#trying to lighten things up

[yoshiyolotli]

My new classroom door has arrived!

I am so excited! My students have NO CLUE, but the staff ... 😎. Love it!

[vic-does-battlecats]

Minor spoilers for the already revealed chapters of the next A Starless Clan book Wind

[heyclickadee]

I sort of have a headcanon that Wrecker is acutely aware of how he comes across. He’s a giant compared to every other clone on Kamino and compared to most humans generally, built like a tank, massively strong, has definitely been through something intense—in general he looks like a guy you don’t want to mess with. Someone walks into a bar or something looking to cause trouble, sees him sitting there, and turns around because they’ve just done risk assessment and imagined his fist wrapped around what used to be their skull. He’s intimidating.

And honestly I think that’s part of why Wrecker is so aggressively friendly. I mean it helps that Wrecker is actually friendly, he’s not pretending, I’m not saying that—I just think he plays up Fun Mode just a tiny, tiny bit sometimes, just to put people at ease, or to break up tension.

[harlivies]

 “You aren’t worried about your position?” “I like this position. It’s quite comfortable.”

[sealrock]

paris and their baby cousins. (telestas on the left & hyperion on the right in top picture, cleodice on bottom)

[doodlingfoolishness]

Crosshair’s hands closed round Tech’s goggles, fingers brushing over the cracks in the lenses. They were an unfamiliar weight; he’d never had reason to touch them before. He bowed his head, breathing heavily.

For a moment, he allowed himself to remember —

But his hand spasmed, and he grimaced, trying to keep it still.

He couldn’t even do this.

[soracities]

Hi! So I tried not to say anything about some anti makeup posts I saw on your blog but I need to say this. I think you're very wise and I agree it's very important for us to love ourselves as we are. But some people like myself doesn't care about 'empowering' of makeup or whatever but we just have fun with it and we just love it. I say we because I know there is a lot of people like me. Yeah, we are feeding capitalism or whatever, but world is beautiful and it's also terrible so people trying make themselves feel good, have fun, ect. I see a lot of people who don't wear makeup and i'm happy for them! I didn't wear makeup until i turned 20 i think and felt good.

One thing I wanted to add is in response of post about feminine girls. I think everything needs balance and sometimes people tend to overreact in their opinion and divide everything in black and white. Personally I never cared how women around me looked and what they were wearing. But I would like to have same treatment, and not to feel silly for wearing pink or feminine clothes.

Sorry, I don't know English very well so maybe I can't translate my idea entirely. What I'm trying to say i think everyone should do what they like and leave each other in peace.

Sorry for this essay, just wanted to share my point of view.

Hi, anon! I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this, but I appreciate you writing this (and your English was fine, don't worry)

I think the main argument of those posts (and my own feelings about this) is not about makeup on its own, or even judgement about who does and doesn't choose to wear it--what they are criticizing is a particular part of the society we live in which puts a huge emphasis on women's beauty and appearance in order to fulfill an idea of what a woman "should" be, and the role that makeup plays in that as a result. Because whether we like it or not, whether we believe in them or not, whether we feel pressured by them or not, these expectations do exist. How we personally respond to them does not change that.

I personally don't have an issue with makeup or the concept of it (in almost every culture on earth, humans have been using makeup of some kind for literally thousands of years)--but what I do have a problem with is when we treat makeup, or other traditionally "feminine" forms of expression as neutral things when they are not. A comb or a hair tie is neutral--it's just a thing. Lipstick and eyeliner are also just things, but only when they exist by themselves--and in reality they don't exist by themselves: they exist in a world where we value women on their physical appearance before we value them for anything else--lipstick and eyeliner exist to emphasise parts of your appearance, to make you look a certain way--and in a society where we put so much importance on women looking a certain way, they aren't just ordinary things you toy around with for fun. You can have fun with them, but it doesn't change their role. They can't be treated as exceptions from the world they are used in.

