#dont feel like changing the coloring

[sheiscoming]

Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives

[theoldkyokodied]

Uploading all my Tomgreg art at once from the past few week before season 4 hits, who knows in what kind of mental state i'm gonna be once it does :')

[lemongogo]

[pocketsizedquasar]

TPOC-Prioritized writings on anti-transmasculinity / transandrophobia

transandrophobia / anti-transmasculinity are both theories that have been spearheaded primarily by trans poc, particularly Black transmascs and transfemmes.

unfortunately, as with Everything created by queer and trans poc, particularly Black queer ppl, white trans ppl (regardless of gender, and regardless of whether they "believe" in this form of oppression or not) have coopted these theories and dominated these conversations, such that both "sides" of the "discourse" are divorced entirely from the racial connotations in which these theories were created, and the ways in which they were created specifically as an intervention against white feminism, and to highlight the ways multiple marginalizations affect the marginalization of masculinity. these are theories that explicitly interact with and can only be understood in conjunction with transmisogyny, as well as other oppressions like racism and misogynoir.

*"anti-transmasculinity" as a term and theory was coined by Black trans folks (some of whom's writings are linked below), and is specifically a theory within the context of Black transfeminism antiBlackness, and transmisogynoir, and cannot be divorced from that context. i try be very intentional about my use of the terms 'anti-transmasculinity' and 'transandrophobia' in different places here, because i do not want to dilute the former’s very particular context.

anyway, here's a list of miscellaneous writings on the subjects, with a priority for collecting writing from trans poc (not all of the authors are tpoc, but this list was intended to prioritize tpoc voices). the intention of this is not to be a be-all end-all on the subject, nor exalt any one of these individuals or pieces as exclusively ~correct~ or whatever, but to combat the whitewashed nature of these discussions online, and raise awareness to the myriad of people speaking on this subject. (nor do i claim to speak for any of them, or claim that any of them speak for me. i tried to make sure i didn't platform blatant racists, zionists, transmisogynists, or other bigots, but i'm not pretending to be 100% accurate about that.)

they aren't in any particular order (except the first one, which i think is an extremely foundational text for anti-transmasculinity theory as delineated by its creators, within the context of antiblackness and transmisogyny, and necessary reading to understand anti-transmasculinity as a theory). I tried to group all the links from the same authors together.

This is a non-exhaustive list! I will likely come back and add more writings as I find them. please feel free to recommend to me any works to include (including your own! especially if you yourself are a Black trans person or a trans POC).

Now with an Archived Read-more Link!

Racial-Class Paternalism and the Trojan Horse of Anti-transmasculinity by Nsámbu Za Suékama. if you read nothing else from this list, read this.

“But even as TME struggles escape the mainstream imagination, they persist, and are often both fueling and being fueled by the war on trans women and transfeminine people. Nothing makes this clearer than in how a Western binary system triangulates that war with Anti-transmasculinity. This is why I say that Anti-transmasculinity is a Trojan horse for Transmisogyny. Like the wooden horse in the Greek myth, it might not seem like what it is, for its actual contents and character are invisible, but at the heart of it, there is a violent campaign going on that is key to how the West aims to lay seige to its civilizational "enemies." And, like the walls of the city of Troy, materialist transfeminism has fortified the opposition to Western domination, in such a way that to overcome the stronghold requires a new strategy for the Man, one that follows up the open and vicious attacks on TMA people with a different, more hidden form of warfare.”

“today’s gender paternalism frames any manhood and masculine embodiment outside of (western) cisheteronormativity as not just biologically illegitimate but also the result of a barbaric threat to civilization. And who typically figures as the face of that barbarism but the Black trans woman? Materialist transfeminism has to theorize Anti-transmasculinity.”

"Non-Men", maGes, and Black Masculinities by genderfugitive / disrupthehuman

One such argument, which is really a collection of arguments but can be consolidated into one, is that trans men are attempting to take a place alongside cis men in the hierarchy of patriarchy. In other words, while they may not have been so before naming themselves as trans men, they are aspiring to be oppressors. This employs a number of rhetorical devices that I have identified before including the idea that trans men are “betraying” cis womanhood and therefore should be seen as threats unless they act as footsoldiers for transmisogyny. The problem with this is that it treats trans manhoods as embodiments that exist as something which merely aspires to be cis manhood.

