#there's more stuff i don't like but either it's considered normal (ie not a big fan of spinach. w/out cream it's just bland)

[moinsbienquekaworu]

Actually.

[princess-of-the-corner]

Idea, with the negative reads on both Chloe & Adrien's parents, imagine a parent swap?

IE, Gabriel/Audrey & Emilie/Andre.

Gabriel/Audrey

Its two massive egotistical perfectionists who ae incredibly callous and easily given to cruelty. They are a power couple in the most terrifying sense of the word and place basically no regard on those around them except how it serves their interests.

When things are good.

If there's ever a problem a mishap. a failure, oh boy can it become destructive & given Audrey is intensely independent and Gabriel is a massive control freak I can envision there being no shortage of room for conflict.

I imagine whichever kid they end up with is either a traumatized and nervous wreck, often used as ammo against the other parent & needing to navigate their endless expectations & drama. & or wound so tightly they're going to pop and kill someone.

Emilie/Andre.

They are on the surface loving and indulgent parents. Unfortunately they are also intensely selfish and toxic people who are just instinctively good at dressing up their behavior.

Andre is blatantly corrupt and considers this fine, he will oscillate between sycophant's and stern power house as needed. His relationships exist to make him feel good about himself & stop mattering the moment he's not in the mood.

Emilie is more on the surface moral, but will happily compromise any moral or belief if it gets her what she wants. What she wants is to be the apple of of someone's eye, their sun, their moon, their definition of love. Andre showers her with gifts & her to him affection.

Their child is someone they have insulated and isolated, they don't want to share, they don't want them to leave, they want them always around (When they are wanted) and always focused on how great they are. Its looks loving but it basically two parasites using their child for food.

I would have suggested Gabriel/Andre & Emilie/Audrey but that'd just canon with the genders swapped right? Huh... Maybe not?

If one were to touch on the sociological side of things, gosh being openly queer would potentially affect a lot. Especially whether some of them could even make it big. If nothing else their trajectory might change a bit.

If we ignore the sociological and treat their relationship as totally normalized culturally, so its just their personalities being kept in mind...

I think there is stuff to muse on definitely, but needing sleep I might be less than my best with this one XD

Emilie/Audrey

High flying famous stars, they go where their work is. For Emilie this means studios and locations, for Audrey its a mix of New York, Paris, Milan and so on.

Their child is likely used to being carted around as Emilie's luggage, essentially a mascot and emotional support dummy she says she loves cos she likes the idea of them adoring her.

Audrey is far more indifferent unless they impress her, but is more keyed into the marriage itself. Emilie is exceptional and while inclined to be swept up in Audrey's wake, can coax some tact from her.

She is still distant, harsh and near impossible to please however and neither think much of their Childs needs & tend to be very much enamored with one another when times are good & when not... There's work.

Likely a very unpredictable, isolating and unstable childhood with an affectionate but emotionally selfish parent and a callous impossible to please parent.

Gabriel/Andre

Definitely a bit more public than the hyper private Agreste of canon; Gabriel's penchant for isolation and antisocial behaviors, would still exist.

This would n many way ways suit Andre as it lets him be the socializer, the face, the mover and shaker the one who meets people and is protecting his dear husband by handling all this stuff in one way or another.

Gabriel's more aloof nature would beckon one like a moth to flame however and he likely thinks of himself as the protector in the same way the viziard who rules through the puppet prince is a protector.

Both are very much in favor of corraling their child in the home, Andre so he can always have a source of easy affection & praise & Gabriel because he wants everything under his control.

Andre is probably the "Fun parent" but provides nothing but superficial acts. While Gabriel does want to raise said child to be a success, he also doesn't care if they are happy or have opinions.

So in both cases rather similar to canon but also distinct I think?

Either way these kids are FUCKED

[reclusiverisottonero]

I don't know if you consider yourself a proshipper or anti but like. I'm an anti who's friends with literally one fucking proshipper and I get hate for it by the anti's. These little bitches are so outta pocket too and they one, call me a proshipper just because I'm friends with literally one[I don't even ship any proships]. And two, I've had like three antis call me racist and when I ask for proof, they couldn't give it to me so they're obviously just pulling shit out of their ass just because they don't like me lmfao.

Anyways. I've noticed some proshippers are pretty sane compared to antis. But there's also sane antis and insane proshippers. It's just weird and frustrating.

I’m going to assume in good faith you’re an adult (albeit a very young one) and messaged me this seeking some kind of advice because I honestly do not know why else someone would send this to me. If you wanted validation from me though you’re not about to get it so this is your one warning you might not like the answer I give if you read any further.

