#and I think it’s fine to acknowledge that

[nothorses]

I'm an nb who boymodes 24/7 and doesn't plan to take estrogen. I'm not saying transmeds were right, but it feels a little goofy that I'm allowed to speak on trans issues and PDB isn't. I think the issue is not his identity, the issue is that his take is wrong!

The issue is that he's speaking on an experience he doesn't have, and specifically telling others who do have that experience that they're wrong.

The issue is also that he's doing this from a place of relative privilege, where it is more likely that he is listened to over those whose oppression he is downplaying and denying.

The issue is also that he is, at the same time, openly gloating that others have assumed he must himself be a part of this community- because of how confidently he speaks on deeply intimate aspects of experiences he does not have.

The issue is also that he refuses to engage with the suggestion that he might be using his position of relative privilege to speak over a marginalized group on that marginalized group's experiences.

All of this is directly relevant to the fact that he is cisgender! Trans people also shouldn't do these things- not to other groups of trans people, and not to trans people who share the same identity- but there's definitely a difference between horizontal aggression and actual systemically enforced privilege & oppression.

What makes this situation so completely absurd is that a cis dude is openly utilizing cis male privilege to uphold systemic transphobia, but because he's claiming to do it for the benefit of one specific group of trans people, certain trans people have decided it's actually fine & even good for him to do this.

The fact that his takes are also wrong is definitely a big part of the problem here!! And I'm not really on board with the idea that cis people can't talk about any of this stuff ever, or that they can't disagree with trans people on trans issues. For a number of reasons! But I do think how they engage in these conversations matters, and acknowledging their positionality in relation to those they are speaking to & the subject they're speaking on, is extremely important.

[fatalism-and-villainy]

There is so much richness to Julian Bashir’s character and he adds so much to the fabric of DS9 as a show, and it’s unfortunate to me that so many summations of his character - I’m thinking especially of relatively mainstream critical venues, though sometimes in fandom as well - downplay or ignore his thematic significance, and contextualize his character only through either the homoerotic potential of his dynamic with Garak or the development of his friendship with Miles O’Brien.

It’s odd to me as well, because so many fans and critics praise DS9 for its willingness to be critical of the Federation and of Starfleet, and yet I see relatively little acknowledgment of how much of that criticism is accomplished through the character of Bashir (alongside, of course, Sisko). His infamous “frontier medicine” line is the very first example - it completely upends the ethos on which Star Trek rests, and it’s placed in his mouth. That matters, given that that he is set up as a character who believes in the utopia in which he grew up, and whose altruism is well-intentioned but shown to be naïve. That’s why he’s paired with Sisko in Past Tense, in which he’s shocked by the injustices of the past; it’s why we have episodes like The Quickening, which demonstrates without a doubt that his heroic impulses are good and worthwhile, but need to be tempered by humility.

And two of the arcs that are the most sharply critical of the Federation - namely, the augment thread and the Section 31 subplot - both centre Bashir. That’s not an accident. Those arcs raise all manner of questions related to institutional corruption and self-protection, the narrow standards of normalcy in Federation society, disposability and unpersonhood, the degree to which moral standards can be stretched for the greater good (similar questions to those raised by In the Pale Moonlight), etc.

Broadly speaking, Bashir’s arc centres on the awakening of innocence to experience, and about the process of becoming disillusioned with one’s ideals, but, simultaneously, the catalysts of that process only serving to emphasize the continued importance of those ideals. (Not to mention the fine line between heroism and self-aggrandizement and status-seeking). The dynamics with Garak and O’Brien are enjoyable, and sometimes thematically relevant along some of these lines, but he has so much going on in his own right, and that deserves to be recognized.

[lovingdabeessss]

​AAAAAAA

I love the slight difference with it, like summer just jabs at her

it’s slight but with a force to show she’s mad at Raven, that they’re not on good terms like raven is seemingly pretending they are, which is what raven does every time she sees her family, despite them CLEARLY being mad at her, she never wants to acknowledge what she’s done or why they’re mad she always seems to want them to ignore it with her, pretend like nothing ever happened

It’s part of ravens character as a coward, she also wants to run from the consequences of her actions, and confrontations with the people she loves and hurt

With summers GIF, raven starts out with her arms crossed and her shoulders tensed and she’s looking away from summer, she’s defensive she’s not acknowledging her wrongs or anything

But then summer walks up and purposely jabs her, you can see it it’s with intention and it’s actually a bit out of her way to do, by the way her shoulders move towards raven to do it

And then ravens eyes are on summer, her shoulders drop, she watches her move away from her with much more vulnerable eyes

I don’t know how I personally interpret that, tho it is really really important I think, maybe…. I think in this instance, that it’s raven thinking maybe they are moving on, like summer was mad at her and now they can be fine, that they’ll start ignoring the problems again together

Also you can’t really tell but from how her head moves it looks like summer was looking right at raven until she jabbed her, like they swap looking at each other, maybe she was waiting for raven to say something or react or do anything but be defensive and the jab was a last minute decision out of anger

