#Teach Historical and Cultural context

[washed-up-wurmcoil]

I love Keiko O’Brien but girl you have a classroom overlooking Mecca and teaching that it’s just a cube.

[prokopetz]

Hey why DO all those old tabletop RPGS and adventure games have such weird obtuse "act in this one scene or softlock forever" moments? Like, these weren't designed like arcade games that munch quarters... Why was this sort of thing so commonplace?

(With reference to this post here.)

Funnily enough, for tabletop RPGs there's actually a good answer.

If you're familiar with the popular history of tabletop roleplaying games, you've probably heard the idea that they developed out of fantasy wargaming. That's not actually terribly accurate; tabletop RPGs and fantasy wargames are more like two parallel branches that split off from the recreating-historical-battles kind of wargaming at about the same time, and for the first couple of decades there wasn't a bright line drawn between them like there is today. Many are genuinely hard to classify by contemporary standards – there are a lot of early fantasy wargames that look more like modern tabletop RPGs, and vice versa.

One of the consequences of that lack of sharp distinctions between tabletop RPGs and fantasy wargames is that early tabletop RPGs were often played in a sort of "competitive co-op" format at wargaming tournaments. Multiple groups would run their parties through the same adventure in parallel, and be ranked on their performance; sometimes this would involve scoring points for completing specific objectives, or speedrunning the adventure and aiming for the fastest time, but the most popular tournament format was the survival module: adventures which were deliberately designed to be unreasonably difficult, with whichever group's last surviving character's corpse hit the ground furthest from the dungeon entrance being judged the winner.

The upshot of that popularity is that many published adventures early on – and certainly the greater part of the more infamous ones! – were originally written as survival modules, created to be run competitively at a particular tournament, and later repackaged and sold as commercial products. Of course, practically none of them actually explained that; like nearly all tabletop RPG material of their day, they were written under the assumption that all tabletop roleplayers had come up through organised play at university gaming clubs, and thus already had all the context I've just outlined. This ended up causing no end of confusion when the hobby's mainstream visibility exploded in the early 1980s, and suddenly there were folks who'd picked up the rulebooks at their local bookstores trying to teach themselves how to play from first principles with no prior contact with gaming club culture.

As for why adventure games were also like that... well, this is going to sound bizarre by contemporary standards, and I don't blame you if you don't believe me, but once upon a time, point-and-click adventure games were considered the gold standard for Serious Gaming. Unforgiving routing, bizarre moon-logic puzzles, and a bewildering variety of unique ways to get yourself killed off were held up as the mark of the serious gamer in much the same way that janky soulslike combat systems are today, and a large chunk of the genre was made to cater to that ethos. Gamer culture is a hell of a drug!

(If you're about to ask the obvious follow-up question, "what changed?", the point-and-click adventure game's fall from grace and subsequent dismissal as casual fluff tracks more or less directly with a large demographic shift in the late 1990s that saw the genre's player base skewing predominantly female – and, well, you can probably connect the dots from there.)

[letters-to-lgbt-kids]

(TW: Religion)

My dear lgbt+ kids, 

When we think about reconciling Christianity and our identity, then we are often automatically jumping to „re-interpreting Bible verses that are used to justify homophobia/transphobia“ or to „looking for Bible verses that can be interpreted in a lgbt-supportive way“. 

Both of that is valid and definitely has its place. And if you are someone who (or trying to discuss with someone who) believes everything in the Bible is true and to be taken literal, then looking for the most accurate interpretation of each passage is also pretty much the only thing you can do.

In that case, take comfort in knowing that there is often historical, cultural etc. context missing from conservative interpretations and learning about that context lets us see seemingly hateful verses in a much more inclusive light! 

That Bible verse that seems to be against gay sex may very well be against rape, that Bible verse that seems to be against trans people dressing the way they want to may very well be condemning old rituals that have nothing to do with modern life. I don’t think looking for these alternative (or maybe *better*) explanations is heathenish at all. God wants you to think critically, that’s why he gave you the ability to. If he gave you a book to live your life according to, then it stands to reason that he’d want you to find the most accurate meaning of his words, and that means looking past the most superficial interpretation.

But if you are (or the person you’re talking to is) open to the idea that maybe the Bible isn’t meant to be taken literal in its entirety - then it can feel tedious to dissect singular verses. 

In that case, you probably don’t feel the need to dissect other parts either and you just disregard them. For example you look at certain verses containing rules on hygiene or health, and you disregard them because you figure those were written in, and for, wildly different times and they just do not apply to modern life anymore, and you believe that one can be a good Christian while also disregarding those specific verses. 

If that’s you, then an approach that might fit you better would be to look at the bigger picture instead. Treat the Bible like you would any self-help book - look at the overall messages but don’t assume that every single line is applicable to your life or even holds meaning. 

This may seem counterintuitive or even like a “bad” thing to do, especially if you grew up in a taking-the-Bible-literal household, so I’ll give you some potential questions that may help you get into the mindset: 

Which messages are repeated often throughout the Bible? Which messages are repeated in most big religions you know? Which messages would come to your mind first if you were to teach a child about God? Which values or attributes describe God best? 

For me, and for many people, the biggest ones would be “God loves you unconditionally” and “God wants you to love others”. Another important one might be “God created you, and everyone else, because he wanted you to exist”. 

When you identified some big picture core messages, and are open to the idea that the Bible may not be meant to be taken literal in its entirety (for example because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit but written by humans and humans can make mistakes or add their own personal agenda, or also simply because it’s so old and over time some of its original teachings got mistranslated or lost), then you may be able to look at these seemingly hateful verses with new eyes - not seeking to find a more accurate explanation, but rather being able to compare them to those core messages and being able to say “this fits in with the core message” or “this doesn’t fit in with the core message”. 

With all my love, 

Your Tumblr Dad 

[tinydefector]

If you're still taking requests, I would love to hear any and all headcanons for Minimus with his human please? Sfw, nsfw whatever you wanna write. I love him so much, and there's not enough about him.

Minimus HC's SFW and NSFW

I'm still sick AF but did some of this. I probably won't be working on fics yet, but I decided to work on this over the past two days. Had alot of fun doing this so I hope you like it!.

________

SFW

-Minimus is an extremely gentle and careful lover. As Magnus he's so large that he would worry constantly about accidentally hurting his smaller partner. Lots of delicate handling and making sure not to apply too much pressure in any way when interacting with them.

- Protective to a fault. If anyone so much as tries to hurt his lover most times it's Rodimus with his silly stunts and he gets the full Magnus glare. But he's also conscious of seeming intimidating and tries to moderate it for his lover's sake, and tries not to show how much he worries. 

- Self-conscious about his true size, but finds it much nicer with a human lover outside of the Magnus armour, he's able to hold his lover's hands, walk about the same pace as them and actually cuddle them properly. 

 - Excellent communicator. Wants to make sure his partner is fully comfortable, cared for. Checks in frequently about plans to make sure everything is alright and tries to make sure his lover gives input so they can make it a decent outing.  

- Loves human affections like kissing. Finding the tender gestures sweet and rewarding in a way that is just so different from Helm holds.

- Cuddling. As Ultra Magnus his size makes intimacy tricky, but Minimus would love nothing more than curling up in a quiet corner with his lover in his lap, holding them gently as they read or chat. Very cuddly when in private. Loves holding his partner close against his plating. He adores how warm their skin is compared to his servo. 

- Loves learning about human culture. He finds Earth fascinating and enjoys it when his lover teaches him new things about music, movies, history, popular culture etc. He's always asking questions.

- adores physical affection. As a minibot he doesn't get many opportunities for hugs and cuddles. He loves holding his lover close and pressing his faceplate against theirs, kisses, or having them sit in his lap while he nuzzles them. 

-a small collection of pet names he has for his lover: 

"My shining solace"

" pesky pest" 

"My scraplet"

"My spark" 

"My shining star"

"Dear spark"

"Core of my world" 

"Light of my world" 

"Beloved" 

His favourite date ideas depending on if you're on cybertron, Earth, or the Lost light:

- A trip to the civic archives or museum, where he could provide fascinating historical context as they learn about their city/planet's cultural heritage, this one works for both cybertron and Earth, it gives him the chance to share his history with his lover and to also learn the history of earth. Not the most flashy date but it is a very educational One. 