"For Those Seeking Fight or Flight: Black Trans*feminist Nihilism" / primer on transmisogynoir by genderfugitive / disrupthehuman (not about anti-transmaculinity specifically (though it does come up), but a very good + important read on Black transfeminism & transmisogynoir, so I'm including it)

anti-transmasculinity needs its own theorizing outside of general "transphobia" by genderfugitive / disrupthehuman

anti-transmasculinity & antiblackness inherently linked (& another) both by genderfugitive / disrupthehuman

There is a hidden epidemic of violence against transmasculine people by Orion Rodriguez

a thread master post linking to multiple threads about anti transmasculinity by Salem L. Void / thewarmvoid

a thread on anti-transmasculinity as an epistemic injustice (translated) originally by magicspeedwagon in French; English translation by Salem L. Void / thewarmvoid

Not transmasc invisibility, but erasure by Salem L. Void / thewarmvoid

Girlboy Boygirl Blues - antitransmasculinity as a denial of individual history & more by Salem L. Void / thewarmvoid

"irl we just kiss" - ‘transmasc vs transfem’ discourse & reactionary ‘boys vs girls’ politics in trans spaces by Salem L. Void / thewarmvoid

transmascs & being treated as predatory by Salem L. Void / thewarmvoid

transmasc mental health statistics by Salem L. Void / thewarmvoid

violent anti-transmasculine hate crimes by Salem L. Void / thewarmvoid

thread on examples of systemic anti-transmasculinity by magicspeedwagon

a thread on anti-transmasculinity and its erasure by storyjunkie

anti transmasculinity & transmisogyny and the degendering of Black people by afrodykee

anti transmasculinity & transmisogyny cannot be theorized in opposition to each other by afrodykee

white transfeminism's anti-transmasculinity by afrodykee

Black trans people & erasure of TPOC voices from the trans community by thatspookyagent

transmasculine nonwhite expereince by thatspookyagent

trans men being silenced by thatspookyagent

queer POC being pushed out of conversations by thatspookyagent

cis women's harm to trans men by novascotioducktoller w/ addition about TMOC by thatspookyagent

medical violence in anti transmasculinity by Caleb / sethpuertoluna

example of medical anti transmasculinity by Dominick / transguyenergy

response to inclusion of a trans man in an ad (thread) by Dominick / transguyenergy

anti-transmasculinity around periods by Dominick / transguyenergy

anti-transmasculinity towards pregnant trans men by Dominick / transguyenergy

transitioning as a transmasc of color by gendercriminals

white (cis) women & racist transandrophobia by dead-lavender-society

transandrophobia as an indigenous trans man by petrichorvoices

examples of transandrophobia by transvermin

the “lost lesbian” narrative & antitransmasculinity by vaguefiend

cis women & transandrophobia by vaguefiend

intersectionality & transandrophobia by visible-schizo-spectrum

more transandrophobia from cis women by cock-holliday

tl;dr : there’s LOTS of theory and discussions out there abt anti-transmasculinity, transandrophobia, how these things relate to other forms of transphobia, how it interacts with other marginalizations, most especially race, and the ways in which it affects transmascs. this information is everywhere. it’s out there. y’all (white ppl) are just refusing to engage with it.

[eeljawz]

no escape!

!! minors dni !!

[funkinmadnesss]

Random notebook doodles :] trying to get better about filling pages when it comes to traditional and I'm definitely liking how this notebook is going so far <3 I might post a few others but for now, the favorites

[modernbaseball]

Fighting off both the sickness and the fear, Frodo gripped Sam's hand.

Then as he stood, darkness about him and a blackness of despair and anger in his heart. it seemed to him that he saw a light: a light in his mind, almost unbearably bright at first, as a sun-ray to the eyes of one long hidden in a windowless pit. Then the light became colour: green, gold, silver, white.