However with Yang

The beginning of the GIF raven is already vulnerable, and SO vulnerable, she looks sooo upset, and shocked to, she’s got wide eyes and she looks almost frozen in place and she’s fully facing Yang as Yang moves towards her,

And what happens in this one isn’t that Yang went out of her way to jab raven, it’s that Yang just walked through her, she wasn’t looking at raven she didn’t even glance at her when she started to walk into her she just kept walking, she didn’t care raven was there

It’s framed like it’s ravens job to move out of the way not yangs job to go around her or meet her there

And after the fact, raven eyes are to the floor

Not just away from Yang but to the floor, like straight down

She looks near to devastated and clearly ashamed

I 100% believe raven loves yang, she loves all of her family/team (same thing, maybe not ruby, maybe that’s more a “reminder of what you lost” kinda thing to her)

If she didn’t care about them this isn’t how this would go

But she does

But she’s also a coward, and she leaves Yang there, just like Yang said she would

Like mother, like daughter

[beloveds-embrace]

angst concept i offer to you on bended knee!! not a request for a fic or anything, you’re just such an angst fiend that this idea gnawed at me and i was thinking of your absolutely incredible alternate fae au. not that this is similar to that, it just put me in the mood for heartbreak.

neglected!reader in a world where neglected bonds (soulmate, a/b/o, hell even just magically established) can break on their own.

it doesn't happen often and honestly it's kind of taboo. it doesn't take much to maintain — a meaningful scenting here and there (if a/b/o), or maybe a shared quiet evening together, or even just the acknowledgement of shared feelings in a smile — and of course, ideally, the love. doesn't even have to be romantic love. the parties involved just have to feel valued and safe. it basically boils down to security, like an animal’s instinct telling them if their group is safe to stay in. bonds usually only ever break outright if someone is ousted; alone for a long period of time, allowed to wither.

but as it turns out, it can also happen if someone believes wholeheartedly that they’ve been left behind. a marker that you need to find a new place to belong, for survival’s sake. it’s not even that they pushed you away on purpose, really. it wasn’t even malicious. it just snowballed, excuse after excuse, general assumption that someone else was picking up the slack. you never really complained, after all, and you were around them often enough. that was fine, wasn’t it?

the most disturbing part? the uncanny way you don’t seem to even notice. the connection having grown so weak that ordinary friendship, ordinary passing conversation feels about the same. your placid smile is disturbing. you looking at them and asking what’s wrong is horrific on an instinctual level. they can’t feel you anymore, and the bond won’t rekindle because you can’t feel the difference.

(optional angst bonus for extra hurt, but imagine if being ousted like that — a bond breaking one person off from a group — has like. vaguely negative implications. not huge ones bc that’s faded over time as people became more aware of unhealthy environments and whatnot, but because most bonds are so based on healthy relationships these days, being rejected from everyone in a group at once usually implies something was “off” with them. watch that be internalised before the abandonment. oof.)

Did 😭 you 😭 at least 😭 kiss 😭 the 😭 brick 😭 before 😭 you 😭 threw it 😭 at me?😭😭😭

This is so much pain… so much sadness i love it but STILL 😩💔

[gayofthefae]

Things I thought on my first of Stranger Things when I thought that queer people wouldn't even be acknowledged in world and that even so, Mike was definitely not:

The party are all best friends, but Mike and Will are "special friends" (1x01) [I beat myself up for not just saying these words out loud and realizing yes I thought the verbatim words 'special friends']

The dynamic between Mike and Will is uneven in season 2 because Mike seems to feel so much stronger for Will. I didn't think they were shippable because it was too unbalanced on Mike's side.

FULLY like SECOND NATURE didn't even have to think about it confident that the reason for all of Mike's relationship problems was heteronormativity and that he was seeing El as a personification of straightness he had to accurately perform and if they just broke up and were friends again he would be able to remember that he actually does know her well enough as an individual to know what she wants and likes, but him seeing himself as "a boyfriend to a girlfriend" in some societal mimicry act was the problem. I just thought it was because he was young or something, and I thought breaking up would fix it for when they got back together and like permanently remind him that it's not big scary "girlfriend" but just El, in a romantic sense. Of course, that did not happen...

I literally caught that Mike and Will were being emphasized as closer than the rest of the party, that Mike had very strong feelings towards Will, and that he saw his relationship with Eleven as a performance of heterosexuality as opposed to the relationship he had with her before, just romantic.

Don't let anybody tell you it was out of the blue. After all that, I still thought Byler was a silly fanon crack ship because I didn't know better yet, but even then, I had seen everything previous as it was. Don't let anyone tell you it was out of the blue.

That said, I think a lot of people will realize this too. That they did see it on the first watch. They just didn't remember that they did or understand what it meant yet.

But I will never shut up about how I season Mike to me AS A MILKVAN SHIPPER MIGHT I ADD!!!! Was Mike failing at impersonating heterosexuality. At the time I thought he behaved better with Will than El as proof of what I was screaming at my tv - that he's normal about his friends and weird about romance so he should remember how to be El's friend first - but I know now that it was actually because his relationship with El being romantic was forced inherently and his instincts with Will are instead exactly what was described as what they should be for El AND have since seen the same "acting weird" symptoms when he tried to force a platonic relationship with Will...