- Stargazing at a remote locale away from light pollution or from the Observation deck of the ship. where he could point out constellations and share astronomical knowledge. It turns into making shapes from the stars. 

- Cooking/baking class, allowing him to be creative while learning new skills, but so he can make human foods for his lover. He wants to be able to make beautiful meals, desserts even if he himself can't eat human foods. 

- A romantic picnic in the botanical/ Crystal gardens, where they can both just lay there and admire the plant life, pointing out plants they like.  

-but most of all he loves quiet nights with you in his quarters just enjoying each other's company, from watching holos, working or just laying beside each other.   

NSFW: 

KINKS & FETISHES

Kink Soft Fabrics: 

bondage : he loves being able to tie you up with ribbons or silk, he's not much for rope or anything that could hurt you but he loves wrapping you up in fine fabrics, watching the way it pulls your skin, but most of all his favourite part is unwrapping it, pulling you closer as he kisses you. 

Blindfolks: blinds folds also fit into the soft fabric Kink he has, he loves watching your face even with your eyes out of the picture. Watching the way you shutter and whine as he lightly brushes his digits across your skin, or the way he sinks into you before leaning into your ear. He loves the idea of having trust in him.  

Underwear: he loves, Loves seeing you in different sets of Underwear, it doesn't matter if they are frilly, lace little things or even boxers, this mech loves the way they morph to your skin, he loves running his servos over the soft fabric lightly pulling it and letting it snapback, enjoying the way you yelp or Squeal before you try to playfully slap him. 

Uniforms: we all know this Mech has a thing for uniforms and the moment he gets you in your uniform he's admiring. Gently touching and praising the way it fits your form, he also loves slowly undressing you, taking his time to drink in every little detail ask your lain bare Before his optics. 

Body kinks and fetishes: 

Breath play: there is something so fascinating to him about humans breathing, he loves watching the vapour clouds. While holding you close, watching each shaky breath you take as he thrust into you, loving the way it turns to moisture on his plating. But he also loves just laying beside you, admiring the way your body moves with each deep breath you take while you sleep. 

Hair fetish: this Mech has a thing for anything alien when it comes to his lover and Hair is one of them, he loves the way it feels in his servos, loves how it looks just normally, he tries not to pull it out of fear of it getting caught in the joins Of his digits. But he also adores how it looks spread out as a hallo When you're under him. 

Hand fetish: he has a thing for Your hands, loves the way they trace across his plating, they are so soft and warm and he loves just pressing his face into the palm of your hand, kissing your wrist and pinning them above your head as your legs are wrapped around his hips and he takes you.  

Others:

Interrogation Play: it's not one he partakes in a lot but he will if you are the one to bring it up first, it becomes very much a game of who's willing to break first, but other times it turns into desk sex where at the end of it he's kissing every inch of skin he can.  

Mirror play: mirrors just bring such a beautiful touch to interfacing for Minimus,  he loves being able to make you watch how your body reacts to him, he himself loves being able to stare into the mirror and watch the way your eyes never leave his, he loves pairing mirror play with ribbon/ bondage. 

Xenophilia: this mech despite how much he would try to deny it is very much a Xenophile due to humans and a few other humanoid species, but you took the cake by making him fall head over pede for you. The amount of study and work he put into trying to figure out if he could court you, interface. He spends a lot of time and he doesn't think he'd ever want a Cybertronian lover after you. 

_________

Let me know if you would like to be added to tag list (tagged for every fic)

Taglist

@angelxcvxc

@saturnhas82moons

@kgonbeiden

@murkyponds

@autobot79

@buddee

@bubblyjoonjoon

@chaihena

@pyreemo

@lovenotcomputed

@mskenway97

@delectableworm

@cheesecaketyrant

@ladyofnegativity

@desertrosesmetaldune

@stellasfallow

@coffee-or-hot-cocoa

@shinseiokami

@tea-loving-frog

@aquaioart

@daniel-meyer-03

@pupap123

@dannyaleksis

@averysillylittlefellow

[propheticeve]

Hoodoo is CLOSED to non black AMERICANS

Hoodoo is distinct in that it involves working with specific ancestral spirits and deities, many of whom remain unfamiliar to the broader spiritual community. This sacred connection extends beyond mere knowledge; it is an intimate relationship with spirits deeply ingrained in the Hoodoo pantheon. These spiritual entities are closely tied to the experiences of Black Americans, and understanding them requires a profound awareness of one's lineage.

:

Hoodoo is considered a closed practice, meaning that access to its teachings is earned through guidance and mentorship. True practitioners are taught; they don't self-proclaim. Unfortunately, there is a concerning trend of non-Black individuals claiming to practice Hoodoo without a genuine understanding of its essence. Many cannot name a single spirit from the Hoodoo pantheon, exposing a significant gap in their knowledge.

It's crucial to distinguish Hoodoo from general folk magick practices. Hoodoo demands practitioners to delve into their lineage, understand their history, and grow in spiritual wisdom. The conflation of Hoodoo with generic folk magick demonstrates a lack of comprehension about the unique cultural and historical underpinnings that define Hoodoo. Hoodoo requires knowledge of the American slave trade and its affects on black Americans

Ancestral spirits within Hoodoo are discerning entities, recognizing color and lineage. Contrary to the notion that spirits lack prejudice, Hoodoo practitioners assert that ancestral spirits work closely with their descendants. Given the historical context of slavery and oppression, it becomes inconceivable for these spirits to collaborate with those from the very lineage responsible for their suffering.

:

Unlike some other African Traditional Religions (ATRs), Hoodoo has resisted commercialization and exploitation. Its practitioners emphasize the sanctity of their belief system, urging others to respect and protect it. The appropriation of Hoodoo by those outside its cultural lineage is viewed as a disservice to its profound spiritual significance.

:

Hoodoo is not merely a set of rituals; it is a sacred tapestry woven with the threads of Black American history, spirituality, and resilience. The claim that anyone, irrespective of background, can practice Hoodoo disregards its closed nature and the imperative to honor its cultural specificity. It is time to acknowledge and respect the boundaries of Hoodoo, safeguarding its authenticity and the spiritual legacy it represents.

[verysium]

『02』 原神: genshin impact recs

魈: xiao

preta by @itoshisoup

"People think that ghosts are born exclusively of resentment, but they can also be born of love. Between those driven by resentment and those driven by love, which do you think cling most strongly to their suffering?" Xiao replies without pause, his gaze unfocused yet fixed upon something you cannot see. "Love." After a yaksha saves your life on the Plains of Guili, you insist on joining him in his war against the evils of Liyue. As the two of you encounter hungry ghosts and resentful spirits, you learn about the ones haunting him. notes: incomplete but intricately woven together; heavy emphasis on chinese culture, wuxia/xianxia genres; if you have watched any historical cdrama, you will like this fic; xingqiu and chongyun are wrapped up into the dynamic; xiao wishes to protect you for centuries; him and his paradoxes; not being strong enough to be considered invincible but still strong enough to try

公子: childe

thin ice by @falconcoast

childe is that senior frat boy on teyvat university’s campus. the one who majors in economics because he’s on scholarship to play sports. the one who is way too loud and you can hear him all the way across campus. the one who’s daddy’s money rich because he’s already sponsored, even while just in the ncaa. the one who manages to get everyone to swoon over him.  oh, right. and your favorite title for him: the one hockey captain who hogs all of your free time to skate after lessons because he always steals it.  all you want to do is do your job and teach skating lessons to the kids to keep your mind off the year-old mess with your figure skating, maybe even get an hour of skating in afterwards as a reward. that is, until the hockey coach sits you down and tells you that surprise! you’re the new team manager for liyue’s hockey team! ...it can’t be that hard to manage twenty or so boys and their captain, childe, right? spoilers: it absolutely is.  notes: wonderfully curated modern skating/hockey AU; childe is so american white boy in this; teucer being adorable; diluc and kaeya sibling dynamic is well-established; university and post-grad plans; figuring out your life and then working other people into it

