#all of them are open to discussing it

[thankyoufortoday-if]

A is such a beefy person!!!

Who are the big spoons and who are the little spoons out of the ROs?

they are! 😍🥰

little spoon August/ine, Stacy

big spoon Enver, Riley

doesn't care as long as they get to be a spoon Opal, Max, Shiloh

[crows-king]

I've been thinking a bit about how Galinda and Fiyero work as foils(?), and the contrast between their goals, personality, and their relationship to social influence individually change how they navigate their specific social situations.

And why it puzzles me when people judgmentally compare them and what they'd do in "What-If" scenarios as a gotcha to make one seem better/worst. Because in my mind they are similar but not comparable, because they fundamentally have very different personal stakes.

Primarily because of the difference in how they act in an Active (Galinda) vs Passive (Fiyero) approach to social engineering. And also, because one of them in writing is more developed as an individual than the other.

I'LL MOSTLY BE TALKING ABOUT: WICKED MOVIE - PART 1

Galinda is inherently Active. She has wants and desires that she's driven to achieve, and so actively plays the part of the good socialite because it will help her become more popular and to eventually become "Galinda the GoodSorceress". "It's not about aptitude, it's about the way you're viewed", and so on. It’s the one thing she knows she’s good at.

Of course, she also likes the attention and validation, but her charms doesn't come as naturally as she wants others, and probably herself, to believe. (I love that quote Ariana said somewhere about how "Galinda sees herself as a graceful swan, when she's actually a very stiff, but still beautiful swan", or something of that sort). She's insecure that she’ll lose people's favour and thus her most important asset, so she continually appeals to them. It's an act that she simultaneously enjoys doing for the most part, but also traps her from ever being truly close to anybody for fear of being known and not meeting expectations and losing that adoration. Until Elphaba that is.

Because of her drive to fulfill her dreams and to keep her best asset, and personal desperate need for validation, she has a much more obvious internal conflicts when she has to choose between Elphaba/the moral good vs keeping with the good graces of authority and/or the public. She's more prone to being influenced by others, and many of her choices become a calculated risk. She’s often times selfish and chooses her own desires, but it’s what makes her such an interesting and very human character. The struggle she balances when she’s forced to choose for better or worse.

In contrast

Fiyero is Passive. Dancing Through Life is literally him telling others that being lazy and not thinking is the best way to cope and enjoy life by ignoring problems. He is discontent with his life, but doesn't really acknowledge it until Elphaba reads him. Much like Galinda he is also playing a part, but it's not as tightly controlled as Galinda because he doesn't have an end goal for it.

Of course, while he probably doesn't want to lose his princely privileges. His passive "brainless" approach doesn't really put him in risky situations that would put him in conflict leading to losing things he cares about, because he really doesn't have a lot to lose. (Which is a byproduct of the fact he is primarily written as a love interest side character without much of an arc or motives outside his love triangle relationship to Elphaba and Galinda).

What confounds me is when people compare them and judge what their choices would be in if they were placed in pivotal moments, because we never really see them in situations with similar stakes.

For example, the Lion Cub scene. Most people interpret this scene as an act of braverism and heroics by Fiyero. And in some part it is, he's spurred on to save the cub, and he and Elphaba do. But it's telling that he only does this after everyone is asleep and there are virtually no risks. Any present social or physical conflicts that could arise? POOF! Gone. The worst that could probably be done to them is being punished, or even kicked out, if they’re discovered afterwards. Which Fiyero is not new to and doesn't really care about, and while maybe uncertain for Elphaba, is also unlikely because she's Morrible's irreplaceable pupil.

Some people use this scene as evidence that under his facade, Fiyero is secretly valiant like Elphaba thinks so. But I think in actuality tells the opposite. It reveals that Fiyero does care about the Animals, yes. But, the fact he only acts when prompted and there are no longer any present risks initially makes him seem less brave than Elphaba, and even Galinda. Because it contrasts with the Ozdust dance scene between the girls. Where Galinda had to make an active choice to do the risky and brave thing as an apology for hurting Elphaba, and offer to truly connect with her in front of everyone with the possibility of social out casting. She has an obvious internal conflict and risk assessment where she ends up picking the moral good over her personal comfort and social appeal. I'm genuinely curious on what kind of choices Elphaba, Galinda, and Fiyero might have done in that situation if they weren't given the perfect out by the magic poppies.