The point is

People don't not know all the proof, they just assigned the wrong reasoning. But they SAW ALL the proof. I think they'll take it fine, because they can still credit themselves they caught it.

[smilepilled]

POLL BELOW THE CUT: A DISCUSSION ABOUT ABINARY TERMINOLOGY IN COINING POSTS

[POLL BELOW THE CUT: A DISCUSSION ABOUT ABINARY TERMINOLOGY IN COINING POSTS]

about terms that end in "girl" or "boy", but for people who arent either/dont use either/dont identify with either. THIS IS NOT A COINING POST, TAGS ARE FOR REACH.

people who strictly use girl and/or boy please do not vote! this discussion and poll is targeted towards abinary terms & coining!

fellow people who are/id as/utilize binary AND abinary terms alike are welcome to vote, but PLEASE keep in mind this is a post targeted to abinary folks who are excluded by the strict usage of boy/girl everywhere

please reblog instead of just liking :D reach is needed!

ive noticed a trend amongst certain liomogai labels, and i think its important for the binary gender terms to not be the main things one coins for when making a label— for this discussion, i'll use the following example: soldiergirl/soldierboy.

why do we limit ourselves to only use the two main binary terms (and their variants such as gal, lass, lady, woman / guy, lad, sire, man)? aren't we forgetting someone, or better yet, some people?

this quickly got me thinking about making an awareness post about the situation, but there's one small issue about this: what term should we use for people who don't identify as, aren't, nor call themselves boys/girls?

many different (micro+)labels have nouns to replace "boy"/"girl", but i have not yet sensed a consensus about terms to replace boy/girl for the entire nonbinary/abinary crowd— and that's obviously fine, every person will prefer something different, but its important that we acknowledge what terms are used by the community (regardless of how many people use xyz term more)

however, i also believe it's useful to make a poll for this, with the winning result NOT being the standardized term but instead the whole poll results being a compass for term creation. its important to raise awareness about these things, and the information

(bold text: with the winning result NOT being the standardized term)

please feel free to specify what you have in mind if you pick the last option {preferrably in the comments or replies} ( °3°) your preferences matter and should be heard!

as a frail reminder, this isn't a critique against people who use boy & girl in their coining posts, but moreso a initiative for the inclusikn of those who dont use/arent/dont resonate with binary gendered terms. please keep this all in good faith!

reach taglist — @radiomogai, @rwuffles, @scr-ppup, @daybreakthing, @vampitsm ❤️‍🩹 feel free to ignore if you'd like!

[colinmorgan-beautifulsmile]

Long Day’s Journey Into Night Review

(mostly spoiler-free and focused on colin)

colin morgan as edmund tyrone in long day’s journey into night

firstly, i just want to acknowledge that it was such a privilege to be able to have the chance to see this film, especially after the news that it was dropped by its original distributor. i know how hard it usually is to be able to see colin’s films and shows as he chooses more independent projects. so i just wanted to share my thoughts for everyone who hasn’t been able to see it yet and may not for quite some time now

the film starts off with colin’s character, edmund tyrone, narrating the setting of the story, leading up to seeing him laying in bed - a nice close up of colin’s face to start things off. i thought it was a nice allude to his prolific narrating skills and how much emotional range and character depth he is able to convey with just his voice.

this initial scene is quite dark and foreboding but then you’re immediately taken to the morning, where you see just how bright and colorful and vivid the house is. vibrant yellows and greens really give the scene such a quaint feel, but as the story goes on, and if you know what entails, this slowly seems to be an allusion of pretense - a facade of beauty and perfection covering what truly lies beneath. as the story unfolds, the scenery gets darker and more intense, the weather rougher, the waves more violent. these initial vibrant colors were incredibly picturesque though - there’s a wonderfully stunning shot a few moments later of edmund sitting beneath a tree with vibrant yellow leaves. can’t wait to see shots and gifs of that in hd 💛

at this point, some latecomers arrived and i had to miss a lot of dialogue for a minute as we stood up to let them pass. but this initial scene sets up the dynamics of the family relationships between all four characters; something i really enjoyed in this film was that edmund has lengthy important one-on-one scenes with all of the other members of the family - mary (jessica lange), james (ed harris) and jamie (ben foster) - and colin has fantastic chemistry with each of them, but especially jessica, with whom we see him have a multitude of tender, emotional mother-son scenes together. for me, the two of them were the standouts in the film and i believe will be strong oscars contenders if it gets released before the cut off date. the film itself is a shoe-in for an oscar nomination, in best film and best production design, in my opinion

