#posting purely to spite photoshop at this point

[egophiliac]

...okay, one more, because Epel's white rabbit outfit is SENDING me. everyone in this event looks like a decadent little pastry and I want to eat them all.

(credit: lace stock)

[tiffersthenerdyficrecs]

DrProblematic’s *Problematic* BakuDeku Fics

Just Like Old Times

Rating: Explicit Archive Warnings: Rape/Non-Con, Underage Relationship: Bakugou Katsuki/Midoriya Izuku Characters: Bakugou Katsuki, Midoriya Izuku Additional Tags: POV Alternating, (Mostly Katsuki's POV though), Dirty Talk, Crying, Forced begging, taking pictures, Posting this out of pure spite :), Dead Dove: Do Not Eat, deku suffering Summary: He felt the mattress touch the back of his knees just as Katsuki stopped directly in front of him. He leaned in toward Izuku, smirking when the action forced the other boy to arch his back away from him awkwardly. The expression dropped soon after, replaced with one of mild irritation.

“I didn’t want it to be this fuckin’ easy, y’know. It’s fuckin’ boring, but I guess I should’ve seen this coming, huh?” He raised an eyebrow. “You always,” Katsuki reached up, “Let me in,” his finger slowly traced over his jaw, “So.” Izuku quivered, his heart beating out of control, “Fucking.” He felt his hand against his chest, shoving him quickly, yet firmly. His feet weren’t under him anymore. Izuku’s back hit the mattress, and a malevolent grin spread across Katsuki’s face.

“Easily.”

Crash

Rating: Explicit Archive Warning: Underage Relationship: Bakugou Katsuki/Midoriya Izuku Characters: Bakugou Katsuki, Midoriya Izuku Additional Tags: Smut, Dirty Talk, Spanking, Rough Sex, Angry Sex, Bakugou Katsuki Swears A Lot, Adobe Photoshop is the antagonist of this story, Crack, Basically Katsuki gets so mad about photoshop crashing he wrecks Deku's ass, Humor, based on a true story lol Summary: Katsuki yanks him off when he recognizes he’s getting close, and Izuku immediately falls forward onto his hands, hacking, coughing, and wheezing as he tries to recover from the abuse his throat just endured. Katsuki squats down in front of him, dick still out.

“Adobe Creative Cloud suite costs fifty-six-thousand yen per month and Photoshop can’t even fucking autosave unless I manually tell it to.” Katsuki reaches down to wrap his fingers around his cock, stroking idly as he rattles on. “Can you really call it autosave at this point, Deku? ‘Cause I sure as fuck wouldn’t.”

Izuku’s coughing fit dies down a few seconds later, just long enough for him to wheeze out a scratchy, bewildered, “Wh-what?”

Apex Crush

Rating: Explicit Archive Warning: Underage Relationship: Bakugou Katsuki/Midoriya Izuku Characters: Bakugou Katsuki, Midoriya Izuku Additional Tags: Humor, Smut, Age Difference, shota!Deku, Katsuki is Izuku's big brother's best friend, and Izuku has a very obvious crush, Extremely snarky narration, Because even I can't take Katsuki seriously here, Bakugou Katsuki is a piece of shit, and he's proud of it, Rough Sex Summary: You see, Izuku Midoriya was not slick. Katsuki knew something was up from their very first meeting, and two blushes into their second, he came to realize exactly what that something was. The boy had a crush on him, something innocent and sweet. A sort of physical attraction, without all the messy sexuality. An infatuation with the aesthetic of Katsuki’s being.

It was only appropriate, really — that Izuku’s attraction be so purely physical. After all, if he had any idea what sort of things went on inside Katsuki Bakugou’s mind, that sweet, innocent crush of his would shrivel and die faster than you could say, ‘yeah, you like that, Deku?’

For Public Use

Rating: Explicit Archive Warnings: Rape/Non-Con, Underage Relationships: Bakugou Katsuki/Midoriya Izuku, Midoriya Izuku/Others Characters: Bakugou Katsuki, Midoriya Izuku Additional Tags: Dirty Talk, Double Penetration, Alpha/Beta/Omega Dynamics, Gangbang, Mindbreak(sort of), essentially deku's trapped in a wall, and bakugou, like the UPSTANDING CITIZEN he is, decides to take advantage of the situation, Pre-OfA Summary: “I don’t think you quite understand your situation, Deku. You see—” Katsuki’s other hand joined the one on the boy’s lower back just before he slowly — suggestively — swept them down, settling on either side of Izuku’s hips. His fingers dug into his flesh through the fabric of his uniform pants, and the boy stiffened. “You’re in no position to be giving me fucking orders.”

[dukeofriven]

America: A Prophecy

‘What God is he writes laws of peace, and clothes him in a tempest? What pitying Angel lusts for tears, and fans himself with sighs? What crawling villain preaches abstinence and wraps himself In fat of lambs? No more I follow, no more obedience pay!’ So cried he, rending off his robe and throwing down his sceptre In sight of Albion’s Guardian; and all the Thirteen Angels Rent off their robes to the hungry wind, and threw their golden sceptres Down on the land of America. - William Blake, 1793

America is becoming ungovernable.

It’s simply much too large, too varied, and much too polarized for any one candidate to garner even the plurality of support needed to effectively govern as a president, complicated by the weaknesses of America’s social/political system that demands a democratically-elected executive somehow stand for the nation as a whole.

This isn’t a ‘diversity’ problem or a call for ethnic of cultural homogeneity. I’m from a country with greater diversity than the United States and we manage just fine. (I mean we’re facing a rising tide of rightwing resurgence exacerbated by decades of failure by ruling parties to replace the antiquated first-past-the-post voting system so I wouldn’t call us “fine” but those issues are rooted in numerous social trends, not racial demographics.)