Would Galinda have helped in with the lion cub if she were awake? Probably, but who knows? Because in the narrative, Galinda isn't really put in a situation where she could choose good without being watched or without someone breathing down her neck. The prospect of being punished and kicked out from Shiz would also be most plausible and ruinous for Galinda. Morrible would definitely use it as an excuse to kick her out, or at the very least punish her, if she could, and it could throw away her only chance of achieving her dream of becoming a sorceress. She would have probably joined them in the end, though. If only to make sure they were safe. Compared to Fiyero, she has more conflicts of interests because she has personal aspirations and influence based on her reputation, and thus have more fears and consequences to consider in losing it.

Would Fiyero have joined Elphaba on the broom? Maybe, mostly likely. Because narratively, he’s never given a reason why he shouldn’t. He doesn’t see his worth and his skills intrinsically tied to public influence and opinion. He doesn’t have any wants or wishes he would have to abandon. He’ll have to leave his friends and family, but it’s not shown how close they really are to him outside Feldspar, his Horse friend, and he’s probably joining them anyway. He’s definitely more equipped to survive on the run compared to Glinda. Unlike Glinda, who is proven right in the end to being most useful when she can wield her powerful social influence For Good, Fiyero would probably be most useful as a sidekick to Elphaba. He was always written to be Elphaba’s follower, it’s no surprise. It’s also easier to take risks when you don’t have much to lose. But I think most people would agree that would make a less interesting story.

[dykedvonte]

I was rewatching mouthwashing, and I ended up thinking of the different reactions that Curly and Jimmy had in doing their tasks. How during the scene of Anya evaluating Jimmy and showing dread towards the idea of doing his evaluation, Curly was the one that offered to take it off her hands. He had no issue with adding more to his plate, because he knew - or well, thought, he knew that Jimmy wasn't going to "bullshit" with him since he's known him for a long time. When Anya hands Curly a note from Swansea, Curly goes to check out what the issue is and he takes care of it without a complaint, the only "complaint" he has is how this incident could have damaged the pods. Which is reasonable, those pods are their only way to be saved if anything tragic happens on the ship. However, in comparison to Jimmy being asked to do things, he's passive-aggressive about it. When Anya asks Jimmy if he could help her out with Curly's painkillers, he tells her that people should be worth their titles, specifically using her title as a nurse when she asked him for help and then when she says forget it, since he made her feel insecure, he still goes "Oh no, I'LL take care of it" as if he was doing a chore, a favor for her. Then, there's that part where he blows up at her for things that she didn't even ask him to do - more so the others asked him about it, like the code scanner, him deciding he needed to find the axe for the foam, and then, there's the medicine part (which when she does ask, and she reconsiders - going to do it herself, he takes that away from her). Jimmy complains about the tasks he has to do and he treats it like a big issue, a "woes me" that he has to do this and that - wanting the praise of the capital without actually doing any work. While Curly doesn't complain about it, in fact, he even mentions that he's aware of how well he is doing at his job as a Captain during that cockpit scene with him and Jimmy. If Jimmy only had to do a small amount of tasks to get irritated and annoyed at being captain, while Curly didn't which I feel like encapsulates their personalities. Curly understands what he's doing is a job, it's a responsibility, why would he complain at any point for doing what he's suppose too? Why would he be upset at people asking him to do tasks? While Jimmy on the other hand, isn't used to it at all and it's different to what he's had before and he's realizing that he doesn't actually like doing the work he has too. I just wanted to ramble about it even if it seemed kind of obvious xd

It’s obvious but it is a thing people miss or understate when trying to find parallels in Curly’s and Jimmy’s relationship/personalities.

Like the way people portray it as neither taking responsibility when it is almost split down the middle of Curly taking responsibilities and faults that shouldn’t be his and making himself unequipped to handle the ones that are while Jimmy refuses to handle the responsibilities he has because he wasn’t expecting the work that comes with them.

