tweet lengths, and incorporating a couple of points other people brought up in the replies

so

I want to point out that the wedding cake toppers in OFMD s2 aren't evidence that Ed wants to wear dresses. Gender is fake, men can wear skirts, play with these dolls how you like, but it's not canon, and that scene especially Doesn't Mean That.

People cite it often: 'He put himself in a dress by painting the bride as himself! It's what he wants!' But that fundamentally misunderstands the scene, and the series' framing of weddings as a whole. I'd argue that Ed paints the figure not from desire, but from self-hatred; it's not what he wants, but what he thinks he should, and has failed to, be.

(Yes, I am slightly biased by my rampant anti-marriage opinions, but bear with me here, because it is relevant to the interpretation of the scene, and season two as a whole.)

The show is not subtle. It keeps telling us that the institution of marriage is a prison that suffocates everyone involved. Ed's parents' cycle of abuse is passed to their son in both the violence he witnesses then enacts on his father, and the self-repression his mother teaches, despite her good intentions ("It's not up to us, is it? It's up to God. ... We're just not those kind of people. We never will be."). Stede and Mary are both oppressed by their arranged marriage, with 1x04 blunty titled Discomfort in a Married State. The Barbados widows revel in their freedom ("We're alive. They're dead. Now is your time").

But even without this context, the particular wedding crashed in 2x01 is COMICALLY evil. The scene is introduced with this speech from the priest:

"The natural condition of humanity is base and vile. It is the obligation of people of standing ... to elevate the common human rabble through the sacred transaction of matrimony."

It's upper class, all-white, and religiously sanctioned. "Vile natural conditions" include queerness, sexual freedom, and family structures outside the cisheteropatriarchal capitalist unit. "The obligation of people of standing" invokes ideas like the white man's burden, innate class hierarchy, religious missions, and conversion therapy. Matrimony is presented as both "sacred" (endorsed by the ruling religious body), and a "transaction" (business performed to transfer property and people-as-property, regardless of their desires), a tool of the oppressive society that pirates escape and destroy. That is where the figurines come from.

When Ed, in a drunk, depressive spiral, paints himself onto the bride, he's not yearning for a pretty dress. He's sort of yearning for a wedding, but that's not framed as positive. What he's doing is projecting himself into an 'ideal' image of marriage because he believes that: a) that's what Stede (and everyone) wants; b) he can never live up to that ideal because he's unlovable and broken (brown, queer, lower-class, violent, abused, etc); c) that's why Stede left. He tries to make himself fit into the social ideal by painting himself onto the closest match - long-haired, partner to Stede/groom, but a demure, white woman, a frozen, porcelain miniature - because, if he could just shrink himself down and squeeze into that box, maybe Stede would love him and he'd live happily ever after. But he can't. So he won't.

The fantasy fails: Ed is morose, turns away from the figurines, then tips them into the sea, a lost cause. He knows he won't ever fulfil that bride's role, but he sees that as a failure in himself, not the role. It's not just that "Stede left, so Ed will never have a dream wedding and might as well die." Stede left when Ed was honest and vulnerable, "proving" what his trauma and depression tell him: there's one image of love (of personhood), and he'll never live up to it because he's fundamentally deficient. So he might as well die.

This hit me from my very first viewing. The scene is devastating, because Ed is wrong, and we know it! He doesn't need to change or reduce himself to fit an image and be accepted (as, eg, Izzy demanded). Stede knows and loves him exactly as he is; it's the main thread and theme of season two!

(@/everyonegetcake suggested that Ed's yearning in these scenes includes his broader desire for the vulnerability and safety Stede offered, literalised through unattainable "fine" things like the status of gentleman in s1, or the figurine's blue dress. I'd argue, though, that these scenes don't incorporate this beyond a general knowledge of Ed's character. Ed is always pining for both literal and emotional softness, but the significance of the figurines specifically, to both Ed and the audience, is poisoned by their origin and context: there is no positive fantasy in the bride figure, only Ed's perceived deficiency.