It’s more a condition of the scale of Unites States and the internecine conflicts of groups within it. I remember during the last election hearing a lot about letting perfect be the enemy of good: ‘yes this candidate might not understand your ethnic/social/cultural group particularly well or speak to your issues, but you ought to vote for them anyways.’ From a certain point of view that’s true - I think it hardly uncontroversial to say that the world generally and America specifically is demonstrably worse under Donald Trump than it would have been under Hillary Clinton.

But leaving aside the candidates as individuals for a moment and viewing them purely as symbols the President-As-Unifier and the electoral circus around it becomes faintly absurd. The more often you have say to one group or another ‘stop needing a candidate to be exactly like you and just give them your vote because they’re more like you than the other guy,’ the more you overlook centuries of pain and marginalization. Groups that never had voices before have voices now: loud voices, prominent voices, and they are finding that they don’t want to sit down and shut up in the interest of some mythical unity anymore. They can’t. And therefore these presidential primaries are only going to get worse as things go on. They’re already getting acrimonious again, and those groups who have been told to swallow their voices again and again if they don’t want things to get worse are realizing that they’ve been used as tools as the status quo for far too long. Things don’t get worse when they shut up and vote like they’re told - but they never get better, either. Not in meaningful ways, or not rapidly enough to be meaningful to most of them .(‘By supporting the status quo you achieved a social victory and it only took you 45 years and your entire youth to see it come to fruition.’) The ‘baby-steps’ of change have started to seem less like care and caution and more like infantilization.

When the only people who could vote in America were white, adult, male property-owners you could have two political parties: there really was more that united voters then divided them, such as all voters belonging to the same class, ethnicity, language group, social background, Enlightenment-moulding education praxis, and willingness to compromise on treating human beings as disposable tools for labour. The greater the franchise has expanded in America the farther and further from that ‘unity’ things have gotten.

Since the Trump election in particular the question is asked: “What’s caused the polarization of America?” The real answers are a multitude of factors: unhealed wounds in the body politic after the Second Indochina War; the malaise, complacency, and self-indulgent omphaloskepsis of being the so-called superpower in the 90s; post-colonialism and free market economics bringing the worst ravages of capitalism stateside and decimating the illusion of a stable middle class. There’s lot of reasons as things are rarely simple.

Perhaps the most critical cause, however, the one with the greatest impact, has been this widening of not just the franchise but the gradual realization by the newly-enfranchised that they vocalize social discontent and express it - or at least attempt to express it - through voting. The ‘silent majority’ can only exist when the majority of oppressed and marginalized groups suffer in silence. The divisions that exist now existed in the 1950s, but they are only now being vocalized in such a prominent way. Even the labour movement and the Great Depression in the thirties did not sufficiently create an impression of intractable internecine rivalries such as now can be seen dividing America.

Republicans have understood this for a long time. This is why their politics have grown more and more tribalistic as the years have gone on. So long as they can dominate amongst specific strata of demographics they don’t have to care about winning any kind of nation-wide majority. They can fixate on the plurality that rigidly shares its belief systems: a rigidity created by and continually reenforced by the rhetoric of Republican doctrine and dogma. Democrats coasted on this for years, thinking that if Republicans focused only on a handful of groups then they benefited simply by having everyone else by default.

But it didn’t really work out that way. Gerrymandering by Republican bureaucrats helped a lot here by segmenting voting districts so that anyone outside the Republican voting base got split across multiple voting districts and never coalesced into more than a handful of centralized sources of power that the Democrats could rely on, but there’s a bigger issue. This Republican plurality positioning has only short-term value: they’re a demographic time bomb and as far back as 2012 I can remember their saner members talking about this as a matter of some urgency. But they were ignored, and the GOP is on a death-cult rocket ride to eventual obsolescence, although they’ll pull as much of American down around them as they go in an act of spite.

But that’s not the problem (or, rather, it is a problem but it’s not what I’ve come here to talk about today). Democrats got so used to coasting on being the party of the default that they lack any ability to talk to groups specifically. Nobody likes being taken for granted and they’ve started pushing back. Clinton’s failure to secure a margin of victory overwhelming enough to overcome the limiters of the Electoral College showed that two years ago: plenty of groups stayed home, an act of protest against a party that expected their vote for no other reason than 'not being the other guy.’

Nobody seems to have learned that lesson very well. Imagine two, three presidential elections from now, when the GOP is a spent force whose membership lists are now covered with dead people. (The oldest baby boomers are over 70, and when age brackets start to die in numbers it becomes a cascade. I can remember going from parades of WWII vets to a handful of wheelchair veterans in about a decade, and from some WWI vets to none in the same length of time.) For the younger among you two, three elections might seem like a long time, but it isn’t: years rush by faster than you think. So picture that world with a GOP in terminal decline and a Democratic party witnessing the prophesied triumph of demographic inevitability.

That’s essentially a one-party state, but a party that already struggles to be enough things to enough people now is going to buckle under pressures the American political system simply wasn’t built to handle. America was built around being a two-party state - of being a country in which the majority of people fit comfortably enough into two broad binaries and vote accordingly.

But they don’t, and they can’t, and America as it presently exists may be quite literally ungovernable. The centuries of appalling violence within America only complicate the picture further - it’s the sort of mixture of history, population, and anger that lead to the Balkan Wars, the conflicts between former members of the Warsaw Pact, and more recently the creation of South Sudan. America already had one civil war, there’s no reason to think that a re-fragmenting of America isn’t possible, especially given how contentious the language seems to be among different groups.