Not a lot to say but people forget that another thing the game comments on is prioritization of issues and responsibilities and how the guys fail at it in one way or another in the situation.

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

Randomly thinking about “tolerate it” (narrator voice: it was not random) and how under the cloak of fiction it is ostensibly inspired by works like “Rebecca” (which Taylor said she read during the 2020 lockdowns I believe?), with the line of “you’re so much older and wiser” indicating that the speaker is significantly younger and inexperienced compared to the person she’s speaking to and a pretty direct reference to the plot of the book.

But I saw something somewhere once that stuck with me about how it might not be referring to relative age between the characters but chronological age as in the passage of time in a relationship. And that made me think about how in a contemporary context, it might not necessarily be referencing an actual age gap between the two characters, but rather a sarcastic or cynical response to the man’s claims that he has matured (“you’re so much older and wiser [than you were before/than you were when we met/etc.]”), which then made me think about that line in relation to the woman. And that it could be taken like, “you act like you’ve matured so much in our time together and like you know everything, while I’m supposedly still stuck as the girl I was when we first met.”

Which then made me think of the “right where you left me” of it all and did you ever hear about the girl who got frozen time went on for everyone else she won’t know it and the bit in Miss Americana where she talks about how celebrities get frozen at the age at which they got famous, and how she’s had to play catch up in a lot of ways not just in her emotional growth but kind of in general. (Which also made me wonder if she’s ever been called out for immaturity/lack of curiosity/lack of education about things in her life…)

Which then made me think about the rest of the song, and @taylortruther’s posts yesterday about “seven” and “Daylight” and the way Taylor idealizes her youth yet contrasts it with an almost sinister reality in its wake, and the line, “I sit by the door like I’m just a kid,” because the discussion raised that her relationship let her recapture some of the childlike joy and wonder she’d lost. So this line is a double-edged sword: the speaker sits by the door with childlike hope that the person will come home and cherish her, but on the darker side, feels like the child dealing with the monsters she doesn’t have names for yet and the feelings of isolation she felt as she aged.

I’m not saying the song is necessarily autobiographical; like most of the songs on folkmore, it’s clearly a fictionalized story based on media she’d consumed and created, but we know a lot of the fictional songs were infused with her own feelings and experiences and… This idea swirling in my head picked up steam and now I kind of can’t stop thinking about it. Sorry but I’m a little obsessed now.

Like maybe it might start to shed light on why she identified so strongly with the novel in the first place…

[aimfor-theheart]

on the death of skirt chasers

a small think piece on how media has been stripped of romance, sex appeal, and charm over the last 20 years using trigun and trigun stampede as an example—specifically looking at this through wolfwood and vash as a tangible way to track this evolution.

it’s interesting and also unsurprising to me that trigun stampede stripped vash and wolfwood of some of their biggest personality traits from the 98 anime, which were their love of women. to be frank— they were both dogs lol

but vash was this sort of forlorn man who, meryl, upon meeting him, adequately describes him by asking, “are you the type of man to fall in love right away and get your heart broken?” or something to that effect. and he says what, no way! and then proceeds to fall in love with the next beautiful woman he sees and gets his heart broken by the end of the episode. and we were seeing this constantly throughout the show, then even in the later movie of the early 2010s badlands rumble.

and the 2000s are notorious for dubious, sexist comments from men who are women-obsessed. our action movies are packed with sexy female characters only existing for romance, etc. etc. we’re sort of at the tail end of it in 2010. so arguably, vash is almost worse here to me? he’s really pushy and borderline inappropriate with how stubborn he is. in a way that, while persistent in the 98 anime, he had a little more boyish charm to him and they never made him so forceful.

and then the middle and later 2010s happen where marvel takes over our action movies and romance and sex and womanizers are all but killed—originally, in reaction to the sexism. it’s important to note that the me too movement picks up in the middle and later 2010s too and becomes well-known by the end of this decade. and in response, i think we nosedive into puritanical ideas and sentiments by the end of the decade.

