#or interpretations of things

[undeadorion]

Far too many people jump to romance and sex, ignoring that intimacy is a concept that can exist separate from those things. Intimacy is not just one thing. It can be arousing. It can be comforting. It can be terrifying.

Your cat sitting on your chest is intimacy. Laying your head on a friend's shoulder is intimacy. Having deep discussions about the ways in which you've been hurt is intimacy. Someone holding a knife to your throat while you feel their breath on your ear is intimacy.

Embrace intimacy as a concept in itself, as not exclusive to sex, and your world will become a lot more vibrant.

[baristabomb]

...weird amount of dunmeshi fans have been saying being a caretaker in a relationship is the worst thing ever..marcille must want to killl everyone soo bad because doing things for people suuuucks sooo muchh

it's an act of love, not just a job i promise. we all want someone who's willing to take care of us in some way, just like how senshi shows care for others by cooking for them :'|

[bereft-of-frogs]

There’s that post that’s like ‘everyone should get into a tiny niche fandom at least once’ fully agree, that was really fun -- but I would like to add that everyone should get into a fandom where their opinions run counter to major fanon because it really teaches you about sticking to your guns and trusting your interpretation of the text without having to rely on peer validation

because WHAT are people talking about sometimes

[christadeguchi]

meanwhile notes put up by the guy hired by my dad to help with foreign guests at his little ryokan in rural japan (“my english is not perfect,” said the guy earnestly. “but i think i can always get the meaning across.” “great,” said my dad. “that’s all that matters.”):

[inkskinned]

the thing about some men is that they want you to remember, at all times, that you are underneath them. that with one word or look or "joke", you will stay beneath them. that even "exceptions" to the rule are not true exceptions - the commonly cited statistic that one in eight men believe they could win against serena williams.

women's gymnastics is often not seen as real gymnastics. whatever the fuck non-euclidian horrors rhythmic gymnasts are capable of, it's often tamped down as being not a sport. some of the most dominant athletes in the world are women. nobody watches women's soccer. despite years of dancing and being built like a fucking brick, men always assume they're faster and stronger than i am. you wouldn't like what happens when they are incorrect. once while drunk at a guy's house i won a held-plank challenge by a solid minute. the party was over after that - he became exceedingly violent.

what i mean is that you can be perfect, and they still think you're ... lacking, somehow. i hope you understand i'm trying to express a neutral statement when i say: taylor swift was the possibly the most patriarchy-palatable, straight-down-the-line woman we could churn out. she is white, conventionally attractive, usually pretty mild in personality. say what you will about her (and you should, she's a billionaire, she can handle it), but a few things seem to be true about her: 1. she can write a damn catchy song, and 2. the eras tour truly was a massive commercial success and was also genuinely an impressive feat of human athleticism and performance.

i don't know if she deserves the title of "woman of the year," i'm not debating that in this post. what i am saying is that she was named Woman of The Year, and then an untalented man got onstage at the golden globes and made fun of her for attending her boyfriend's football games. what i am saying is that this woman altered local economies - and her dating life is still being made into a "harmless" punchline. the camera panned, greedy, over to her downing a full glass of champagne. congratulations taylor! you are woman of the year! but you are a woman. even her.

fuck, man. write better material.

a guy gets onstage at a college graduation and despite the fact like half the crowd is made up of women, he spends a significant proportion of it warning these people - who spent possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars on their education - that they were lied to. that the "real" meaning of femininity is motherhood. that they shouldn't rest on the laurels of that education-they-paid-for but instead throw it away to kneel at a man's heel. imagine that. sweating in your godawful polyester gown (that you also had to pay for!), fresh out of 4 years of pushing yourself ever-harder: and some guy you've never met - who knows nothing about you - he reminds you this "win" is a pyrrhic one at best. you really shouldn't consider yourself that extraordinary. you're still a woman, even after years of study.

god forbid you are not a pretty woman, but if you are pretty, you must be dumb. god forbid you are not ablebodied or white or cis or straight or good at swallowing. you must be beneath a man, or else they are not a man. the equation for masculinity seems to just be: that which is not a woman or womanly (god forbid). anything "feminine" is thereby anathema. to engage in "feminine" things such as therapy, getting a hug from a friend, or crying - it is giving up ones manhood. therefore women need to be put in their place to ensure that masculinity is protected.

this is something i have struggled to explain to terfs - they are not doing the work of feminism, but rather the patriarchy. by asserting that women and men must be (on some secret level) oppositional and in conflict, they also assume that being a woman is akin to being another species. but bigotry does not stem from observational truths or clarity - that is what makes it bigotry. there was nothing in my childhood that made me fundamentally different from my brother. we are treated differently nonetheless. to assert there is some biological drive that enforces my gender role is to assert that women have a gendered role. men do not see women as equal to them not because of biological reality - but instead because the core tenant of the patriarchy is that women aren't full, realized people.