国崩: scaramouche

tea screen by @after-witch

The trembling voice of the tea apprentice carries through the room, and though you can’t see him, you imagine he must be shaking. Who wouldn’t be, tasked with gaining the approval from the Sixth of the Eleven Fatui Harbringers?  notes: forced marriage and abuse; tea ceremony; sort of reminds me of the edo period; examination of womanhood within a patriarchal society; sexy, sad, and scary all at once; i pity the reader at the end; cycle of love and violence

a simple cup of tea by @after-witch

You have to be prepared and poised and perfect. But it’s hard to be all those things, even with the looming threat of your husband sitting next to you, when you’ve got a secret hidden underneath your clothes... notes: reader grapples with lust and objectification; unhealthy dynamic but portrayed realistically in an almost historical setting; reader is unable to separate her identity as wife apart from her husband; women being defined in the context of men; could be a social satire on traditional gender roles if you squint

love is a dog from hell by @itoshisoup

"A will is something you don't have. That's why you'll follow mine." notes: this fic is the reason why i do not think the concept of ownership in love would translate well into real life because it would be so self-destructive; reader struggles with aftermath of abuse and mistakes possession for protection; realistic depiction of unhealthy relationships; the fatui is exactly the dark criminal organization it is supposed to be; human trafficking and child sexual abuse; scaramouche is so goddamn funny i can't

钟离: zhongli

spoil of war by @bye-bye-sunbird

In the dead of night, you hear the sea calling your name. Sometimes the sound is as soft as a love song, gracing your skin in a gentle breeze that lures you to the seashore where the waves can finally lay claim on you. Other times, the sea strikes the land in a deafening, challenging roar. "Really now... How long do you think those mountains of his will stand in my way?" notes: accurate depiction of characters because archon war morax was genuinely terrifying; zhongli trying to deny his obsessive tendencies; rivalry with osial; reader is essentially sanctified as a symbol of innocent purity; imagine having two spiritual gods pine after you while you are helplessly stuck in the middle of their tug-of-war and simultaneously trying to mourn; that is basically the entire premise of this fic

迪卢克: diluc ragnvindr

the parent trap by @falconcoast

twelve years ago, you got married to a man who had swept you off your feet in a little under two years. diluc was like a prince out a of storybook; effortlessly charming, strikingly handsome, and a kind man. you were supposed to live happily ever after at that winery, running a wedding planning empire, having a family, and growing old together.  until it all goes off script with a divorce. flash forward, and the only remnant of diluc that is with you is your daughter, dawn. the only piece of you that remains with diluc is your other daughter and dawn’s twin sister, phoenix.  it isn’t until both of your children get you and your ex-husband in a bit of mess that you realize that maybe, just maybe, you still harbor feelings for diluc.  or maybe it’s the wine talking. notes: one of my favorite comfort fics; i am a sucker for second-chance romance; diluc and reader now older but still being the same bumbling idiots they were when young; at this point the children have more situational awareness than them; based on the original movie; treat yourself to a cup of tea and a friday night with this work and trust me life will be good

博士: il dottore

deus in absentia by @bound-in-parchment

The first time was a coincidence. The second time was a fluke. But the third time? You were starting to think it was fate. Or, more likely, a calculated trap. notes: at this point we can just scrap whatever mihoyo puts out and use this work as canon instead; the world building is so originally creative; this author must possess such a giant sexy brain; reader is basically adopted by dottore and forced to be his apprentice/assistant; idea of losing yourself to your own ambitions; slow-burn to the max; reader is oblivious to full extent of feelings until it is too late; tragic to the point i need a time machine to resurrect them

dream a little of me by @bound-in-parchment

Celestia had a cruel sense of humor. He knew this, even before his days as a student. But to be given a soulmate? Now, when he openly blasphemed against the cursed island in the sky? He would outlive you and the dreadful fated bond that haunted your shared dreams. There was little point in this. He could at least put a Vision to good use. People were nothing but disappointments. He had no use for you. Until you pulled the bow across your instrument and awoke a part of him long buried by self-hatred and arrogance. notes: soulmate trope but with the two most aromantic fools to ever exist; zandik drowns himself in the river of denial; comic dynamic between segments; music and failed dreams; reader actually has a backstory dark enough to match dottore's character; does not shy away from the uncomfortable and gritty aspects of trauma, abuse, and literal mental insanity

chemistry / magnum opus by @jessamine-rose

In the realm of science, love and insanity are closely intertwined mysteries. Disillusioned with the world, you had long forgotten its beauty until the wise doctor gives you a change of perspective. notes: by far the most accurate characterization of akademiya zandik; he hates you then hates himself then hates the world for allowing your paths to cross; treats you as an objective experiment but then wonders why he's suddenly humanizing you; slow-burn; zandik is selfish and machiavellian and somehow you fit into that equation

the only hope i had was the freedom of death by your hands that held me together by @tiens-letters

It was a burden. The weight of the power you hold in all the land. Any human who has enough ambition would dare to covet it and any god even given divine powers would lust after it. You were powerful, able to end civilizations and make a new world altogether. Many would think that you are a sovereign being but you too are limited to mortality than what most would believe. You were human with a blessing of a god and you felt cursed and dirty. notes: honestly the ending made me so mad but take it as a good sign; basically entails the circumstances that would drive dottore to become somewhat capable of love; what is done cannot be undone; zandik finally meeting someone who is wiser and more depressed than him; deluding himself into thinking he could ever be domestically normal; somewhat idolizes/idealizes reader; themes of betrayal and misunderstanding

富者: pantalone

house cat / alea iacta est by @jessamine-rose

Your entire life has been a gilded cage. The gods refuse to grant your greatest wish, and so you have resigned yourself to the will of destiny. But what happens when the red string of fate is severed and replaced with the silver chains of the Regrator? notes: liyue nobility; dishonest business and financial deals; reader is a cat hybrid but i didn't notice until part two because the plot was so good; pantalone is the mastermind behind all his interactions with reader; heavy manipulation and orchestrations; wolf in sheep's clothing; alternate ending found here

隊長: il capitano

herbarium / fairytale / forget-me-not / astilbe by @jessamine-rose

You had long given up on wishes and happy endings. After what you believed to be the end of your tragic story, you resigned yourself to a shadow of a life with only your books and flowers to keep you company…until the vestiges of Windblume brought forth a mysterious stranger and a new ending for your dark fairytale. notes: capitano being the strong stoic protector of a delicately fragile reader; manipulation is so subtle and that is what makes it alarming; somewhat stirred my daddy issues because he is so parental; reader struggles between accepting his love versus hating him for taking away her personal agency; flower motifs

[not-so-superheroine]

i led bible study at the psych institute i was in for the three months and i was blessed by the experience.

i was harassed for being "mormon" on an occassion by a few, but handled it well and kept the meeting on track. and being an open latter day saint kept some people away (i was informed by my 2nd roommate who was christian and a seminary student. she invited people to come at the sunday church service/stream bc she really enjoyed the bible study but was told by a client it was bc of the "mormon girl" leading it that they didn't go ). being an open lesbian probably played a role too.

but those whose hearts were open enough to come anyway said they appreciated the fellowship and support. we were usually a small group, but often quoted was Matthew 18:20 "For where there are two or three gathered in my name name, I am there among them."

often i was put in a position to teach by client request. bc many who came were new chrisitians or those who had attended church but never studied the Bible before, just listened to what their pastor said without studying the sacred text directly.

not what i expected to do but i did my best with the what i learned from my experience and my seminary classes and made sure to question after what their independent thoughts were on the scripture after reading it and after providing historical/cultural/societal context for the text.

i used the community of christ lessons/sermon helps to assist me. but made it more general so it would be more applicable to sola scriptura (bible only) christians or non latter day saints, reorganized or otherwise (no BoM or D&C).

i passed it on to my roommate to take it over. she is a kind, compassionate woman, so i hope more people come. she's well studied, devout, and also straight, nondenominational and sola scriptura so i hope more people are comfortable with her.

the conversations i had will stick with me for a long time. i learned a lot from other clients who came.