America has a scale problem, and I think Americans don’t really understand this. I live in the second largest country in the world by area but nobody actually lives here. See this?

It’s about fifteen years out of date, but the population hasn’t expanded beyond those yellow borders: just make the red bits much redder and you’re golden. Yet even this is still not getting the full picture. Let me show you with my photoshop skills: Everybody in the green bit:

Does not equal the population of the blue bit. If Canadian politics ran purely off of direct voting the entire country would be dominated by a group of people who live in about 0.14% of the country. What this means in practice is that for all that Canada has different grouping of cultural diversity (i.e. the political/social/cultural makeup of PEI as distinct from Vancouver as distinct from Iqaluit), should a civil war of either literal or abstract nature break-out the power of bodies is still located in one place. This is the population density of America:

Look at all those different concentrations of people and power. Like I said Canada does, of course, have other centres of power outside of old Upper/Lower Canada: despite what it thinks Toronto is not the entirety of the universe. But the multiplicity of metropolitan spaces and concentrated population centres such as you have in America don’t exist here. What am I getting at with this? America has spaces of intensely regional identity on an enormous scale. In Canada, for example, even Quebec separatism seems to be dying a slow and painful death. We’ve all got our our local identities, but Canadians are still mostly Canadian first, something else second. America by contrast, have fought a bloody civil war over slavery that afterwards was reshaped (falsely) into a war about regionalism, which mutated later into tribalism. This is why right-wingers in Union states spout Confederate flags. The flag doesn’t represent the literal loyalties of the Confederacy but its values: racism, white power, using human being as disposable tools for personal enrichment, and racism. (Anyone wanting to argue is welcome to read the Constitution of the Confederacy, which is nothing but the US Constitution with extra bits about slavery and river trade stuck in: it’s not subtle, and the character of the Confederacy is not up for debate.) Americans - or at least a worrying percentage of Americans - tend to link their national and tribal identities quite strongly: all you have to do is watch a Trump rally to work that out. To be an American is to be like me - thus, anyone unlike me is unAmerican. That is the sickness, the rot that is chewing up America from the inside. The right wing seized hold of the idea that the only Real Americans are those just like them, and other groups have started to adopt the same mindset out of self-defence, and these fractures are only going to deepen. Take that and add to it the way that political tribalism is fusing with regional identity and you begin to see the scope of the problem: you’re reaching the point where nobody from Region A can ever be thought of having any authority over Region B because Region A people are the Other. (Trump will probably be the last New Yorker City dweller to ever hold sway in the GOP: his successors will bind themselves to the base not merely through the tribal shibboleths of hating brown people and the poor who believe in improving their lot through anything other than force of will, but also through regional identity. No Californian Republican is likely to ever see front-billing again: you’ll prove your loyalty by only living in the ‘right’ places - solidly red, with no compromising purple of ideological weakness.)