Now, if you read my about page you’ll see that I don’t care at all for either of these labels. That doesn’t negate the discourse I’m surrounded by, and by all definitions these days people would categorize me as proship. I’m not going to dispute people that want to do that to me because again the unfortunate reality right now is that even if you don’t side with either term, people are going to put you into categories anyway. I’m my eyes being proship is literally just going about your fandom experience like a normal fucking person and if antis are gonna be mad at me about it then tough shit.

Trying to be neutral about it will only work so much as there are large swaths of antis that consider anyone being neutral as ‘just as bad’ as proshippers and will harass them or accuse them of gross behaviors just like they do to proshippers. It doesn’t matter if you don’t ship anything considered a ‘proship’ ship, or don’t even dabble with dark content. If you don’t care about what other people ship or do with fiction to the point you’re FRIENDS with someone that defines themselves as proship I promise you’ll continue to get shit from the antis you willingly surround your with, period. From the way you describe your situation here you do not come off as anti to me but as someone with the common sense of respecting how others ship stuff in fiction even if you don’t agree with it, meaning to antis you’re not on their ‘side’ and so they will make up whatever they want to try and fuck with you since you’ve decided not to be swept up in their group think.

I know you claim there are sane antis, and I believe you in a sense. I think though, this is only possible if you’re anti-leaning or already an anti. Because in my own experience I have never had or seen any non-anti have a single positive interaction with antis. I do not seek to talk to antis as I fundamentally disagree with what they believe in on principle. I block accounts with ‘proship dni’ so I don’t have to see their wrong opinions and don’t consume any of their fan-content at all.

Yet they make videos calling out my friends for writing fanfic they don’t like then directly harass my friends over said fanfiction no one is forcing them to read. They send death threats and suicide bait. When I defend my friend I too get sent those messages as well as grossly misinformed opinions stated as if they’re facts when the law and academia prove them wrong.

Nor have I seen any of the positive things many antis claim they do (ie protecting minors, advocating for victims). The continue to suicide bait, victim blame, stalk, be racist, xenophobic, transphobic and more to people online over fictional content. This doesn’t mean I don’t think there are proshippers and neutrals that don’t do this, anyone can be a shithead despite whatever they choose to align with. The big difference is that for a group of people that claim they have the superior moral doctrine, they continue to very loudly and proudly be hypocritical and point blank wrong about their beliefs.

Also, when people within proship circles are found to be harming real people they’re quickly exposed and called out so ppl can rightly stay away from that person which is why you do not see many people who claim to be proship as militantly insane as antis are. Many proshippers/neutrals just want to be left the fuck alone and it’s antis that are the ones not respecting that.

Callout don’t happen within anti circles from what I have been told from ex-antis. Antis hide behind their poor attempts at their virtue signaling with victim blaming and shield abusers and predators within their own ranks just to keep their status quo. The reality is they do not care about the feelings of real people if it means they can ‘protect’ their precious fictional characters from being shipped ‘wrong’ or written in ways they don’t like.

You should strongly think about the relationships you’re cultivating right now and determine who is worth keeping in your life. Continuing to hang out with people for the sake of keeping the peace or from fear them turning on you (this is actually a very common reason ex-antis who have shared their stories on twitter were antis for so long) or whatever reason you still stick with them when they clearly are trying to dig their claws into you is going to make your life worse and you can be spending that time with better people. I can’t tell you what to do or who to hang out with in the long run. Just know that this is a good life lesson on figuring out what’s important to you, and realizing the one who will be most affected by your decisions will ultimately be you.

[nazuna-tunnel-vision]

hello this is the same anon!! this won't be nearly as long as my first ask LOL i just wanted to respond to some stuff in your reply!! i genuinely rly enjoy this kind of conversation and being able to have it in a respectful and nuanced way is very fun and enjoyable

your guess on my probable reaction to people he/him-ing characters i use she/her for is essentially correct! it's mostly for characters like ibara or mayoi where i refer to them with she/her pronouns basically all of the time. there's a bit of initial disorientation due to it taking me an extra moment to process who the pronouns are in referral to, but once that passes i'm usually able to just,, accept it and move on. it probably also helps that i write fic and tend to adhere a bit more to what's considered canon regarding pronouns when i do those; so while she/her ARE the pronoun set i prefer to use when referring to ibara or mayoi, i have and will probably continue to write fic where i use he/him. in that specific case it's because i want to make the fic more legible for people that might not share those headcanons with me (which isn't to say that i won't write fic where i do otherwise! just that i'm open to using different pronouns to better fit different contexts in which the character is being presented/discussed).