I think sometimes people assume that being anti-makeup is the same as being anti-women-who-wear-makeup, which misses the point (and also suggests a very dangerous idea which I think, sometimes, is why people respond so angrily to these criticisms: because if we believe that being anti-makeup = being anti-women, then therefore makeup = womanhood, and this is simply not true). Whether you wear these things just for fun and to enjoy yourself isn't what is being talked about because these criticisms are not about you on a personal level: they are about looking at a society that is as image-obsessed as ours, and asking why makeup has the role that it has when 1) it is almost exclusively aimed at women--women who, as a group, have been historically marginalised, and whose value, historically, has almost always been measured in terms of their beauty before anything else and 2) the makeup that is emphasized, the trends and styles that come and go, are often not so much about self-expression (if they were, people would be freely wearing all sorts of wild colours and styles: when we talk about "makeup culture" it's not the same kind of makeup used in the goth, punk, or alt scenes for example where makeup plays a very different role) but almost always about achieving or aspiring towards a type of beauty that is valued or expected: to make you look younger, to make your eyes brighter or larger, to make your lips bigger or sexier, your cheekbones more prominent etc--again, on their own, these things may not be a big deal, but they exist in a world where having these looks means you are valued in a certain way as a woman. And when this exists in our kind of world, where the power dynamics we have automatically mean women's perceived power is through beauty, and where we insist so much on women being a particular kind of beautiful (and this starts in childhood) we have to ask and investigate WHY that is--why this type of beauty and not another? why (almost only) women? who benefits from this? who suffers as a result?

The argument of "not all women" wear makeup for empowerment misses the point of these criticism, because it is focusing on a person's individual choices in a way that suggests our choices can define the world we live in, and they can't. We are deeply social animals. Therefore, how we appear to each other and to ourselves is a socially influenced phenomenon. This applies for race, for sexuality, and for gender. How women are perceived at large, in different social structures, is a social phenomenon influenced by the societies we exist in and the values of those societies. These criticisms are about the society we make those choices in and how that can affect us. For you, makeup may be something fun and enjoyable and that's fine. I'm not saying that's untrue or that people don't feel this way or that you are wrong for feeling this way. It's also not saying that you are brain-washed or oppressing yourself for it. But it doesn't change the world we live in. Someone feeling perfectly happy to go out with makeup or without makeup, and feeling no pressure to do either, is great--but it doesn't mean there aren't a lot of women who do feel pressured into wearing it, and that pressure is a social one. It doesn't change the inequality that exists between how women's physical appearances are judged compared to men's. It doesn't change the fact that almost every childhood story most kids hear (that aren't about animals) have a "beautiful princess" (and very little else is said about her except that she is beautiful) and a "brave" knight/prince/king/whichever: the princess (or maiden or whatever young woman) is defined by how she looks; the male in the story by how he acts.

It also doesn't change the fact that so many young girls grow up hearing the women around them criticize various parts of their bodies and that they carry this into their lives. It doesn't change the fact that we expect (in Western countries at least) for women to have criticisms about their appearance and they are "stuck-up" or "full of themselves" if they don't. It doesn't change the fact that magazines photos, red carpet photos, films, tv shows etc., feature actresses who are beautiful in a way that is absolutely above and beyond exceptional (and who either have had work done cosmetically, or are wealthy enough to be able to afford to look the way they do through top-class makeup artists, personal trainers etc) but who we think are within the "normal" range of beauty because faces like theirs are all that we see--how many famous actors / entertainers can you name who look like they could be someone's random uncle, or "just some guy" (writing this, I can think of 5). Now how many actresses, equally famous, can you think of that are the same? Very, very, very few.

The point of those posts, and why I feel so strongly about this, is that we have a deeply skewed view of beauty when it comes to women, because, as a society, we place so much on how they look in such a way that it is not, and was never meant to be, achievable: therefore anything that contributes to how women look, that markets itself in the way that the makeup industry does in this day and age, needs to be questioned and looked at in relation to that. No one is saying don't wear eyeliner or blush--what they are trying to say is that we need to be aware of the kind of world eyeliner and blush exists in, what their particular functions as eyeliner and blush do in the world that they exist in, that we exist in, and how this does impact the view we have on makeup as a result. Your personal enjoyment may be true to you and others, but this doesn't change the role of female beauty in the world because, again, our personal choices don't define the world in this way. Often, it's the other way around. And we cannot deny this fact because, while it may not affect you negatively, it does affect others.