[saintmachina]

One million dollar question: is it true that the Bible condems homosexuality? I had a discussion with two conservatives who sent me some verses that seem to confirm that but i don't know much about the context although i know this is important too

Let’s start here: why is this the million dollar question? Why does it matter what the Bible has to say about sex, or love, or human relationships? At the end of the day, it’s just a book, right?

Oceans of ink (and blood) have been spilled over not only what the Bible says, but what it does, how it functions. The course of empires, nations, and families have been shaped by the contents of this book, and from a historical and cultural perspective, it holds a lot of weight. But you didn’t ask about the sociological, you asked about the theological, so let’s explore. 

Different Christian traditions vary in their approach to scripture. For example: some Protestant denominations believe that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and infallible. In this paradigm, God is the ultimate author of scripture working through human hands, and the resulting text is both without error and in no way deceptive or mistaken. Similarly, The Second Vatican Council decreed that “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” When a member of the clergy is ordained into the Episcopal Church they swear that they “do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation.”

Can you see how many of these points of doctrine overlap yet seek to distinguish themselves from one another? Theologians have spent lifetimes arguing over definitions, and even when they manage to settle on solid teachings, the way that the teaching is interpreted by the clergy and incorporated into the lives of the laity varies WIDELY. As much as systematic theology may try, humans aren’t systematic beings. We’re highly contextual: we only exist in relation to others, to history, to circumstance, and to the divine. We simply cannot call up God to confirm church teaching, and I think a lot of people cling excessively to the Bible as a result of the ache (dare I even say trauma) of being separated from God via space and time in the way we currently are.

God is here, but God is not here. God is within us, God is within the beloved, God is within the sea and sky and land, and yet we cannot grasp God to our bodies in the way we long to. In this earthly lifetime, we are forever enmeshed in God, yet forever distinct, and that is our great joy and our great tragedy.

So barring a direct spiritual experience or the actual second coming, we're left to sort through these things ourselves. And because humans are flawed, our interpretations will always be flawed. Even with the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives guiding us.

When engaging with any sort of Biblical debate, it is essential that you have a strong understanding of what the Bible means to you, an an embodied individual living a brief little awful and wonderful life on Earth. Otherwise it's easy to get pushed around by other people’s convincing-sounding arguments and sound bites.

Here’s where I show my hand. As a confirmed Episcopalian I believe that reason, tradition, and scripture form the “three-legged stool” upon which the church stands, interdependent and interrelational to each other, but I’ve also like, lived a life outside of books. I’ve met God in grimy alleyways and frigid ocean waters and in bed with my lovers. So my stool is actually four-legged, because I think it’s essential to incorporate one’s personal experience of God into the mix as well. (I did not invent this: it’s called the Wesleyan quadrilateral, but the official Wesleyan quadrilateral insists that scripture must trump all other legs of the table in the case of a conflict which...*cynical noises*)

Please do not interpret this answer as me doing a hand-wavey "it's all vibes, man, we're all equally right and equally wrong", but I do absolutely think we have a responsibility as creatures to weigh the suffering and/or flourishing of our fellow creatures against teachings handed down through oral tradition, schisms, imperial takeover of faith, and translation and mistranslation. Do I believe the Bible is sacred, supernatural even, and that it contains all things necessary to find one's way to God, if that is the way God chooses to manifest to an individual in a given lifetime? Absolutely. Do I believe it is a priceless work of art and human achievement that captures ancient truths and the hopes of a people (as well as a record of their atrocities) through symbols, stories, and signs? Unto my death, I do.

However, I am wary of making an object of human creation, God-breathed though it may be, into an idol, and trapping God in its pages like God is some sort of exotic bug we can pin down with a sewing needle.

Finally, we have reached the homosexuality debate. One of my favorite sayings of Jesus is Matthew 5: 15-17: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit." In other words: look at what religious teachings have wrought in the world. When I look at homophobic interpretations of the Bible, I see destruction, abuse, suffering, neglect, alienation, spiritual decay, and death. When I look at theology that affirms the holiness of LGBTQ+ relationships, I see joy, laughter, community building, thoughtful care, blooming families, creativity, resilience, and compassion. I see the love of Christ at work in the world. I see the hands of a God who chose under no duress to take up residence in a human body, to drink wine with tax collectors and break bread with sex workers and carry urchin children around on his shoulders. That's my limited little pet interpretation, but hey, that's all any of us really have, at the end of the day.

So, I am absolutely happy to do a play-by-play breakdown of why those passages you were given (we queer Christians often call them "clobber passages" or "texts of terror") don't hold water in a theological, historical, and cultural context. We can talk about Jesus blessing the eunuch and the institution of Greek pederasty and Levitical purity laws and Paul because I've done that reading. I've spent my nights crying in self-hatred and leafing through doctrine books and arguing with my pastors and writing long grad school essays on the subjects. Send me the verses, if you can remember them, and I'll take a look. But it's worth noting that out of the entire Bible, I believe there are only six that explicitly condemn homosexuality AND I'm being generous and including Sodom and Gommorah here, which is a willful and ignorant misreading if I've ever seen one.

In the meantime, I recommend books by people smarter than me! Try Outside The Lines: How Embracing Queerness Will Transform Your Faith by Mihee Kim-Kort, or Does Jesus Really Love Me by Jeff Chu, or Transforming: The Bible and the Lives of Transgender Christians by Austen Hartke!

And take a breath, dear one. Breathe in God, in the droplets of water in the air and in the wind from the south. Breathe in the gift of life, and know that you are loved, now and unto the end of the age and even beyond then.

[the-devils-library]

A Brief History of Satanism

I see quite a bit of misinformation circulated about Satanism's historical origins, both online and in the pages of books, so I thought it may be worthwhile to give a breakdown of the truth as my research has shown it to me. I have no official credentials as a historian, but I'm a theistic Satanist who takes my religion and my research very seriously. I encourage all to read my words and respond with corrections if they notice a mistake in my work; that being said, I will likely demand sources if someone's "correction" conflates with what my research has shown me.

First off, I'm going to disappoint many of my fellow theistic Satanists with this announcement: Satanism is not ancient. It's not older than Christianity, it's not even as old as Christianity, by a long shot. I suspect this need to insist that Satan and his followers are an ancient faith (or that they can somehow be found within other faiths, such as comparing Satan to Pan or Shiva) stems from Christianity. Christianity was once a very new religion in comparison to those that surrounded it, and in order to gain followers and create legitimacy for themselves, Christians had to insist that their religion was the only true one, that their god had been pulling the strings from the beginning, and that if you looked back in Jewish holy writings you'd find evidence of Jesus and his teachings. Let us Satanists not make the same mistake.

And secondly, to disappoint the atheists in the crowd: LaVey didn't invent Satanism. Yes he was very impactful on the Satanic scene, especially in the anglosphere, but he didn't invent the entire religion.

Alright, let's start at the beginning.

Satan, and the concept of worshiping him, began in the minds of Christians. That may seem like a let-down to some people, but it's the truth. Satan as a powerful lord of evil and enemy of God didn't exist before Christianity. The concept of the satan, or adversary, existed within Judaism, a famous example being the satan of Job, but this was a job for an angel working under God. For further understanding of the Jewish satan you'd have to look into Jewish writing on the topic, but if you want a basic historical explanation, Elaine Pagels' The Origin of Satan gives good context in simple terms. For now I'd just like to emphasize that Capital-S-Satan does not exist in Judaism. That's where the word came from, but it had a different meaning from what Christianity gave it.

When Christianity came along, of course, they began to use the word Satan to refer to the enemy of God, and thus anything they considered to be ungodly or against their beliefs was instead under the domain of Satan. Jews, Pagans, other Christians with differing beliefs or customs, anyone was fair game to be accused of being a Satanist.