for a lot of other characters i also tend to have unfixed/multiple interpretations of what their gender might be or how i view it, which means i don't necessarily experience any gender/pronoun disorientation because they already exist in multiple ways in my head. (ie. i'm a big fan of they/them nagisa, but i usually refer to nagisa with he/him in fics/tumblr posts and also won't flinch at someone using she/her pronouns because they/them agender nagisa isn't the only version of nagisa's gender that exists in my head. i hope that makes sense i realize it might be a bit strange)

and, to be honest, i won't claim there aren't characters where i do have that same sort of discomfort to she/her pronouns - natsume and mao are big ones, since i so heavily relate to and headcanon those characters as transmasc that it weirdly feels more personal to see them be gendered differently. i think for myself, though, i can recognize that this person's interpretation of the character is just different from my own and there's nothing inherently wrong with either, just that it's not to my tastes for the reasons i have. and then i move on

i don't know if there's really a best answer to any of this discourse particularly since most (i'd argue maybe close to all?) trans headcanons do, as you say, stem from enthusiasm for the character and usually some level of personal engagement with gender/expression. that makes it a lot more personal and less clear-cut than if it were something else, yknow? it's good to have these discussions tho and this one's been really respectful and whatnot. hope ur having a good day and thank u again for reading my ask/responding so respectfully !

thank you again for the reply anon!!

it's pretty reassuring to know that you also feel that disorientation. like oh maybe it really is just a normal reaction phew, phew.

what you said about characters like nagisa is pretty interesting too. maybe the secret to get whacked in the face less is to already have different gender interpretations of the characters pre-loaded in your head?? 🤔 then when you see a certain pronoun you can just go "ohh we're doing he/him nagisa now? okay" then you pluck out your they/them nagisa lens and put the he/him nagisa lens on. or flick the switch to change to the he/him nagisa setting in your head.

that would certainly explain why i experience so much of the disorientation, because my she/her lens of most characters simply doesn't even exist at all, so i can't switch to them. it's hard to be immediately accepting of new interpretations when you never even thought of them to begin with. plus, pronouns don't really come pre-loaded with backstory to ease you into the character setting.

that said, pre-loading all these interpretations would take a lot of time and effort so it'll be impossible to apply this to the like. 50+ characters in the cast. but it does sound like something i can act on on my part to ease the discomfort i feel.

thank you again for the respectful discussion!! i really appreciate how you took the time to explain your perspective and replied my questions in good faith. i hope you have a good day too!

[ichayalovesyou]

Hey so from your blog I understand you are neurodivergent? Correct me if I'm wrong. If you are, sometimes I wonder if I have Asperger's Syndrome. When I look back on my childhood there are some questionable aspects that I got over, I think, but with a lot of effort. For example I used to watch the same movie over and over again till I had big chunks of it memorized and I played it in my head when I went to sleep? And I was obsessed with puzzles, I did and redid them many times. And lots of repetitive things. Also I don't know if I was just being sensitive or something, but I always cried at the tiniest disapproval of adults.

I'm sorry if this comes off as stereotypical, but those are things my peers found weird and not actually "normal" and it was pretty hard for me to get over them.

Lol I don't even know where this is going, I guess I'd like to see some insights from a neurodivergent person, because I've never had the chance to interact with one. How did you figure out you were neurodivergent? Can a person on the autism spectrum learn to communicate effectively with other people on their own? (because I think I can do that, but it's not always a pleasure haha).

Feel free not to respond to this, I don't want to bother, but you seem..... Approachable😂. I'm not one of those people who self-diagnose through an internet quiz and try to make themselves appear special....You know the ones. I'm genuinely curious haha. I'm probably fine, it would still be interesting to see your response. Thanks.

I’m going to be perfectly real with you

I do not have an official diagnosis for anything aside from “generalized anxiety” but I only got the chance (until very recently) to get therapy for a year.

But I do feel like there’s a difference between wanting to feel “special” and going into self-diagnosis territory half-cocked. And looking at your life, tallying up the evidence, making an educated guess, and then making an effort on finding out whether or not you’re guess is correct from a professional.

For instance, in my case (I’m about to get into “tragic” backstory stuff just to give a clear picture):

I come from an emotionally abusive situation in which, even when I had teachers, pediatricians or other moms suggest I (at the very least) had ADHD my mother got offended, denied it and insisted I was fine. In fact, the only way in which she has treated my as any sort of neurodivergent is the “generalized anxiety” diagnosis I got from the six months of therapy I got 7 years ago. Even then she uses it as a tool to invalidate my feelings. She never considered it may be a symptom rather than a source until my baby brother got diagnosed with autism.