we are told from a very young age to excuse misbehavior as a single man's choice - not all men. it is not all men, just that one guy. all women are gold-digging bitches who belong in the kitchen - but if a man is mean, bigoted, or violent to you, it's just that particular guy, and that means nothing about men-as-a-whole. it is only one guy who got mad when you gently rejected him. it is only one guy who warns her this trophy is heavy, are you sure you can hold it? it is only one guy who smashes her face into the cake. it is only one guy talking into a mic about hating our bodily autonomy.

i have just found that they often wait until the moment we actually seem to be upstaging them. you sit in a meeting where you're presenting your own findings and he says get me a coffee? or you run to the end of the marathon and are about to finish first and he pushes your kids out in front of you. you win the chess game and they make some comment akin to well, you're ugly away. we can be the billionaire and get the dream life and finally fucking do it and yet! still! they have this strange, visceral urge to say well actually, if you think you're so great -

it's not one just one guy. it's one in eight.

[iamespecter]

"Well shit"

Designs of the entire cast for my fic, "The Unexpected Reunion"! You can read the prologue and the first chapter on my ao3 :) https://archiveofourown.org/works/56008111/chapters/142245028

Bonus with their real names:

[floweroflaurelin]

Opal, Twice-Crowned Champion of Lolth 🕷️🕸️🕷️

—

(Billie Eilish’s “you should see me in a crown” playing in the distance)

[cuntylestat]

JACOB: My feeling about Louis is that he is the most vampire of all of them. He has the highest drive and jonesing for blood, I think he really wants blood, I think he hates human beings. Everything he says he is, I think he is the opposite. [...] I think he feels the need to overcompensate for a really deep blood lust, and he really wants to be a vampire. [...] He's the reticent vampire because he is reticent to embrace what he is. SAM: Until he's not.

Jacob Anderson talking about Louis de Pointe du Lac (x)

[snowheartsz]

fuck sex these bitches need a deep, LONG ASS hug where they don’t let go for a while and just soak into each other’s arms like the other’s heartbeat is their oxygen they so desperately need as they bawl their eyes out

[newttxt]

this is opla!zoro, to me 🙂

[mobius-m-mobius]

A lot of people have talked about Benoit Blanc's accent. Was he always going to sound like that, was that in the original script?

[the-one-who-lambs]

This is a super super gentle reminder not to put your favorite authors on a pedestal. We're real people living average lives and not trying to be influencers. We criticize ourselves enough and we don't want to be held to an invisible standard (we start to worry we fail to exceed our own selves) or compared to other writers (we are not competing) or tailor our craft to cater to a wider audience (the right people will find you).

[biggest-gaudiest-patronuses]

i vote that next year instead of reading Dracula we do a Jeeves & Wooster Book Club. those two never got the rabid tumblr shipping fandom they deserved (disqualified for the sheer technicality of being published a century too soon). we must correct this injustice

[danlous]

I feel like many people have a fundamental misconception of what unreliable narrator means. It's simply a narrative vehicle not a character flaw or a sign that the character is a bad person. There are also many different types of unreliable narrators in fiction. Being an unreliable narrator doesn't necessarily mean that the character is 'wrong', it definitely doesn't mean that they're wrong about everything even if some aspects in their story are inaccurate, and only some unreliable narrators actively and consciously lie. Stories that have unreliable narrators also tend to deal with perception and memory and they often don't even have one objective truth, just different versions. It reflects real life where we know human memory is highly unreliable and vague and people can interpret same events very differently

[transvarmint]

Trans men, you have the right to be "scary": to be intimidating, imposing, loud, and angry. It is not a crime or a sin to be any of these things. It does not make you an inherently unsafe or predatory person. You did not lose your right to be loud and angry upon transitioning. People who argue that you must be ok with others treating you as inherently dangerous, are transphobes, pure and simple.

Trans men of color, especially, you are allowed to be any and all of these things. People who insist you must be demure and polite, to not frighten people, are racist and transphobic.

People in general are allowed to be "scary". People are allowed to exist and be interpreted by others as intimidating or imposing. Being interpreted this way does not mean you should lose your right to be speak loudly and angrily. Being interpreted this way does not mean you are a danger to women or to other people in general.

The assumptions that people choose to make about you based on your appearance are just that - assumptions. They are prejudice, and biased. The idea that you must make yourself presentable and civil is white supremacist, hegemonic bullshit. Anyone who touts this idea or it's derivatives is upholding hegemonic values.

You are allowed to just be, no matter how others view you.

[ithinkdogshouldvote]

Rip Bill Cipher, you would have loved Chapelle Roan.