#PERFECT OPINIONS ARE PERFECT

[asternomikal]

happy pride month transfem eclipsers

[arcanegifs]

Here are some Season 2 Arcane GIF comparisons before and after I color and sharpen them! | Season 1 Comparison GIFs

[sporesgalaxy]

TWO THANGS

when I say "love" with no descriptors, I don't mean romantic by default

when I say "art" with no descriptors, I don't mean visual by default

[colombinaa]

the impact this picture had on 15 year old me needs to be studied

[doctorwhoisadhd]

jack harkness is the funniest character on the planet simply due to the SHEER AMOUNT of times someone will turn up from The Past and he had a thing with them. its to the point where the surprising thing would be if he HADNT fucked them. like yeah ok yet ANOTHER one of Grandpa Slut's exes is here. Unsurprising

[punishedgwyndolin]

let me just say i am sooooo so tired of white tme ppl saying shit like this on posts about transmisogyny like first off get off the cross you make a bad martyr, second off, maybe if you actually treated trans women of color as humans and heard us you’d understand that lesbians of color are in no way exempt or exonerated from reinforcing the transmisogyny that soaks through our communities

[egophiliac]

OMG EGO HAVE YOU SEEN THE BOOK 7 CATER CARD YET

80s britpunk Cater is such an incredible direction to take. his Sid Vicious jacket! his little british police cap! I wouldn't have anticipated that going full-on Sex Pistols would be his alternate self but it is SO fitting actually. 😭

(also th-the crown symbol?! the gavel?! is housewarden Cater real because I will TRANSCEND --)

[blondeaxolotl]

I just saw this post and it made me think of Floyd angrily googling this after a fight with Dellie

Jamil posted that btw

[sapphosclown]

ellie’s grief in the show is different than in the game because the show is on a new timeline.

ranty/rambly character analysis kinda idk

i keep seeing discourse ab this show and. i’m trying so hard not to care bc it’s all annoying to me lol but the one that keeps coming up is ellie wasn’t angry enough. but, the reason it feels that way and that maybe she’s “happier” in the show is because the timeline is different

in the game, joel dies, ellie is on her revenge path after a few days. in the show, ellie is physically hurt. she cannot go find anybody right now, she’s being held in the hospital while she recovers. also, she just lost the most important person in her life, she’s being kept under as much surveillance in that hospital as they can get. this whole process takes three months. that’s three months that ellie has already been actively grieving. all that rage is building inside her, probably venting in very strange ways as she’s being held up, but ultimately she’s trying to suppress it. why? she wants to leave, because she wants to fucking kill abby.

that’s why they make her talk to gail before she goes. that’s why she’s happy as a clam during the whole conversation. if you genuinely watched that and thought “wtf why is she so okay right now” i fear you were not the intended audience for this show. it’s been said over and over which is why it’s fascinating that people are still missing the whole point.

Ellie. Is. Lying.

She is lying to Everyone. she is fucking livid. she’s heartbroken, so much so that she’s numb. she’s coasting. the whole time she’s just coasting, waiting for the moment she explodes—the moment she finds abby.

that’s why you think she’s “out of character”—but she’s not. think about how she acted in season 1. she was silly and aloof and chatty and witty; and she was grieving. she had just lost her best friend and first crush and first kiss, the most important person in her life at that point had just died. but she put on that face. that goofy smile and stupid puns, that is the face she puts on while she grieves because she doesn’t want her devastation to be anyone else’s business. this is also interesting when you look at her behavior after the david situation, she is not herself. she’s fully dazed over and quiet. that was the tipping point for all this trauma that she just shut down. she couldn’t hide all of it anymore

you can also see it in the flashback episodes. she becomes more and more reserved (not necessarily angry, but certainly pulling away a lot) as she begins to really sort through truth and lies. that anger does come back until it has a reason to (eugene).

the timeline of ellie’s grief is so important because is shows that she has had ample time to put together a version of herself that works publicly. that falls apart when things start to get real, because what’s real is she is murderous and she is going to do terrible things (which she will end up regretting but that’s a whole other thought i have). dina’s “pep talk” wasn’t explaining to ellie why ellie needs to be angry, it’s her explaining why she, dina, wants to be a part of this. ellie knows why she is there, but she doesn’t want dina to be apart of the horrible acts she’s going to commit, she wants dina to remain her safe place and her sense of self—the self that still had joel. but selfishly, she can’t make dina not go, because she wants her there.

i also think that’s why ellie wasn’t mad about the pregnancy like she was in the game. it’s been months, the grief has settled into being familiar at this point, she’s not constantly on the edge; unlike the game where the wound was still fresh and that news was shocking, so since she’s hurting, she reacted hurt. but since in the show she has a bandaid on, she was able to avoid the hurt reaction.

lastly, to act like game ellie was constantly the worst version herself every minute she’s in seattle is just so dramatic and wrong. ellie and dina have nice moments, ellie has moments where she is sad and happy and angry and bittersweet. her grief is not simply rage—it’s human. that’s how the show is doing it too. it’s weird when someone you love dies because somehow, the world keeps spinning. it feels unfair, how dare life continue without someone i cared about with me. but it does, which means even as you miss someone you’re going to have happy moments, and excited ones, and silly ones. that doesn’t mean everything is ok, it just means something is right then in that moment.

anyway. i think the show is fine, it’s entertaining, it has solid enough plot, and more than anything it’s goal is to provoke thought and feelings, the same thing the game wanted. if you don’t like how they did it that’s fine, you can play the game. but if you’re giving the show a chance, give it a real one. contextualize s2 within the show, not the game, because they are different and if you keep mixing up content then yeah, it’s going to feel like a bad show. so everyone chill out and just have fun watching a little show damn

[jambamthepaperman]

In love with how Agatha was just like, “yes I’m in love with death, and what about it?”