So look at the Democratic party two, three elections from now: the party of everyone in the country who isn’t the GOP. How is that a functioning political group? What could it stand for that would effectively cover such a diverse collection of people? You cannot be the party of the centrists and the progressives and the leftists and the disaffected rightists and the communists and the socialists and the ethical capitalists and the neo-Marxists and the socially-liberal libertarians and the left-leaning rich and the remaining middle class and the working class and the vested corporate interests unwilling to directly support fascism and on and on and on. Democrats can run on the ‘Not Trump’ platform for the moment because the GOP will likely be the party of Trumpism from here on out. (The GOP had enough sense of self preservation to distance itself from Nixon back in the day, but ever since it refused to repudiate Reagan after Iran-Contra it’s shown that it is only ever going to double-down on its bets from here on out: it’ll be riding this train until the very bitter end.) But ‘not Trump’ is barely sufficient even now - because people want to know what the party is for, not just what it’s against. And it can’t be for everything but Trumpism - it’s too broad a field. So America is rapidly become ungovernable, because one party wants to serve a demographic facing extinction, and the other wants to be the Big Tent of literally everyone else no matter how different they may be. Which looks great on a poster about tolerance that you’d hang in a kindergarten class but is untenable when trying to unify 18-year old queer anarcho-syndicists of colour and 50-year old suburban capitalism-apologist whites: their goals are too divergent for harmony to make political sense. (And yes, ‘suburban’ is an antonym of ‘queer.’ Trust me on this.) They want fundamentally different things; just because they mutually do not also want a third thing does not mean they make stable, good, or even plausible allies. The Waffle Guardians and The Crepe Defenders can come together and agree that Pancakes are garbage but that is the end of their common cause, not the start of meaningful co-operation on a variety of issues mattering to both groups, because those don’t really exist. So America is becoming literally ungovernable because its institutions are incapable of operating outside of a narrow binary between two relatively close points. It was not designed, and cannot handle, the intense tribalism of the moment, nor the future that will contain a multitude of independently-minded political groups who are no longer willing to engage with big tent politics that ultimately never forward their own causes. We talk right now about a battle for the ‘soul’ of the Democratic party, but that’s bull. The fight is for who gets to keep the branding and the cachet of the name ‘Democratic Party’ - the next step is party secession, first when the centrists realize the progressives really do mean to literally destroy them and the status quo they hold dear, and then further fragmentation from there. I could go on and on down various laneways here about how increasing tribalism is straining the American system on a structural level. Take the Supreme Court, which only functions without a heavily politicized judiciary because otherwise democratic desires are stifled by entrenched judicial positions that judge issues only on their political merits. Or take how binary elected government in general only works with the understanding that every time power swaps between two groups the next group doesn’t instantly undo everything the last group did out of spite. (We’re seeing that in Ontario right now, actually, as a serious of ‘fortunate’ events brought into power a man so craven he makes Donald Trump seem downright generous in comparison. Our new premiere realized that if he just stops caring about re-election he can do whatever he wants to enrich his corporate buddies in the short-term, so he’s doing things that are enraging even his base, like removing anaesthetic coverage from colonoscopies. He, like Trump, is a ‘political outsider’ but unlike Trump his ego doesn’t need people telling him they love him - he’s perfectly happy being a vindictive thug, so even though he used populist anger to get into power he feels no reason to do anything for anyone who put him there. This is what happens when you elect a suburban drug dealer whose only goal is to revenge himself on an entire province for not taking his brother the crack-smoking mayor seriously. Ontario is so, so screwed.) Fundamentally, presidential republics are a disease. The American republican system has damaged every country its ever been exported to as its central structural weakness - an ability to be easily subsumed by autocrats - has been taken advantage of in basically every case, not to mention its tendency to fall into political deadlock. America’s own legal experts don’t recommend the country’s constitution to other - RBGs herself said that she would not use the US Constitution as a model to any country creating one today. The fractures that so ruined South America and the emerging African states that took the Us as their role model are finally happening in American itself. This feeling of paralyzation will only worsen in the years to come: it was practically baked-in to the political system from the start, the inevitable breaking point of planned obsolescence. America must either change - such as adopting a parliamentary model better-suited to handle the diverse social, ethnic, cultural, and regional demographics of such a large country, or taking an axe to existing institutional binaries and demolishing the two-party state - or die. I recognize the irony in saying that there is a binary choice about handling the inability to handle non-binaries, but there is a third option: sticking with the status quo. A status quo that is groaning under the strain of modern America, a status quo for which simple, minor modifications are unlikely to be enough to relieve the pressures the system is under. You could try that. You’ve been trying it for decades. How’s that choice working out? Two to three elections from now the idea that you can neatly divide political extremes into Liberal and Conservative, and that harmony can only be found in collaboration, will be so dead that not even the most committed advocate of the status quo will be able to ignore the smell - though he will, of course, say that the onus is on other people to come back from their ‘extremist’ positions, because it’s never centrism’s fault when people reject it as insufficient to the crises of the present. To the Americans who read this, you’re going to have to choose - and it really is a choice, surprising as that may seem. You can choose to let America end. To let it die. Countries die all the time. That wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. Say you’re from a blue state: do you still want a future of sharing a country with a red state? America stays together because ‘more unites us than divides us’ - but is there a point where that truism can no longer be consider true? And at that point is there still value in remaining a union? Meaningful value, and not just a sense of duty or obligation to an ideal that doesn’t seem to have any real-world resonance? What is the point at which political compromise becomes something you can no longer stomach - when working together goes from making deals with the opposition to making deals with the devil? When do hyperbolic statements like the other side being 'the devil’ stop sounding like hyperbole? For all that I talked about the Founding Fathers and their immediate voting heirs being ‘the same’ one point on which they disagreed was slavery - but they found themselves able to compromise on the use of humans-as-property for labour. That I one of the founding pacts of America: some of us don’t like slavery, but we can live with it in the interest of unity. Could you, a time-traveler-turned-Founding-Father, make the same choice? On what are you willing to compromise to keep the union a union - what agreements could you make and still be able to meet your own gaze in a mirror? Keep in mind that choosing ‘change’ is no guarantee that the change will be successful, or that the post-America that emerges from that change will be any more a place you want to live in than if you had chosen to keep America alive. I merely want the full and total weight of those decisions to be clear. American compromised on slavery at the moment of its birth: it has lived with the consequences of that compromise ever since. America continues to exist because matters were compromised on - some benign, some heinous, all done in the interest of a greater good. Are you willing to make such compromises future - and are you willing to accept the consequences of what might happen if you are not? There is no ‘going back.’ The post-Trump America will not be a ‘return to normal.’ It can’t. Too many lines have been crossed for there to be a simple return to ‘normality’ when all this is done: that normal is dead. If you choose to try and reinstate it - if you choose neither change nor death but the old status quo - then the problems that birthed this current crisis will remain. Is that status quo strong enough to withstand a second round with such events? That’s something you’ll have to decided. Until then, American will remain ungovernable.

[moonlightmolly]

Fandom Tag Meme

Thank you to @gallihafry for tagging me! Sorry it took me so long to do this!

1. Your current OTP(s)/OT3(s)/OTX(s):

I've never been super into shipping (I've actually distanced myself from a few fandoms because some of the shippers were so rude to people). I've found that most of my favorite relationships on Doctor Who have been mainly platonic ones, like the friendships between Eleven and Amy, Ten and Donna, and Twelve and Bill. The exception to this is Doctor x Clara. I liked her with Eleven, but she and Twelve are just brilliant together. And even this pairing is a little different than most because Clara and Twelve never kiss or do anything overtly romantic (at least not onscreen). And I think that's what appeals to me about it. It's clear that they love each other more than life itself, but their relationship defies categories and stereotypes.

2. A pairing you initially didn’t consider but someone changed your mind (bonus points: who was that person).

I can't think of any.

