#underpants discourse

[colapointo]

from time to time i'll remember that seb's contribution to the aston martin factory time capsule is A PAIR OF HIS OWN UNDERWEAR and i just smdh at this deranged dilf

[ingravinoveritas]

Can't believe you haven't commented on the "wear a kilt the traditional way" answer from the Attitude interview given this post 🤣

Hah! I did notice that answer in the Attitude interview, and I am of course delighted by David's continued cheekiness. I think he's mentioned in at least a few interviews now (prior to the BAFTAs, and then today) that there will be multiple costume/outfit changes, so I would not be at all surprised if a kilt is somewhere in the cards.

I suppose it might be a bit much to hope for it being this super short kilt, though...

...but we can still keep hope alive.

It's interesting as well that David just spent three months wearing a kilt almost every night for Macbeth, and given that, I imagine he will feel very comfortable in one right now. I know they had to wear shorts under those kilts for the production, but the idea of David being giddy with ecstatic glee at the thought of wearing a kilt the traditional way at the BAFTAs is almost too much to handle. But if he does...I imagine we are in for quite a treat...

[piosplayhouse]

Your post will go viral and people will start tagging it shit like "this is literally chase x skye shippers in the paw patrol fandom 😭😭"

[ewanmitchellcrumbs]

Bored at work, so I’m back to start pointless discourse( loved the zodiac signs post btw ❤️)

Ewan’s characters’ undie preferences - thoughts ?

Everyone losing their minds @ Aemond being sexy, but he IS **our** lewser, so, in my mind he loves his old-fashioned long johns

(This ask may have posted twice, sorry about that)

YES! More than happy to do this. I will give picture examples also.

Abraham - Y fronts

Aemond - braies

Billy Taylor - wool underpants

Billy Washington - loose fit boxers

Ettore - nothing

Genyen - boxer briefs

Osferth - Saxon version of the braies

Tom Bennett - Y fronts with a slightly longer leg

[semixfenz]

Wedding Outfit Changes: Understanding the Scope

Who doesn't dream of a wedding outfit that fits like a glove and oozes immaculate magnificence? Be that as it may, the way to mold nirvana may incorporate unanticipated steps. Finding the perfect wedding outfit does not fundamentally result in a culminate fit. Whereas a few women are fortunate sufficient to go from the store to the wedding sacrificial table without occurrence, most require changes. Here, we've highlighted a assortment of changes, from the ordinary to the abnormal, to guarantee that your dress fits you flawlessly on your enormous day. Collaborating with Your Needle worker: Key Discourses to Have It's fundamental to get a well-regarded Evening Dress alteration Watford  with solid communication capacities. Consider inquiring other brides for exhortation and inquiring about web declarations and evaluations to ensure a extraordinary involvement. Some time recently any changes are actualized, it is basic to concur on certain essential factors. ● Establish Practical Desires: Clearly clarify the required changes and confirm they are inside your budget and time limits. Bringing along pictures or portrays might offer assistance you communicate your concept more successfully. ● Agree on Timelines: Examine and concur on correct dates for fittings and conveyance of the changed dress. Permit sufficient time to oblige any startling challenges or changes. ● Clarify Conventions: Get it the Bridesmaid dress alteration near me conventions in the case of a fiasco, such as harm, late conveyance, or unsatisfactory and lasting changes. Understanding The Bridal Outfit Change Timeline ● Dress Entry: Your outfit ordinarily arrives around four months some time recently the wedding. Utilize this opportunity to see into neighborhood tailors, purchase wedding-day underpants, and finish your accessories. ● First Fitting: Three Months Some time recently Your Wedding. Arrange your to begin with changes session at slightest three months some time recently the wedding. Amid this session, the tailor will concentrate on major changes, such as the hemline, straps, midriff, and other places that require revisions. ● Second Fitting: One Month Some time recently Your Wedding.The moment fitting happens around one month taking after the to begin with. If as it were minor alterations were required initially, this might be your last fitting. Something else, it permits you to assess the fit after the starting circular of corrections and make any fundamental adjustments. ● Final Fitting: Your physical make-up and weight ought to be consistent on your wedding day to guarantee a adjust fit. In a perfect world, you will be able to take your dress domestic on the same day as the last fitting.Remember to hang your clothing carefully to maintain a strategic distance from wrinkles and discolouration, and make beyond any doubt the tailor squeezed it sufficiently. Summing Up! B X Tailor & Alteration practices in giving experienced help with Custom made bridesmaids dress to guarantee that your outfit fits immaculately on your huge day. Our proficient needle workers are committed to understanding your person vision and making correct changes to get the best fit and outline. Whether you need basic alterations or expansive changes, we give personalized administrations customized to your person prerequisites. We work difficult to make your bridal alteration encounter as smooth and stress-free as conceivable by paying near consideration to detail and committing to flawlessness. Believe B X Tailor & Alteration to increment the magnificence and consolation of your wedding outfit, so you may walk down the passageway with certainty and style.