now we must always remember when a movement (ie feminism in this case) has a critique or reaction that catches on (the me too movement, men being pushy and overly flirtatious in our media, treating women in action movies only as sexy romance options, or showcasing toxic dynamics that subconsciously tell men to keep chasing her, even if she’s not interested) then the oppressive force (patriarchy in this case) will always transform as a way to take control again (bringing puritanical ideals back—we shouldn’t be showing sex or romance in our movies. we should not be consuming any dark content, ever. etc etc.)

i believe we killed romance and sex in the later 2010s because of an over correction of our sex-obsessed media of the 2000s—or rather, the patriarchy over corrected in order to maintain control. there were critiques of the 2000s that were valid, but like i said, the oppressive force will always transform to maintain power, so we hit puritanical beliefs again. “political correctness” if you will.

(capitalism surely has something to do with this too and it’s definitely along the lines of—be more beautiful and even hotter, but your body is not a sexual one, but a visual or capitalistic one. etc. etc. another topic, another time.)

and so here we are and we don’t really have any flirty or womanizing characters like we used to. and we see this very plainly in 2023s trigun stampede, where they have completely stripped vash and wolfwood of any of those traits.

and i sort of miss them? i think a 2023 forlorn vash who loves great and hard and gets his heartbroken would not be a bad thing—one who is effected and charmed by women, maybe rather than nearly stalking them like in the 2010 movie. i think it shows another piece of vash and that is quite literally that he wears his heart on his sleeve. and he gets hurt for it, endlessly. more than that there is a little more whimsy to him? and aching. he’s this lonely man who wants love so, so badly.

now, wolfwood in 98 version was less this forlorn chaser and more this suave womanizer. many jokes are made where vash is chasing a girl that wolfwood sorta already has if he wants her. but he’s this lone wolf who leaves everyone a little high and dry. (of course until the end—with milly —where, in a very classic lone-man way, he dies after leaving a woman with his child. the tragedy being that when he was ready to stop roaming and settle down with her and meryl and vash, he dies, thus still leaving everyone). and i mean even his appearance in the 98 version—big chested with low-buttoned shirt, shaggy hair and stubble. he looks like a 90s rockstar. he looks like your lone cowboy. he’s reminiscent of spike from cowboy bebop who has a similar charming air to him that never leads anywhere because he’s destined to be solo. the unintentional, intentional womanizer.

then the later 2010s hit and we kill the charming womanizer. (tony stark kills the womanizer. another topic, another time.)

and now in 2023, wolfwood is completely stripped of any of his sex appeal and suave personality that the 98 and even 2010 version of him oozed naturally. gone is the cool, tough, lone wolf. replaced with a sort of boy-bandish, squeaky-clean, semi villain, semi hero. he’s crass and he’s snarky and he’s supposed to be rough around the edges. but he doesn’t look it? and he lacks the charm that 98 wolfwood naturally had. which aided him when he talked to kids—he was softer. charming. people liked wolfwood, even when he was being crass. he knew how to talk to people, maybe even how to con them when he wanted.

2023’s wolfwood is tough to get along with. and while fun sometimes, i think it does lose this…romanticism to him? there is a softness in wolfwood that is sorta lost in 2023s version. while we get a fuller and better written backstory, we sort of lose this other aspect of him. we’re supposed to infer from his backstory and his relationship to his brother that he is a good man, just one put in a horrible situation, always had bad luck. whereas the 98 version, we saw that wolfwood was good with kids. gentle. women loved him—he charmed rowdy men, even swindled when he needed to. we saw that there was something good in wolfwood, even if he remained mysterious.

all this to say i do miss the romanticism? i do miss these men being…romantic? flirty? charming? and not even in a fangirl way but in a…humans are romantic creatures way? we are sexual beings? and romance and sex can tell us a lot about characters and their personalities.

and i think looking at vash and wolfwood in particular is a good way to track how we lost this romanticism in our media over the last 20 years—we literally see it in them, in their remaking in 2023, where they are stripped of it.

i think the mid and later 2020s will continue to return to it in some way—we already see this with the resurgence in romance novels (or these dark fantasy romance novels gaining popularity) and even fandom spaces being more “mainstream” on social media. but in late stage capitalism (and thus late stage patriarchy, racism, etc.) it looks a little like a carnival mirror of romance and sex to me.

another topic, another time. etc. etc.