I absolutely agree with you because I don't care how other women around me choose to dress or express themselves, either--that's their freedom to wear what they want and enjoy themselves and I want them to have that freedom. But my view is not the world's view, and it's certainly not the view of a lot of other people, either. I don't care if another woman loves pink and wearing skirts and dresses--but, like makeup, pink, skirts, and dresses, are not neutral things either. They're tied to a particular image of 'femininity' which means they are tied to a particular way of "being a woman" in this world. I'm not saying, at all, that it's wrong to wear these things. But I'm saying we can't treat them as though these are choices as simple as choosing what kind of socks to wear, because they aren't. They are choices that have baggage. If a woman is seen as being silly, childish, or treated unequally because she enjoys cute tops and ribbons and sundresses, that's not because we are demonizing her choices, or because being anti-makeup is being anti-woman (again, it is absolutely not): it's because we as a society demonize women for any choice. That isn't because of anti-makeup stances--that's because of sexism.

You mentioned that you want to be treated the same as anyone else for wearing feminine clothes--but the fear that you wouldn't be isn't because of the discussions critiquing makeup and other traditionally "feminine" things--it's because we live in a society where women are constantly defined by how they appear on the outside, and no amount of our personal choices will make this untrue. Whether you are a girly-girl or a tomboy, you'll always be judged. And, in reality, when women follow certain beauty standards they do get treated better--but this doesn't mean much in a society where the standards are so high you can never reach them, and where the basic regard for women is so low to begin with (not to mention the hypocrisy that exists within those standards). This is what all those criticisms towards makeup and "empowerment" are about: it's about interrogating a society that is built on this kind of logic and asking why we should insist on leaving it as it is when it does so much damage. It's saying that that if we want everyone to truly feel free in how they choose to present themselves we have to go deeper than just defining freedom by these choices on their own, and look at the environment those choices are made in. And that involves some deeply uncomfortable but necessary conversations.

Also, and I think this important to remember, views on makeup and the social place of makeup will also depend on culture and where you are, and the beauty expectations you grew up with. And when it comes to the internet, and given American dominance online, a lot of these posts criticizing makeup and the way makeup is being used to sell an idea that wearing it is "empowering" to the woman (which is basically saying: you are MORE of a woman when you wear it; you are stronger and more powerful because, in our society, beauty is portrayed as a form of power: it tells you, you can battle the inequality women face by embracing the role beauty plays in our lives but it doesn't tell you this emphasis on beauty is part of that inequality), are based on the way makeup is portrayed in mostly English-speaking Western countries. My views are shaped by what I grew up seeing, and while a full face of makeup (concealer, primer, foundation, mascara, highlighter, contour, blush, brow tint, brow gel etc) may not be daily practice or even embraced in a place like France or maybe other places in mainland Europe (but that doesn't mean they don't have their own expectations of feminine beauty), they are daily practice in places like the US and Britain, and this is what most of those posts and criticisms are responding to.

We can argue as much as we want about makeup, but when you grow up in a society where women feel the need to put on makeup before going to the gym there is something seriously wrong. Embracing makeup and enjoying makeup is one thing, but it cannot be a neutral thing when so much of it is about looking like you're not wearing makeup at all, or when we assume a woman is better qualified for a job or more professional when she wears it. It cannot be a neutral thing when a singer like Alicia Keys goes makeup-free for a red carpet event and it causes a stir online because people think she looks sick (what she looks like is normal--I would argue above normal--but wearing makeup to cover up "flaws" is so normal now that we genuinely don't know what normal skin is supposed to look like because the beauty of these celebrities is part of their appeal: they are something to aspire to). It is absolutely very normal for me, where I am, to see young girls with fake lashes and filled in brows: it's not every girl I pass, but it is enough. I'm not saying they are miserable, or brain-washed, or should be judged. I can believe that for them it's something enjoyable--but how am I supposed to see something like that and not be aware of the kind of celebrities and makeup tutorials that are everywhere on TikTok and YouTube, and that they are seeing everyday? How am I not supposed to have doubts when people tell me "it's their choice!" when the choices being offered are so limited and focused on one thing?