[ainews]

Laments—the traditional expressions of distress and sorrow—are increasingly being used in reference to one's underpants, and the appropriateness of this is a source of much debate.

The issue has paramount political and cultural significance: in many ways, it can be seen as symbolic of the current state of social discourse in our society. On the one hand, some argue that expressing one's emotions in such a powerful way should not be subjected to a judgmental or pejorative view. After all, everyone experiences some kind of undergarment blunders, from a ripped seam to a misjudged purchase. Therefore, laments can help normalize this common occurrence.

On the other hand, there are those who see this as an excessive public exhibition of vulnerability. They are concerned that laments will lead to feelings of shame and could even further undermine self-confidence and feelings of worthiness.

Whether laments about underpants are acceptable ultimately comes down to an individual's opinion. But it's clear that in today's culture, these types of expressions are finding more and more acceptance.

[tuesziday]

Every conversation about JK Rowling turns into a complete nightmare...why can't we talk about a different author? An author who actually deserves to be given attention?

Dav Pilkey is nice. Katherine Applegate too. Rick Riordan anyone?

[colapointo]

partners in crime

[ingravinoveritas]

So now that I have (semi) recovered from David’s appearance on The Late Late Show earlier this week, I need to share a couple of thoughts on what I observed and enjoyed thoroughly about this interview. In no particular order...

- First (of course) is David holding up the giant cutout Michael Sheen head. He did an imitation of Michael’s voice, which was amazing because it immediately confirmed that David doing a Welsh accent/Michael’s accent wasn’t just a thing for Staged (season 1, “Cachu Hwch”; “The Cookie Jar”), but something he’s done in real life and probably on more than one occasion.

- "I have him everywhere now” and “We’ve been locked together through this very difficult time” - Both have more than a ring of truth to them, and in the case of the former, I’m almost certain the cutout or the accent (or both) have been in the bedroom with him and Georgia.

- “He’s my emotional support pet.” Mentioning this for obvious reasons, but there’s so much to unpack:

After doing Michael’s voice/while answering James, David repeatedly looks and smiles at the Michael cutout with affection and love, the same way he looks and smiles at the real Michael;

When the cardboard cutout of Georgia falls over, David doesn’t turn to pick it up or even look, yet he takes care to set the Michael cutout down gingerly each time he’s done with it;

“Emotional support pet” seemed like David’s joking way of saying that he does actually get emotional support from Michael himself (and vice-versa). I’ve thought this was the case since the filming of GO, but to hear something like this from David (who is so good at saying what he wants to say without actually saying it) was truly revealing;

Saying “he” rather than “it,” which makes one think David is talking about the real Michael, not Giant Cutout Michael. Hell, every time he did anything with the cutout head, it gave off gigantic “missing my boyfriend” energy. And again I need to emphasize that David was fondling and lovingly looking at a giant cutout of Michael’s head WHILE SITTING IN HIS UNDERWEAR.

Speaking of which...

- THE. FUCKING. UNDERWEAR. The fact that David wore it. The fact that he posed in it on national television. The fact that he looked like he was mere inches away from turning Georgia into Pinocchio from being so quietly thrilled at his own naughtiness, I mean...WHAT THE FUCK EVEN WAS THIS INTERVIEW.