[klonoadoortophantomile]

mother 3 birthday !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rock-holmes]

that fuckass elf that got me to read this series again

[moonviewer]

"Let’s run away.”

(unrendered > rendered

doing an illustration study with mafuyu’s new look :) )

[so-bitya]

Soma and Whitewashing in Anime:

Avoiding "Brown"

Here is an image of Soma comparing his skin tone from the first season of Black Butler and the current season airing now. As you can see, Soma's skin is noticeably lighter than it was in the past. I considered the lighting and took shade from his hand that looks relatively mid tone. However, that's not really a fair excuse if the anime continues to lighten Soma's face this way.

I also compared his skintone from the Book of Circus season which is relatively more recent, and chose images where he's clearly in good lighting. Soma is still noticeably lighter this time around.

Whitewashing is an incredibly common phenomenon that been happening a lot lately in anime, especially with reboots. A great example I can think of off the top of my head is One Piece where they lightened nearly everyone's skin color in the anime, despite some of the cast being characters of color?

(^^^this character is canonly black according to Oda, the mangaka.)

"Oh but Oda gives Usopp pale skin in all his color illustrations"

One, he should know better. Two, if Oda said Usopp would be African in real life, and chose a brown, Jamaican-american actor to play him, then yes, they have been ridiculously disrespectful in how they've been portraying the character's racial features so far.

In that sense, it's actually relief that anime studios in the past weren't afraid of giving their characters darker skin unlike mangakas who were terrified of even the lighest shade of brown.

For instance, I am happy that A-1 studios made Soma, Agni, and Mina, who are all the same race, slightly differ in skin tone. Mina's skin is cooler toned compared to Soma and Agni's warmer hues.

HOWEVER, and other fans pointed this out, Soma and Agni's skin leaned so far from being golden brown to straight yellow in many scenes, that they were walking around like they have jaundice which is so... Of course A-1 studios found some way to mess it up ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Another thing, do you guys honestly think being accurate to Yana's art style is always the best thing to do in adaptions? Angela Blanc, the secret villain in the anime original first season, pretends to be an abused maid and gets whipped in her very first scene. And according to Yana's concept sketches, she was originally brown. I'm actually glad the anime whitewashed her in that instance.

I'd like to point out, Sebastian's skin tone has also changed in the new season, and he's noticeably tanner than his previous anime appearances and yana's illustrations. So why is this okay for the anime to make creative changes for sebastian's skin tone, but have to stay accurate for Soma? (whose dark skin been established in anime viewers' eyes for decades now).

To be fair, I did a comparison of the anime grayscaled and Soma in the manga during the Weston arc. I checked the values and while I will say that his skin is relatively in the same as the manga, only few degrees lighter, whitewashing isn't only about skintone.

Colourism in Features

We could argue whether its just different anime styles or the way Yana draws noses, but its not a great look for Soma's nose to be made noticeably sharper compared to his flatter/rounder nose in the manga/earlier seasons of the anime.

Talking about the Mandela effect and cognitive dissonance as well... there's also something about how manga readers seen Soma with brown skin and pure black hair years in the manga, only for the anime to lighten those features.

It doesn't help that Soma canonly has purple hair and yellow eyes (if anything, I do appreciate the more natural tones they gave Soma this season. No more highly saturated purple hair/yellow eyes and skin!)

Yes, Kuroshitsuji is a fantasy story, and YES artists of color like to play with fantasy features with characters, me included! But my point is that black/brown representation in media is so little already, character artists are also averse to drawing any defining racial features.

Yana has designed brown-skinned characters in the anime with straight white hair and light-colored eyes about three times now (ie. Agni, Angela, and Hannah). The only Indians with dark skin and hair are a bunch of homeless thugs that Soma and Agni stop from mugging Ciel, proving they're "one of the good ones", and Mina whose treatment in the manga/anime is abysmal.

Discussing Racism in Fandom

Alright, so over the past few days, I've seen some fans disappointed with Soma's skin tone change and I hope my post illustrates why they would be. But I've also seen some angry and frustrated reactions to those fans! And I want to ask, why?

