#unrealistic but pretty

[rainystressed247]

Fae!Dream Fae!Dream Fae!Dream.

Sorry I was overcome by the need to see fae!Dream again >.<

Also yes, I was busy but I finally have some time. Also, also, there are a lot of art coming in this week so stay tuned!!! <3

[tragicotps]

What age was Gillian Anderson in The X-Files? (x)

[orengejoshi]

Paperhatober Day 19: Glasses🔍

he's SPEECHLESS he's never seen such beauty.

[wickwackity]

it’s a bird it’s a plane it’s a hatzegopteryx

[the-hopeful-squid]

"S3 is a good ending! It's realistic that heroes never win and The System is too big to ever truly be defeated!"

Look, even setting aside the issue of whether or not the whole, "Heroes will lose if they try too hard to change the system, and bad guys who work the system to their benefit always win," is realistic (spoiler: it's not! the world has changed about a zillion times already over the course of human history! and plenty of those changes were for the better! it can and will change again towards better things before human history is over!)-

If you expect me to believe that a young woman could give birth to a healthy premature baby in like five minutes in the middle of a death game full of people trying to hunt down and murder each other, that the woman could then live through that death game and into another one while carting her baby around with her before dying, and that the baby could be carted around alive through two more death games by a guy who last held a baby almost 15 years ago and still be alive and reasonably healthy at the end-

Then I don't know where anyone gets off claiming that it would be too unrealistic to also have the main hero win, survive, and bring a few other people out of those stupid death games alive, too.

Symbolism! Metaphors! Hope for the future through even the darkest of times!

Oh. So it wasn't about absolute Realism? Great! Then you can have all the above in a show where the hero also lives, defeats the games, and saves a few other people who held onto their own hope and kindness and fighting spirit on the way, too.

[childrenofcain-if]

Okay so there's a hook up that pisses of M, D and W. We ourselves are the hookup that pisses off C. Who does V get?

Or is it role reversal with V and Jesus/celibacy/the church is the one to piss us off

romanced V is going to be sad throughout all hookups, those big brown eyes be looking at you like a kicked doe once they find out you’ve been messing around with other people.

romanced C is pissed at everyone, but then again, it’s not like they recognise that they desperately want your attention only on them and no one else. they’d be especially annoyed at E tho, since it’s quite obvious that they want to be more than just your FWB and C thinks the way they view you through rose-coloured glasses is pathetic.

[whoisspence]

they really tried to convince us this guy couldn't pull any bitches ???? lmao yeah right

[taradactyls]

So I could be totally wrong but, I believe it was sort of expected that men/gentlemen lose their virginity before marriage in regency times. But I also there’s some fandom ‘debate’ about whether or not Mr Darcy would’ve had sex before getting married. So I was just curious about what your canon for Mr Darcy in T3W is. Is he a virgin or not?

I knew someone would ask me this eventually, haha. I've actually had really long conversations with my beta reader about this trying to figure it out. It sounds like this might all be stuff that you’ve already seen discussed in the fandom, but I’ve never thought about it deeply before and so these are new thoughts to me.

I keep going over the historical real-world likelihood, the authorial intent, and the text itself but I’m still not 100%. I’ll explain my thinking and what I find most likely, but here’s your warning that it’s not a clear cut yes/no.

Because on one hand, at that time period it was most common for men in his position to have seen sex workers or have casual encounters/mistresses with women from their estates. Though I do absolutely believe not all men did that, no matter how much wealth and power they had. To go back some centuries, William the Conqueror seemed to be famously celibate (no hints of male lovers either according to the biography I read) until his marriage, and there's no evidence of affairs after it either. The best guesses as to why are that it was due to his religious devotion and the problems that had arisen from himself being a bastard and not wanting to recreate that situation. Concerns over religion and illegitimate children would certainly still have been applicable in the regency to men who thought that way. And in modern times I've seen sex workers say that when an 18/21yo is booked in by his family/friends to 'become a man' often they end up just talking and agree to lie about the encounter. After all, it’s not like every man wants casual sex, even if they aren’t demisexual or something in that vein. But, statistically speaking, the precedent of regency gentlemen would make Darcy not a virgin.