- David knew exactly how to angle the camera and how to move the shirt aside to ensure maximum cock region visibility, and he threw in a bonus peek of belly button. (It’s always nice when the “giant slut” part of David balances out the “middle-aged technophobe.”) But the fact that he did all of the above so seamlessly means there’s no way in hell that was the first time he’s been in his underwear on Zoom/probably less.

- "Things that before seemed wrong, now seem right." David showing his underwear on camera would surely fall into this category, especially if it’s meant for a particular audience of one that’s currently in America recovering from Covid. That’s where my mind went to, at any rate, and given the (re)appearance of the cutout Michael head, it doesn’t seem like too far of a leap.

So...yes. In conclusion, this interview was an absolute gift to all the Shennant shippers and David fans in general, and whatever has brought out this brazen exhibitionist streak in him, I hope it continues. Bless you, David Tennant...

[ginalinettiofficial]

im actually already sad about the terrible lives that the children who get cast in the pjo show are probably gonna have. like i know i know it’s exciting to see characters portrayed their canonical ages and shit but did we all forget that child actors generally tend not to fare so well??? they’re very susceptible to abuse, grooming, EDs, drug addiction, so many terrible things, and i think we forget that when demanding child actors so that our content can be more accurate to its source material.

i know no one is gonna read this post lmao i just wanted to vent i’m just so worried for these kids and i hope none of them suffer at all but, like, knowing what we know, and having seen disney channel stars come and go, sitting on a website that idolizes ppl like mara wilson and macauley caulkin whilst spreading around massively popular “awareness” posts about how terrible and abusive their lives were as child stars, i can’t help but feel like by being so fiercely in favor of a full cast of child actors (enough so that i’ve seen several long-time rick haters say things along the lines of “finally rick did something right!”) we’re ignoring the very real children who are going to sign up to sacrifice five years of their lives in order to work extremely intense schedules with little to no social life outside of the cast and crew in an industry famous for underage sex abuse scandals and unhealthy labor conditions just so that we can enjoy the artistic content they’ll be creating.

idk sorry to rant into the void yet again i just think it’s pretty naive and not the best idea to demand a cast of 8-14 year olds for the sake ~being faithful to source material~ when speaking from experience we /know/ that those children (who as we speak are maybe, what, 5 to 11 years old? in order to be old enough to play these roles by the time production begins) will for the most part be the next victims of a brutal and unforgiving industry that’s far more likely to chew them up and spit them out as fragile, unstable young adults who have no concept how to function as healthy human beings than it is to let them grow into stable happy healthy ppl, whilst creating this art for us.

[co27]

brutally honest opinion on weblena

ohh man... okay. listen. i DO like weblena. i am 100% certain that webby has a crush on lena and that lena will reciprocate at some point. HOWEVER. theyre like. twelve. i think people are RLY WEIRD abt weblena and make it way more like..... romantic and affectionate and whatnot than it should actually be. like it even feels weird to see fanart/fanfic of them just kissing and stuff bc. theyre KIDS. especially when its content made by someone like..... 16 and older and stuff. theyre way too young for an actual relationship (yknow, the difference between actual romance and puppy love) and WAY too young to be doing. really anything more than holding hands imho.... basically. baby lesbians who hold hands = cool and normal. acting like theyre regular fully-fledged highschoolers or smth who make out and stuff = weird.

[jackie-gremlin-ghost]

So there's this ship in the Voltron fandom that certain fans liked. And one fan took some photos of top secret stuff at the studio and threatened to post them if the ship didn't become canon. It's not as bad as what happened in the Steven Universe fandom (when one artist was nearly driven to suicide by angry fans because she made Rose Quartz as a slender woman a few years back) but that's the kind of behavior I'm glad I don't see in the ironically more mature CU fandom.

😳

I knew fandoms could be scary, sometimes, but… JESUS…

[dwellordream]

“In the mid-1910s, when the modern fashions were first introduced on the Danish scene, they provoked relatively little controversy. Even though the vast majority of fashion commentators found the new styles unfortunate, and fashion pioneers—such as the woman at the new year's party—met with gossip and disapproval within their own social circles, short dresses did not trigger much public opposition. After all, wealthy women were known to be given to extravagances, making them the easy victims of any designer whim. That a few working-class daughters adopted similar styles was not surprising either, given their notoriously "poor" taste and unfortunate propensity for flashy outfits. 