3. A pairing you used to love, but it all fell apart for you.

I wouldn’t say it all fell apart for me because I still like River x Doctor (The Husbands of River Song is my favorite Christmas Special), but the whole "You're destined to fall in love with me" aspect bothers me because I'm a big believer in free will. However, I do really love the idea of River loving the Doctor throughout his different incarnations, in spite of the huge changes in personality and appearance. Apparently, there’s a Big Finish story where River goes on an adventure with Six and Seven, which sounds pretty entertaining. And I have absolutely nothing against Alex Kingston herself. I got to see her at a panel in my hometown a year ago (my first ever Doctor Who panel!), and she’s so funny and charismatic. I think even my Dad enjoyed listening to her, even though he’s not a Doctor Who fan. And her hair is even more amazing in person.

4. Have you added anything cracky/hilarious to your fandom, if so, what?

Not yet, unfortunately. However, I'm planning on getting Photoshop soon, so maybe I will someday. 🙂

5. What’s the longest you’ve ever been in a fandom?

I've loved Star Wars since childhood. I think I was around seven when I watched A New Hope for the first time. It’s still my favorite Star Wars movie.

6. Do you remember your first OTP, if so who was in it?

I think it was either Raven x Beast Boy (Teen Titans) or Aang x Katara (Avatar: The Last Airbender).

7. Name a fandom you didn’t care/think about until you saw it all over Tumblr.

It was a gifset of Vincent and the Doctor that sparked my interest in Doctor Who. Also, I printed out a Twelfth Doctor quote and put it on the bulletin board over my desk before I ever started watching the show. It was his "scared is a superpower" quote from Listen, which is now one of my favorite episodes.

8. Say something genuinely nice about a character who isn’t one of your faves (chars you’re neutral on are fair game, as are chars you dislike).

While I don't hate any of the Doctor's companions, Rose Tyler is my least favorite. Her possessiveness of the Doctor bugged me. However, I liked her friendship with Nine and I know she played a critical role in healing him after the Time War.

9. Name three things you wish you saw more of in your main fandom (or a fandom of choice).

I have to agree with @gallihafry here: 1) Less hatred of the showrunners. Constructive criticism is good, personal attacks are not. 2) More respect towards those with differing viewpoints. 3) Kind of ties in with 2, but less "us vs them" attitudes when it comes to ships. We can become so divided over characters and ships that we forget that we all love the same show.

10. Choose a song at random; which ship or character does it remind you of?

"Answer" by Sarah McLachlan makes me think of Twelve and Clara. If I had any video editing skills, I'd make a video for them with that song (and probably cry a lot).

11. A pairing you ship that you don’t think anyone else ships.

This would obviously be an AU ship, but I really love the idea of Donna x Nine. It all started with this artwork by Kelly Yates. I bought a t-shirt with this on it, and my favorite little detail is the heart between Donna and Nine. I can totally picture those two together, rocking their leather jackets and sassing their way through time and space. They’d probably get into a big argument at some point, then one of them (probably Donna) would randomly interrupt the whole thing with a kiss. How cute would that be? Okay, now I really want to see some Donna x Nine fanart.

12. Your most scandalous headcanon for your current OTP(s)/OT3(s)/OTX(s).

I only recently became a Whouffaldi shipper, so nothing yet.

13. Do you have any hard and fast headcanons that you will die defending, about anything at all (gender identity, sexual or romantic orientation, extended family, sexual preferences like top/bottom/switch, relationship with poetry, seriously anything)?

I believe that Twelve has a Scottish accent because of Amy, and no one will ever convince me otherwise. It kind of makes me hope that Thirteen will have an accent like Clara's. I really like the idea of remembering a companion through a trait like that.

14. 5 favorite characters from 5 different fandoms.

I’ve already listed some in this post, but I left out some good ones, so I'm glad this question is here!

Ellen Ripley (Alien) Amy Pond (Doctor Who) Aragorn (Lord of the Rings) Sophie Hatter (Howl's Moving Castle) Furiosa (Mad Max: Fury Road)

15. 3 OTPs from 3 different fandoms.

Whouffaldi (Doctor Who), Sherlolly (Sherlock), and Ellie x Alec (Broadchurch)

16. 5 favorite ships.

Since I’ve already listed my three main romantic ships, I’m going to use this space to list my favorite platonic ships!

Amy & Eleven

Donna & Ten

Bill & Twelve

Red & Liz (The Blacklist)

Sherlock & Watson (Sherlock, Elementary)

17. Just ramble about something fan-related, go go go (prompts optional but encouraged).

Time for a little soapbox rant. One thing that really irritates me is the attitude that platonic relationships can't be as interesting and complex as romantic ones. The majority of my favorite fictional relationships are platonic, but I wouldn't call any of them boring. What's even more upsetting is when people attack writers for not making their ship canon. It's fine to disagree with the direction of a show or story, but as I said above, personal attacks are never okay. This is something I've run into in multiple fandoms, unfortunately. However, the people I follow, along with my followers and mutuals, are giving me hope that not all fandoms have to be that way. I’m thankful for the community I’ve found here. Y’all are helping my attitude both toward fandoms and (for those of you close to my age) toward my age group in general. I have a history of disliking other millennials. But I’m learning that it’s not fair to generalize just because I’ve had some bad experiences in the past. Seriously, thank you, everyone, for the follows, likes, reblogs, tags, comments, etc. Whether you know it or not, you’re helping me heal. 😊

Well, that got rather long and personal! Congrats if you read this whole thing.

I’m going to tag: @impossible-stardust, @gallifreyland, @twelveclaraisreal, @lullapiee, and @sea-sands. This is purely for fun, don’t feel pressured to participate.