Why is fans bringing up racism in anime considered "discourse" but reacting harshly towards those fans is not?

Why would fans expressing disappointment about whitewashing gets you more angry than the whitewashing itself?

Why is being disappointed that an anime lightened a character's skin tone, a character who both anime-only watchers and manga readers alike saw as dark-skinned, stupid to you?

How come the fandom gets a good laugh out of the usage of "fag" potentially canceling the anime, but talking about race is a "risk" to getting a new season?

And if you disagree with my points and believe the anime is only being accurate to Yana's work, why not just say "Soma's skintone is more accurate to Yana's color illustrations, but I understand the disappointment and shock," without being condescending towards us for being concerned in the first place?

I'd be pretty happy if the anime was just using intense lighting and that Soma is darker than he appears (in fact, if that happens I'll reblog the good news to this post!) Because this post isn't "discourse" to me, I'm discussing race regarding one of my favorite characters in the fandom. Discussions like these don't ruin the fandom, but actually help it become a more welcoming place for fans of color.

[flakytartart]

melt into me (was ruining your own life not enough?)

[soracities]

Hi! So I tried not to say anything about some anti makeup posts I saw on your blog but I need to say this. I think you're very wise and I agree it's very important for us to love ourselves as we are. But some people like myself doesn't care about 'empowering' of makeup or whatever but we just have fun with it and we just love it. I say we because I know there is a lot of people like me. Yeah, we are feeding capitalism or whatever, but world is beautiful and it's also terrible so people trying make themselves feel good, have fun, ect. I see a lot of people who don't wear makeup and i'm happy for them! I didn't wear makeup until i turned 20 i think and felt good.

One thing I wanted to add is in response of post about feminine girls. I think everything needs balance and sometimes people tend to overreact in their opinion and divide everything in black and white. Personally I never cared how women around me looked and what they were wearing. But I would like to have same treatment, and not to feel silly for wearing pink or feminine clothes.

Sorry, I don't know English very well so maybe I can't translate my idea entirely. What I'm trying to say i think everyone should do what they like and leave each other in peace.

Sorry for this essay, just wanted to share my point of view.

Hi, anon! I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this, but I appreciate you writing this (and your English was fine, don't worry)

I think the main argument of those posts (and my own feelings about this) is not about makeup on its own, or even judgement about who does and doesn't choose to wear it--what they are criticizing is a particular part of the society we live in which puts a huge emphasis on women's beauty and appearance in order to fulfill an idea of what a woman "should" be, and the role that makeup plays in that as a result. Because whether we like it or not, whether we believe in them or not, whether we feel pressured by them or not, these expectations do exist. How we personally respond to them does not change that.

I personally don't have an issue with makeup or the concept of it (in almost every culture on earth, humans have been using makeup of some kind for literally thousands of years)--but what I do have a problem with is when we treat makeup, or other traditionally "feminine" forms of expression as neutral things when they are not. A comb or a hair tie is neutral--it's just a thing. Lipstick and eyeliner are also just things, but only when they exist by themselves--and in reality they don't exist by themselves: they exist in a world where we value women on their physical appearance before we value them for anything else--lipstick and eyeliner exist to emphasise parts of your appearance, to make you look a certain way--and in a society where we put so much importance on women looking a certain way, they aren't just ordinary things you toy around with for fun. You can have fun with them, but it doesn't change their role. They can't be treated as exceptions from the world they are used in.