It was only when broader groups of young women began to adopt the new styles that public concern grew. Certainly, there were contemporaries who found any debate over this matter superfluous. As they saw it, the new styles were merely a temporary folly, doomed to vanish as quickly as it seemed to have appeared. But this was the view of a minority. Most people took the styles much more seriously, believing them to be a sign of more profound changes. In their eyes, young women who adopted shorter skirts, lower necklines, simpler cuts, and higher heels were doing more than simply altering the specific details of fashionable female apparel. In a more fundamental way, they seemed to be departing from older styles of proper and attractive femininity. 

Although some observers welcomed the new fashions as charming diversions from the older, more formal styles of dress, most older adults therefore watched the emergence of the "modern look" with considerable unease. At a time when the values and virtues associated with nineteenth-century womanhood were already under attack and longstanding gender arrangements seemed to be crumbling, these changes in women's dress were interpreted as yet another sign of rebellion against the status quo. Still, it remained rather unclear to most observers what these new styles might mean and what consequences they might have; as more and more women adopted the new styles, their efforts to determine the answers to these questions intensified. 

As a result, debates over women's fashions soared in the second half of the 1910s, and while some voices were risen in their defense, the vast majority of those who expressed their views publicly were deeply troubled and critical of the new styles. Although critics disagreed about which particular aspect of the new styles was more objectionable, they were unanimous in the complaint that modern fashions seemed to violate both gender norms and class hierarchies. The latter was not the least of their concerns. According to one observer, the new fashions obliterated "all differences among people. You can no longer tell who is the daughter of a common laborer and who belongs to the better circles."

Some observers blamed this on upper-class women's surprising preference for simplicity over adornment. Others faulted young working-class women and their inappropriate enthusiasm for "new fashionable finery." Less judgmentally, others argued that the erasure of visible class distinction was the inevitable outcome of readymade clothes. But no matter where they placed the blame, contemporary observers generally agreed that visual class differences were becoming increasingly blurred. The dangers of this were clear enough: Without the obvious visual clues of class status, an unsuspecting soul might inadvertently mistake a working-class girl for a young lady, or—worse yet—a young lady for a working-class girl.

In general, though, observers were more concerned about the new styles because they seemed to refute older codes of female virtue and modesty. What particularly troubled many critics of the new styles was the increased display of the female body. Even though hemlines would remain below the knee throughout the 1910s and 1920s, shorter dresses still revealed significant parts of women's legs, and sheer silk stockings displayed ankles and calves in more suggestive ways than did traditional wool stockings. Simultaneously, lower necklines and sleeveless tops also made women's upper bodies more visible, leading one Copenhagen city council member to conclude that the new styles of dress "obviously" did not "have the purpose of warming and protecting the body, but rather the opposite: to reveal as much as possible."

Besides, the fashions also seemed to call attention to the body beneath the clothing in new and disturbing ways. Even those parts of women's bodies that were in fact clothed seemed more exposed and accessible than ever before. As the amount of fashionable female underwear was reduced to brassieres, underpants, and light corsets, the fact that merely a few layers of delicate fabric shrouded the female body only furthered this sense. For other critics, the increased display of the female body seemed less disturbing than the sexually provocative nature of the new styles. While admitting that modern dresses carried the advantage of allowing a woman to dress herself without assistance, the fact that they also made it possible for her to undress "in the twinkling of an eye" was not lost on contemporaries.

According to some alarmists, this might well lead to unchecked promiscuity and even prostitution among young women. Other social conservatives expressed concern that the new styles eliminated the visible differences between respectable and disreputable women, or—in the parlance of the early twentieth century—between "ladies" and "women of the streets." In a public lecture, Copenhagen mayor Ernst Kaper, for example, decried that "the ideals that define the appearance of almost all women have completely blurred the distinction between professional prostitutes and respectable citizens."