[zibizuba]

Un-Retouched Photos of Famous Celebrities

var h12precont = 'h12c_300x250_' + Math.floor(Math.random()*1000000); document.write('

'); (h12_adarray = window.h12_adarray || []).push({"adcontainer":h12precont,"placement":"c9d6b99f00114c5a436a0f497c7bb182","size":"300x250","type":"standard","width":"300","height":"250","name":""});

You’ve undoubtedly seen retouched footage of celebrities, however what about unretouched movie star footage? It’s inconceivable to undergo a grocery store line with out seeing not less than one shiny, fabulous way of life journal that includes an unrealistically engaging movie star flashing a vibrant, white grin at you. Clearly, your first thought is often, “Wow, he/she is scorching.” However sadly, your second thought is often, “Wow, I might by no means appear like that.” Thus is the psychological impact of media “airbrushing” on our perceptions of what lovely female and male people ought to appear like.

Some celebrities have taken it upon themselves to reveal this necessary situation by leaking unretouched pictures of themselves from earlier photoshoots. Different celebrities, nevertheless, have been unwilling members on this anti-Photoshop campaign, and have seen their unretouched footage leaked on-line by militant media critics and ardent followers. Normally, the movie star pics are met with a collective shrug and a basic consensus that the celebrities are nonetheless scorching, even with out Photoshop. However different instances, the nonphotoshopped photos and footage of celebrities with out make-up trigger precise controversies, as within the case of the Nice Beyonce Leak of 2015.

Many individuals suppose these footage of celebrities unretouched are humanizing, even after they nonetheless look unrealistically lovely. As an example, it’s good to be reminded that Madonna isn’t as ageless as we thought, or that Britney Spears nonetheless has her tramp stamp in spite of everything of those years. Plus, there’s at all times a component of bravery in releasing untouched pictures of your self, whether or not you’re stunningly engaging or not.

Britney Spears

BritBrit launched unretouched pics from a 2010 Candie’s marketing campaign to show the stress placed on ladies by the media to look excellent. The non-airbrushed pics revealed that she had been considerably slimmed down and that her again tattoo had been eliminated.

Beyoncé Knowles

The Beyhive went cuckoo in early 2015 when a Beyonc é fan website launched unretouched pictures of Beyonc éin her pure, true-to-life kind. The pictures had been from a 2013 L’Oreal marketing campaign – you’ll be able to see the completed advert on the best. So she has some blemishes… who cares?

Madonna

Her Madgesty misplaced a little bit of her regality when un-retouched pictures from Interview journal leaked on-line in 2010. Perhaps she’s not as ageless as we predict.

Kourtney Kardashian

Irritated with OK! journal’s apparent Photoshopping of her post-baby physique in 2010 (at proper above), the brand new mother launched un-retouched pictures to the media to present a extra reasonable impression of what she seemed like.

Religion Hill

Jezebel uncovered this un-retouched picture of Religion Hill from a July 2007 cowl of Redbook. You possibly can see the place editors spruced up the already beautiful nation singer. Principally, they slimmed her arms, lightened her hair, thinned her smile, and customarily made her appear like that robotic that she performed in The Stepford Wives.

Lena Dunham

In 2014, Jezebel leaked un-retouched variations of the pictures from Dunham’s Vogue picture shoot. Amongst many modifications they identified was the truth that although Dunham was fully redone, Adam Driver’s face and physique had been left untouched.

Jennifer Aniston

Jezebel  fought to keep this un-retouched image of Jennifer Aniston on its website as a option to make us take into consideration how journal editors anticipate even lovely folks like Aniston to undergo digital touchups. The un-retouched picture is from a 2009 situation of Australia’s Madison journal.

Ronda Rousey

The UFC fighter was despatched an image of an look she made on Jimmy Fallon’s present to share on social media. Besides it was altered to make her arms look much less buff. Rousey was having none of that, and posted the unique and retouched pics side-by-side, vowing that she’s pleased with her physique, and it gained’t occur once more.

Khloé Kardashian

Khloe Kardashian launched this un-retouched picture from a 2015 picture shoot with Advanced Journal after critics known as it out for being photoshopped. In an Instagram comment beneath the picture she says, “Give me an oz of credit score for my day by day exercises!” She principally appears the identical (rattling lady!) in each pictures.

Jessica Simpson

After everybody and their mom began commenting on Jessica Simpson’s weight acquire in 2010, she determined to go un-airbrushed on the quilt of Marie Claire as a option to level out society’s unrealistic expectations of ladies. It solely form of labored: She nonetheless managed to look unrealistically engaging, even with out airbrush wizardry.

Bethenny Frankel

When folks began complaining about Frankel’s unrealistically glowing look in an anti-fur advert she did for Peta, she bought fed up and launched un-retouched pictures from the picture shoot.

Kim Kardashian

Kim Kardashian’s un-retouched pics in a 2009 version of Life & Type had been meant to make some form of assertion, however the one assertion they appeared to be making was, “I’m nonetheless scorching with out Photoshop.” Can you continue to name your look “pure” in case your face is caked in make-up?

Sadie Frost

Jude Legislation’s ex-wife appeared au naturel in Grazia journal to point out that older ladies can nonetheless be lovely with out Photoshop. Largely, it simply made folks jealous of her toned, curvy physique, which she nonetheless had at age 40, after having a number of youngsters.

Jessica Alba

It’s not clear why the digital wizards behind this Campari advert felt the necessity to photoshop Jessica Alba, who’s already an above common trying lady. She appears completely advantageous within the un-retouched pictures, which leaked on-line in 2008.

Pleasure Bryant

Parenthood‘s Pleasure Bryant appeared bare and un-Photoshopped in Harper’s Bazaar as a option to make an announcement about ladies’s our bodies and yada yada… no matter. She nonetheless seemed amazingly engaging.