I think sometimes people assume that being anti-makeup is the same as being anti-women-who-wear-makeup, which misses the point (and also suggests a very dangerous idea which I think, sometimes, is why people respond so angrily to these criticisms: because if we believe that being anti-makeup = being anti-women, then therefore makeup = womanhood, and this is simply not true). Whether you wear these things just for fun and to enjoy yourself isn't what is being talked about because these criticisms are not about you on a personal level: they are about looking at a society that is as image-obsessed as ours, and asking why makeup has the role that it has when 1) it is almost exclusively aimed at women--women who, as a group, have been historically marginalised, and whose value, historically, has almost always been measured in terms of their beauty before anything else and 2) the makeup that is emphasized, the trends and styles that come and go, are often not so much about self-expression (if they were, people would be freely wearing all sorts of wild colours and styles: when we talk about "makeup culture" it's not the same kind of makeup used in the goth, punk, or alt scenes for example where makeup plays a very different role) but almost always about achieving or aspiring towards a type of beauty that is valued or expected: to make you look younger, to make your eyes brighter or larger, to make your lips bigger or sexier, your cheekbones more prominent etc--again, on their own, these things may not be a big deal, but they exist in a world where having these looks means you are valued in a certain way as a woman. And when this exists in our kind of world, where the power dynamics we have automatically mean women's perceived power is through beauty, and where we insist so much on women being a particular kind of beautiful (and this starts in childhood) we have to ask and investigate WHY that is--why this type of beauty and not another? why (almost only) women? who benefits from this? who suffers as a result?

The argument of "not all women" wear makeup for empowerment misses the point of these criticism, because it is focusing on a person's individual choices in a way that suggests our choices can define the world we live in, and they can't. We are deeply social animals. Therefore, how we appear to each other and to ourselves is a socially influenced phenomenon. This applies for race, for sexuality, and for gender. How women are perceived at large, in different social structures, is a social phenomenon influenced by the societies we exist in and the values of those societies. These criticisms are about the society we make those choices in and how that can affect us. For you, makeup may be something fun and enjoyable and that's fine. I'm not saying that's untrue or that people don't feel this way or that you are wrong for feeling this way. It's also not saying that you are brain-washed or oppressing yourself for it. But it doesn't change the world we live in. Someone feeling perfectly happy to go out with makeup or without makeup, and feeling no pressure to do either, is great--but it doesn't mean there aren't a lot of women who do feel pressured into wearing it, and that pressure is a social one. It doesn't change the inequality that exists between how women's physical appearances are judged compared to men's. It doesn't change the fact that almost every childhood story most kids hear (that aren't about animals) have a "beautiful princess" (and very little else is said about her except that she is beautiful) and a "brave" knight/prince/king/whichever: the princess (or maiden or whatever young woman) is defined by how she looks; the male in the story by how he acts.

It also doesn't change the fact that so many young girls grow up hearing the women around them criticize various parts of their bodies and that they carry this into their lives. It doesn't change the fact that we expect (in Western countries at least) for women to have criticisms about their appearance and they are "stuck-up" or "full of themselves" if they don't. It doesn't change the fact that magazines photos, red carpet photos, films, tv shows etc., feature actresses who are beautiful in a way that is absolutely above and beyond exceptional (and who either have had work done cosmetically, or are wealthy enough to be able to afford to look the way they do through top-class makeup artists, personal trainers etc) but who we think are within the "normal" range of beauty because faces like theirs are all that we see--how many famous actors / entertainers can you name who look like they could be someone's random uncle, or "just some guy" (writing this, I can think of 5). Now how many actresses, equally famous, can you think of that are the same? Very, very, very few.

The point of those posts, and why I feel so strongly about this, is that we have a deeply skewed view of beauty when it comes to women, because, as a society, we place so much on how they look in such a way that it is not, and was never meant to be, achievable: therefore anything that contributes to how women look, that markets itself in the way that the makeup industry does in this day and age, needs to be questioned and looked at in relation to that. No one is saying don't wear eyeliner or blush--what they are trying to say is that we need to be aware of the kind of world eyeliner and blush exists in, what their particular functions as eyeliner and blush do in the world that they exist in, that we exist in, and how this does impact the view we have on makeup as a result. Your personal enjoyment may be true to you and others, but this doesn't change the role of female beauty in the world because, again, our personal choices don't define the world in this way. Often, it's the other way around. And we cannot deny this fact because, while it may not affect you negatively, it does affect others.