My family has a loooooong history of autism/adhd and other mental illnesses, all of my siblings and cousins above the age of 3 have one or both, I also wouldn’t be surprised if my father has autism and my mother has ADHD even if they went undiagnosed from the same stigma that kept my mother from getting me help (and only getting my younger sibling help when essentially forced by the school system.)

It was only really when my brother exhibited behaviors and got an autism diagnosis (and my mother and I started reading up on the topic) that I realized just how many of my behaviors were associated with textbook autism. I looked at my baby brother and I saw myself, the biggest difference between us is that I was hyper verbal (talking a bit before 18 months) and he was totally nonverbal until he was almost three (both of which, are symptoms of autism) that I really considered the possibility. Even my mother suggested I may be right, better late then never I guess.

I exhibit many of the exact behaviors you describe that are associated with both adhd and autism, I lined up toys, I drew the same picture on one sheet over and over. I take comfort in compulsively watching movies and shows over and over, I (for lack of a better words) stim sing and use movie quotes and references as eccholalia as stress relievers (especially in new social situations). I cried at the drop of a hat, when I was angry I’d repeatedly hurt myself by banging my head and arms against the myself or walls. I also do the “happy flappy arms” when I’m excited or nervous, I have a special interest in writing and making music (I have a hard time thinking about pretty much anything else). I had lots of trouble socially until about high school and none of my friends are neurotypical (or straight lol). So, I think it’s safe to say that I am either on the spectrum, have ADHD (which exhibits a lot of similar symptoms).

When I found this out, I started treating myself like I had these things instead of beating myself up for being ��weird” and my mental health improved significantly. Mind you, it’s still not great because I am not (yet) in therapy and live in an overcrowded, emotionally abusive household, but I am making concerted efforts to remedy both. I’ve got my first therapy session in almost a decade arranged for next week and plan on moving in with another, less crowded, less abusive parent.

The best thing I can suggest is, read up on what you think you may have, look at the symptoms, compare them to you’re own, write it down, write how you feel about it. But more importantly read other people’s experiences with autism and ADHD, while medical professionals can help you get access to diagnosis and (if you need it) medication, sometimes the personal aspects get lost in the machine. At the same time of course be careful who you listen to, there are a lot of organizations and people out there who want to “help” by trying to force us to act “normal”, acting neurotypical does NOT equal living to enjoying your life to its fullest potential. On the flipside there of course people out there with and without diagnosis that will promote unhealthy thinking patterns and coping mechanisms, you’ve got to think critically and decide what is best for you.

Not all of us can get therapy, not all of us will get diagnosed even if we do, especially if you’re AFAB and have autism, or if you’re “well behaved” (ie pass as neurotypical) we slip through the cracks all the time. Try to get therapy anyway, a diagnosis can be really helpful (but in the case of autism it can also be detrimental because of the sheer amount of ableism around it, again, read other people’s experiences).

It’s okay to act on the idea that something is wrong, you know when something isn’t right with you, not even your parents can define that for you (I learned that the hard way). As long as you don’t wallow in it, operating under the assumption you have autism and/or adhd, using the tried and true coping mechanisms, being gentle with yourself, can be very, very helpful.

Hope this helped <3 💚🖖🏻💚

[janiedean]

(1) Can I just say I hate all this Freddie Mercury biopic wank with a passion? Like, this hellsite went from "Queen is one of those boring 'classic' bands all whites are obsessed with bc they won't even consider new music by diverse artists u.u" to "WWRY is clearly a song about rebellious queer youth, cishets don't touch Queen u.u" after someone pointed out Freddie's ethnicity and sexuality, to "why aren't they making Freddie gay in the biopic!!!11" and... whatever they're whining about now.

(2) And I HATE looking at all this bs and thinking "fake fans", bc I'm pretty damn sure that by most standards, *I* count as a "fake fan", too. I mean, most stuff I know about the band's history is actually stuff about Freddie, thanks to a few documentaries centered around him and my mom, the long-time fan with a big crush on Freddie who introduced me to Queen when I was a kid. Hell, I couldn't even name all their albums or anything needed to be considered a "true fan". But ppl on here... ugh. (3) It's like they're really embarrassed bc they were called out on mistaking "woke" stuff for "unwoke" stuff, and now they have this desperate need to prove their ability to discern wokeness by getting offended about something they don't even care all that much about, as loudly and dramatically as they can.

