viciousland

[viciousland]

[viciousland]

I hate the trope of "I refuse to hit women!! [Gets decked]" cause it's boring but I do like the trope of someone in an RPG going "hey I don't wanna hit a kid that's kinda fucked up" and the kid just obliterates them

[viciousland]

[viciousland]

[viciousland]

[viciousland]

In every generation there is a chosen one…

[viciousland]

Trump got rid of all his appointees, except for a guy named Anthony Vizier, who eventually orchestrated Trump's downfall.

[viciousland]

i forgot how fucking weird november is theres no afternoon its just night after 2pm

[viciousland]

i still do not understand what possessed so many well-respected actors to do the spy kids movies like

did they pay really well? did you want these beautiful, terrible movies to be a blemish on your career forever?? why

 antonio banderas did so many high-profile movies then in spy kids he looked like this

tony shalhoub has won multiple emmys but he did spy kids and

even fucking george clooney wtf

steve buscemi is pretty goofy but still

salma hayek’s pigtails in this wow 

elijah wood was the lead in a movie that’s tied for the largest number of oscars of all time and he played a character creatively named “THE GUY”

sylvester stallone is like a cultural icon and he played not one but FOUR ridiculously dressed weirdos

alan cumming is the only one i can understand 

[viciousland]

If cancel culture is real you guys would have stoned this fucker

[viciousland]

Eric Bogosian and Luke Brandon Field as Daniel Molloy INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE

[viciousland]

not the first to say it but i think some care should be taken in untangling the implications of claudia's 14yo body for claudeleine.

in 105 claudia first exposes the conundrum of her sexuality by telling louis and lestat:

what human would want me? perverts? like the uncle at the roomin' house who used to watch me pee? or little boys? and years from now...still little boys?

the thought that plagues claudia is that her body is so sexually undesireable that she will never be able to experience love, sex, and companionship. the situation has some similarities with that of other people that are sexually marginalised by society. but it also presents unique concerns that i don't think should be flattened through excessive comparison. the specific issue caused by being an adult in a child's body is that it inevitably condemns claudia to either be with adults attracted to children or to be an adult that commits sexual acts towards children. according to some, madeleine presents a solution to this by simply "seeing the adult in claudia". which i am sure she does. but that has nothing to do with being able to feel sexual attraction towards the body of a pubescent girl. which is what their relationship implies.

there are a couple of posts that propose using disabilities as a frame of reference for claudia's story and i think there are some interesting points made on other issues she faces. but i am not sure the analogy is fitting with regard to sexual attraction. disabled adults have adult bodies. the fact that society at large tends to consider them unattractive stems from ableist beauty standards. the argument that madeleine could "learn" to be attracted to claudia's body through a process that resembles a deconstruction of those beauty standards is both inaccurate and fairly offensive to people with disabilities. disabled bodies are not a pathological or amoral object of desire. to find them sexually appealing is both possible and benign and it requires only to avoid harmful preconceptions. being attracted to children's bodies is a pathological sexual inclination. as far as i am aware scientific evidence goes against the idea it can be "learned" or "unlearned". and even if it was hypotetically possible, "learning" it would just leave you with an adult that is now capable of feeling sexual attraction towards a child. in other words, a sexual relationship between madeleine and claudia necessarily entails that madeleine looks at a pubescent body and feels genuine sexual desire for it. and this either because she felt that attraction from the beginning or because (through a literary fiction) she becomes able to develop it. i understand the moral implications are blurred here because claudia is mentally an adult and no harm would come to her from sexual contact. but it is still an uncomfortable thought and i think it would be fair to let it be uncomfortable instead of presenting a moral equivalence with attraction to disabled people.

i've seen one comparison that seems more adequate, which is that of some cases of hormonal deficiency where puberty is completely halted so that the person actually has the body of a child. i freely admit i am not well-read enough on the topic and not enough of an expert in the general subject to comfortably explain how this works. therefore, i will just be rebutting the arguments made by some posts based on their own statements, if anyone wants to chip in with more detailed information please do. but taking those posts at face value, what we are discussing are adults with bodies that are prepubescent. if that is the case, it feels fair to point out that this specific situation would not present the same implications as other disabilities with regard to sexual desire. for the reasons explained above, i really don't think that the inability to feel attraction for a body that is objectively childlike can be so freely boiled down to only ableism. and conversely that the ability to be attracted to it should be acritically celebrated without leaving space to at least consider more unsavoury options. (again, i accept criticism on this stance, maybe there is something i am missing)