I absolutely agree with you because I don't care how other women around me choose to dress or express themselves, either--that's their freedom to wear what they want and enjoy themselves and I want them to have that freedom. But my view is not the world's view, and it's certainly not the view of a lot of other people, either. I don't care if another woman loves pink and wearing skirts and dresses--but, like makeup, pink, skirts, and dresses, are not neutral things either. They're tied to a particular image of 'femininity' which means they are tied to a particular way of "being a woman" in this world. I'm not saying, at all, that it's wrong to wear these things. But I'm saying we can't treat them as though these are choices as simple as choosing what kind of socks to wear, because they aren't. They are choices that have baggage. If a woman is seen as being silly, childish, or treated unequally because she enjoys cute tops and ribbons and sundresses, that's not because we are demonizing her choices, or because being anti-makeup is being anti-woman (again, it is absolutely not): it's because we as a society demonize women for any choice. That isn't because of anti-makeup stances--that's because of sexism.

You mentioned that you want to be treated the same as anyone else for wearing feminine clothes--but the fear that you wouldn't be isn't because of the discussions critiquing makeup and other traditionally "feminine" things--it's because we live in a society where women are constantly defined by how they appear on the outside, and no amount of our personal choices will make this untrue. Whether you are a girly-girl or a tomboy, you'll always be judged. And, in reality, when women follow certain beauty standards they do get treated better--but this doesn't mean much in a society where the standards are so high you can never reach them, and where the basic regard for women is so low to begin with (not to mention the hypocrisy that exists within those standards). This is what all those criticisms towards makeup and "empowerment" are about: it's about interrogating a society that is built on this kind of logic and asking why we should insist on leaving it as it is when it does so much damage. It's saying that that if we want everyone to truly feel free in how they choose to present themselves we have to go deeper than just defining freedom by these choices on their own, and look at the environment those choices are made in. And that involves some deeply uncomfortable but necessary conversations.

Also, and I think this important to remember, views on makeup and the social place of makeup will also depend on culture and where you are, and the beauty expectations you grew up with. And when it comes to the internet, and given American dominance online, a lot of these posts criticizing makeup and the way makeup is being used to sell an idea that wearing it is "empowering" to the woman (which is basically saying: you are MORE of a woman when you wear it; you are stronger and more powerful because, in our society, beauty is portrayed as a form of power: it tells you, you can battle the inequality women face by embracing the role beauty plays in our lives but it doesn't tell you this emphasis on beauty is part of that inequality), are based on the way makeup is portrayed in mostly English-speaking Western countries. My views are shaped by what I grew up seeing, and while a full face of makeup (concealer, primer, foundation, mascara, highlighter, contour, blush, brow tint, brow gel etc) may not be daily practice or even embraced in a place like France or maybe other places in mainland Europe (but that doesn't mean they don't have their own expectations of feminine beauty), they are daily practice in places like the US and Britain, and this is what most of those posts and criticisms are responding to.

We can argue as much as we want about makeup, but when you grow up in a society where women feel the need to put on makeup before going to the gym there is something seriously wrong. Embracing makeup and enjoying makeup is one thing, but it cannot be a neutral thing when so much of it is about looking like you're not wearing makeup at all, or when we assume a woman is better qualified for a job or more professional when she wears it. It cannot be a neutral thing when a singer like Alicia Keys goes makeup-free for a red carpet event and it causes a stir online because people think she looks sick (what she looks like is normal--I would argue above normal--but wearing makeup to cover up "flaws" is so normal now that we genuinely don't know what normal skin is supposed to look like because the beauty of these celebrities is part of their appeal: they are something to aspire to). It is absolutely very normal for me, where I am, to see young girls with fake lashes and filled in brows: it's not every girl I pass, but it is enough. I'm not saying they are miserable, or brain-washed, or should be judged. I can believe that for them it's something enjoyable--but how am I supposed to see something like that and not be aware of the kind of celebrities and makeup tutorials that are everywhere on TikTok and YouTube, and that they are seeing everyday? How am I not supposed to have doubts when people tell me "it's their choice!" when the choices being offered are so limited and focused on one thing?