Jamie Lee Curtis

In 2002, Jamie Lee Curtis, unofficial spokesperson for previous folks’s digestive points, appeared in Extrajournal with out digital alterations. Her look might be the bravest one on this checklist, contemplating the truth that she doesn’t have a freakishly excellent physique.

Claudia Schiffer

This preternaturally engaging supermodel appeared nude and un-retouched in Tank journal to point out what an “common, reasonable 40-year-old physique” seemed like. Her phrases.

Jennifer Lopez

When unaltered (however nonetheless beautiful) pics from J.Lo’s 2011 marketing campaign for L’Or éal surfaced, they did nothing to calm anybody’s insecurities about their very own our bodies.

Demi Moore

When folks began murmuring about Demi Moore’s unrealistic-looking legs on the quilt of W journal in 2009, she launched her “authentic” pics to the media to show that her shoot had not been altered. Sadly, the unique pics (at proper) look nearly precisely the identical and don’t actually show something.

Jennifer Hawkins

Once you’re Miss Universe 2004, is it actually courageous to point out up unaltered and nude in {a magazine}? Or are you simply rubbing your hotness in everybody’s face?

Anjelica Huston

Un-retouched pictures of Anjelica Huston appeared in movie star photographer Johnny Rozsa’s 2010 picture guide  Untouched.

Carmen Electra

This unaltered picture of Carmen Electra appeared in Untouched together with Anjelica Huston’s image.

Marion Cotillard

Cotillard’s un-Photoshopped look on the quilt of Self-importance Truthful is among the most lovely of this checklist.

Catherine Zeta-Jones

One other magnificence included within the unaltered picture album Untouched was Mrs. Michael Douglas.

Daryl Hannah

Daryl Hannah seemed smoldering on this unaltered picture from movie star photographer Johnny Rozsa.

Holly Madison

Hugh Hefner’s ex, Holly Madison, appeared in Life & Type in all of her unedited glory, which principally meant that there have been just a few extra wrinkles on her than regular.

David Duchovny

This untouched pic of David Duchovny appeared within the guide  Untouched, suspenders and all.

Sandra Bernhard

She’s by no means been conventionally engaging, however Sandra Bernhard appears shockingly lovely on this un-retouched pic from Untouched.

Daniel Day-Lewis

Johnny Rozsa’s muse for Untouched’s cowl picture was none apart from Daniel Day Lewis.

Zendaya

Zendaya posted this side-by-side look on Instagram after Modeliste Journal used photoshop to slim the 19-year-old’s thighs and waist. Modeliste has since taken down the photoshopped picture at Zendaya’s request.

Associated

Artykuł Un-Retouched Photos of Famous Celebrities pochodzi z serwisu PENSE LOL.

source https://pense.lol/un-retouched-photos-of-famous-celebrities/

[zibizuba]

var h12precont = 'h12c_300x250_' + Math.floor(Math.random()*1000000); document.write(' <div id="' + h12precont + '">'); (h12_adarray = window.h12_adarray || []).push({"adcontainer":h12precont,"placement":"c9d6b99f00114c5a436a0f497c7bb182","size":"300x250","type":"standard","width":"300","height":"250","name":""}); </div>

You’ve undoubtedly seen retouched footage of celebrities, however what about unretouched movie star footage? It’s inconceivable to undergo a grocery store line with out seeing not less than one shiny, fabulous way of life journal that includes an unrealistically engaging movie star flashing a vibrant, white grin at you. Clearly, your first thought is often, “Wow, he/she is scorching.” However sadly, your second thought is often, “Wow, I might by no means appear like that.” Thus is the psychological impact of media “airbrushing” on our perceptions of what lovely female and male people ought to appear like.

Some celebrities have taken it upon themselves to reveal this necessary situation by leaking unretouched pictures of themselves from earlier photoshoots. Different celebrities, nevertheless, have been unwilling members on this anti-Photoshop campaign, and have seen their unretouched footage leaked on-line by militant media critics and ardent followers. Normally, the movie star pics are met with a collective shrug and a basic consensus that the celebrities are nonetheless scorching, even with out Photoshop. However different instances, the nonphotoshopped photos and footage of celebrities with out make-up trigger precise controversies, as within the case of the Nice Beyonce Leak of 2015.

Many individuals suppose these footage of celebrities unretouched are humanizing, even after they nonetheless look unrealistically lovely. As an example, it’s good to be reminded that Madonna isn’t as ageless as we thought, or that Britney Spears nonetheless has her tramp stamp in spite of everything of those years. Plus, there’s at all times a component of bravery in releasing untouched pictures of your self, whether or not you’re stunningly engaging or not.

Britney Spears

BritBrit launched unretouched pics from a 2010 Candie’s marketing campaign to show the stress placed on ladies by the media to look excellent. The non-airbrushed pics revealed that she had been considerably slimmed down and that her again tattoo had been eliminated.

Beyoncé Knowles

The Beyhive went cuckoo in early 2015 when a Beyonc é fan website launched unretouched pictures of Beyonc éin her pure, true-to-life kind. The pictures had been from a 2013 L’Oreal marketing campaign – you’ll be able to see the completed advert on the best. So she has some blemishes… who cares?

Madonna

Her Madgesty misplaced a little bit of her regality when un-retouched pictures from Interview journal leaked on-line in 2010. Perhaps she’s not as ageless as we predict.

Kourtney Kardashian

Irritated with OK! journal’s apparent Photoshopping of her post-baby physique in 2010 (at proper above), the brand new mother launched un-retouched pictures to the media to present a extra reasonable impression of what she seemed like.