On the other hand, just how aware was Jane Austen, the very religious daughter of a country rector, of the commonness of this? There’s a huge difference between knowing affairs and sex workers existed (and no one who had seen a Georgian newspaper could be blind to this) and realising that the majority of wealthy men saw sex workers at some point even if they condemned the more public and profligate affairs. The literature for young ladies at the time paints extramarital sex - including the lust of men outside of marriage - as pretty universally bad and dangerous. This message is seen from 'Pamela' and other gothic fiction to non-fiction conduct books which Jane Austen would have encountered. Here's something I found in 'Letters to a Young Lady' by the reverend John Bennett which I found particularly interesting as it's in direct conversation with other opinions of the era:

"A reformed rake makes the best husband." Does he? It would be very extraordinary, if he should. Besides, are you very certain, that you have power to reform him? It is a matter, that requires some deliberation. This reformation, if it is to be accomplished, must take place before marriage. Then if ever, is the period of your power. But how will you be assured that he is reformed? If he appears so, is he not insidiously concealing his vices, to gain your affections? And when he knows, they are secured, may he not, gradually, throw off the mask, and be dissipated, as before? Profligacy of this kind is seldom eradicated. It resembles some cutaneous disorders, which appear to be healed, and yet are, continually, making themselves visible by fresh eruptions. A man, who has carried on a criminal intercourse with immoral women is not to be trusted, His opinion of all females is an insult to their delicacy. His attachment is to sex alone, under particular modifications.

The definition of a rake is more than a man who has seen a sex worker once, it's about appearance and general conduct too, but again, would that distinction be made to young ladies? Because they seem to simply be continuously taught 'lust when unmarried is bad and beware men who you know engage in extramarital sex.' As a side note, Jane Austen certainly knew at least something about the mechanics of sex: her letters and literature she read alludes to it, and she grew up around farm animals in the countryside which is an education in itself.

We can also see from this exert that the school of thought seems to be 'reformed rake' vs 'never a rake' in contention for the title of best husband, there's no debate over whether a current rake is unsuitable for a young lady. And, from Willoughby to Wickham to Crawford, I think we have a very clear idea of Jane Austen's ideas of how likely it is notably promiscuous men can reform. This does not preclude the possibility that her disparaging commentary around their lust is based more on over-indulgence or the class of women they seduce, but it's undoubtedly a condemnation of such men directly in line with the first part of what John Bennett says so it's no stretch to believe she saw merit in the follow-on conclusions of the second part as well. Whether she would view it with enough merit to consider celibacy the only respectable option for unmarried men is a bit unclearer.

I did consider that perhaps Jane Austen consciously treated this as a grey area where she couldn’t possibly know what young men did (the same reasoning is why we never see the men in the dining room after the ladies retire, etc) and so didn't hold an opinion on men's extramarital encounters with sex workers/lower-class women at all, but I think there actually are enough hints in her works that this isn’t the case. Though, unsurprisingly, given the delicacy of the subject, there’s no direct mention of sex workers or gentlemen having casual lovers from among the lower-classes in her texts.

That also prevents us from definitively knowing whether she thought extramarital sex was so common, and as unremarkable, as most gentlemen treated it. But we do see from her commentary around the consequences of Maria Bertram and Henry Crawford's elopement that she had criticism of the double standards men and women were held to when violating sexual virtue. Another indication that she perhaps expected good men to be capable of waiting until marriage in the way that she very clearly believed women should. At the very least, a man who often indulges in extramarital sex does not seem to be one who would be considered highly by Jane Austen.

She makes a point of saying, in regards to not liking his wife, that Mr Bennet “was not of a disposition to seek comfort for the disappointment which his own imprudence had brought on, in any of those pleasures which too often console the unfortunate for their folly or their vice.” This must include affairs, though cheating on a wife cannot be a 1:1 equivalent of single young men sleeping around before marriage. However, the latter is generally critically accepted to be one of the flaws that Darcy lays at Wickham’s door along with gambling when talking about their youth and his “vicious propensities" and "want of principle." Though this could be argued that it’s more the extent or publicity of it (but remembering that it couldn't be anything uncommon enough that it couldn't be hidden from Darcy Sr. or explained away) rather than the act itself, or maybe seductions instead of paying women offering those services. I also believe Persuasion mentioning Sunday travelling as proof of thoughtless/immoral activity supports the idea that Jane Austen might have been religious enough that she would never create a hero who had extramarital sex.

So, taken all together this would make Darcy potentially a virgin, or, since I couldn't find absolute evidence of her opinions, leave enough room that he isn’t but extramarital sex isn’t a regular (or perhaps recent) thing and he would never have had anything so established as a mistress.