I never wore makeup as a teenager and I still don't, but a lot of that is because I grew up surrounded by people who just didn't. Makeup was never portrayed as anything bad or forbidden (and I don't see it like that either)--it was just this thing that, for me growing up, was never made to be a necessity not even for special occasions. I saw airbrushed photos and magazines all around me, for sure, and I definitely felt the beauty pressure and the body pressure (for example, I definitely felt my confidence would be better if I wore concealer to deal with my uneven skintone, and I felt this for years). But I also know that, growing up, I saw both sides. No makeup was the default I saw at home, while makeup was the default I saw outside. And that does play a part, not just in the choices you make, but in the choices that you feel you are allowed to make. No makeup was an option for me because it was what I saw everyday, even with my own insecurities; but if you do not see that as an option around you (and I know for most girls my age, where I grew up, it probably wasn't) then how can we fully argue that the decision you make is a real choice?

If I wanted to wear a cute skirt outside, for example, and decided to shave my legs--that isn't a real choice. And it cannot ever be a real choice, no matter how much I say "this is for me" or "I prefer it like this" because going out in public with hairy legs and going out in public with shaved legs will cause two completely different reactions. How can I separate what I think is "my choice" from a choice I make because I want to avoid the negative looks and comments? And how can I argue that choosing to shave is a freely made choice when the alternative has such negativity? If you feel pressured into choosing one thing over another, that's not a choice. Does this make sense?

This is how I feel about makeup most of the time, and what I want more than anything else is for us to be able to have a conversation about why we make the choices we do beyond saying "it makes me feel good" and ending the conversation there. Again, I'm not saying people need to stop wearing makeup or stop finding enjoyment in wearing it, but I think we tend to get so focused on our own feelings about this and forget that there is a bigger picture and this picture is a deeply unequal one. That is what this conversation is about. I hope this explains some things, anon, and if I misinterpreted anything please feel free to message me again. x

[marcmorrigan]

Released to [REDACTED]. SPK 02-04-10 6:45 PM

also released:

3 - One (1) sealed bag s/c cigarettes & lighter which were found in right exterior vest pocket of unnamed male accomplice.

4 - One (1) sealed bag s/c polaroid photo which was found in left interior vest pocket of unnamed male accomplice.

Note: victim posthumously identified as one Mail Jeevas, DOB 02/01/1990 (aged 19yrs at time of death). Request that Gevanni update documentation accordingly. - N

always thinking about the polaroids matt and mello didnt get to take + the amount of clean up and paperwork near and the SPK probably had to do after they seized all the kira case files from 'L'... also like. do you think near had to identify matts body. who else was there that couldve done it. anyway whatever teehee <3

+ 'clean'(er) version without all the scratches and stuff:

[the-acid-pear]

Yesterday I was replaying Deltarune and I was going really insane about it picking up on things I missed on my first playthrough and something that fucked me up hard was this line here

The little ellipsis at the end, almost like you can hear the regret on their voice. Voice of an ad who is realizing maybe they fucked up on this one. But it also made me think of... The possibility of this being a reaction to Spamton's actions.

Because I don't think this was an automatic thing, I feel like their drifting off was gradual. Sure, their jealousy had won them over (I'd have killed the guy or myself if I was them so I don't even blame them) but Spamton was too getting busier and busier the more famous he got, and as they say, that never stopped. He only kept getting bigger, until it all came crashing down. And when it did it was one of them who tried to go find him, after all that.

But I digress, let's focus on the original quote from my favorite sigma enby themselves, Pink Addison. There's obviously not only the regret to it, but feeling like they were abandoned too. Both parties lost a lot and the real tragedy is just how easily it could've have been avoided! Or rather, how beyond their control it was...

But I'll get off topic if I keep speaking so I'll leave it at that. The sheer tragedy that there is to everyone involved just makes me insane. Like I said in a post previous to this; you cannot trace down a good guy or a bad guy in this tale, it's just desperate people taking awful decisions and living to regret their actions.

[kinos-fortress-2]

ok before i continue to do the other 11 stickers... still not sure what you guys think about this...

the theme for the stickers was just like how i explained in my other post, just ugly beheaded heads of the tf2 characters... im just planning to do 14 stickers because hell nah that idead of making all tf2 characters was crazy from my part (still 14 is more insane ha)

and well... uhuh.

oh yeah

DONT REBLOG THANKS.