[wormeats]

some stuff i want to say, bc it seems a lot of the time mostly only Jewish people speak up about antisemitism

it is antisemitic to claim zionism is across the board evil and fucked up and to wish violence on zionists. Israel exists and people live there and there has been a devastating war that has caused humanitarian crises in Gaza, but Israel is not evil, it has a right to exist and didnt just steal a bunch of land and start wars out of nowhere, the history is actually more complicated than "colonization", and while war is fucked up and horrifying, truly horrific, it is not the same as genocide. genocide is the systematic eradication of a group of people, and while civilian casualities have been horrific, that is why war is so fucking terrible and traumatizing.

Hamas also has contributed a lot to civilian casualties in the way they operated. celebrating and supporting Hamas is fucking horrendous. there can be reasons young people become so radicalized and violent, but that is Not something to cheer on as some sort of resistance movement when it causes so much devastation for people in Gaza and wishes for the destruction of Israel and Jewish people.

Wishing harm on hostages taken on October 7th or celebrating October 7th in any way is also fucking horrendous. These are human beings, random civilians, real people. they have families and loved ones and communities who are terrified for them and grieving them and it is beyond insensitive to cheer on the suffering from your place of immense privilege in this situation and shows a big lack of humanity/seeing people as human beings. i can't believe i see that shit sometimes (but i also can bc the state of things is dire). I can't know how it feels to see people mocking my loved ones who have been tortured for a year and could be killed at any moment or already dead, that must feel so awful, and to know that even if you dont have a connection to the hostages, it could be you or your family as someone who is Jewish or has loved ones in Israel. living in Israel is not a crime or moral failing, living in any country is not a moral failing what the hell. if you can understand people are not their governments for many other countries, why is Israel so hard to see that way for so many people? (antisemitism)

I'm really glad for this ceasefire and wish the best for Gaza/Palestine and its people and have a lot of hope for them to rebuild and recover from all this devastation (scared of shit trump has been saying though, what the fuck. thats a whole other thing tho, i am grieving the election still and scared and trying my best)

it has been so horrible to see antisemitism grow from this and to see such concentrated hatred for anyone who associates with Jewishness in the "wrong" way. the way antizionism has grown so much and into a "fuck all zionism" mentality is horrible. zionism has been warped to mean genocide supporter, and that is fucking horrible bc Judaism has references to it and intercommunity discussions around it, it is in some ways an inextricable part of Jewish culture to some and many people just see it as Israel is doing genocide and shouldn't exist

idk i just dont want anyone to be hurt, war is always horrible and the crisis in Gaza is horrifying, and ive also seen a huge rise in antisemitism in different forms and i hate it and wanted to say some stuff to make my positions clear so that's what im doing now

you can criticize the Israeli government and its actions without being antisemitic ofc, but this is referring to all the hamas support and wishing violence on Israel and thinking all zionists want genocide.

anyone feel free to talk to me about this if it is concerning or upsetting to you somehow, but if you arent a friend or mutual or follower and some random person who disagrees, i can also talk to you but im not a voice with any kind of authority on this stuff, i just have been kinda horrified when i see hamas support or people celebrating Israeli deaths and thinking the hostages deserve the horrible traumas that have happened or should die etc etc etc. horrible. why are you dehumanizing an entire country. (antisemitism is why.) horrible horrible horrible.

[anonimea1y]

since we're in 2025 now and the most popular crk ship rn is toxic yaoi and one of the newest cookies is from the st. pastry order can we pleaaaase talk about pastryvelvet now?

[doldulce]

Random Fillet Fact: by the time he starts going off the deep end, Fillet genuinely stops feeling a sense of collective group identity with other humans. There are humans, and there's him—different from them, not understanding them, not belonging with them.

Which is like, understandable, because of the trauma he's gone through because of the town and his ongoing species dysphoria, but he still comes across as Really Weird when he slips up and refers to other people that way ("I have a hard time getting along with humans" or etc).