I’ve also been wondering, if Darcy isn’t a virgin, who would he have slept with? I’ve been musing on arguments for and against each option for weeks at this point. No romantasy has ever made me think about a fictional man's sexual habits so much as the question of Darcy's sexual history. What is my life.

Sex workers are an obvious answer, and the visits wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows. Discretion was part of their job, it was a clean transaction with no further responsibilities towards them, and effective (and reusable, ew) condoms existed at this time so there was little risk of children and no ability to exactly determine the paternity even if there was an accident. It was a fairly ‘responsible’ choice if one wanted no strings attached. In opposition to this, syphilis was rampant at the time, and had been known to spread sexually for centuries. Sex workers were at greater risk of it than anyone else and so the more sensible and risk-averse someone is (and I think Mr Darcy would be careful) the less likely they would be to visit sex workers. Contracting something that was known as potentially deadly and capable of making a future wife infertile if it spread to her could make any intelligent and cautious man think twice.

Servants and tenants of the estate are another simple and common answer. Less risk of stds, it can be based on actual attraction more than money (though money might still change hands), and is a bit more intimate. But Wickham’s called wicked for something very similar, when he dallies (whether he only got to serious flirting, kissing, or sleeping with them I don’t think we can conclusively say) with the common women of Meryton: “his intrigues, all honoured with the title of seduction, had been extended into every tradesman's family.” And it isn't as though Wickham had any personal duty towards those people beyond the claims of basic dignity. Darcy, who is shown to have such respect and understanding for his responsibilities towards the people of his estate and duties of a landlord, would keenly feel if any of his actions were leading his servants/tenants astray and down immoral paths. Servants, especially, were considered directly under the protection of the family whose house they worked in. I think it's undoubtable that Mrs Reynolds (whose was responsible for the wellbeing - both physically and spiritually - of the female servants) would not think so well of Mr Darcy if he had experimented with maids in his youth. It would reflect badly on her if a family entrusted their daughter to her care and she 'lost her virtue' under her watch. Daughters/widows of others living on the estate not under the roof of Pemberley House are a little more likely, but still, if he did have an affair with any of them I can only think it possible when he was much younger and did not feel his duties quite so strongly. Of course lots of real men didn't care about any of this, but Darcy is so far from being depicted as careless about his duties that the narrative makes a point of how exceptional his quality of care was. Frankly, it's undeniable that none of Jane Austen's heroes were flippant about their responsibilities towards those under their protection. I cannot serious entertain an interpretation that makes Darcy not, at his current age, at least, cognizant of the contemporary problems inherent in sleeping with servants or others on his estate.

A servant in a friend’s house would remove some of that personal responsibility, but transfer it to instead be leading his friend’s servants astray and in a manner which he is less able to know about if a child did result. That latter remains a problem even if we move the setting to his college, so not particularly likely for his character as we know it… though it wouldn’t be unusual for someone to be more unthinking and reckless in their teenage years than they are at twenty-eight so I don’t think having sex then can be ruled out. Kissing I can much more easily believe, especially when at Oxford or Cambridge, but every scenario of sleeping with a lower-class woman has some compelling arguments against it especially the closer we get to the time of the novel.

Men did of course also have affairs with women of ranks similar to their own, though given Jane Austen’s well-known feelings towards men who ‘ruined’ the virtue of young ladies we can safely say that Darcy never slept with an unwed middle- or upper-class woman. Any decent man would have married them out of duty if it got so far; but if he was the sort to let it get so far, I think it impossible Jane Austen would consider him respectable. Widows are a possibility, but again, the respectable thing to do would be to marry them. Perhaps a poorer merchant’s widow would be low enough that marriage is off the table but high enough that the ‘leading astray’ aspect loses its master-servant responsibilities (though the male-female ‘protect the gentler sex’ aspect remains) but his social circle didn’t facilitate meeting many ladies like that. Plus, an affair with a woman in society would remove many layers of privacy and anonymity that sex-workers and lower-class lovers provided by simply being unremarkable to the world at large. It carries a far greater risk of scandal and a heavier sense of immorality in the terms of respecting a woman’s purity which classism prevented from applying so heavily to lower-class women.