what also strikes me as concerning, is that i have seen several posts dismissing the general inference that there could be hebephilic implications in claudeleine, by claiming that madeleine's attraction can without a doubt be justified either (i) because some 14yos have bodies similar to adults or (ii) by a deconstruction of beauty standards that unfairly penalise adult women looking extremely young. i think these arguments, if made acritically and framed as an inevitability, come worringly close to apologism. the idea that some people (especially girls) develop "early" or that they are easily mistaken for a particularly "youngish" adult and that this confusion absolves sexual approaches towards them, is a well-known justification used by child predators. human appearance varies wildly, i am not saying it's impossible that some individuals can look a lot older or a lot younger. i am just bothered by the clear desire to frame this conclusion as the only one possible, because it betrays a need to sanitise a ship at the expense of wider social implications that stem from making these assumptions and also at the expense of what the text is telling us.

textually everyone in the show, including madeleine, has no doubt that claudia is a child as soon as they see her basically. and such an emphasis is put on this being an incredible obstacle for her sexual life that i think we must read her appearance in-universe as something that would be extremely off-putting for adults in a sexual context. some suspension of disbelief is needed given delainey's actual age. but i don't think there would be much of a point in presenting this issue as so thematically relevant if it could be solved by saying "she could easily pass as a 21yo" or "it's ok, i have seen many grown women looking exactly like that". more importantly, it does not get solved this way. claudia and madeleine have a discussion where claudia's body is clearly identified by both as actually pubescent. madeleine explictly sees that body as that of a young adolescent. there is nothing that tells us that madeleine arrives at being attracted to that body through any angle of rielaboration about women sometimes looking younger etc. there is also nothing that confirms without a doubt that her attraction started after discovering claudia's real age. the assumption that there must be an alternative rationalisation is just refusing to stare at the fact that she may simply like the body of young people. she also has a possible history of it: while her exact age is ambiguous, she is clearly a fully adult woman and she had a prior relationship with a 19yo soldier.

i understand this may be off-putting to some and i don't exactly mind discussions that try to explore different interpretations generally speaking (although the blanket comparison to disabilities really does not work for me on this topic). i am also not trying to single out specific authors of specific posts because frankly i don't know their entire blogging history and i have no idea if they have tackled all of this in the past. but, as a general consideration, i find it a bit worrying that the entire fandom has collectively and immediately jumped to all the possible explanations in the world to justify the depiction of a character canonically attracted to at least two people having the body of teenagers. this spasmodic attempt to flee any implication of hebephilia at all costs, without even discussing it (afaik), does not sit well with me. it points to a tendency to simply decide to ignore unpleasant facts when they don't fit a desired outcome, which, in this case, is to have an unproblematic lesbian ship. i just wish these considerations could become part of the discussion in a way they currently aren't.

(and btw, i still like claudeleine regardless, i am not clutching my pearls with this post. i am ok with these themes being explored in a fictional setting etc etc. just so i don't get reblogs from people saying this ship is disgusting)

[viciousland]

[viciousland]

no but the show choosing to have Daniel as an old man too, and possibly most certainly having a romance with Armand is so so important.

Firstly, because there is this media obsession of people finding the love of their lives, having life-changing experience and having epic romances at 17. Armand was with Daniel in his 20s-30s, and Daniel wanted to forever be young and to be with Armand, but it didn't happen partially because Daniel deserved to have a normal life, to age like Armand never got to. It will happen now that he is 70. He can be with the love of his life at 70 forever!

And secondly, because of Armand. He is someone that paid a heavy fucking price for his youth (childhood!) and beauty and he never wanted to be desired like that. And for him not to give a fuck about whether his beloved beautiful boy Daniel Molloy is 20, 30 or 70 even though he is eternally stuck at 27?

[viciousland]

I hate when an artist gets exposed for being a bad person and people start the narrative “why would you even want to listen to their shitty music” when are we going to be freed from the idea that only good people create good art and bad people create bad art. It just makes it harder for these types of people to be exposed because now you got people thinking “how is this possible, his music is so good!”

[viciousland]

obviously I think about Louis' love a lot.

I said in a previous post how no one actually believes Louis loves them. and actually Armand is the only one who believes Louis loves him and I think it's because he doesn't. he struggles with these kinds of feelings, I think they're too big for him to handle and I think he's so detached from Armand (who is literally just a prolonged revenge fuck) that he's had to pretend to be in love with him and it's gone on long enough that this pretending feels comfortable