and while i’m here i just want to gush over colin’s talent. his trademark microexpressions were off the charts in this film. one scene in particular stood out to me, where we see edmund’s change of expression so slight but so defined and sudden, when confronted with the truth of his father by his mother. i also think of this quote from one review - “the subtle ways in which mr. morgan indicates how he has heard their songs before and loves them regardless of the pain they cause is really very special”. his accent was also decent - i’m not familiar with a connecticut accent but he matched ben’s pretty well. and colin just looked so. good. especially if you know about his [major spoiler - revealed below the break]… he looks incredibly fresh and pretty - a combination of john armstrong and chris keller. a few scenes in particular i can’t wait to see gif’d - 1) a moment where he’s in black, next to james, in the dark and only lit by a desk lamp, 2) the cutest smile he gives to jamie during their one-on-one scene in the fields and 3) a tender moment between jamie and edmund, where jamie kisses the top of his head, seeking forgiveness for hurtful words spoken. and honestly… all of the edmund/mary scenes

the humor in this film was quite funny too and kept the audience engaged and interactive. there was a lot of initial talk about the length of the film and how short it is compared to the play. i felt like it worked just fine, honestly - but i’d only watched the original film prior. this version also had a few additional background characters

the rest of the film is a turmoil of suppressed feelings and thoughts rising to the surface, suspicions confirmed, and the anxiety that seeps through everyone’s minds - the loom of death, of relapse, of loss. there were definitely some lull moments where dialogue and quiet scenes dragged on too long - you could see the audience losing focus at points. i think we could’ve seen more of jamie and mary’s relationship in exchange for less of these low points. maybe even some private moments of edmund dealing with his [major spoiler]. overall, i really enjoyed it though. it was such a nice treat to be able to see colin in such a considerable and meaty film role after so long and i hope everyone else can soon

so here’s hoping they find distributors soon! at this point, a trailer even…it will give colin so many more opportunities as well in the industry, and this film owes him that, if it is in fact true that mgm studios hid a clause in his contract that prevented him from taking other major roles (i’m starting to believe it was true as all his film roles since then have been incredibly minor, requiring no promo.. but we may never know for sure). this film has had a few major setbacks from losing funding as filming started to now being dropped by distributors. i hope its luck turns around very quickly 🤍🤍🤍

here are some photos of the theatre where the film had its north american premiere

Dreamland Studio - July 25th, 2025 1pm

Nantucket Performing Arts Center - July 28th, 2025 7pm

—————————————————————————

SPOILERS:

edmund suffers from an ailment the entirety of the film, spends several moments throughout the film coughing rather violently. he gets diagnosed with consumption halfway through the film and there is the high possibility of him dying. colin’s role of edmund is a portrayal of the playwright himself, eugene o’neill. another reviewer’s thoughts really resonated in these scenes - “morgan’s edmund, poised on the brink of consumption, articulated the fear of mortality with reluctant grace”

[wisteria-bae]

I want to clarify something right out of the gate:

When I said, “Here’s how it was broken down to us,” I referenced what I was taught. I’m not erasing African culpability or trying to push a one-sided narrative. If your experience or education taught you something different, that’s fine, but just as you speak from your experience, so do I.

True facts don’t become racist just because they’re inconvenient, or because you think the other person has a racist reason for bringing them up.

That’s a misread of my point. I never said the fact itself is racist, I said the timing and framing often reveal a motive. When a person suddenly becomes a historian the moment racial injustice is mentioned, only to deflect blame or shut down dialogue, that’s bad-faith distraction. That context matters.

Also, ‘trading with other people for stuff you want for an advantage’ doesn’t make them victims.

At no point did I call anyone a victim. I said some African leaders made decisions out of fear or the pressure of power struggles. That’s not victimhood; that’s political realism. Motivation doesn’t absolve guilt.

So they sold Africans the surplus guns that wouldn’t sell to Europeans. That doesn’t seem like a sinister plot, that seems like getting rid of old stock.

This is exactly what I meant when I said people rarely extend nuance to European participants. When Africans participate, we dig deep into motives, tactics, and economic reasoning. But when Europeans exploit with outdated weapons, faulty deals, and false promises, it suddenly becomes “just business.” Why does nuance disappear when it’s not convenient?

So why do you describe Africans as just ‘selling’ and say white people ‘stole’? There was a lot more ‘stealing’ going on by black people than white people, even by your own argument.

That’s not what I said. I acknowledged both theft and trade. The transatlantic slave trade included kidnapping and purchase. Some Africans were sold, and others were abducted, just like some European colonists bought enslaved people, and others ran illegal slaving expeditions. Both happened and can be true at once without canceling each other out.

I feel like you’re describing your own rationalizations here, but in a deflecting way.

I’m unsure why you feel that way, but that’s not what I’m doing. I explained what I was taught, added some context, and expressed that both sides played roles in a complex, brutal system. I was acknowledging, not deflecting.

Again, the statement usually implies white people alone enslaved black people, and leaves out who did the majority, assuming the speaker even knows most of it was black on black. And I don't think most people do. In most mainstream discourse, the role of black slavers is entirely ignored. If white people are held responsible for something actually done by black people, that's racist and should be corrected, just like the converse.

I hear what you’re saying, but we’re approaching this from two angles. The majority of the initial capturing and selling being “black on black” doesn’t erase or exclude the European role in building the system that brought Africans to the Americas, especially to places like the U.S.

African Americans’ historical focus often starts with what happened once our ancestors were on this side of the ocean. That’s the beginning of our lineage: chattel slavery, plantations, Jim Crow, redlining, mass incarceration.