I think it’s important to note here that something that removes the need to think about duties of landlords towards the lower-classes or gentlemen towards gentlewomen is having affairs with other men of a similar rank. But, aside from the risk of scandal and what could be called the irresponsibility of engaging in illegal acts, it’s almost certain that Jane Austen would never have supported this. For a devout author in this era the way I’m calculating likelihoods makes it not even a possibility. But if you want to write a different fanfiction (and perhaps something like a break-up could explain why Darcy doesn’t seem to have any closer friend than someone whom he must have only met two or so years ago despite being in society for years before that) it does have that advantage over affairs with women of equal- and lower-classes. I support alternate interpretations entirely – it just isn’t how I’m deciding things in this instance.

I keep coming back to the conclusion that, at the very least, Darcy hasn’t had sex recently and it was never a common occurrence. It wouldn’t surprise me if Jane Austen felt he hadn’t done it ever. Kissing, as we can see from all the parlour games at the time, wasn’t viewed as harshly, so I think he’s likely made out with someone before. But in almost every situation it does seem that the responsible and religious thing to do (which Jane Austen values so highly) is for it to never have progressed to sex. I also don’t think it conflicts with his canon characterisation to say that he wouldn’t regard sexual experience as a crucial element of his life thus far, and his personality isn’t driven to pursue pleasure for himself, so it’s entirely possible that he would never go out of his way to seek it. So, I’m inclined to think that the authorial and textual evidence is in favour of Darcy being a virgin even if the real-world contemporary standard is the opposite. (Though both leave enough room for exceptions that I’m not going to argue with anyone who feels differently; and even if you agree with all my points, you might simply weight authorial intent/textual evidence/contemporary likelihoods differently than I do and come to a different conclusion).

Remember that even if Darcy is a virgin this wouldn’t necessarily equate to lack of knowledge, only experience. There were plenty of books and artwork focused on sex, and Darcy, studious man that he is, would no doubt pay attention to what knowledge his friends/male relatives shared. Though some of it (Looking especially at you, 'Fanny Hill, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure') should NEVER be an example of appropriate practice for taking a woman's virginity. Darcy would almost certainly have been taught directly or learnt through exposure to other men talking to make sex good for a woman – it was a commonly held misconception (since Elizabethan England, I believe) that women had to orgasm to conceive. It would be in his interests as an empathetic husband, and head of a family, to know how to please his wife.

Basically, I’m convinced Darcy isn’t very experienced, if at all, and will be learning with Elizabeth. But he does have a lot of theoretical knowledge which he’s paid careful attention to and is eager to apply.

[rystiel]

can’t blame in-ho tbh i’d also stare at gi-hun all day

[chewyhanniebug]

Buckle up kids because I'm pissed off and have a few points to make.

Obviously @raeisms doesn't need me to fight her battles for her. That's not what I'm trying to do. She's perfectly capable of sticking up for herself, and she has been, but it's getting ridiculous and I want to speak up about what this is leading to.

Fandom spaces are dying. Pushing people to stop creating is the cause.

That isn't a stretch. It's a fact. Not understanding boundaries or purposefully stepping over them is a massive chunk of the problem. It isn't just here, but this is already such a small community and pushing away artists/authors—people creating things for free with the purpose of enjoyment—is killing it. Artists and authors are, and always have been, the heart of fandom. Without them there is nothing.

Fandom etiquette has been left behind and forgotten. Ages are skewing younger and I don't care if I sound like a silly old millennial for saying that's also part of the problem. There's older people this applies to as well of course, but I've seen so many barging in who just don't understand how this works because there's so little guidance anymore. Again, not just here. It's happening across all platforms to all fandoms and it's terrifying.

What happened to "don't like, don't read" and using filters to curate what you want to see? What happened to thinking for two seconds about whether something you say could be hurtful and then not sending it? What are you trying to prove? I can't stress enough that you are the reason this will all stop existing.

TL;DR if you want to keep this space alive, grow up and learn some fucking manners.

[quibbs]

If you dont wanna answer thats ok ill understand..