HAHAHAHAHA.

okay so, tldr: I hate this discourse and I honestly hope that it dies within two weeks out of the biopic for a whole lot of reasons amongst which the ones you said, but like, this discourse actually highlights a shitload of issues with the usual tumblr discourse which I will gladly go into now because I’m fucking tired and this movie isn’t out yet.

now, premise: while I don’t think that true fans are a thing - at most there’s casual fans or in-depth fans but I mean, a fan is a fan so I don’t believe in the *fake* fans thing..... the problem here isn’t that they’re fakes. it’s that they aren’t fans. period.

other premise: from what you’ve said you’re a casual fan which is normal and you DON’T count as fake I mean if you like them and listen to them and know something it’s basically being a casual fan same as I am with idk the rolling stones, I like the famous stuff, I have the fundamental records and I like them when they’re on but that’s it.

but, yours truly is a Not Casual Queen Fan in the sense that a) I got into them when I was seventeen and I’m thirty now so thanks it’s been a while, b) I own all the records, c) I own a decent portion of roger taylor’s/brian may’s solo records (and I have listened to all of them that I couldn’t buy), d) I went to see them live once (k it was with paul rodgers but nvm guys not my fault if I wasn’t born in time for freddie) and I love queen’s music and I’m also fucking cishet and you know what? these people Are Not Fans and they should stop pretending they are and just stop making themselves look like assholes.

SPECIFICALLY:

the movie’s not out yet and I’ve had to see FIFTEEN ‘FRIENDLY REMINDER TO ALL CISHETS THAT FREDDIE MERCURY WAS GAY (at least a couple said he was bi and they were less asshole-ish) AND POC AND IF YOU DON’T KNOW YOU’D BETTER LEARN NOW HAHAHAHA YOU THOUGHT HE WASN’T. spoilers: every fucking casual queen fan who has bothered to buy three records knows that. yes, also the cishets. like, as someone who went from VERY CASUAL (ie: I know three songs) to NOT CASUAL in the span of two months I can 100% assure you that before getting into queen the usual preconceptions are that freddie was gay and that queen = freddie + three other people. the first three things you learn when getting into queen are (more or less in order but it can change) that a) the band was actually brian may + roger taylor first, b) that roger brought freddie in because they knew each other already, c) that mary austin was a fundamental person in freddie’s life and that she was also brian may’s ex and knew him first before they got together, d) the members’s backstories including where freddie was born, so like...... this idea that CASUAL CISHET FANS wouldn’t know that freddie was a) not heterosexual, b) poc is just something a NON-FAN would say because guess what, most queen fans even at a casual level are 100% aware that freddie was a) not heterosexual, b) not ethnical british. and saying that OMG CISHETS DON’T KNOW it’s ridiculous because guess what, everyone knows and if they have no idea they do, though luck, we did;

(spoilers: I also am 99% sure that those ppl have no idea that roger and brian actually sing on the records and composed a shitload of the music and queen =/= ONLY FREDDIE but okay)

they have no idea that rock music in the 70s/80s was not so heteronormative and was not the cishetmalething they think it is. like, please look at led zeppelin (ie THE PEOPLE WITHOUT WHOM YOU WOULDN’T HAVE HEAVY METAL) and tell me they were heteronormative. like, you saw robert plant? yeah, me too. and the thing was that queen were revolutionary in the sense that they brought an operatic/theatrical approach to the music that no one tried before but guess what, the point is that they made it sell. the thing that I would like tumblr Woke People to grasp is that what made queen groundbreaking as far as Wokeness goes is that they managed to sell and become the monster-moneymaking group they were (while keeping things quality) with a frontman who was Not Heterosexual, Did Not Try To Pass For Heterosexual One Day In His Life and Never Shied Away From It. like, idk if people are aware that while the scene was way less heteronormative than they think it still wasn’t the most openly talked about topic around (I mean guys elton john did marry a woman at some point X°DDD), but going around in the seventies flaunting your non-heterosexualness around and selling millions of copies making your stage persona a selling point of your music wasn’t exactly common. like ffs one of the most famous queen songs has a video where for 3/4 of the time they’re in drag and the other part has freddie performing with the royal ballet (and guess what the song was actually written by john deacon and the idea of doing the video in drag was roger taylor’s and none of them as far as we know is Not Heterosexual, but never mind giving the rest of the band some credit when it came to Not Caring About Heteronormativity) and fine, that video was banned/controversial, but it still was a huge british hit and it’s in the top five queen songs Everyone Knows. and tbh I’m terrified of that video being shown in the biopic (which it should since the works was from ‘84 and they stop at ‘85) because I’m 100% sure that those people have no idea it exists and when they find out how long is it gonna take them to decide that IT’S PROBLEMATIC? I mean, Woke Kids on here think the rhps is problematic, I’m shuddering at the thought of what they’d think of the i want to break free video;