Religion Hill

Jezebel uncovered this un-retouched picture of Religion Hill from a July 2007 cowl of Redbook. You possibly can see the place editors spruced up the already beautiful nation singer. Principally, they slimmed her arms, lightened her hair, thinned her smile, and customarily made her appear like that robotic that she performed in The Stepford Wives.

Lena Dunham

In 2014, Jezebel leaked un-retouched variations of the pictures from Dunham’s Vogue picture shoot. Amongst many modifications they identified was the truth that although Dunham was fully redone, Adam Driver’s face and physique had been left untouched.

Jennifer Aniston

Jezebel  fought to keep this un-retouched image of Jennifer Aniston on its website as a option to make us take into consideration how journal editors anticipate even lovely folks like Aniston to undergo digital touchups. The un-retouched picture is from a 2009 situation of Australia’s Madison journal.

Ronda Rousey

The UFC fighter was despatched an image of an look she made on Jimmy Fallon’s present to share on social media. Besides it was altered to make her arms look much less buff. Rousey was having none of that, and posted the unique and retouched pics side-by-side, vowing that she’s pleased with her physique, and it gained’t occur once more.

Khloé Kardashian

Khloe Kardashian launched this un-retouched picture from a 2015 picture shoot with Advanced Journal after critics known as it out for being photoshopped. In an Instagram comment beneath the picture she says, “Give me an oz of credit score for my day by day exercises!” She principally appears the identical (rattling lady!) in each pictures.

Jessica Simpson

After everybody and their mom began commenting on Jessica Simpson’s weight acquire in 2010, she determined to go un-airbrushed on the quilt of Marie Claire as a option to level out society’s unrealistic expectations of ladies. It solely form of labored: She nonetheless managed to look unrealistically engaging, even with out airbrush wizardry.

Bethenny Frankel

When folks began complaining about Frankel’s unrealistically glowing look in an anti-fur advert she did for Peta, she bought fed up and launched un-retouched pictures from the picture shoot.

Kim Kardashian

Kim Kardashian’s un-retouched pics in a 2009 version of Life & Type had been meant to make some form of assertion, however the one assertion they appeared to be making was, “I’m nonetheless scorching with out Photoshop.” Can you continue to name your look “pure” in case your face is caked in make-up?

Sadie Frost

Jude Legislation’s ex-wife appeared au naturel in Grazia journal to point out that older ladies can nonetheless be lovely with out Photoshop. Largely, it simply made folks jealous of her toned, curvy physique, which she nonetheless had at age 40, after having a number of youngsters.

Jessica Alba

It’s not clear why the digital wizards behind this Campari advert felt the necessity to photoshop Jessica Alba, who’s already an above common trying lady. She appears completely advantageous within the un-retouched pictures, which leaked on-line in 2008.

Pleasure Bryant

Parenthood‘s Pleasure Bryant appeared bare and un-Photoshopped in Harper’s Bazaar as a option to make an announcement about ladies’s our bodies and yada yada… no matter. She nonetheless seemed amazingly engaging.

Jamie Lee Curtis

In 2002, Jamie Lee Curtis, unofficial spokesperson for previous folks’s digestive points, appeared in Extrajournal with out digital alterations. Her look might be the bravest one on this checklist, contemplating the truth that she doesn’t have a freakishly excellent physique.

Claudia Schiffer

This preternaturally engaging supermodel appeared nude and un-retouched in Tank journal to point out what an “common, reasonable 40-year-old physique” seemed like. Her phrases.

Jennifer Lopez

When unaltered (however nonetheless beautiful) pics from J.Lo’s 2011 marketing campaign for L’Or éal surfaced, they did nothing to calm anybody’s insecurities about their very own our bodies.

Demi Moore

When folks began murmuring about Demi Moore’s unrealistic-looking legs on the quilt of W journal in 2009, she launched her “authentic” pics to the media to show that her shoot had not been altered. Sadly, the unique pics (at proper) look nearly precisely the identical and don’t actually show something.

Jennifer Hawkins

Once you’re Miss Universe 2004, is it actually courageous to point out up unaltered and nude in {a magazine}? Or are you simply rubbing your hotness in everybody’s face?

Anjelica Huston

Un-retouched pictures of Anjelica Huston appeared in movie star photographer Johnny Rozsa’s 2010 picture guide  Untouched.

Carmen Electra

This unaltered picture of Carmen Electra appeared in Untouched together with Anjelica Huston’s image.

Marion Cotillard

Cotillard’s un-Photoshopped look on the quilt of Self-importance Truthful is among the most lovely of this checklist.

Catherine Zeta-Jones

One other magnificence included within the unaltered picture album Untouched was Mrs. Michael Douglas.

Daryl Hannah

Daryl Hannah seemed smoldering on this unaltered picture from movie star photographer Johnny Rozsa.

Holly Madison

Hugh Hefner’s ex, Holly Madison, appeared in Life & Type in all of her unedited glory, which principally meant that there have been just a few extra wrinkles on her than regular.

David Duchovny

This untouched pic of David Duchovny appeared within the guide  Untouched, suspenders and all.

Sandra Bernhard

She’s by no means been conventionally engaging, however Sandra Bernhard appears shockingly lovely on this un-retouched pic from Untouched.

Daniel Day-Lewis

Johnny Rozsa’s muse for Untouched’s cowl picture was none apart from Daniel Day Lewis.

Zendaya

Zendaya posted this side-by-side look on Instagram after Modeliste Journal used photoshop to slim the 19-year-old’s thighs and waist. Modeliste has since taken down the photoshopped picture at Zendaya’s request.

Associated

Artykuł Un-Retouched Photos of Famous Celebrities pochodzi z serwisu PENSE LOL.

via PENSE LOL