But how far off in terms of chapters are we from finding out why Dees is named that? Im a ok being patient i live for your webcomic. But im dying to understand how its not a dees nuts joke lmao. Hope you are well, thank you!!

ok LOL i dont mind just telling you- it's a very frequently asked question. so the writers answer is that i was 17, i liked that dees was seed backwards, thought it was a fun nickname for what his full name actually is, and deez nuts wasnt a meme yet. when it HAD became a meme, i stubbornly refused to change it. "memes are fleeting," i smartly and wisely thought 10 years ago with no prefrontal cortex to speak of, "it probably wont even be a meme for more than a few months". so anyways deez nuts ended up being a meme for more than a few months

the comic answer that i'll keep vague (we are maybe 8 years away from the dees chapter that i am so fucking excited to make) is that his name is actually desmond: without saying too much, "someone" kept accidentally calling him the wrong name over and over much to his personal annoyance. he simply had no choice for awhile. but that's all i'll say! hope it satiates for now

if i were to remake the comic (which i once tried to do but quickly realized that it is impossible. there's like a million pages and all), i would probably change the name dees to something less distractingly close to a meme lol. thanks for askin!

[queer-cackling]

dina's look in may have been unrealistic but by god it was cunty

[boydadbuck]

evan buckley I need you to be so fucking for real rn

[polysyndetonaddictsupportgroup]

You are so right about solo leveling and you should say it. I gave it a try since I like a lot of the webtoons in the “portals opened up/the world ended and now we have super powers” genre, but I really couldn’t connect with any of the characters. It’s also such a shame because I kinda liked that first episode before he got the system. He was a far more interesting character (to me) when it felt like there was human stakes to his battles and not just exp points.

see this is EXACTLY WHY I’m so angry because this is actually a fire concept that had a fairly good execution in the first episode. There was so much potential in jinwoo episode one and particularly in his death scene. He was messy. He was angry. He was passionate. He was complex. And then they dumped that potential out the fucking window to make him Get Stronger Boy.

I have a specific beef with anime where they have the Underdog Protagonist forgo everything that makes him interesting in favor of eternally punching Slightly Harder Than What They Did Before. To a lesser degree, they did it to Midoriya Izuku in bnha. At the beginning, he had to focus on Quirk analysis and planning because he had no power. And then quickly so many of his fights turned into One For All One Million Percent Detroit Smash. And it was just. So disappointing to me. But it was nearly as bad as solo leveling.

I watched episode one and was like “oh I fuck with this.” I was so excited. And then the more I watched the more I was like “I need someone to check if jinwoo has a fucking pulse because I do not think he is a real boy”

I legitimately think that he became the exact kind of guy jinwoo episode one would have hated. There are just. No real stakes in this show anymore. He’s just Getting Stronger. All of his teammates are there to initially shit the bed and then stand at the sidelines gawking at How Powerful He Is. He had a fellow S ranker hauling ass to the fight with a pick axe and determination and when she got there she just stood on the sidelines and watched him be So So Cool with his Washboard Abs and Increasingly Deep Voice. It’s exactly what you said—there are no human stakes to his fights.

The narrative tension is non existent. The plot flatlined sixteen episodes ago and they’ve been weekend at Bernie’s-ing this bitch ever since. You could put a gun to my head and I could not tell you the name of more than two characters and I’d probably be wrong on one of them. If given the option I would drown this man in a bucket just to put this narrative out of its misery.

[embracesadness]

Attempted some sketches of the 90's YJ crew in my own style! With our favorite Impulse and his two coincidentally blonde (well, most of the time for Cassie) and double "S" named BFF's, Cissie and Cassie! Lowkey love the 90's style on them. They look WAY cool haha. And you gotta adore solid rep for platonic friendships between guys and gals where they can be close physically but it doesn't necessarily have to be romantic🙏  (And, yes, I made the glasses reflective so I wouldn't have to draw his eyes because they are HARD, don't JUDGE me XD)

[joethehoeee]

Stricklake month week 4: Blood/Healing (TW)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{In a world plunged into eternal night by the forces of darkness, Barbara Lake fights to survive alongside Walter Strickler, a changeling who once passed as human. After a brutal encounter with monstrous Gumm-Gumms leaves Barbara gravely injured.}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{Walter desperately tries to save her, revealing his deep love for her. Tormented by guilt over his role in her son Jim's death, Walter is determined to protect Barbara, despite the secrets he keeps. Her trust in him gives him the strength to continue, even as the darkness of their world closes in.}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And????

Is that fun???

Missed this AU?????😃😁

Come on, we all know you missed it. That's why I am saying yall might get a full on fanfiction. (I know yall hate me for it.)

But first: Link for the short prompt story.

You don't need to know much, the summary explains enough and the story as well. If you want to know more, go to my Masterpost and search through the DystopiaStricklake!AU.

Closeup: