bennie-jerry

[bennie-jerry]

Aww, don't make me blush, I appreciate you too ^^

I don't really know who else to tag tho so ig @kenandeliza

 A friend threatened me to repost so I will!

Basically, there r tons of fake asses on tumblr who just want comments and followers, so someone started this to see who's actually a good friend. Everyone I tag better repost (and tag other people and preferably threaten them in a creative way as well) bc I'm high on caffeine and newfound lesbianism and will resort to violence.

@ey-theys-was-coronas

@fangirlhehe

I would tag more people but they're the only ones I've really interacted with-

[bennie-jerry]

I'm honestly so tired of how formulaic 'creative mediums' feel now and that social media is honestly one of the very few places where art is appreciated, and even then, it's on thin ice.

Everything has to be written and look a certain way and it's like I'm reading the same thing over and over again.

I understand there's nothing new under the sun but hot dang, at least let people have SOME authenticity.

What happened to the times when art got recognition because it was DIFFERENT? Because of the fact it pushed cultural norms? Because of the fact that it brought problems to people's attention?

I'm not saying this type of art doesn't exist today, but it sure as heck is suppressed and I'm sick of it.

[bennie-jerry]

SpideyMoon/MoonSpider is not a pairing I would've thought of but somehow I could see it working.

"omg spideypool!" "aww spideytorch" "venom is literally a crazy ex gf"

"moonie"

[bennie-jerry]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-

(also the art is amazing)

got some more oldiesss

i severely love these two as well btw,,, so they’re married

[bennie-jerry]

Well I guess it's my turn. Please pardon my utterly horrible choice in gifs lol

@kenandeliza

ten ships challenge!

Rules: without naming them, post a gif of ten of your favourite ships (any media) and tag as many people as possible to do the same!

thanks for tagging me @b1uetrees <3 hopefully i can come up with ten, let’s see!

(this gif was too good not to use)

tagging: @captainfairygodmother @sarah-sandwich @girlsaturday @professeurm @artisanfuckery

[bennie-jerry]

Hi, I liked your post criticizing the toxic dynamics in the Dracula family in Hotel Transylvania, and I want to ask for your thoughts on the movies in general, as well as your opinions on the concept of "zing", the way Mavis and Johnny's relationship is written and if the movie handled its message about acceptance well.

Personally I dislike the concept of "Love at First Sight" which zing basically is, because it robs a couple from getting to know each other, but also because it portrays an unrealistic view of love and romance. Real love can't come from mere physical attraction but has to be built.

HT also uses monsters as a metaphor for minorities to tell a message about acceptance and freedom from prejudice, which a lot of other media do, so Im curious about your opinion on if the movies handled this theme well.

Hi~! So sorry for the late response ^^

First of all, it's so nice having asks like this!

In terms of how I feel about the movies generally---they do have some likable characters and they do unfortunately hold some semi-dearness to my heart due to me enjoying it as a child. But as a 20 year old woman, I am MORE than aware of how deeply messed up these movies are---and as someone who does enjoy the intricacies of story writing, the Hotel Transylvania is very disappointing in that regard.

I agree with you on the 'zing' thing. I've come to despise the whole 'zing' concept because it reminds me of 'imprinting' that's used in other supernatural romances. Either way, I see it as a sloppy excuse or shortcut creators use to make characters have 'chemistry' without having it genuinely be earned.

Johnny is the everyman trope---a stupid regular degular dude who gets the manic pixie dream girl. Johnny's a monster fanatic---and Mavis is a vampire with limited knowledge on the world thanks to her piece of dookie father. The way Johnny and Mavis' relationship is written hits all of the wrong notes for me.

Regarding the whole minorities thing, as a woman who is part of a minority group herself, I can say for certain that if portraying metaphors for minority groups and acceptance was the goal, it didn't just miss the target---it actively didn't even hit the circle.

That's not to say that I can't *now* see where that might have been intended. But I think it still doesn't hit if that's what they were going for. Because throughout all of the movies, Dracula never genuinely learns his lesson. And sure, realistically, there are *some* people who never overcome their biases towards certain groups. But the franchise often tries to trick us into believing he's changed when he never does. He doesn't even improve.

Heck, he even mentally, emotionally, and physically endangers his own family for his own personal gain BECAUSE of these biases. From what I've seen, Dracula cares more about his own agenda regarding these groups than he does his own family. And regardless of how realistic it is or not----if the goal was to showcase acceptance (which I have a hard time believing it was), it did AWFUL.