This does not mean any of those people were actually worshiping Satan.

"Satanist" was not a real religious identity that anyone claimed, it was an insult and an accusation hurled by Christians at those they wanted to oppress, silence, and control. The Christian worldview did not allow for cultures and religions other than there own (or even variation within their own). If someone wasn't a follower of God, then they were a follower of the Devil, end of discussion.

It is very dangerous, therefore, to assume that any of these people accused of Satanism in the far past would actually have self-identified as Satanists. In my mind it is comparable to thinking the "witches" of the Salem witch trials would've self-identified as such (they did not, they "admitted" to witchcraft under torture. I hope I don't have to explain why that isn't a reliable thing to cite when trying to parse whether someone was a witch or not). By claiming that any group persecuted by Christians in the far past were secretly Satanic, we are not only stripping those people of their actual identities and cultures, we are agreeing with the Christians who harmed them.

To my knowledge we don't see anyone actually viewing Satan in a positive or sympathetic light until the emergence of Romantic Satanism in the late 1700s through the 1800s, with writings by poets like Percy Shelley and of course John Milton. Romantic Satanism, it should be emphasized, was not a religious movement, but an artistic one. Different writers of the era had varied religious identities, from Christian to the beginnings of Atheism, but while they were writing about Satan with more nuance and personality than he'd ever been given before, they were not worshiping him or intending to write holy texts.

It isn't until the 1900s that we begin to see inklings of truly religious Satanism, and not always by that name exactly. Aleister Crowley, founder of Thelema, had some Satanic flavor to his persona (calling himself the Beast 666), despite saying he did not consider himself a Satanist nor worshiped Satan. Crowley's contemporary, Maria de Naglowska, founded a sex-based magical society and religion called The Brotherhood of Eulis, which centered on Satan as the embodiment of Reason, and the story of Adam and Eve as the original magical act of a woman granting magical knowledge to her lover through sex. The Neo-pagan religion Adonism was founded by Franz Sättler, who equated Adonis with Satan in a positive way. There are more to name but this post is already lengthy.

These movements were scattered, some were not well-documented, and many happened in Europe and the original texts were never translated to English. I believe this is part of the reason why Americans and others in the anglosphere may only know of LaVey as Satanism's modern father, because of course, in the 1960s, we got the Church of Satan, and their accompanying Bible. Again, this is a lengthy subject I'm sure I'll make more posts on later, but LaVeyan Satanism is, to my knowledge, the origin of the atheistic Satanism movement, the worldview that deities aren't real (though magic may be, depending on how closely we're sticking with LaVey's worldview) and Satan is a figurehead used to symbolize self-worship. Though they share very few philosophical values, it is due to this version of atheistic Satanism that The Satanic Temple exists today, practicing their own version of Satanism, also without literal deities. It is also due to the CoS that the Temple of Set came to be, as it was originally formed by LaVeyan Satanists who wanted something more theist.

With the creation of the internet we have seen many Satanist authors and some scattered churches, covens, and groups arise; Marie RavenSoul (edit: RavenSoul no longer considers herself Satanic, and has converted to Christianity), Aleister Nacht and Magnum Opus, Rev. Cain, Brother Nero, and others. Some of these groups and authors inspired one another, others seem to have sprung up on their own. Others, I'm sure, have been lost to time, and that saddens me as a scholar of Satan and his followers. But that is part of my mission with this blog, is to track down and keep record of every Satanic resource I can find, no matter how obscure.

Follow The Devil's Library here on Tumblr for more posts like this, as well as book reviews in the future. Ave Satanas to my fellow followers of Satan, and to all others, I bid you good day.

[DISCLAIMER: The Devil's Library is not affiliated with any of the previously mentioned groups or authors. It is an independent project by a single Satanist. Do not mistake my mentioning of an author or group as endorsement for their beliefs and practices.]

[historicity-was-already-taken]

I want to echo all the nice things people have said about your work, and add one more: I appreciate that your blog offers space to mourn the Holocaust. Not the Holocaust as a metaphor, not the Holocaust as a rhetorical invocation, but the Holocaust in and of itself. It provides a sobering kind of relief. When I was a kid learning about the Holocaust, my classes always showed me Life is Beautiful and The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas (UGH) and one teacher insisted that she wanted me to understand "how the Jews kicked Hitler's ass!" Which... no. On so many levels. So I admire how your work holds the dialectical truths of mass tragedy and brave resistance. Your scholarship matters, your mental health matters, and I can't wait to read your book next year!

This message is so lovely I was too verklempt to even answer it last night. Thank you, so much, for taking the time to write and send this.

And yes I totally get what you mean. It's not some, as you put it, rhetorical invocation populated by faceless martyrs, but the very real murders of millions of real, flawed, living, breathing humans. I think the rhetorical version, with its ideologies and hagiographies, is easier to swallow.

I hate most Holocaust movies. At least, American ones. They just want so badly for there to be a happy ending and...the Holocaust doesn't have one. [Unnamed legendary Jewish director] optioned the rights to [book similar in scope to mine which came out in the last 4 years] and I'm not even upset, because I don't enjoy that director's gentile-focused quasi-uplifting attempts to depict said events. Hitler said he was going to destroy the majority of European Jewry, and he did. In the space of 12 years he destroyed civilizations, cultures, and languages spanning 1000+ years; more, if you hold him responsible for the ethnic cleansing of MENA Jewish communities post-1948. Nothing uplifting there.

That's why I think I like weird, post-modern, magical realist approaches to Holocaust fiction [see: my boyfriend recently convinced me to watch Jojo Rabbit and Inglorious Basterds]. Telling any of these stories doesn't fit into Western narrative conventions. So make it weird; have the characters dance to David Bowie; make it a Western with subtitles; make the audience wonder if magic or just mundane in the specific context of the story. That's, imo, the only way to capture the sheer unreality of these very real events in fiction. I would LOVE a work of magical realist Holocaust fiction that involves the golem of Prague (if it exists omg tell me!) or something similar. Keeping in mind, of course, that I'm neither a film not a literary scholar. Just, as a historian who took one cultural criticism course in undergrad, those feels the most...right.

And oy your teacher. I feel for her; this is a difficult subject to teach. But...the Jews didn't kick Hitler's ass. That's the opposite of what happened. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is the most famous instance of organized Jewish resistance to the Holocaust, and those fighters only kicked ass until the Nazis (quickly) realized that they needed reinforcements and flamethrowers because oops these Jews came prepared. And even the fighters themselves knew that they weren't going to "win" anything. They were making a symbolic historical gesture/statement and fully expected to die. To the point that survivors almost uniformly express in their memoirs and testimonies that the ones who died fighting were the only real heroes and they rest of them are nbd, and this isn't something that should be talked about (which, is something that I'm trying to respect in my book! Like the fact that Zivia Lubetkin utterly rejected any attempt to describe her as a hero matters, even though that's how I personally view her).

Anyway I've rambled enough. Thank you again for the message!

[artist-issues]

Hi! I've seen you comment a bit here and there about Pocahontas. This movie has had this quite messy reputation attached to it since it came out and hasn't been able to escape from it since then. Personally, I've always liked Pocahontas, but I do acknowledge that it has its glaring issues, especially when it comes to the context of what actually went down and Pocahontas's true story. I'm interested in reading your thoughts on the movie and what Disney could have done better regarding the whole "diversity" and historical accuracy thing. I genuinely believe Disney had the best of intentions when it came to the themes, message and depiction of Native American culture, but the execution unfortunately did not seem the most appropriate at times. What do you think?

I don’t know. I don’t have a settled opinion on Pocahontas. I will say I really enjoy it, and I think maybe the aesthetics of the movie are what appeal to me the most because it’s the one I want to have on in the background most often.

When you say “what Disney could’ve done better regarding the whole ‘diversity’ and historical accuracy thing” and “did not seem the most appropriate at times,” I don’t know if I understand what you mean. I don’t know if I understand what anyone means when they say that.

There are almost zero cold hard facts about the historical Pocahontas that EXPERTS agree on. Almost zero. So when people say “oh no, it wasn’t historically accurate,” it’s like, “no, of course it’s not. It’s a fairy tale based on a historical person that we know very little about to begin with.” Seems like what they’re mainly mad about is that Historical John Smith’s version of Historical Pocahontas saving him is the framework for the animated film, and we all generally agree that his version was fake. And people are mad about that?

But…why? If it’s already supposed to be a fairy tale loosely inspired by a historical person we know very little about…I mean, nobody is furious with the Robin Hood stories and going “how dare you misrepresent Robin of Lockersley, 1160, and King Richard I!!” Because we all know that they’re stories loosely based on—anyway. You get my point. Why would you have beef about a fairy tale being based loosely? Moving on.

You can say “because now generations of kids are growing up thinking that’s the real story of Pocahontas!! What an outrage!”

…All right, well, then you’re doing a terrible job teaching your kids discernment as a parent. When kids I’m responsible for watch a movie, I tell them “it’s a movie. It’s not real.” If it’s a movie about historical events, I tell them, “If you want to know more about the real story, let’s learn about the real story.” It’s not on Disney to teach your kids that a fairy tale is a fairy tale, it’s on you.

Anyway, you get it. Moving on.

Thing is, the Pocahontas movie’s message is “Love tries to understand, not to possess.” Great message. Especially good when applied to the problem of prejudice.

So then, they just shift the events, the character motivations, and the depictions around as needed, like they would any fairy tale in order to send that message in the best way. And because it is a fairy tale, not a documentary, great. Do it.

If Historical John Smith’s fake story makes that message more compelling, great. Use pieces of it. Why not? After all, they never claimed that this was the true, accurate history of colonization, the Anglo-Powhatan war, or John Smith’s interactions with Pocahontas. If they had made that claim, sure, let’s talk about historical accuracy. But they didn’t, so let’s not.

That’s all I had to say about the “historical inaccuracies” thing. Now let’s talk about “representation.”

What is it that people have an issue with here? Did they really want Disney to animate hundreds of Powhatan’s people dying of disease? Did they want Disney to animate heads getting chopped off and women getting raped? What’s the argument? That Disney should’ve made the colonists the clear and undeniable villains, the monsters of history, and the Native Americans 100% pure and innocent, wronged victims?

They’re not mad that Disney did a bad job representing Native Americans in a movie that was supposed to be a fairy tale. They’re mad that Disney didn’t represent Native Americans the way they would’ve.

Far as my eyes can see, people who call Pocahontas racist or misrepresentative just don’t want the story to be “Love tries to understand, not to possess.” They want the story to be “White colonists were unredeemable racist monsters and sub-human tyrants who deserved to rot in hell, while the Native American people were entirely innocent victims who did nothing wrong.’

The problem is that’s just not a true, or even helpful message for any movie to have. Sorry. The statement I just typed out up there in bold is not a true or helpful statement. And thank God the Pocahontas movie didn’t make it.

There’s nothing racist being said in the Pocahontas movie. There are depictions of the sin of racism in the Pocahontas movie. There is a difference. Characters in the Pocahontas movie talk and sing about each other as if the other people group is sub-human. That is a depiction of racism. But the message of the movie, and the way it treats Native Americans, is to treat them like human beings. Therefore, the message is not racist.

In terms of who is good and who is bad, who is right and who is wrong, the movie very clearly shows that the Native American characters did not start the violence. The Native American characters did not want war. The Native American characters were willing to be friendly and willing to defend their land and each other. The Native American characters were the first to try and make peace with the colonist characters. And they were all (Kocoum included) entirely human characters. They were even the good-guy-coded characters, in the movie’s conflict. All of the Native American side characters are noticeably smarter, kinder, drawn more carefully, and are more heroic than the white characters. (When Thomas is thrown overboard the other white side characters leave him behind. In contrast, when Namonteck is shot the other Native American side characters rescue him immediately and fall back.) And, not a caricature among them. Meanwhile, Wiggins, Ben, and Lion are all drawn with exaggerated characteristics. The heroine is Pocahontas the Character, not John Smith the Character. So what is the issue you have?

What people think is racist is the “idealization” of a Native American woman falling in love—or, as they like to say now—“committing herself to a white colonist.” But that’s like…a gross oversimplification of the movie. John Smith (the character) committed himself right back to her, nobody wants to talk about that? Also, they low key didn’t commit themselves to each other at all costs—he tries to, at the end of the movie, stay with her or have her come with him, and she won’t leave her home and her people?? So what’s the argument?

Not to mention, why is anyone even upset that the character Pocahontas falls in love with a white colonist character? Are you saying that this sort of thing would never happen? That a young woman who’s people are embattled with and mistreated by invaders would never find one invader who comes to an understanding with her, and then they fall in love? You’re mad because that would never happen? Incorrect. It happened all the time in history. It happens all the time in other stories you love, like West Side Story.

Who the heck cares if it didn’t happen exactly that way (even though maybe it did) with the historical Pocahontas? We already established that this wasn’t supposed to be a historically accurate retelling, it was supposed to be a loosely-based fairy tale. And the message “Love tries to understand, not to possess,” works perfectly with a fairy tale where the girl from one side of a racially-charged hate war understands and falls in love with a guy from the other side.

I mean people who talk about Pocahontas, the historical figure, with reverence and respect, all usually agree on one thing: she did help maintain some kind of peace between colonists and Native Americans. Whether or not you think the colonists should’ve even been there in the first place is beside the point—sorry, but it is; they were there, now let’s deal with the reality.

So when Disney makes a movie where the goal is to tell the message “Love tries to understand, not to possess,” and they have to be true to the universally-agreed-upon “Pocahontas probably helped bring some peace…” in their fairy tale…why on earth do you have a problem with Pocahontas the Character falling in love as a reason for bringing about that peace?

It’s because you don’t find “falling in love” to be anything other than demeaning for a woman. And it’s because you don’t want John Smith, or any white colonist character, to be depicted as human. You want them all to be unredeemable racist monsters.

The goal is no longer to have movies that say what Pocahontas said. We don’t want movies where there’s messy racism, but then it ends with attempts at peace and understanding. We want movies where there’s entirely one-sided racism, and then revenge for that racism. That’s what we want. We want endless apologies and zero forgiveness.

And for better or worse, Pocahontas is not a movie about endless apologies and zero forgiveness.

IN CONCLUSION: 1. None of the “you” statements were directed at you, idiosyncraticrednebula. 🫡

2. Anyone who wants to teach me where I’m wrong is welcome to, but you have to show your work, and you have to be consistent, you can’t just say “lol imagine thinking Pocahontas isn’t racist. You are the problem.” and then block me. 🙄 all right, well, you can, but all you’ll get out of it is an echo chamber.

3. If you want me to talk about the art, the storytelling, the quality of the movie outside of all this (and it should be outside of all this, because this was a fairy tale, not a historically accurate documentary) it’ll have to be in a different ask, and I’m happy to.

4. Should Disney have made it more clear that this was a fairy tale, a stylized story based only loosely on historical events? …Yeah. Definitely should’ve done a Prince of Egypt-style title card or something. But they didn’t—so now show me why it’s racist or misrepresentative.

[gem-femmes]

How to Understand an Artwork: A Brief Guide

I've recently read a book by a French author that promised to teach the reader how to understand a painting.

Art is my special interest. I keep up with contemporary art, attend art fairs etc. I've been to major and minor museums, galleries and churches in Europe and the US. But I feel that there's always room for improvement when it comes to understanding art.

The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living (1991) by Damien Hirst

I went through this heavy tome full of the author's own convoluted interpretations of artworks. The book taught me nothing about how to interpret and understand a painting on my own. But it did inspire me to create my own guidelines for reading works of art.

🦋 Why Bother Understanding Art?

Artworks are rich in meaning, symbolism, and emotion. Learning how to read them can enhance your appreciation and understanding of art and, consequently, life. This includes your own life.