"The look," he explained on another occasion, "short hair, lipstick, powder and make-up, the few pieces of clothing, is often the same." Adding to this argument, one newspaper editor noted that it would be most difficult for men to respect a woman when "she faces us in the attire of a whore." These criticisms notwithstanding, the more frequently voiced objections to women's new fashionable styles were of a quite different nature. While some (female) fashion columnists complained that they new styles were plain and unattractive, most men reacted quite differently. 

Although historians, cultural studies scholars, and fashion specialists have often focused on the fact that the new fashions deemphasized womanly curves and removed visual attention from breasts, waists, and hips, arguing that this gave women an androgynous or even boyish look, it was certainly not an impression of juvenile asexuality that struck most Danish men at the time. In their eyes, the modern fashions seemed to endow young women with a new sexual attractiveness, which they flaunted in public and private. As one newspaper reporter noted, "They are everywhere— in the street, at the cafe, on the beach—presenting themselves in their new attire, unabashedly showing off their feminine charms."

Under other circumstances such displays of female beauty and style might have prompted appreciation, but in the second half of the 1910s it was the cause of much male resentment. The new styles, they complained, made women too attractive and too sexy, giving them an unfair edge in the ongoing battle between the sexes. As one journalist grudgingly noted,  "Women are becoming more and more beautiful, and still more seductive under the devilish rule of his majesty King Fashion, and the rest of us are undeniably—only men." The underlying concern about the sexual balance of power helps explain the visceral response to female fashions that dominated much of the popular press in the late 1910s. 

Because many men perceived the modern fashions as posing a more fundamental threat to a sexual order based on male control and initiative and female modesty and passivity, they responded with vehement anger. Some commentators warned that scantily clad women created a dangerously erotic atmosphere, where men aroused by the sight of female bodies would not be able to control themselves. Others claimed that they "did not mind that the ladies are dressed like that, but in return all sections of criminal law pertaining to rape ought to be abolished."

Surely, they argued, women's "undressed [appearances] entail a diminution of male responsibility—they appeal so openly and aggressively to the baser elements in man's nature that it becomes a directly extenuating circumstance if temptation becomes too strong for him." As more and more young women began to adopt the new styles, such criticisms became more and more intense. By the end of the 1910s, a host of journalists and literati, academics and politicians, and ministers and moral reformers publicly denounced the new styles and the women who wore them. 

Yet, exactly at this moment when public opposition was reaching its crescendo, a counter discourse in defense of women's fashions began to emerge. After years of relative silence, fashion advocates threw themselves into the battle over women's dress, and surprisingly quickly they managed to quell much of the opposition. Ironically, it was the efforts of a group of older, reform-minded women to have the infamous garments removed from department store windows that first began to sway many critics from their otherwise adamant stance against the new styles. 

These efforts first came to the attention of the public on November 25, 1919, when Carla Meyer, the charismatic and controversial president of the newly formed Housewives' Organization, published on open letter to department store owners in which she urged them to "halt the window display of half-naked women's costumes." Behind this initiative stood not only Carla Meyer but also members of moral reform groups and many feminists who feared that the new styles would throw into question young women's ability to make sound judgments and thereby potentially damage all women's claims to sexual equality. Jointly, these women had formed the Committee Against the Dissemination of Modem Apparel, which on November 27 published yet another official protest endorsed by twenty-six of its most prominent members. 

Given the "irresponsibility .. . of our big, respected firms," they wrote, they felt compelled to express their objection, since "we cannot tolerate that such harlot's garb be introduced into our country and thus help destroy the sense of decency shared by men and women from all strata of society." Whether the members of the committee had actually expected business owners to comply with their request remains unclear, but they had certainly not anticipated the kind of backlash they would encounter in the wake of their action. Rather than support their efforts, many of the very same reporters and newspaper editors who previously had railed against the new fashions used these older women's action as an opportunity to denigrate and ridicule them.

Obviously preferring fashionable young girls as the embodiment of "liberated" twentieth-century womanhood over more serious-minded—and potentially more threatening—female reformers, Folkets Avis, for example, called their criticism a "comical act" and mockingly suggested that "some people may be entirely relieved to know that the leaders of the Housewives' Organization will not wear any of [the dresses]." The Social Democratic daily, Klokken 5, characterized the incident as "a protest of the old and the ugly, the holy and much too prudish ladies." 