I never wore makeup as a teenager and I still don't, but a lot of that is because I grew up surrounded by people who just didn't. Makeup was never portrayed as anything bad or forbidden (and I don't see it like that either)--it was just this thing that, for me growing up, was never made to be a necessity not even for special occasions. I saw airbrushed photos and magazines all around me, for sure, and I definitely felt the beauty pressure and the body pressure (for example, I definitely felt my confidence would be better if I wore concealer to deal with my uneven skintone, and I felt this for years). But I also know that, growing up, I saw both sides. No makeup was the default I saw at home, while makeup was the default I saw outside. And that does play a part, not just in the choices you make, but in the choices that you feel you are allowed to make. No makeup was an option for me because it was what I saw everyday, even with my own insecurities; but if you do not see that as an option around you (and I know for most girls my age, where I grew up, it probably wasn't) then how can we fully argue that the decision you make is a real choice?

If I wanted to wear a cute skirt outside, for example, and decided to shave my legs--that isn't a real choice. And it cannot ever be a real choice, no matter how much I say "this is for me" or "I prefer it like this" because going out in public with hairy legs and going out in public with shaved legs will cause two completely different reactions. How can I separate what I think is "my choice" from a choice I make because I want to avoid the negative looks and comments? And how can I argue that choosing to shave is a freely made choice when the alternative has such negativity? If you feel pressured into choosing one thing over another, that's not a choice. Does this make sense?

This is how I feel about makeup most of the time, and what I want more than anything else is for us to be able to have a conversation about why we make the choices we do beyond saying "it makes me feel good" and ending the conversation there. Again, I'm not saying people need to stop wearing makeup or stop finding enjoyment in wearing it, but I think we tend to get so focused on our own feelings about this and forget that there is a bigger picture and this picture is a deeply unequal one. That is what this conversation is about. I hope this explains some things, anon, and if I misinterpreted anything please feel free to message me again. x

[ffxiii-et-al]

"You've been watching your brother!"

Sir Wade bring proud of little Joshua Rosfield🥺

Final Fantasy XVI

[snackugaki]

soft apocalypse 2

now with hastily applied color because i love color, i do, but how the fuck do people speed fill shapes without having to lasso the entire outline??? idgi, procreate has that feature apparently yet a bitch does not have procreate money ssso. hm. literally the only thing stopping me from full color comics, like I JUST learned about layer lock coloring only 3 years ago. i know brush tool, eraser tool and CTRL + Z and thassall rly

[shadelorde]

After seeing all these Orbo defense posts on tumblr circulating around, I’d thought maybe the clips I’d watched had been taken out of context.

And they were, but the context actually made him look worse.

Yes, Scarab should not be neglecting his other summons (or manhunting people, though I don’t think that’s what Orbo seems to take issue with) but…he is correct in that multidimensional fuckery is not. safe. Or at least, he’s had it drilled into his head that it’s not safe. Like being a god auditor is. His job.

When Scarab tells Orbo about Prismo’s unauthorized universe, Orbo’s response? “Prismo? Nah. That guy’s cool.” Immediately showing right off the bat that he will and does play favorites. If he’s able to pull Scarab from whatever universe he wants after being able to tell that he was neglecting his other calls, how is he NOT able to tell that Prismo created an entire unauthorized universe in the first place? And when he DOES find out, does he believe Scarab? No, because “Prismo’s cool and would never do that.”

And like. Scarab clearly knows he would react this way. Even if Scarab DOES have a vendetta against Prismo because he wanted to be wishmaster, he’s right (or has been taught by the same system that he is right) that an unauthorized universe without proper precautions IS DANGEROUS. But he knows Orbo wouldn’t believe him, so he wants to talk to the Upper boss. And Orbo physically prevents him from doing that. Which to me, reeks of a bad middle management who doesn’t want to get caught being bad at his job and playing favorites, so he keeps his employees from alerting someone in a higher position of power. He physically pulls Scarab into a different room and says “you can make your case to me.”