The Embarkation for Cythera (1717) by Jean-Antoine Watteau

I find art an incredible place to seek answers to life's questions. I'll show you how you can do this too.

Additionally, this guide contains some of my favorite artworks, old and contemporary.

🦋 1. Observe the Artwork Closely

First Impression: Start by taking in the artwork as a whole. What is your immediate emotional response? What catches your eye first?

Details: Examine the piece in detail. Notice the colors, lines, shapes, textures, and composition. Pay attention to the focal point - where your eye is naturally drawn.

🦋 2. Identify the Subject Matter

Figurative vs. Abstract: Determine if the artwork is representational (depicting recognizable objects or scenes) or abstract (focusing on shapes, colors, and forms without representing something specific).

Iconography: Look for symbols, figures, or objects that might carry specific meanings. For example, a skull might symbolize mortality, while a dove often represents peace.

Lake George (1922–1922) by Georgia O'Keeffe

🦋 3. Consider the Composition

Balance and Symmetry: Notice if the composition is balanced or symmetrical. How do these elements affect the mood or message of the artwork?

Perspective and Space: Observe the use of space. Is there a clear foreground, middle ground, and background? Does the perspective create a sense of depth or flatness?

🦋 4. Analyze the Use of Color

Color Palette: Identify the dominant colors. Are they warm or cool, bright or muted?

Color Symbolism: Consider the emotional or symbolic meanings of colors. For instance, red can signify passion or danger, while blue might evoke calmness or melancholy.

🦋 5. Explore the Technique and Medium

Brushstrokes and Texture: Look at how the artist applied the paint or medium. Are the brushstrokes smooth or rough? What effect does the texture have on the artwork’s feel?

Medium: Consider the medium used: oil, watercolor, pencil, sculpture, etc. How does the medium influence the artwork’s appearance and impact?

🦋 6. Contextualize the Artwork

Artist's Background: Research the artist’s life, style, and the historical period in which the artwork was created. Understanding the artist’s intent and the era can provide valuable insights.

Cultural and Historical Context: Consider the cultural, social, or political context of the time. How might these factors have influenced the artwork?

The Parakeet and the Mermaid (1952) by Henri Matisse

🦋 7. Interpret the Meaning

Narrative: If the artwork tells a story, try to piece it together. What is happening in the scene? What might have happened before or after the moment depicted?

Themes and Messages: Reflect on the themes or messages the artwork conveys. Is it making a statement about society, human nature, or a personal experience?

🦋 8. Engage with Your Personal Response

Emotional Reaction: Pay attention to your emotional response. Art can evoke a range of feelings, from joy to discomfort. Your reaction is a key part of the interpretation.

Subjective Interpretation: Remember that interpretation can be personal. Your background, experiences, and emotions can influence how you read an artwork. There’s no single “correct” interpretation.

I Want My Time With You (2018) by Tracey Emin

🦋 9. Ask Questions

What does this artwork remind you of?

Why did the artist choose this subject or style?

How does this artwork make you feel, and why?

🦋 10. Discuss with Others

The most useful tip I have for you: Share your thoughts and interpretations with others. Discussing different perspectives can deepen your understanding and appreciation of the artwork.

Reading an artwork is both an intellectual and emotional exercise. It’s about connecting with the piece and the artist, finding meaning, and appreciating the craft.

The more you practice, the more fluent you’ll become in the language of art.

[fozmeadows]

on the outing of kit connor

can I just - 

the reason coming out is a thing - the whole reason we have a CONCEPT of coming out - are heteronormative social defaults. we live in a culture that assumes everyone is straight: that teaches us to assume, not only that everyone else is straight, but that we are straight, and which overwhelmingly, depending on context and location, either treats queerness as something external to the norm, something invisible and shameful, or something downright evil. and so we have a situation where, when you are queer in whatever way, coming out is never a one-and-done situation, because even if you’ve come out a hundred times in your life, strangers will continue to assume you’re cis and straight unless you tell them otherwise - which it may not always be safe to do, because of homophobia and transphobia. so out people, despite being out in whatever way, can still exist in this constant state of semi-closetedness, not because they want to, but because of the refusal of others to entertain the reality of their existence as a human default, rather than as a specialised exception to the norm. straightness and cisness can always be Assumed, says this logic, but queerness must be Proven: otherwise it cannot possibly exist.  

all this being so, when you demand that a real, human person discloses their sexuality to you before they’re ready? when you forcibly out someone? you’re contributing to the same heteronormative social defaults whose dominance you’re ostensibly using to justify Why Visible Queerness Matters, because what you’re really demanding is certainty, and the emphasis on certainty IS THE WHOLE GODDAMN PROBLEM. what you’re saying is, “I assume that everyone is straight until or unless they expressly confirm otherwise, because that’s the Correct Assumption. assuming that someone is queer, therefore, would be Incorrect, even if they’re signaling solidarity with and support for the queer community - even if they’re signaling queerness in other ways - because queerness isn’t allowed any ambiguity. I must be Certain of who is queer and who is Not, because it’s Wrong to assume a person isn’t straight” and I just.

[stares directly into the camera] really. really! who is it, I wonder, who taught you that it’s wrong to assume people aren’t straight? who told you that it’s potentially insulting to be thought of as queer, but NEVER insulting to be assumed straight? what social norms, I ask, imparted the idea that thinking of someone as queer is “imposing sexuality” on them (negative), whereas thinking of them as straight is Perfectly Normal? do you think, perhaps, that continually assuming everyone is straight to the point where you demand a public, notarised Admission Of Queerness to be exempted from that assumption maybe serves to further entrench the idea of Straight As Default, thereby creating a more hostile and less accepting environment for queer people? has it occurred to you that, if you respond with derision and hostility to anyone who (for instance) plays with gender presentation through fashion, evokes a queer aesthetic or otherwise says Fuck You to presenting as cishet without expressly confirming their queerness, you are making it HARDER for queer people to exist safely in public, to say nothing of shoring up toxic, shitty gender binaries for cishet people?

does the entertainment industry have a historical problem re: casting straight people in queer roles and praising their performances while simultaneously refusing to cast queer people in those roles because “it wouldn’t be acting”? YES. is this some homophobic bullshit? YES. does hollywood, despite its supposed status as a liberal bastion, still have a huge fucking problem with homophobia and treating out actors and other out creatives like shit? YES. 

is any of this improved by forcing queer actors to out themselves, the better to feel comforted that a FICTIONAL queer person isn’t being “disrespected” by a real human actor, or whatever the fuck other justification you’d care to run with? NO. NO IT FUCKING ISN’T. 

does forcing people to out themselves increase the lack of safety queer people feel and experience within an already homophobic industry? IT SURE FUCKING DOES. 

all of you go to your godamned rooms and think about what you’ve done

[ralfmaximus]

OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) — The Oklahoma State Department of Education is mandating public school teachers use the Bible in classrooms. The public school superintendents were sent a memo on Thursday announcing the new rule. “The Bible is an indispensable historical and cultural touchstone,” said State Superintendent Ryan Walters. “Without basic knowledge of it, Oklahoma students are unable to properly contextualize the foundation of our nation which is why Oklahoma educational standards provide for its instruction. This is not merely an educational directive but a crucial step in ensuring our students grasp the core values and historical context of our country.”

This is not a joke. Read the letter, embedded in the article. It's one page and terrifying. Note that they neglect to specify which edition of the Bible which could lead to some interesting malicious compliance.

Countdown to court challenge in 3, 2, 1...

[sebastianravkin]

Another Book Recommendation for 2024

Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett

Seems obvious and possibly pointless for the Tumblr audience, but hear me out.

CONTENT WARNING: mention of dark moments in LGBTQ+ history.  If you would like to avoid, skip Point #1.

The below notes reflect a discussion concerning the book Good Omens I had with a group of my undergraduate interns over a couple of lunches last semester.  Given that they all loved the show, I had assumed they had all read the book.  Not all of them had, and for those that did, their knowledge of when the book was originally published and an understanding of its historical context was surprisingly limited.  I thought that others may be interested in these points, and so am sharing them here.  