We’re not ignoring certain parts of the story; we’re focusing on the parts that shaped our communities, our identities, and the generational trauma we’re still unpacking today.

We know Black people sold and captured each other; that part’s not hidden or ignored anymore. But that truth doesn’t cancel out how European powers created, scaled, and profited from a system that turned human lives into generational property. That’s what our education and conversations tend to center out of relevance to our lived reality.

Which brings me to a question I‘m curious about. As a Black non-American, do you believe that how the transatlantic slave trade was taught to you, compared to how we learn about it here in the U.S., is more accurate or complete? And if so, why do you think it's being taught so wrongly and different?

So a black woman was released from jail five months after she was arrested for "abusing a corpse" because she had a miscarriage in a restaurant bathroom.

Her name is Mallori Patrice Strait, and she is 33 years old. This is her.

I distinctly recall raising concern that this would happen to women in anti-abortion states when this happened to Brittany Watts in Ohio and I distinctly recall pro-lifers saying this wouldn't not lead to women getting arrested for miscarriages.

It's also not lost on me that these two women are black, and pro-lifers spent years arguing that their policies were meant to "protect the black population."

While you all justify Adriana Smith's case in Georgia, I wanna hear the 'pro-life' explanation for this.

I want all the "protect black babies" people and the "abortion is black genocide" people to step forward.

I just want to talk.

[daryl-dixon-daydreams]

"Remind me to chew out Rick when we get back to camp," Daryl growled. "I dunno what the hell he was thinkin' sendin' the two of us out together..."

You rolled your eyes. "Oh, drop the fucking attitude, alright, Dixon? You think I want to be stuck out here with you? But we've got a job to do and the reason Rick sent us out together is because we have complementary skills, whether we like ot acknowledge it or not."

Daryl scoffed. "'M fine on my own. In fact, 'm better on my own," he said in a low voice.

You'd had enough and you stepped in front of him, charging through the brush to block his progress. "Stop and fucking listen to me, okay?" Your jaw clenched as you stared him down for a moment with a fire in your eyes that did have him paying attention. "I'm sorry, okay, that you don't like me. But I will never apologize that the bits of myself that survived are fucking unpalatable to most people. I don't give a shit. I grew up the way I did because I had to, and I grew up. And not a lot of people who lived the life I did get to say that. This fucking nightmare of a zombie apocalypse is just the cherry on top of a hard life that, yes, maybe left me not caring about being angry and a little cold and a short-tempered and whatever other unpleasant fucking adjective that comes to mind. So, drop the attitude and just shut up and help me do what we're out here for so we can get home and not talk to each other again for two weeks."

You'd expected some snappy retort from him, but for once he was looking at you, really looking at you with something other than hostility and perhaps with some vague curiosity. And Daryl was scolding himself for simply writing you off as difficult when clearly the two of you had more in common than he realized... At the very least, he had to respect the way you'd just confronted him and stood him down. Prompt: "I'm sorry, okay, that you don't like me. But I will never apologize that the bits of myself that survived are fucking unpalatable to most people. I grew up the way I did because I had to, and I grew up. And not a lot of people who lived the life I did get to say that."

[biancasaidstfu]

there is something extremely strange about the way the Bridgerton leads don’t interact with each other at all one year after their season has premiered. Rege and Phoebe were at the Vanity Fair party and there’s a clip of them talking but that’s the most we’ve seen since Met 2021, they don’t acknowledge each other at all otherwise. And Simone/JB interact with every other cast members posts but each others. (and I’m sure they’re fine too). The Netflix/Shondaland theory looking stronger because even those twitter sweeps are a big deal, I don’t think Luke could pull that off himself

Yeah it’s very weird tbh

[mrsjjongstby]

"You are NOT taller than me." - N.RK

P: idol!Niki x tall!reader Synopsis: Your boyfriend argues that he is taller than you by few inches. but you being you, argue back saying it doesn't matter and that his chunky af sneakers are the reason for the extra few inches he's talking about. but no matter what, at the end of the day, you are made for him and he'll do anything to make sure that you stay his. WordCount: 737

After a particularly long day practicing, Niki came back home. Shoulders slouched, head dropped down with a look on his face screaming nothing but exhaustion. Closing the door behind him, he called you. 

“Y/n?” 

No response.  

Frowning he let his bag fall onto the ground beside him and walked into the bedroom with his sneakers on. There, he found you standing Infront of the huge mirror applying moisturizer, which generally indicates that you are about to head to bed.  

The exhaustion in him immediately fades away the moment he has his eyes on you. Smiling softly, he goes behind you with his arms circling around your waist. You look up in the mirror, already acknowledging his presence.  

“Tough day?” you ask noticing the slight stiffness in his shoulders.  

He hums and replies, “Not anymore.” 

You smile, “Get freshened up.”  

“I will. I will.” he says but the arms around you only tighten.  

You chuckle shaking your head and put your eye patches on, the coolness immediately hitting your undereyes making you feel relaxed. You continue doing your night routine as your boyfriend admires you doing your thing even though he has seen you do the same routine a thousand times.  