There's a major difference between tolerance and acceptance, and Hotel Transylvania never evolves past tolerance. The humans had already accepted the monsters. In fact, the monsters very VERY beloved by the humans. It's DRACULA and those like him that seemingly never evolve.

Even in the fourth movie, despite MARRYING a HUMAN (a van HELLSING AT THAT), Drac lost his CRAP at the possibility of Johnny inheriting the hotel BECAUSE HE WAS HUMAN. I could understand if it was because Johnny's a doofus (which he is), but for being a HUMAN?!

Yeah, as much nostalgia the franchise brings, Hotel Transylvania fails IMMENSELY in terms of genuinely good writing and supposedly handling minority themes. Which is very disappointing because a (well written) series about a monster hotel would've been so great.

I hope that answers your wonders about my perspectives. I apologize for going on a tangent there ^^

[bennie-jerry]

A part of me thinks that Deadpool suggested Parker Industries because he knew there was a chance that Peter would see her on the roof and instantly jump to save her (or at the very least stop her).

Also, I know that Deadpool's the 'merc with a mouth' but that doesn't mean his mask needs one.

[bennie-jerry]

If not friend, then why friend shaped? 😭

[bennie-jerry]

[bennie-jerry]

Hey guys let me tell you about advance fee scams

I hope y'all are familiar with these in this day and age, especially my artists out there, because they're incredibly common.

About half an hour ago I posted a drawing and tagged it #artists on tumblr, and very quickly received this comment.

My scam radar went off immediately, due to the generic blog name and lack of any emotion in the comment, but I decided it might be an entertaining venture so I dmed them. They asked for a drawing "of these", and sent me a random selfie. I got the details and told them it would be $15, and they promptly offered me $300. At this point I know it's a scam, but I play along for funsies and give them my paypal. Shortly, they send me this image for "confirmation" (I blocked out my email)

And they began to insist that I checked my email. I looked in my spam folder and found the following email.

This is fake. This is not a thing. And the "you're to refund the $200.00 back" is the scam. They send vaguely official-looking emails at you to "prove" that they sent you the money, then have you send them $200 (or however much the scam is for). Then, surprise surprise, you're out $200.

I continued to play along for a bit, and in the second email "Paypal" told me that I had to refund the $200 before they could "credit the $300 to my account", along with these lovely threats.

And yeah, it's silly. But it's not silly if you don't know and get scammed. So. Spread, please! And thank you very much to @mlaurel for the opportunity to get these screenshots.

[bennie-jerry]

Sorry not sorry, y'all have got to stop destroying people's property in the name of 'protest.'

I don't care how valid you think you are in hating another person. I don't care what your politics are. I don't even care what the heck you believe or don't believe. You could have the most valid reason ever in the world, and I still wouldn't care because this is atrocious behavior.

By y'all destroying, breaking, setting fire to, and vandalizing Teslas by putting Swastikas on them, you are committing legitimate CRIMES. You are breaking someone's property. And not even because the actual person with the car DID something to YOU, but because you don't like the PERSON who bought the BUSINESS to have the cars made (because Tesla was around before Elon ever had his hands on it).

You say you guys want people to take you seriously, that you're the party of love and acceptance, but then go around and terrorize people doing stuff like THIS. How can people listen to your side when you don't even make your side appealing to listen to?

I don't care what you think is right or not. I don't care what your politics are. Hate MAGA all you want. Hate Elon all you want. Hate Trump all you want.

But that does NOT give you the RIGHT to cause destruction onto someone else's property. It doesn't not give you the right to burn someone's belongings (especially not if those belongings cause toxic fumes to go into the air). It definitely doesn't give you the right on the grounds of politics. Because wanna know what that means? It means you're committing a hate crime. And what qualifies as a hate crime? This:

"Hate crime in criminal law involves a standard offence with an added element of bias against a victim because of their physical appearance or perceived membership of a certain social group."

If politics has you so worked up to the point where you are willing to actively ruin someone's property, do not be surprised when the political party you are a part of all of a sudden has people not wanting to listen to you.

Crap like this is EXACTLY why I don't want to be on this side of politics anymore. The reds certainly aren't the best either (absolutely not). But I can say for darn sure (as a former blue) that y'all have lost your darn minds if this is what you think is okay to do.

I don't care how justified you think are you for doing it because let's be completely honest here:

If the roles were reversed and someone’s property was vandalized with hate symbols because they were left-leaning, because they supported Biden or Kamala, you guys would be FUMING.