actually a lot of us cishet queen fans might have had a wake up call including, er, finding out certain preferences, thanks to either their music or their shows or their videos (*cough* I 100% assure you that watching roger taylor in drag was what made me realize crossdressing was my thing for good like I knew before but I didn’t actually put two and two together until I saw that video and went like ‘............. AH WELL SHIT THEN THAT’S IT FAIR ENOUGH’), and a lot of us cishet queen fans who weren’t, like, strictly playing to heteronormative rules back in the day found a lot to relate to in their music even without being queer ourselves and guess what I’ve never met a single queen *fan* who could give less of a damn about freddie’s ethnicity or orientation (as in: everyone was a-okay with it) regardless of their background. that was what made them groundbreaking and extremely important as well, because they managed to be that kind of record-selling records-breaking band while not shying away from having a Not Heterosexual frontman AND Not Heteronormative Heterosexual Band Members Who Also Didn’t Give Two Fucks About Their Lead Singer’s Sexuality so going like OMG NOW WE’RE GONNA TEACH YOU THAT FREDDIE WASN’T HETEROSEXUAL BECAUSE WE’RE WOKE is ridiculous because dearest susan, we already knew and we already were woke about that and to us he was the frontman of a band we liked for a bunch of reasons;

also I don’t think people realize that freddie was a role model/example for the entire next generation of rock bands frontmen even in genres that had zilch to do with him - I mean guys AXL ROSE had a hero-worship for freddie and sang bohemian rhapsody at the freddie memorial concert WITH ELTON JOHN and grn really aren’t the same exact sphere as queen jsyk, but if you look at axl on stage esp. when he was younger? guys. it’s obvious. like you can see the influence. but lmao, now ALL the very cishet(-ish) singers who OPENLY SAID FREDDIE INFLUENCED THEM DIDN’T KNOW ACCORDING TO TUMBLR DOT COM?

LIKE, fuck’s sake, one of freddie’s major accomplishments in that sense was to ending up being a role model for younger singers in a genre where heteronormativity is way less common than everyone thinks BUT where not many people esp. back in the day would be open about their sexuality because it still was a taboo-ish thing -- like, gender roles were a lot more blurred but you wouldn’t hear many of those people admitting openly they were bi or gay or Not Heterosexual and the entirety of the rock scene especially mainstream but also not was entirely fucking aware of it, do these people think THE FANS wouldn’t?

also, we will rock you was WRITTEN BY BRIAN MAY AND IT WAS ABOUT A FUCKING ENCORE WHERE THE FANS SURPRISED THEM AT ONE SHOW IN LIKE MID-SEVENTIES which already shows that They Know Nothing because if they think freddie wrote all the queen songs then it’s already obvious they have no fucking clue about how queen worked as a band because all the members contributed something (guys john deacon wrote at least two of their major hits, roger taylor sang on all the records along with brian may and if you hear the back harmonies on ‘39 he goes way higher than freddie and a part in seaside rendezvous has both him and freddie mimicking other instruments with their voice and you wouldn’t know if no one told you first, brian may wrote a SHITLOAD of music for queen and it was an all-four effort, not just freddie + three other generic british dudes for fuck’s sake) so like, anyone saying that is already giving ample proof that they have no idea;

now of course you can interpret it as whatever the hell you want, but assuming that all of queen’s music that might relate to queer issues was written by freddie ABOUT QUEER ISSUES (this when freddie’s main topic of interest was... not really discussing his sexuality especially in the seventies like again, I want to break free is one of the queen to-go songs everyone brings up when it comes to that topic and IT WAS WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE and the video concept was THANKS TO SOMEONE ELSE) just shows that a) you don’t know shit about the band’s history, b) you’re not a fan because you didn’t even bother to look it up on wiki, c) you’re trying to look woke at all costs;

they have NO FUCKING CLUE that most people in the 70s/80s/90s in the business were NOT politically correct according to their standards LIKE LITERALLY NO ONE WAS;

goes unsaid they probably haven’t listened to one full queen album from beginning to end not even the greatest hits.

tldr: I hate that they don’t seem to realize that things existed before 2005 and that music in the 70s/80s COULD and WAS diverse and *woke* already before they were even born, I hate that they decided that ALL CISHETS DIDN’T KNOW when thank you I think even my damned parents know and they don’t listen to rock music, I hate that they decided that queen APPARENTLY DIDN’T HAVE A FANBASE BEFORE THEM (lol) or that that fanbase didn’t understand them (triple-lol), I hate that they’re reducing freddie to his sexuality when he didn’t want that in the first place, I hate that they’re falling into THE MAIN MISCONCEPTION AROUND ABOUT THIS BAND as in THAT IT WAS FREDDIE + THREE OTHER PEOPLE and not an all-around group effort of people who were friends and deeply loved/respected each other and put the same share of work into it, I hate that they moment they see the movie and are introduced to the actual music/the actual story they’ll MOST LIKELY find problematic things to wank about because like hell they wouldn’t and I hate that they’re basically pretending to give a fuck about a band that I love and have loved dearly in a very non-casual way when they actually fucking don’t.

fucking hell please never let anyone make a biopic about either springsteen or led zeppelin or other people I actually like because this is bad enough, I don’t even want to think of what tumblr ppl would say if they knew anything about any rock artist of medium-large fame back in the day. peace.

[laetermichelle]

Hi! I'm a Christian and I do not want to leave the faith at all. But I've spent my whole life around very conservative people who tell me sex outside of wedlock is evil and wrong, and many having done that myself, I am immoral. Everyone I know has either left the faith to embrace sexuality or vice versa. I don't want to leave either one, but I'm wondering how it's possible to stay in the faith and be sex positive. It's something I've struggled with for a very long time. Thank you in advance.

Hi! I'm really glad you reached out to me, because this is something I struggled with myself for a long time and I was one of those people who decided to leave the faith (which turned out to be temporary) because I was so tired of being made to feel immoral, ashamed and like I was a bad person because of my sexuality. I don't know if you like to read, but if you do I strongly recommend reading "Damaged Goods: New Perspectives on Christian Purity" by Dianna Anderson (I've included a link to the book on Amazon below - hopefully it works). This book literally changed my life and everything I thought about Christian sexuality. It's what enabled my sexuality and my faith to coexist. Also, it has a strong theological perspective and Anderson explores what the Bible says about sexuality, which I am ill-equipped to do since I've never properly studied the Bible for myself. https://www.amazon.com/Damaged-Goods-Perspectives-Christian-Purity/dp/1455577391/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1483849219&sr=8-7&keywords=damaged+goodsSo that's the first step I recommend when it comes to tackling this issue. The second step is to know that sexuality - to feel sexual desire and to engage in sexual activity - is completely normal and natural. There is not something wrong with you for feeling sexual desire nor is there something wrong with you if you want to engage in sexual activity. I don't know if you're male or female (or other), but women in particular aren't 'expected' to have much sexual desire and so we can be made to feel as though we're abnormal if we do. That's a myth disproven by both reality and science. Women's sex drives are often on par with that of men's. And beyond that, I don't believe it is the right of anyone to judge anyone else and determine them to be immoral due to their lifestyle. How arrogant is it for some Christians to assume that their lifestyle is the only correct lifestyle! How arrogant it is for them to take the place of God and decide they know the best way for us to believe and live, when they are not God, nor us and have not lived our lives. That's why, personally, the way I reconcile my sexuality with my faith is through personal conviction. I will live out my life as I see fit and only change the things I feel convicted by God to change. Not convicted by the church, or other Christians. Only God. I believe this conviction can come in many forms - through consequences of certain unwise actions, through prayer, through the Bible. Though I'll be the first to admit that I consider the Bible a bit of a mess, one I can't make heads or tails of. Nor do I think I will be able to make heads or tails of it unless I learn to study it properly instead of reading it like any run-of-the-mill self-help book. So I live more through a process of prayer and trial and error. Because believe it or not, making mistakes is also a very normal part of life. We Christians can be so caught up in striving for perfection that mistakes become this big deal, when they're actually an opportunity to learn and grow. I also believe that there is nothing inherently wrong or evil about sex, and engaging in it before marriage doesn't suddenly make it those things. I think engaging in sex (and when I say 'sex' I include all activities before and including penetration) before marriage or outside a committed, convanental relationship can be unwise. But then, I also believe that depends on the person. Sometimes engaging in it before marriage (and by 'marriage'I refer to the moment you sign a piece of paper) can be very wise. Ultimately, I think it's a very individual thing that depends on who a person is and what works best for them in their life. And as I wrote earlier, I don't think it's for fellow Christians (including pastors, mentors and leaders) to determine what the best way of living or believing is for anyone other than themselves - therefore, they don't get to decide when or if sex before marriage is or isn't a 'bad' thing. I believe those people are there to advise, not dictate. Advice is optional. What a pastor preaches from a pulpit isn't law, it's a suggestion. Anyway, if there is nothing inherently evil about sex, why would engaging in it before marriage be seen as one of the worst 'sins' a person could commit? Why would that person then be a dirty, immoral sinner? It's been the tradition of the church to fixate on sexuality as an indicator of morality and Godliness - but I believe that's more cultural than spiritual. You're probably confused right now, because there's honestly so many different angles to this issue, so many ways it can be explored. Like, for example, what even is marriage? When is a couple married? When then make a commitment to each other? Do we really need a ceremony for that, or is that more of a personal decision? And why do we need governmental recognition for it to be legitimate? What constitutes sex? Is it the old 'everything but vaginal penetration' shtick? Then what about LGBT people? And why is vaginal penetration such a big deal? And why is more emphasis put on 'sexual sin' over other kinds? Why do other people get to tell us what is and isn't a sin in the first place? "Damaged Goods" answers all these questions and more. I honestly cannot recommend it enough. But what I really want to leave you with before you look up that book (please, please look it up) is:1) No one gets to determine whether you're immoral or not, for whatever reason. That can be a difficult thing to believe in Christianity's oft-collectivist culture, but it's true. No one but God is equipped to determine that, and don't believe the whole "God told me" stuff. Because humanity is fallible, so is our interpretation of God's word. I have too often been lead down the wrong path because of a fellow Christian's well-meaning but inaccurate interpretation of God's will for my life. No one gets to tell you how to live. You get to determine what is right and wrong for your own faith and life. 2) Sex and sexuality isn't inherently evil. And even if it was, shaming anyone for anything is wrong. Too often Christians try to coerce others into living how they see fit through shame and fear. That's straight-up emotional abuse and manipulation. 3) As far as a Biblical perspective on sexuality is concerned - refer to "Damaged Goods"! Anyway, this was a bit of a convoluted mess but I hope that, even if I didn't answer your question, I gave you some things to consider! It's a topic I'm very passionate about! Good luck with your journey on this matter, and I'm more than happy to discuss this topic anytime!