[quatregats]

I'm rereading Master and Commander and I'm deeply in danger of just posting every single passage from it ever but I did love the way that the capture of the prize in Chapter 6 was framed on either side by the logbook's entry, and also the way he transitions out of it to set the scene and tone:

Sunday, July 1 … Mustered the ship’s company by divisions read the Articles of War performed Divine Service and committed the body of Henry Gouges to the deep. At noon dº weather. Ditto weather: but the sun sank towards a livid, purple, tumescent cloud-bank piled deep on the western horizon, and it was clear to every seaman aboard that it was not going to remain ditto much longer. The seamen, sprawling abroad on the fo’c’sle and combing out their long hair or plaiting it up again for one another, kindly explained to the landmen that this long swell from the south and east, this strange sticky heat that came both from the sky and the glassy surface of the heaving sea, and this horribly threatening appearance of the sun, meant that there was to be a coming dissolution of all natural bonds, an apocalyptic upheaval, a right dirty night ahead. The sailormen had plenty of time to depress their hearers, already low in their spirits because of the unnatural death of Henry Gouges (had said, ‘Ha, ha, mates, I am fifty years old this day. Oh dear,’ and had died sitting there, still holding his untasted grog) – they had plenty of time, for this was Sunday afternoon, when in the course of nature the fo’c’sle was covered with sailors at their ease, their pigtails undone. Some of the more gifted had queues they could tuck into their belts; and now that these ornaments were loosened and combed out, lank when still wet, or bushy when dry and as yet ungreased, they gave their owners a strangely awful and foreboding look, like oracles; which added to the landmen’s uneasiness.

[...]

Jack leant back against the curved run of the stern-window and let Killick’s version of coffee down by gulps into his grateful stomach; and at the same time that its warmth spread through him, so there ran a lively tide of settled, pure, unfevered happiness – a happiness that another commander (remembering his own first prize) might have discerned from the log-entry, although it was not specifically mentioned there: 1/2 past 10 tacked, 11 in courses, reefed topsail. AM cloudy and rain. 1/2 past 4 chase observed E by S, distance 1/2 mile. Bore up and took possession of dº, which proved to be L’Aimable Louise, French polacre laden with corn and general merchandise for Cette, of about 200 tons, 6 guns and 19 men. Sent her with an officer and eight men to Mahon.

[mephistopheleswasrobbed]

Ahh, I don't want it to be over! But alas, here we are, so let me tell you about all the gay moments in Peaceful Property one last time:

1

We begin the episode with Home and Peach sitting next to each other and saying sentimental things. Framed by a flamingo. Which is literally a symbol of love (because they're pink and monogamous).

Saying your meeting was destiny while looking each other in the eyes lovingly is somehow not the most romantic line in this episode. It comes pretty close, though.

2

Back in the action, Peach is extremely worried about Home, alone with his would-be murderer.

And when evil lawyer mentions the possibility of Home being dead already, Peach loses is completely. (Though, in a parallel that is funny to me, exclusively, he's again held back by two *according to themselves* oh so weak women. Just like in Kan's home when one woman was enough to completely immobilise him. I'm really not sure why Panpang is so insistent that Peach is so much stronger than her)

Peach knows that they don't have enough time to waste it on those useless cops so he sacrifices himself by confessing to a crime he didn't commit, so at least Kan and Pangpang can try to rescue Home. That's some ride or die devotion right there.

3

A found family bond so strong it single-handedly derailed these scooby doo villains' evil plots several times.

4

Pangpang (seen here cosplaying as a ghost pizza) knows that in true romance fashion, Peach must be the one to save Home. (And because we've already established that physical strength can't be the reason, I'm choosing to believe it's the strength of his love for Home that's giving him the advantage.)

So Peach arrives just in time (there's that destiny, that soulmate timing) to prevent Somkid from stabbing Home. And I've previously talked a lot about how much Home has changed because of Peach, but let's take a second to appreciate how much Peach has changed because of Home. He went from hiding behind his little sister at the sight of a ghost, to jumping without hesitation at an armed murderer to save Home.

And once Somkid has been distracted, Home's first priority is, as they always do when there's danger, to go check on and help up Peach.