1) *SKIP TO AVOID CONTENT WARNING* To understand the impact of Good Omens when it was published in 1990 on the LGBTQIA+ community, it helps to understand the cultural environment at the time of its publishing, at least in the United States. 

The book came out towards the end of the height of the AIDS epidemic (1981 - early 90s).  I can not stress enough how terrifying this was for the LGBTQIA+ community to live through.  People were afraid - of dying, of watching loved ones die, of being separated from their loved ones as they died, of being ostracized, of being denied medical help, of being attacked and beaten.  While there was a short fluorescence of nominal acceptance of the LGBTQIA+ community during the 1970s, the societal response to the AIDS epidemic was a huge step backwards.  People became cruel(er), whether out of fear or ignorance or opportunity.

Good Omens came quietly onto the scene during this time, providing an alternate universe in which a gay-presenting angel (and his gender-fluid demon friend) could live in a world without the AIDS crisis.  At the same time, this angel did live in fear of his world literally ending, and really would like to have just gotten back to his comfy chair and his Regency silver snuffboxes.  Escapism reading at its best, really.

In addition, the book was published in 1990, so before many of the cultural moments that helped lead to social change but are now taken for granted.  Such as . . . .

-Freddie Mercury died of AIDS in November 1991 (which, by the way, means there was a very short window of time where people were reading Good Omens while he was still alive).

-Sir Elton John came out in 1992

-“Don’t ask, don’t tell” became official policy of the U.S. Military in 1993 (finally repealed in 2011)

-the establishment of LGBTQIA+ centers on college campuses surged in the mid-1990s

-Ellen came out on her show in 1997

-Will and Grace first aired in 1998

-Matthew Shepard was murdered in 1998 (the Federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act bearing his name was not passed until 2007). 

2) The book is queer coded for 1990.  As queer coded as the show is for current times. 

I have heard multiple comments from GenZ students along the lines of ‘there is nothing queer about the book’, and I have read commentary that Neil Gaiman caved to fan pressure in modernizing the script for the show. But I have also heard comments from GenX peers, including one of whom said “it was the gayest book I read in the 90s”. I have highlighted 15 passages in my teaching copy of the book that would have been queer-coded in 1990, 12 of which would go unnoticed today as far as I can tell based on discussions with many of my Millennial and GenZ students. 

It is important to keep in mind that the vocabulary of the 1980s and 90s relating to the LGBTQIA+ community was exceedingly limited; Mr. Gaiman and Sir Pratchett worked within this limited vocabulary, and were working within the stereotypes of the times, to portray Crowley and Aziraphale. And readers are meant to love them. Possibly more importantly, the derogatory comments concerning Aziraphale come from unlikable characters, and so the reader not only ends up feeling defensive of the angel but also does not want to be associated with those who hold negative opinions of him. I can think of few better ways to create social change. 

In terms of the show adaptation, whenever I watch a movie or show based on a book, my first concern is whether or not the adaptation makes me feel the way the book did. I am not an artist, so I do not know how one translates the written to the visual and I do not envy those attempting to do so.  But I do know that successful adaptations are almost never a one-to-one translation. What I can say in this context is that, to me, the show does feel like the book in terms of its themes, its humor, its timely social commentary. So whyever and however Mr. Gaiman updated it, I would argue it was successful. 

3) It is my understanding that Good Omens is the first book written by cisgendered heterosexual males for a general audience that portrays a gay-presenting character and a gender-fluid character as main characters in a positive light that does not end in a tragic way.  This is huge.  This is Captain Kirk and Uhuru’s kiss huge. 

Historically, LGBTQIA+ people rarely get positive representation in mainstream media. Rather, LGBTQIA+ characters in literature were often portrayed as villains in early writing, and are often used as comedic relief in more recent work. When there is a sympathetic main character, their story usually ends in tragedy. While tragic stories are very much a reality for many LGBTQIA+ people, it is incredibly important to also have stories that do not end in heartbreak or death.  And it is also incredibly important for LGBTQIA+ characters to be part of the norm in main stream story telling as this leads to broader social acceptance. Good Omens provided LGBTQIA+ readers with a sense of belonging in the greater world, while ‘normalizing’ the happy existence of LGBTQIA+ people to a broader readership.  This type of representation, presented by heterosexual white cisgendered male authors (at the top of the power structure in 1990) is a key moment in the slow but steady grind leading to social change.

In summary, read the book. Whether you are a fan of the show or not, and regardless of your generation, this book has a lot going for it. Above and beyond its importance to the LGBTQIA+ community, the book includes broader commentary on religion, good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, and identity in general. The menacing humor of Gaiman and the loving satire of Pratchett is a combination that is unequaled. The book is funny, thought-provoking, well-written, and has a lot of great characters above and beyond a particular angel and demon (who are only in about 1/3 of the book).  And as you read it, understand its historical context, and love it for the role it played in getting us to this cultural point in time.

[aro-culture-is]

Aroallo culture is constantly feeling like a degenerate

I have... more than a few things to say on this topic, but I will restrain myself to the two major points that have caused me to delay posting this.

For one: Internalized sex negativity ahoy!

In all honesty? I genuinely do not understand how sexual attraction without romantic attraction (or any other form of attraction, really) is supposed to be bad. I genuinely cannot tell you how wild it is to think that sexual attraction, one of the instincts that has generally been selected for among all sexual species similar to us, is somehow... morally incorrect? How much must we hate ourselves, see ourselves as the monster in a bedtime story, for the invisible Thought Crime of feeling like another person is attractive? It's okay. Literally the only "bad" is if your actions in response to a feeling are performed in malice or cause harm, and even then there's nuance that requires thought and communication, not mind-reading and assuming others will be disgusted.

Sincerely, please please please look into sex positivity. Read about it. Follow sex positive accounts, movements, and people. Let yourself feel in response, and ask yourself what does and does not speak with you. Engage in the topic. You don't have to believe it right away, but I promise you, it is well worth your time to expose yourself to resources that teach you another perspective that does not demonize the vast majority of the world in some strange and non-productive way, producing shame and little to show for it.

Secondly... degeneracy.

What a very, very loaded word. To summarize some points from Wikipedia, in terms of fact: the concept of degeneracy in this usage originates from the 19th century theory of social degeneration. The concept of heredity had yet to be fully understood in social degeneration's 18th century development, and this movement largely believed that habits of parents changed their child's biology. This, in turn, was used to explain a perceived decline in civilization. It took little time for the theory to appear in medical and zoological works, with the intent to explain why different ethnic groups exist. You may recognize this concept by a directly related one: eugenics.

The theory of degeneracy first grew fame when used to explain racial differences, and quickly spread from the medical field to psychiatry (ie, mentally ill individuals will produce more severely mentally ill children, and therefore should not continue their lineage) and criminology (particularly when combined with phrenology). It was associated with authoritarian political attitudes such as militarism, scientific racism, and support for eugenics. The development of degenerate theory both partially predates and partially follows the works of Gregor Mendel in describing the theory of evolution, and frankly, largely based its so-called scientific backing on incorrect understandings of evolution and poor science, using such understandings to prop up eugenicist beliefs.

Why do I say all this? I think it is very, very important to recognize the sociopolitical bullshit that props up the absolute pseudoscience that social degeneracy revolves around, and to state that anyone who truly believes in degeneracy does not actually have the best interest of other's in mind or heart except that of the current in-groups. if people in your life are using these theories and words, I want to empower you with knowledge that they are, scientifically and historically, very much in the wrong. I want you to be able to look at their words, and understand the context behind their beliefs, even if they themselves do not.

also, real talk: if you can, form other social networks. join a club, play social games, go to community events, anything it takes to experience people outside of those who give you this message. it'll do wonders for you to build social circles outside of that stuff.

tl;dr:

the origins of the theory behind the word "degenerate", as used today, are scientifically bullshit, politically and socially motivated, and largely were used to justify eugenics. i would recommend not trusting people who genuinely believe in degeneracy to have anyone's best interest at heart but their own, and that you are perfectly normal and fine as you are.