Further, assuming that a desire for vulnerability necessarily corresponds with an explicit desire for femininity, dresses, etc, kind of contradicts the major themes of the show. OFMD asserts that there is nothing wrong with men assuming femininity (through drag, self-care, nurturing, emotional vulnerability, etc), but also that many of these traits are, in fact, genderless, and should be available to men without affecting their perceived or actual masculinity. It thematically invokes the potential for cross-gender expression in Ed's desires, especially through the transgender echoes in his relieved disposal, then comfortable reincorporation, of the Blackbeard leathers/identity. It's a rich, valuable area of analysis and exploration. But it remains a suggestion, not a canon or on-screen trait.)

Importantly, the groom figure doesn't fit Stede, either. Not just in dress: it's stiff and formal, and marriage nearly killed him. He's shabbier now, yes, but also shedding his privilege and property, embracing his queerness, and trying to take responsibility for his community. In a s1 flashback, Stede hesitantly says, "I thought that, when I did marry, it could be for love," but he would never find love in marriage. Not just because he's gay, but because marriage in OFMD is an oppressive, transactional institution that precludes love altogether. All formal marriages in OFMD are loveless.

So, he becomes a pirate, where they reject society altogether and have matelotages instead. Lucius and Pete's "mateys" ceremony is shot and framed not like a wedding, but as an honest, personal bond, willingly conducted in community (in a circle; no presiding authority, procession, or transaction).

That is how Stede and Ed can find love, companionship, and happiness: by rejecting those figurines and their oppressive exchange of property, overseen by a church that enables colonialism and abuse. Ed is loved, and deserves happiness, as he is, no paint or projection required.

ALL OF THIS IS TO SAY: draw Ed in dresses! Write him getting gender euphoria in skirts! Write trans/nb Ed, draw men being feminine! Gender is fake, the show invites exploration, that's what 'transformative works' means! But please, stop citing the cake toppers as evidence it's canon. Stop citing a scene where a depressed Māori man gets drunk and projects himself onto a rich, white, silent bride because he thinks he's innately unlovable and only people like her can find happiness, shortly before deciding to kill himself, as canon evidence it's what he wants.

(Also, please don't come in here with "lmao we're just having fun," I know, I get it. Unfortunately, I'm an academiapilled researchmaxxer, and some of youse need to remember that the word "canon" has meaning. NOW GO HAVE FUN PUTTING THAT MAN IN A PRETTY DRESS!! 💖💖)

[changebydjo]

#STLADIESWEEK Day 1: Favorite Character - Nancy Wheeler

[timothyslucy]

they really weren't kidding about the rom-com vibes in this season.

[starleska]

the way this evil French roach-man still lives rent-free in my head ought to be studied 😳🪳💚

[crow-caller]

How’s your review of the Uglies movie going?

it's with my editor rn! I've had a rough go of things and it took longer. It's an hour long and wound up being a discussion of it as an adaptation, and the deeper themes of the series. I just can't talk about Uglies normally

Ideally will be out within the week.

After, I have a video on faceblindness (amd my experience with it)— I just filmed me doing a faceblind quiz my flatmate custom cooked up for me, which was super fun to do. She tricked me a few times including me entirely failing to recognise her at one point. That's for November, since most of November I'll be in the Lightlark 3 trenches (no promises how long that'll be but of course ideally before end of November)

[hsslilly-blog]

rehashing an old post but i think a lot about how in trying to absolve hunt instead of seriously addressing the power imbalance/impropriety of the relationship between him and the mc, pixelberry chose to make it so it’s the mc “pursuing” hunt and being really forceful about it. in this case, it’d be okay because it’s not him being weird and, well, the mc really, really wants this! this was not an well thought out decision because 1. it doesn’t remove the need to address a professor dating his student, and whatever that means for both parts + the story they’re in, and 2. in the process they make mc a person with no respect for boundaries who quite literally stalks this man and assaults him under false pretences. not to mention how the writing in these quests is confusing and contradictory (the mc is written in two different ways at different times, whatever the plot is in need). just… really bad on all fronts

[asotin]

Tales of Symphonia: The Animation (2007) Tethe'alla Arc Episode 4

Are you okay? Then all is well.