And then he just keeps holding him while Somkid is busy coming to the realisation that all the evil shit he did was meaningless.

5

There is no way Mr. Real Estate Heir doesn't know how to tie a tie. This is an excuse to share some comfort before the funeral and it is as understandable as it is boyfriend-coded.

6

There's been a lot of Home/Peach doing something the other had previously done, and here's one more:

Just like Home before, Peach also notices immediately when something seems off with Home and wastes no time to go to him and see if he needs to offer help or comfort.

7

And what is the problem? It's, of course, the impending separation that has Home moping over an electric stove cooker thing.

But well, after almost watching Home die, again, Peach has realised he doesn't want to leave. Because even if Home goes back to the US, at least he'll be around the memories they've made together. So Peach decides to stay.

And despite the excuse he comes up with about dialect speaking ghosts, we, and Home, know the real reason.

The "I love you and I don't want to leave you" might be unspoken but Home hears it anyway.

And Home has also finally figured it out.

So he's not leaving either.

And Peach might be a little obtuse about it at first

But Home's real dream has always been to have a family. And he knows he's finally found his. Grandpa knows he's finally found his.

So Home makes it clear to Peach.

And Peach gets it this time.

(Of course, then they immediately have to make a joke out of it because those two might actually be allergic to seriously talking about their feelings for each other. But the message has been recieved, anyway)

8

Their absolutely perfect timing can only be explained by soulmate shenanigans. (also look at him smile)

9

Even the universe is trying to tell them to embrace the gay. With their Cok Long bar turned Cok Long restaurant.

10

The dialogue from the beginning plays again, over shots of their family meal. And with the expression of destiny, the camera focuses in on them. Because while "family" is for all five of them, their "destiny" is just between the two of them. And they look so soft and happy in its glow.

And they look at each other when they laugh, and we leave them to their truly happy ending.

(And maybe one day in the future they will be able to plainly say "I love you" to each other without having to hide it behind five jokes and three metaphors, but until then, they know the truth of it anyway.)

Lesbian Corner

Kan has come to seriously trust and believe in Pangpang. And Pangpang, who felt like a useless burden at the beginning of the show, is made better by it.

And in reverse, Kan, who's been completely serious and focussed on revenge for the last decade, who'd had trouble letting loose and making connections with others even before her father's not-completely-but-in-effect-death, has found in Pangpang someone who can not only make her smile, but make her make jokes to make others smile.

Just like Home and Peach, these two also complement each other. They make up for each others shortcomings and both grow into happier, more well-rounded people through each other.

And with that it's over. Except not quite because I've still got some extra that didn't fit here.

[nami-moittli]

I think you like Leah

…A little

[renegadephilosopher]

if you go to the Aristotle page on the SEP this is for some reason given as a proof for homonymy 🥺why are they the example. this is cute nevertheless. theyre going on a picnic. theyre opening a... joint account at a bank??? okay sure ❤️whatever you say ❤️

[stone-stars]

Transcript:

Murph: They wanna like-- just like toss it down their mouth. Or just like put it in-- Emily: Have you considered like, hucking it up their butthole-- Murph: What? Emily: --so hard that it goes into their stomach? Jake: Yeah. Caldwell: Ohh. Aabria: As long as it's inside their body, I think it counts. Emily: (laughing) Right? Like, alternative means of entering the body! Caldwell: You-- you wanna egg chug. Aabria: Yes! Murph: Okay. Jake: I fear that a deviled egg doesn't have the structural integrity to go up an ass. Emily: Ooooh. Murph: Right, to get through a butt. Yeah. Emily: The flimsy egg defense. Caldwell: Yeah. Murph: It would-- It would crack in the cheeks. It would crack in the cheeks. [Everyone laughing.] Emily, through laughter: You're right. Jake: Yeah, but you have to keep in mind that a deviled egg is only half an egg. Caldwell: That's true! Jake: So that's-- Emily: Ohhh, that's just so it's easier to go down. Jake and Caldwell: Yeah.

[irellia]

are people aware of the fact that Mizu is not canonically in any way shape or form.............. queer....bi.....