Maybe it's the exhaustion of his busy schedule creeping up or the fact that he missed you badly after being away from you for a long time, he just wanted to lock you in his arms and never let go away.  

He leaned his head down and started kissing your neck. Small wet kisses placed all over your neck. “My small, little baby.” He mutters into your neck and places a firm kiss at the same spot right after that. 

Your hands stop midway on your cheek as you blend the face cream in. “Little? Baby, take your chunky ass sneakers off and say the same thing.” you say with no real bite, just another reminder to him that his girlfriend isn't as short as he thinks.  

He exhales dramatically as if the fact alone physically pained him.  

“We’re literally the same height.” You can't help but add another line to throw him off. 

He removes his head from your neck (not before placing one last kiss) and looks at you in the mirror. “Hey! We're not the same height. I'm taller than you-”  

“By a few inches.” you cut him off with a teasing smile on your lips. 

“So? I'm still taller!” he says with a very serious expression as if he’s discussing about politics which makes you break into laughter. 

“Keep telling yourself that, baby.” You say laughing as he whines and pouts. He’d never say it but if teasing him made you laugh like that, then he’ll gladly hire a bunch of professional rappers to diss his height. He loves you, and seeing you laugh, that too, cause of him, makes him feel like he succeeded as a man.  

Later that night, the two of you lay in bed, tangled under a shared blanket. Your limbs fit against his perfectly—your noses practically level, breath synced, knees brushing, no one needing to stretch or shrink. Just… right. 

“I still think I’m taller,” Niki whispered suddenly. 

You groaned, burying your face in his chest. “Drop it already.” 

He laughed softly, wrapping his arms tighter around you. “Fine. Fine.” 

Silence fell again. And then he murmured, almost like an afterthought— 

“You were made for me.” 

You blinked. 

He blinked. 

Pause. 

You pulled back slightly to look at him. 

He was already looking at you, eyes wide like he didn’t mean to say that out loud. 

“I—uh,” he stammered, his cool-guy act cracking. “Like—physically. I meant—our—our cuddling form is optimal. Like scientifically.” He made a vague hand gesture. “Symmetry.” 

You raised an eyebrow. “Cuddling form?” 

“Don’t twist my words!” 

“You said I was made for you.” 

“I said—our—cuddles were made—form-fit—I—" He shut his eyes. “Okay. Fine. Maybe I meant it.” 

You smiled, letting your hand rest gently on his cheek. “Good.” 

His eyes fluttered open again, confused. “Good?” 

You nodded, snuggling back into his chest, forehead pressed right against his. 

“Because I think I was made for you too.” 

This time, he didn’t speak.  

He just held you tighter with a stupid grin on his face and a content heart. 

He just slipped into his dreamland- and didnt bring up your height ever again. (Well, not that night.) 

A/N: wellllllll, i wrote this in like twenty mins and its not proofread so sorry if its messy! i also feel like there arent much fics with tall girly reader so, i hope this compensates something to the tall girlies community hehehehehe ALSO i hope @yourarabkogal likes this!!!!!!

[it-s-blue-ink]

Tw abortion, religion, anti-daniel saltzman

---

Thoughts on Bella's pregnancy (meta)

Daniel is a religious man. He's his daughter's father, her guardian, she's his responsibility until she is married to another man. (As a woman, Bella had little rights or ability to be truly independent. But she was rich (or Daniel was) so she might be all right for a while, until Daniel decided she ought get married.)

Then she got pregnant. There is only one response to an accidental pregnancy, to a rich old timey religious man.

Get married, yesterday. Do not give birth out of wedlock.

Daniel had control over Bella, she could not have gotten an abortion or 'gone to visit relatives' without his permission.

She didn't love Arthur, Arthur didn't love her. Neither of them wanted to get married to each other. But they had to, because Bella was pregnant, and she couldn't get an abortion without Daniel's help.

If it was possible I think she would have had an abortion. Arthur would have been a composer, she would have studied even more and not have to join the work force as a seamstress. They would have drifted apart.

But Daniel made Bella keep the pregnancy, made them get married. Bella died in childbirth, and Faroe... well.

I wonder if Daniel secretly, sometimes wishes he had acted differently. Probably not. Too proud to acknowledge his own mistakes. He's a bit like Arthur in that way. Also he's a deeply religious man, so he probably believes he'll see them in the afterlife, so it's fine.

[oceanicfem]

“I don't hate trans people for being trans" No, you hate them for being people, it seems.

I really don’t get what you mean by this. Nowhere in the original post does Griffin say anything that would make it seem like she hates trans people for existing.

The concept of them is fine, but once they start showing up in your everyday life, you have a problem.

This is purposefully vague. What does “showing up in your everyday life” mean? Does it mean having a trans coworker or classmate? Interacting with trans people? Having trans people join clubs I’m in? I’m fine with those things.

What most Radfems aren’t fine with is trans people, particularly TIMs, insisting that they be included in everything, even female-only sex-based spaces, which they don’t belong in by definition.

I’m fine with trans people existing. I’m not fine with them forcing their way into things that aren’t for them.