The hypocrisy isn't a cute look, babe.

If it wouldn't be okay for someone to do it to YOU, don't do it another person. It's that simple. And if your politics don't or can't agree with that, maybe you need a better outlook on what your politics actually are and WHY you support it. Because something is clearly wrong if you think crimes like this are justified.

[bennie-jerry]

[bennie-jerry]

I love this image so much

🐠🖥️

[bennie-jerry]

Why I think Silver deserves to be in the fourth Sonic movie

So off the bat, I know some of you guys are going to disagree with me and that is perfectly fine. I know a lot of people have mixed opinions regarding Silver as a character, and I certainly have my own.

All I ask is that if you do have any disagreements or information I might be missing, that you convey them respectfully since we're talking about FICTIONAL characters---the world isn't gonna end if we think different about a floating psychokinetic hedgehog.

I think he should be in the next Sonic movie, but in order for my points to coalesce properly, there's other aspects of the topic I'd like to address first in hopes you guys will see where I am coming from.

Personally, on top of having his powers being freaking awesome, I think Silver is a good character and is rather underused in more recognized forms of Sonic media. Don't get me wrong, he was in Sonic 06 and could very well have other mediums he was in---but for the most part, I don't see him and it's as if the Sonic franchise forgets he exists.

Now, don't get me wrong---I understand why some people might have an aversion to Silver regarding his appearance in the Sonic 06 game. His boss battle is tough for utterly no reason, he believes Mephiles at the drop of a hat, and then became a (sometimes annoying) meme. But personally, I don't think this makes him a bad character--but rather he had a bad introduction and I'll explain what I mean.

Regarding his trust in Mephiles, I'd be one to agree that it was naive for him to do, but Knuckles the Echidna underwent similar situations with Eggman MULTIPLE times. Especially if we're talking about Sonic X, Knuckles is shown to have believed Dr. Eggman's lies and fight Sonic multiple times. So personally, I feel as though if you dislike Silver for believing Mephiles, you should have similar thought patterns toward Knuckles for doing similar stuff---if not more than Silver.

For me, I interpret Silver trusting Mephiles as desperation to save his world from destruction. Silver---like Sonic---is an adolescent boy who has the weight of the world on his shoulders and is doing the best he can with the information that is given to him.

I'm explaining all of this because I for one, can't exactly agree with the narrative that Silver is a villain or that he's plain stupid (as some---not all, but some---have argued). And even if I were to agree with the notion that Sonic 06 had the worst portrayal of Silver, I still wouldn't agree with the implication that because of his introduction in the game--that it means he doesn't deserve a redesign or rewrite to fit the movie (since that's what Jeff Fowler has done with other characters in the film already).

I think having Silver in the movie could reintroduce a new version of him and considering Jeff Fowler's obvious skills in bringing honor to the iconic characters, I don't see why Silver would be any different.

Some people think Silver wouldn't fit, but I disagree due to a pattern I noticed within the more recent Sonic films (including the end credit scene for the third one involving Shadow).

Granted, we don't know what the fourth movie is about (or at least I don't) so for all I know, Silver COULD not actually fit into the plot. But considering what we saw with the metal Sonics, I think he'd fit right in.

In the second movie, it gave Sonic two allies (Tails and later on Knuckles) and an enemy (Eggman). In the third movie, it gave Sonic two allies (who would later on be Shadow and Eggman) and an enemy (Gerald Robotnik). While sure, they definitely have their differences in how they manifested plotwise, there was still a pattern.

In the end credit scene of the third movie, it already shows us who the new enemy would be [metal sonic] and who the new ally would be [Amy Rose]. So Silver could very easily fit that role of being the second ally. And sure, the whole 'enemy turned friend' thing might be predictable or old for some people, but I don't think it's a case of lazy writing. I think it's more about the franchise showing who Sonic truly is as a character and how at his core, he wants to help people.

In the case of Silver, I think that could work very well. And it's not like Jeff has it happen the exact same way each time. Heck, even if they were to make him an ally for Sonic off the bat without them being enemies first, I believe it could still very much work.

Once again, the fourth movie hasn't even released and so not many of us (at least not me) know know what the plot for it will be. But, if possible (and that's a big if), I think Silver deserves a shot at redemption by being in the fourth Sonic movie.

[bennie-jerry]

If you're a Hisoka simp, watch this!

[bennie-jerry]

I know I'm gonna ruffle a lot of feathers when I say this, but I think this is something people don't really touch on when it comes to the topic of female modesty (at least not too often).

A big criticism I have when it comes to the topic of female modesty (especially in some ‘Christian’ spaces) is that most who speak on it often approach it from the lens of “Immodesty makes men lust.” And regardless of how true that is, lots of women roll their eyes when they hear it because lots of us have experienced harassment (and a lot of women even sexual abuse) from men REGARDLESS of WHAT we are wearing.

Whether or not the message of “dress this way and men won’t harass you” was your personal intention or not, that is unfortunately the message that has been pushed on a LOT of women from the time we could first walk by OTHER people.

Sure, clothes have an effect on how people perceive us, I’m not gonna pretend it doesn’t. You obviously can’t walk into your office job wearing a low cut halter top and booty shorts—you have to dress for the environment you’re in (durr).

But clothes definitely have not stopped people from doing what they want to do to us at the end of the day. I think the main reason why lots of women roll their eyes when the topic of modesty comes up is because we’re being told the solution to a problem that we know for a fact has not actually worked.

If people kept telling you that wearing a helmet prevents serial killers from targeting you, but serial killers kept targeting you anyway, would you be more convinced to wear a helmet? No, because wearing a helmet didn’t change anything.

Lots of women realize this reality and so I think that’s why a lot of women dress with the mindset of “I’m gonna wear whatever the heck I want because it clearly doesn’t matter what I wear or don’t wear—men are still gonna behave the same.”

I’ve gotten harassed by a male ‘friend’ who bullied me in highschool and snuck around to obtain my phone number (without my permission) so that way he could flirt with me despite me telling him to stop (pretty tame all things considered). And all throughout high school, I wore nothing except big hoodies, jeans, and sometimes sweatpants.

Modesty is important, I agree. But stop promising women that it provides GRAND changes in how men will treat them. So many women have experience that proves it really doesn’t. Because it’s not about the clothes and never will be about the clothes, it’s about the character of the men we interact with. So if the only way a man can respect a woman is if she covers herself head to toe like a box, I don’t know if I can consider him a respectable person.

Sure, modesty can help people respect you more---but stop telling women that it ELIMINATES mistreatment from men---because it doesn't. And to tell something that isn't true is a lie.

[bennie-jerry]

i went to a leftist festival last month and there was a panel dedicated to prostitution, why abolition is the only road to go for leftists and how to help and support prostituted women exiting the trade, and i keep thinking about that union organizer who said, "we hear more and more that 'sex work is work', but if that were true, then there'd be professional trainings leading to a qualification for prostitution, then there'd be prostitution diplomas, then high schoolers could send applications to follow those trainings and become prostitutes. but we all know that all these things don't exist, and if they did exist we would all recognize them for what they are: a grooming business encouraging pedophilia and violence against women and girls." and what she said later; "trade unions that argue that 'sex work is work' never engage in legal battles against pimps or brothel owners. they don't even recognize that pimps are the bosses of the prostitution market. "sex workers' trade unions" don't fight pimps because sex workers' unions don't represent the alleged "workers" (prostituted women), they represent the bosses: pimps."

and that made me think of what Kajsa Ekis Ekman said about the trade unions that consider prostitution to be work and prostituted women to be workers: they offer trainings about condom use and spend millions of dollars funding "worker peer education" about "safe sex".

So one again, it's prostituted women who are held responsible for the spreading and the prevention of STDs - not the johns, not the pimps. the prostituted women, many of them victims of sex trafficking. "As human trafficking expert Malka Marcovich has pointed out, this means a return to nineteenth-century ideals of hygiene, where the onus was “primarily on the women to take responsibility for the health of ‘the customer’, so diseases would not be spread to their families” (2007, p. 347)."

It's quite obvious to any trade union organizer that prostitution is not work and the sex trade can't be organized as a trade union. a few months ago, the biggest unions in my country (which included the traditional left-wing trade unions as well as students' unions) issued a paper condemning the 'sex work is work' narrative and the pimp lobbies got so mad about that because they know their strategy isn't working because leftists know what left-wing politics look like and they know women's liberation doesn't come from prostitution. Now it's interesting that the biggest voices of the "sex work is work" movement come from the USA, where the anticapitalist left doesn't exist. American liberals love to pass reactionary politics as revolutionary but not because they are stupid in their own country does it mean they should influence the actually left-wing labour movement in other countries, right?