And when Scarab does “make his case” to Orbo, Orbo responds with. “Say goodbye to your legs.” Like. I do not fucking care actually if he was joking around or trying to be funny but I am of the opinion that it’s WILDLY inappropriate to threaten your employees in AMY situation, and scarab CLEARLY did not take it as a joke. And he really only stops when the upper boss DOES call, THEN he backs off.

And it doesn’t really matter whether Scarab “deserved” to be taken down a notch, because like. Orbo was STILL a bad boss and did it in ENTIRELY the wrong way and still chose to play favorites, AND it is, in fact, Scarab’s fucking job to deal with this kind of multiverse shit, which he points out, which Orbo has NO comeback to except to threaten his LEGS.

Also to me, Orbo reads like a boss who’s trying to be Cool and Relatable and is like “this isn’t just a workplace guys it’s a Family :)” which is the biggest red flag a boss could ever have.

[creative-shine]

favorite panel of 181

she kinda crazy but I love that for her

[ouchgnf]

ok let’s settle this once and for all.

[citrine-elephant]

where are the headcanon depictions of keith (left 4 dead) with burn scars from his various awful redneck decisions

[pending-trans-action-2]

So uh, my bf accidentally dislocated my knee... and... well...

I was right bodily injury is fucking hot I want him to break my fingers ^_^

[pumpkinnning]

Solarpunk??? Bad dog?? Also red??? Ik it’s greedy to ask all three but???

~rolling-restart

Hiii 😁 no not at all !

I answered solarpunk here.

Rest under the cut because very long

Red was a working title for the first sebchal fic i ever thought of. I took out a lot of the worldbuilding ideas for other fics so I will probably not write this one but who knows. This AU takes place in a dark fantasy post apocalyptic dystopia, in a city surrounded by malignant darkness full of monsters that is constantly trying to devour the city. The city is defended by ten magic houses that are each devoted to a minor god/spirit ; each house is headed by two Riders that work together to harness the power of their god so that they can go out and battle and push back the darkness, sometimes gaining new ground and sometimes losing it. It is said that one day one of the Riders will achieve Apotheosis by melding with their god entirely and manage to vanquish the darkness forever, freeing humanity from its curse. We follow Charles as he becomes Seb's partner and learns to be a Rider - worshipped like a demi-god by the population, but also the heavy cost of failure and learning that this power comes with heavy chains. This is a dark world full of manipulation and intrigue so their relationship starts out as very toxic but somehow they end up finding real tenderness and decency in each other. And then of course stuff goes down ! Ahhh this was fun honestly. I wish i could write three times as fast I have so !!!!! Many ! Ideas !!!

Bad dog was my attempt to write a straight up horror dead dove fic, but after putting the plot down and a few scenes I was like. This would be really interesting psychologically but i don't know if I have the stomach for it. In this one Seb works for the mob and his boss asks him to figure out who has been brutally murdering a lot of his collaborators and assets. Turns out that it's Charles, the ward of the old boss himself - known for being a dissolute party animal and a general mess, but this is probably a facade. Seb figures he's a genius with something seriously wrong with him but feels somewhat responsible because after all, they created this monster. Instead of killing him as he is ordered to, he convinces his bosses he can "rehabilitate" him and channel these violent tendencies so they can use them.

So he takes Charles to an isolated compound so he can break him down and mold him into something better but instead it's Charles that ends up getting in his head and convinces Seb to set him free so they can take down the rest of the mob together, especially as Charles shares his reasons for wanting to do so.

I think the cat and mouse psychological aspect would be fascinating ; I do love the "villains in love" thing where they're both horrible people but they get each other and descend into this shared madness, the Hannibal/Killing Eve vibes etc but honestly this would have gone into extremely dark territory and idk that i want to stay in that headspace for too long.

[spacemancharisma]

.