[princess-of-the-corner]

Slight musing on rude not mean AU, but I wondered how the re-framed dynamic would influence Chloe's character.

Overall, she's meant to start out much the same, but I think the big notable thing would be in the instances where either Adrien discusses her behavior & she can chime in or, she is expected o apologize.

Rose's Letter:

Adrien's issue is less that she destroyed it, Nathalie & Gabriel destroy gifts from fans all the time & both he & Chloe watch Audrey destroy Chloe's gifts in real time. His contention is that it was not diplomatic and that clearly Rose's letter had merit given Ali liked it.

Which does actually hit a nail on the head for Chloe, and she apologizes to Rose without prompting but in a very... Chloe way.

IE, "Clearly there was factors I didn't consider when judging your letter, and I erred by destroying it, sorry Rose."

Which Adrien thinks is cool & normal, & while Rose accepts, she & anyone who heard it is like, "So wait she was apologizing for not realizing Ali would like it, not for hurting Rose, the hell?"

Juleka & the stall:

As noted, this one would actually get to Adrien as its physical and if there'd been a fire or the like Juleka could have been seriously hurt. But also because it genuinely wasn't a contest, it was a class photo, and Chloe removed a member of the class.

Seeing she's upset Adrien & rationalizing the actions from her own perspective, but then looking at the class context...

Yeah she'd apologize in the sense of, "I shouldn't have removed you from a group photo, that undercuts the whole point of the photo, and its clear now you weren't competing to be near Adrien, so I shouldn't have treated you as a threat."

Juleka: ... Thanks?

Basically, much like how Chloe can turn on customer service smile at the hotel, she does know that there's some lines you don't cross. The big issue is, at least early on, that she kind of doesn't know & doesn't bother to find out where other people's lines are, let alone realize they aren't even using the same rule book as her. Cos again, cruelty is normalized.

This would ideally just be her starting out on the whole redemption process & more pointedly serve to drive home just how warped she & Adrien's perspective is to everyone else.

In this regard, Adrien might have his first real like, gut instinct empathy with the Kim confession. In the sense of, "Ooh if I confessed to Ladybug, got splashed & covered in a chip bag, then she laughed & posted it on social media... That would really hurt."

But like, its just a casual prank bro, the TV everyone in class watches has stuff like this all the time.

So why does he feel bad?

GOD

Honestly I doubt the Kim thing would even register either like. Remember when Audrey rejected Chloé's gift on live tv because the wrapping paper was tacky?