(quick note here because reading comprehension stays dead and people may not read the tag novel: I want bi Mizu! I hc her as sapphic! I love sapphic Mizu)

[rmbunnie]

Red Hood Characterization

This is really long so I'm putting a cut here, I've been thinking about Jason Todd's character motivations and the question of whether or not his actions are based in a Moral Code (I don't think so, not to say he's without any morality) and I talk about that in more depth here.

I saw someone say on here that Titans: Beast World: Gotham City was some of the best Jason Todd internal writing they'd seen in a while, and I've been a Red Hood fan for 8 years or so now? pretty much since I read comics for the first time, so I went and checked out and I thought it was good! The way the person I saw talking about it as if it was rare and unusual made me wonder though, because as well-written as i thought his stances on crime were, there wasn't really anything in it that went against the way I conceptualize Jason?

This kinda plays into a larger question I've been thinking about for a while with Jason though, which is that, do people think that the killing is part of a fundamental worldview that motivates him a la batman, and that worldview is the reason he does the things he does?? Because 8 years ago i was a middle schooler engaging with fiction on the level that a middle schooler does, so I simply did not put much thought into it beyond "poor guy :(" but ever since I actually started trying to understand consistent characterization, I don't really see Jason as someone who's motivated by a moral code in his actions the way batman or superman is!

tbh my personal read is that he's a very socially-motivated guy, his actions from resurrection to his Joker-Batman ultimatum in utrh always seemed to me like every choice made leading up to his identity reveal was either a. to give him the leverage and skill necessary to pull off his identity reveal successfully, or b. to twist the knife that little bit more when he does let Bruce find out who he is. Like iirc there's a Judd Winick tweet like "yeah tldr he chose Red Hood as his identity because it's the lowest blow he could think of." And I think that's awesome, I think character motivations rooted so deeply in character's relationships and emotions are really fun to read! I also think it's where the stagnation/flatness of his character comes from in certain comics, because if his main motivation is one event in one relationship that passes, and he is not particularly attached to anything in his life or the world by the time that comes to pass, it's a little harder to come up with a direction to go with the character after that, because there isn't much of a direction that aligns with something the character would reasonably want? But I do think solving this by saying "all of the morally-off emotionally driven cruelty he did on his way to spite Batman was actually reflective of his own version of Batman's stance that's exactly the same except he thinks it's GOOD to kill people" isn't ideal. To be fully honest, it seems to me like he never particularly cared one way or the other about killing people to "clean Gotham of crime," he just did everything he could to get the power necessary to pull off his personal plans, and took out any particularly heinous people he encountered along the way (like in Lost Days.) Not to say I think the fact he killed people keeps him up at night anymore than everything else in his life events, I just never really thought he was out there wholeheartedly kneecapping some dude selling weed or random guy robbing a tv store for justice.

Looping wayyy back to my question, Is this (^) contradictory to the way he's written/the overall average perception of the character? Because like I enjoyed his writing in Beast World i have zero significant issue with anything there, I just didn't believe it would be a hot take, like yeah, that is Jason. It's been a while since I've read utrh and lost days, but I don't think my takeaway directly contradicts either of those too bad iirc. Idk all this to say I think Jason killing and being alright with killing is an obvious and objective fact, but i guess i've always seen it as more of a practical tactic than a moral belief, and I think taking the actions made during the lowest points of a character's life where he is obsessively focused on this ONEEEE thing and trying to apply it as a Motivating Stance to everything he's done after that, doesn't really follow logically for me.

[aroaessidhe]

2024 reads / storygraph

In The Care of Magic

cozy erotica novella

the only witch in a small town of humans who regularly use her services but are ungrateful goes to her cottage in the woods to get away for a bit

she comes across an interesting book in her library and decides to summon a sex demon to relax, and after a few days they also start to become friends

bi MC, aro agender LI

Blessed By The Cupid Distribution System

romance/erotica novella

follows a woman feeling lonely and left out on valentine’s day who wishes to experience a relationship

and a cupid on her first free assignment - who hears her wish and offers to find her a potential date, or they could spend the day together

and then they spend the day together. etc.

trans demisexual MC