[fiona-fififi]

Okay. I'm about to say something that's probably going to get me run out of the fandom, but.

I don't actually think Tommy leaving their date early had anything to do with him not wanting to pressure Buck (regardless of what he claimed later). Instead, I think it had everything to do with Tommy being annoyed and no longer into it that evening, and I think that is both okay AND significantly more interesting than taking him at his word later and framing it as some selfless act by a sanitized elder gay shepherd just trying to do right by Buck.

[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.

[cosmicredcadet]

A character looks straight into the camera and says "I'm not interested in romance" and people will still say "No, it's not confirmed they're aromantic!!!" "They could change their mind!!!" "it's a challenge for them to overcome!!!" "They'll have character development that makes them fall in love"

It's like they are given the most blatant answer to a character romantic orientation and they actively ignore it. all the while all it takes is subtext for people to speak as if it is fact for a character to be any other sexuality.

[k0mmari]

Goes to show how narrow my view of the world was. I thought the brazilian version of svsss was a bit too expensive for not having illustrations along the volume (except two full color ones at the beginning), but then I realized

You're not paying for the extra goodies, you're paying for the delightful experience of reading Shen Qingqiu speak brazilian portuguese

[tennessoui]

WAIT WAIT pause ohmygoshohmygosh

Wait my world is rocked ROCKED

Obi wan using “Ani” as idk my brain is fried, but like almost like an insult, because that’s what Padme calls him.

The way Obi wan would roll his eyes anytime he hears /anyone/ calls Anakin, Ani. Obi wan NEVER uses Ani because that’s what /she/ calls him. And Anakin shouldn’t be thinking about Padme when Obi wan is right in front of him.

yessssss I know there are a bunch of different opinions on Obi-Wan calling anakin “Ani” as an endearment or cute nickname and people like it and think it’s sweet and fair for them but to me Obi-Wan only uses the name Ani in moments of intense pettiness lmao and only because he knows Padmé calls him that. It is Not A Cute Nickname, it is Twelve Bitchy Comments And Reminders And Jealous Asides wrapped up in 2 syllables

related to this is in my cheating au, Obi-Wan hears anakin call padme ‘angel’ and then starts referring to the twins as ‘angels’ so anakin thinks about his kids whenever he goes to call his wife Angel and so he just stops calling her that and Obi-Wan wins another petty and insubstantial victory

[arttsuka]

I wanted to talk about Toothless and how his design and personality changed for the worst throughout the 3 animated movies (I won't be tackling any of the shows because I haven't watched them)

In the first movie he's at his best. His design is actually amazing, from the overall model structure to the patterns on his skin (which are visible in every shot, especially the ones taking place during the day, without ruining the 'illusion' of his black skin. It actually feels like it's resembling a panther aka black leopard in which the fur patterns are still visible). His face has a more aerodynamic shape, more sharp, a big curve.

His snarky but intelligent personality was really fitting for him. And we got to see more of it as the movie was progressing and he was getting more comfortable with humans.

In the second movie the patterns on his skin are still mostly there, way less prominent but still visible. His face got squashed down (a problem which only because stronger in the 3rd movie) but as a whole he still looks presentable, kinda. His posture changed too (but I'm too lazy to find evidence, you'll have to take my word for it).

I remember not having a problem with his personality in the second movie which is why I was surprised to see that this was only half true. He acts more domesticated, that's to be expected, but only around humans? When he interacts with other dragons it's like he's a completely different character, closer to what he became in httyd 3 than 1. He's still quite intelligent and more used to human equipment and people in general. In the first part of the film (especially this scene with Hiccup) he acts like how I'd imagine he should be in the 3rd movie, here it should have been a 'middle' ground, not 100% domesticated but not movie 1 feral either.

In the third movie he suffered the worst. Gone are the patterns on his skin, he's solid black now. His face got weirder too.

His personality got reduced to this stupid, slobbering 'dog'. His pupils are always dilated and his tongue almost constantly out. He acts unintelligent and he doesn't have that snarky personality he had in the first and even the second movie. He's basically a different character altogether. (That scene where he tries to 'woo' the light fury is embarrassing at best and shows exactly what's wrong with his character now).

They did it to make him more 'likable' to younger audiences + to make a good visual contrast to the light fury (who has an undercooked personality AND awful design as well), which is weird because they gave the light fury patterns on her wings?

The light fury looks like a beluga whale in the worst way possible. She has almost nothing going on visually to the point it doesn't even make sense. Her skin looks fragile, she's so weirdly smooth for no reason. It would legit be better if they took a night fury model and painted it white.

They gave her a 'cat' personality and took it away from Toothless (why couldn't both be 'cats'?). Also she's the 'girl' character, her only purpose is to be the romantic interest. She adds nothing to the film.

No comment in the live action design. Just ugly. Atrocious even.

Also something else that's been bothering me from the live action remake is this scene.

They've basically recreated every scene exactly as it was in the original so far (which is a bad thing) but the slight hesitation Toothless showed before touching Hiccups hand was the one thing they chose not to include? (I know the scene wasn't meant to have that in the beginning and it was an error in animation which they decided to keep because it gave the scene more personality so, why not include it in the live action?)