Even the otherwise sober Copenhagen newspaper Politiken joined the chorus. Lashing out at the grammar, intelligence, and appearance of female activists, the paper felt compelled to "call to the attention of the 'cultivated' hyenas that a costume cannot be half-naked; a woman, rather, is capable of that, even without being stupid, as long as she is attractive. On the other hand, it does not require attractiveness to be a competent housewife. It was, however, unknown to us, until the publication [of the protest] that stupidity was a prerequisite." Such tirades placed women struggling to protect and defend older styles of femininity on the defensive. 

By reducing their concerns to issues of sexual jealousy and female competition over men, male journalists managed to challenge both their sincerity and the moral authority to which they, and other older women, laid claim. Faced with ridicule and accusations of dowdy unattractiveness, most of these women quite understandably preferred to withdraw from public controversy, and after their initial bold offensive, few of them ever commented publicly on the issue of fashion again. The 1919 incident had other consequences as well. 

For supporters of the new fashions, the unprecedented attack on older, reform-minded women provided at least an indication of how they might construe an effective argument in favor of the modern styles. By latching on to the critique of female activists as frumpy, prudish, and self-righteous, they might be able to position fashionable young women as their positive contrast and thereby curb the harshest criticisms of their appearances. The media invariably portrayed the women who protested against the display of modern fashions, as dowdy and unattractive old maids. For that reason, fashion advocates quickly embraced the media's portrayal of older female activists as unattractive and unfeminine. 

In the following months and years, they eagerly promoted the increasingly popular stereotype that feminists, female reformers, and educated women in general failed to take interest in their appearances and actually prided themselves in this negligence. "I was once honored with an invitation to spend an evening in the company of .. . brilliant and influential women," one young female journalist thus wrote in the early 1920s. "It would have been an delightful affair," she continued, "if all the ladies had been represented through the radio and had not been present themselves, as they were all to an extreme degree lacking in beauty. And it quickly dawned on me that they were proud of their careless appearance."

In comparison, young women who embraced the new fashions were obviously more feminine in their pursuit of beauty and style, and unlike older female activists who dared to be in the public eye without necessarily striving to be pleasing to look at, they would offer no such challenge to social conventions. To bolster the credibility of this argument and further distance fashionable young women from an older generation bent on women's emancipation, proponents of the new styles supported sharp distinctions between men's and women's clothing. 

They assured critics that equality between the sexes, established with women's suffrage in 1915, rendered the masculine attire—such as jackets and neckties—worn by some older feminists both inappropriate and unnecessary. Sexual difference, they promised, would remain highly encoded in modern fashions. If young women wore clothes that could in any way be deemed inappropriate for their gender, fashion advocates continued, it was for reasons of comfort or practicality only. 

Thus, when an American fashion designer in 1920 introduced a combined housecoat/pajamas, Vore Darner ensured that "it is exceedingly feminine, not the least bit mannish, and it does not appeal to any kind of desire for independence in the young lady who wears it. Rather, the pants . . . are reminiscences from the delicate Oriental women's costumes." From the end of the 1910s, fashion reporting thus concentrated on affirming the gender-appropriate nature of the modern styles. 

Over and over again, in a seemingly endless litany to femininity, every single item of women's clothing from summer hats to walking shoes was characterized as elegant, graceful, charming, delicate, or refined, and the overall fashionable style as womanly and ladylike. Contrasting the appealing femininity of fashionable young women with the allegedly frumpy, unattractive, and occasionally mannish appearance of an older generation proved an effective strategy for advocates of the new styles. 

While placing female critics on the defensive, it simultaneously provided a platform from which fashion enthusiasts were able to respond to male critics who interpreted women's changing appearance as a sign of the erosion of proper womanhood and a challenge to the established gender and sexual order, and within a few years they managed to convince most skeptics that the new styles were not a sign of rebellion or women's efforts to gain control over men. On the contrary, the new styles were, according to fashion advocates, the sign of a renewed and reinforced femininity that admittedly incorporated heightened attractiveness and erotic appeal, but did not endanger female respectability or conventional gender arrangements.

 As a result, the controversies over modern fashions all but disappeared within a couple of years of the 1919 incident. Most contemporaries either lost their determination to battle the new styles, or they became convinced that they posed no real threat. And those who remained concerned about the implications of the new fashions soon had their attention drawn to another change in women's appearance even more disturbing than the modern dresses. In the mid-1920s, growing numbers of women began to discard one of the most cherished icons of femininity—namely, their long hair. After a slight lull in the early 1920s, controversies over women's appearances therefore reached a new peak.”

- Birgitte Soland, “The Emergence of the Modern Look.” in Becoming Modern: Young Women and the Reconstruction of Womanhood in the 1920s

[space-is-the-place2]

Is it just me or does it feel weird that they replaced captain underpants's two dads with Heterosexual Dolphins in the movie........ Like 👀👀

[siumerghe]

Ruan Ji, from Alchemists, Mediums, and Magicians: Stories of Taoist Mystics

Alchemists, Mediums, and Magicians: Stories of Taoist Mystics is a collection of biographies of 144 historical figures associated with Daoism, compiled under the title Xuanping lu 玄品錄 by daoist Zhang Tianyu 張天雨 (1279-1350) and translated by Thomas Cleary.

Ruan Ji was styled Sizong. He was a man of Yushi in Chenliu.(16) His appearance was well proportioned and distinguished, his temperament was broad-minded and free. Haughty and self-satisfied, he did as he pleased, without constraint, yet neither joy nor anger ever showed on his face.

Sometimes he’d shut himself indoors and read books for months on end. Sometimes he’d climb mountains and gaze upon rivers, forgetting to come back for days at a stretch.

He was widely read but was particularly fond of Chuang-tzu and Lao-tzu. He once wrote A Discourse on Understanding Chuang-tzu, setting forth the value of not being artificial, but it is lengthy so I won’t cite it. He composed more than eight thousand (or, according to the Book of Jin, eighty) verses, Poems Expressing Thoughts, which were esteemed by the world. He enjoyed wine, was an able whistler, and was good at playing the lute. When he was satisfied, he’d forget himself, and many people of the time thought him an imbecile.

When he heard that the quartermaster of the infantry was a good brewer and had a store of three hundred casks of wine, Ruan Ji sought to be made commander of the infantry and set aside worldly affairs.

He was also able to show favor or contempt in his eyes. When he’d see gentlemen who were ritual conventionalists, he’d look upon them with contempt.

Once he met Sun Deng in the Sumen Mountains(17) and tried to discuss eternity and the arts of calming the mind and energizing the body, but Deng didn’t reply to anything. Ji therefore left, whistling all the way. When he got to the middle of the mountain ridge, he heard a sound like the song of a phoenix echoing through the canyon; it was Sun Deng whistling.

When he got home, he wrote The Story of a Great Man. In sum it said, “What the world calls a lordly man only learns the law and only masters courtesy; his hands hold ceremonial jade, his feet walk a straight line. In his actions he wishes to be an example for the time; in his words he wishes to be a standard for eternity. When young he is praised in his hometown, as an adult he is known in the neighboring states. He would aim for the highest offices above while not disregarding regional governance below. Only he doesn’t see lice in his underwear, hiding in the inner seams, concealed in frayed lining, taking these to be auspicious abodes. When they creep they dare not leave the borders of the seams, when they squirm they dare not leave the underwear—and they think they’re conforming to standards and rules. Then let the hills ignite and the fire flow, burning towns and destroying cities; the lice will stay in the underpants, unable to get out. How is a lordly man living in a city different from this?”

This was also Ji’s basic inclination. He used to ride alone at will, not going by the roads. When his chariot got stuck and couldn’t go any farther, he’d cry out in lament and turn back.

Once he climbed Guangwu Mountain(18) to gaze on the battleground of Han and Chu. He lamented, “When an era lacks heroes, it lets punks become famous.”

He died in 263.

Footnotes:

16. In Henan.

17. In Henan.

18. In Henan.

[anthracoceros]

yall sayin the people in the fandom need to be “””””””””normal people”””””””””” but normal people dont make someone else fucking die lol 🐸☕️