They're fine as long as they separate themselves from you, as long as they know that they aren't welcome in your community

Again: What is meant by community? Community garden? Trans people are welcome. Neighborhood potluck? Trans people are welcome. Art club? Trans people are welcome. Space specifically made for female people only? Only female people are welcome.

Say what you actually mean by community. Because I’m fine with TIMs wanting to join the Writers’ Society. I’m not fine with them wanting to be in womens’ bathrooms, prisons, and relief shelters.

As long as they know that you view them as those who oppress you, rather than viewing them as oppressed in their own right.

I can’t see a way in which trans people are oppressed specifically for being trans. They aren’t banned from sports or bathrooms; They can enter the team/bathroom of their sex, or campaign for a third category. They aren’t excluded from any l healthcare; The only treatments they can’t get are entirely optional/cosmetic, and not necessary.

Why don’t you acknowledge and think about some of the things Griffin actually said instead of adding a stock-standard TRA defense that could have been a response to anything?

I want to be clear: I don’t hate trans people for being trans. No one deserves hate for struggling with body dysphoria that’s a painful experience, and I have compassion for anyone going through it. What I do oppose are the men who have taken over the trans movement, using it to fuel their own fetishes and to find “progressive” ways to silence women who ask legitimate questions.

Instead of creating their own safe spaces, some want to come into ours even after we’ve said no. Rather than respecting that boundary and saying, “Okay, can you help us create a third space? Since men are statistically more likely to hurt us, that would be appreciated,” they choose to respond with aggression.

Honestly, I would have said, “Hell yes, let’s work together on that.” But instead, they turn around and attack us with the same male-pattern aggression they claim to oppose only proving our point.

[randomidiocyncrazies]

honestly kinda excited that Luo Li's arc might lead to the Spotlight Org's origins.

it's pretty obvious that Glimmer Lab's super secret experiment mentioned in the ep 14 preview is closely related to Fear, and I have my suspicions that Glimmer Lab is connected to Aether Lab (namedropped by the "embrace fear" guy in ep 8). My guess rn is that Glimmer is a smokescreen/shell company that hides the objective of Aether, which is focused on Fear/Fear-powered tech, but i'm just going off of vibes right now. Edit: hm, both Glimmer and Aether are referred to as 微光實驗室 in the Chinese audio, so it's straight up just the same lab (ngl I did think it was the same lab while watching ep 13, but when I went to check the Eng subs for the names it was Glimmer instead of Aether, so I thought they were supposed to be different names... shoulda went with my gut on this one, my bad)

DJ Shindig is pretty focused on getting the secret experiment in the preview, so I'm guessing he's an agent of the Spotlight Org; in the subs for the Japanese dub they say his performance as a hero stagnated, but in the Chinese audio it's more like nobody knows his whereabouts/what he's up to nowadays. He also seems a bit bitter that nobody remembered him when he attacked Glimmer Lab, so I can see him falling in with the Spotlight crowd when he peaked after becoming X and rapidly crashed/unable to maintain his popularity etc and became disillusioned with the system. (Of course, they could throw a twist at us and reveal that DJ Shindig is so fixated on getting the secret experiment because he wants to keep it out of Spotlight's hands or whatever. Good intentions pave the way to hell, etc etc.)

considering that Spotlight Org is well-known as a terrorist organization by L0's time in Year 41, it makes sense that the Org went public in Year 39; Fear was only officially acknowledged in Year 37, and there was no mention of the organization in Queen's episodes, so they have to have gone public between Queen's arc (ends in Year 39) and L0's arc (starts in Year 41). Also I feel like if a terrorist org had been around for too long, then the public would lose faith in the institution, so them being a relatively recent group makes sense. Ultimately, my guess is that the Commission is also behind the Spotlight Org; that way they can play both sides of the game and fine-tune their control over society. But it's a delicate balance: you risk the heroes looking incompetent (and thus lose people's Trust in the system) if Spotlight hangs around for too long, but you also want to keep the piece on the board for as long as possible.

[onestormeynight]

Easter

Kip was in the kitchen making a bowl of kava when Wyatt walked in looking irritated. The two locked eyes for a second before Wyatt looked away, crossing his arms.

"Hey, bud," Kip said. "Didn't know you guys arrived yet, you just get here?"

"Yeah."

"How have you been?"

"Fine." There was a tense silence before he turned and left the kitchen saying "I'll tell Dad you're in here."

Kip stared at the closed door, saying a silent prayer to the universe thanking it for his daughter's easy nature.

Dinner itself was tense but uneventful. The teens sat on opposite sides of the table, Wyatt occasionally shooting Lucy a sharp look while she sat stone faced, refusing to acknowledge there was a person in his chair. Lottie, laying on the motherly charm thick, cajoled Wyatt into talking to her about school and sports. His grades were fine. He loved being on the football team, his position being running back because he was so fast.

Trying to ignore his bragging, Lucy asked Mei and Vasily about their careers in the military and how those were going. They'd been promoted to different branches; Mei had recently been promoted to brigadier, while Vasily remained quiet about what his exact title was. When pressed, he gave Lucy a wink and said "Redacted."

After dinner, Lucy saw Wyatt sneak out to their home gym to get some peace. She took a deep breath and followed him out, hoping maybe the holiday and good food would have him in a good mood. The look he gave her when she entered implied that was not going to be the case.

"Wyatt, can we talk?"

"About what?"

"Don't you think this fight has gone on long enough? I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, I have never wanted to do that to you."

"But you did and I don't forgive you. Maybe I will one day, maybe I won't. Right now I just want you to get out of my face."

((prev)) ((next))

[croquettish]

hey! i read through your big post on medieval sexuality wrt hansry and i did notice that you did use the terms 'homosexuality' and 'heterosexuality' throughout when discussing medieval sexuality

I didn't see 'Heterosexuality as a Threat to Medieval Studies' by JA Schultz in your citations so thought I could get your thoughts on what Schultz said about reading 'heterosexuality' into the past

-- Z

So for starters I will say that Schultz' article is wild.

He is swinging a bat at so many hornet nests in that thing. There was one footnote of his that was so downright rude to someone I know is a brilliant scholar of medieval queerness, and that instance was far from unique. I will also say that his ideas are... uh, somewhat limiting? To say the least. He acknowledges that we need modern ideas to talk about the past, but at the same time insists that when we use those modern ideas we are doing damage to our analysis of it. That we are, in fact, doing violence by insisting on firm meanings and definitions. There were several instances where he suggested that other scholars were entirely committed to things they were conjecturing on actually being facts. Very strange.

Regarding the atemporality of our modern idea of sexuality as a marker of identity, Schultz's ideas (though they are perhaps more extreme than most) are hardly unique, and I think you'll find that that is a common theme that you'll see cropping up in most of the books and articles that I listed that mention sexuality or gender identity in context. This goes back to the social constructionist vs. essentialist debate and is something that I talk about at some length in the literature review of my dissertation. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but while I believe such an addition to be entirely necessary in any academic work that delves into this topic, I don't believe that it has nearly as much of a place in a tumblr post on the topic. I'll be honest with you, it kind of feels like that would be pointless and preachy. We've all seen the "Sappho and her friend" jokes that are made about historians and their tendency to underplay queerness, like an example I gave quite recently involved the frequent bedsharing of Richard the Lionheart and Philip II where a historian insisted that bedsharing was something poor people did at the time, and this meant that it was extremely normie behavior on the part of these two reigning monarchs.

While I understand and (to a certain extent) respect that tendency in academic articles and books that seek to sidestep this issue and thus remove themselves from the threat of criticism and debate entirely, within the context of social media I would find that approach to be somewhat naive. If I go around regularly making sure to remind everyone that oh, by the way, don't forget! We can't project these sexualities back onto peoples of the past the way we view them today! At best it's going to have a few people nodding and fall on deaf ears otherwise, and at worst it's going to affect my credibility in this particular space. There's a reason I very deliberately went out of my way not to include certain sources in my list of recommended further reading, because I notably wished to avoid that misattribution the best I could while remaining nevertheless realistic in my approach.

In short: no, we can't project modern sexualities back onto the people of the past the way we might wish to. But people on tumblr.com are not going to really care about that, and that's fine! When I personally am looking at people of the past and I label one or other of them as any one sexuality, I am stating that with the belief that that there were medieval people who, if transplanted into the modern day and taught to understand our sexual and gender identities, would see themselves reflected in us.

If you are interested in reading more about this topic, I would recommend the following reading for your perusing pleasure:

Bennett, Judith M. “‘Lesbian-Like’ and the Social History of Lesbianisms.” Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 9, no. 1/2, 2000, pp. 1–24. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3704629.

Burgwinkle, Bill. “Queer Theory and the Middle Ages.” French Studies, vol. 60, no. 1, Jan. 2006, pp. 79–88, https://doi.org/10.1093/fs/kni311.

De Lauretis, Teresa. “Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities: An Introduction.” Differences, vol. 3, no. 2, 1 July 1991, pp. iii–xviii, https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-3-2-iii.

Halwani, Raja. “Essentialism, social constructionism, and the history of homosexuality.” Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 35, no. 1, 12 Oct. 1998, pp. 25–51, https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v35n01_02.

---. “Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics of Sexual Identity: Recasting the Essentialism and Social Constructionism Debate.” Identity Politics Reconsidered, edited by Linda Alcoff. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, 2006, pp. 209–227.

Kruger, Steven F. “Gay Internet Medievalism: Erotic Story Archives, the Middle Ages, and Contemporary Gay Identity.” American Literary History, vol. 22, no. 4, 29 Oct. 2010, pp. 913–944, https://doi.org/10.1093/alh/ajq064.

Mews, Constant J., and John N. Crossley. Communities of Learning: Networks and the Shaping of Intellectual Identity in Europe, 1100-1500. Brepols, 2011.

Shankland, Chloe L., "Complicating Courtly Love: Queering Sex and Gender in High Medieval Literature (1000-1250)." Summer Research, 2021. 410.

Shuve, Karl. The Song of Songs and the Refashioning of Identity in Early Latin Christianity. Oxford University Press, 2016.