#sometimes i am on this website

[heartslobbf]

something something new amv something something haunting patriarch in my head who can destroy me at whim something something catharsis

[spyglassrealms]

had a fucking hilarious dream that tumblr replaced the "block" function with the far funnier "glock" function, which did the exact same thing except whenever anyone blocked you a random bullet hole, like a png of a bullet hole, would appear on your blog. discourse blogs were unreadable bc you'd go to the page and the sheer amount of bullet hole pngs stacked over the blogs obscured everything. I woke myself up laughing

[decamarks]

Made this for the Neopets beauty contest last week! And then it got removed, due to 3D renders not being allowed...?! (I'm still impressed at myself for getting it >75kb, as per the extremely ’90s ruleset.)

[drowzydruzy-art]

most helpful guest lecturer at garreg mach award goes to: not this fucking guy

[cuddlytogas]

there was some Twitter madness recently where someone left a comment on someone's art to the effect of, "Ed shouldn't wear a dress, he's a man!" which I do disagree with on principle, but unfortunately, it brought out one of my least favourite trends in the fandom

so, naturally, I had to write a twitter essay about it. and I already largely argued this in a post here, but the thread is clearer and better structured, so I thought I'd cross-post for those not on the Hellsite (derogatory). edited for formatting/structure's sake, since I no longer have to keep to tweet lengths, and incorporating a couple of points other people brought up in the replies

so

I want to point out that the wedding cake toppers in OFMD s2 aren't evidence that Ed wants to wear dresses. Gender is fake, men can wear skirts, play with these dolls how you like, but it's not canon, and that scene especially Doesn't Mean That.

People cite it often: 'He put himself in a dress by painting the bride as himself! It's what he wants!' But that fundamentally misunderstands the scene, and the series' framing of weddings as a whole. I'd argue that Ed paints the figure not from desire, but from self-hatred; it's not what he wants, but what he thinks he should, and has failed to, be.

(Yes, I am slightly biased by my rampant anti-marriage opinions, but bear with me here, because it is relevant to the interpretation of the scene, and season two as a whole.)

The show is not subtle. It keeps telling us that the institution of marriage is a prison that suffocates everyone involved. Ed's parents' cycle of abuse is passed to their son in both the violence he witnesses then enacts on his father, and the self-repression his mother teaches, despite her good intentions ("It's not up to us, is it? It's up to God. ... We're just not those kind of people. We never will be."). Stede and Mary are both oppressed by their arranged marriage, with 1x04 blunty titled Discomfort in a Married State. The Barbados widows revel in their freedom ("We're alive. They're dead. Now is your time").

But even without this context, the particular wedding crashed in 2x01 is COMICALLY evil. The scene is introduced with this speech from the priest:

"The natural condition of humanity is base and vile. It is the obligation of people of standing ... to elevate the common human rabble through the sacred transaction of matrimony."

It's upper class, all-white, and religiously sanctioned. "Vile natural conditions" include queerness, sexual freedom, and family structures outside the cisheteropatriarchal capitalist unit. "The obligation of people of standing" invokes ideas like the white man's burden, innate class hierarchy, religious missions, and conversion therapy. Matrimony is presented as both "sacred" (endorsed by the ruling religious body), and a "transaction" (business performed to transfer property and people-as-property, regardless of their desires), a tool of the oppressive society that pirates escape and destroy. That is where the figurines come from.

When Ed, in a drunk, depressive spiral, paints himself onto the bride, he's not yearning for a pretty dress. He's sort of yearning for a wedding, but that's not framed as positive. What he's doing is projecting himself into an 'ideal' image of marriage because he believes that: a) that's what Stede (and everyone) wants; b) he can never live up to that ideal because he's unlovable and broken (brown, queer, lower-class, violent, abused, etc); c) that's why Stede left. He tries to make himself fit into the social ideal by painting himself onto the closest match - long-haired, partner to Stede/groom, but a demure, white woman, a frozen, porcelain miniature - because, if he could just shrink himself down and squeeze into that box, maybe Stede would love him and he'd live happily ever after. But he can't. So he won't.

The fantasy fails: Ed is morose, turns away from the figurines, then tips them into the sea, a lost cause. He knows he won't ever fulfil that bride's role, but he sees that as a failure in himself, not the role. It's not just that "Stede left, so Ed will never have a dream wedding and might as well die." Stede left when Ed was honest and vulnerable, "proving" what his trauma and depression tell him: there's one image of love (of personhood), and he'll never live up to it because he's fundamentally deficient. So he might as well die.

This hit me from my very first viewing. The scene is devastating, because Ed is wrong, and we know it! He doesn't need to change or reduce himself to fit an image and be accepted (as, eg, Izzy demanded). Stede knows and loves him exactly as he is; it's the main thread and theme of season two!

(@/everyonegetcake suggested that Ed's yearning in these scenes includes his broader desire for the vulnerability and safety Stede offered, literalised through unattainable "fine" things like the status of gentleman in s1, or the figurine's blue dress. I'd argue, though, that these scenes don't incorporate this beyond a general knowledge of Ed's character. Ed is always pining for both literal and emotional softness, but the significance of the figurines specifically, to both Ed and the audience, is poisoned by their origin and context: there is no positive fantasy in the bride figure, only Ed's perceived deficiency.

Further, assuming that a desire for vulnerability necessarily corresponds with an explicit desire for femininity, dresses, etc, kind of contradicts the major themes of the show. OFMD asserts that there is nothing wrong with men assuming femininity (through drag, self-care, nurturing, emotional vulnerability, etc), but also that many of these traits are, in fact, genderless, and should be available to men without affecting their perceived or actual masculinity. It thematically invokes the potential for cross-gender expression in Ed's desires, especially through the transgender echoes in his relieved disposal, then comfortable reincorporation, of the Blackbeard leathers/identity. It's a rich, valuable area of analysis and exploration. But it remains a suggestion, not a canon or on-screen trait.)

Importantly, the groom figure doesn't fit Stede, either. Not just in dress: it's stiff and formal, and marriage nearly killed him. He's shabbier now, yes, but also shedding his privilege and property, embracing his queerness, and trying to take responsibility for his community. In a s1 flashback, Stede hesitantly says, "I thought that, when I did marry, it could be for love," but he would never find love in marriage. Not just because he's gay, but because marriage in OFMD is an oppressive, transactional institution that precludes love altogether. All formal marriages in OFMD are loveless.

So, he becomes a pirate, where they reject society altogether and have matelotages instead. Lucius and Pete's "mateys" ceremony is shot and framed not like a wedding, but as an honest, personal bond, willingly conducted in community (in a circle; no presiding authority, procession, or transaction).

That is how Stede and Ed can find love, companionship, and happiness: by rejecting those figurines and their oppressive exchange of property, overseen by a church that enables colonialism and abuse. Ed is loved, and deserves happiness, as he is, no paint or projection required.

ALL OF THIS IS TO SAY: draw Ed in dresses! Write him getting gender euphoria in skirts! Write trans/nb Ed, draw men being feminine! Gender is fake, the show invites exploration, that's what 'transformative works' means! But please, stop citing the cake toppers as evidence it's canon. Stop citing a scene where a depressed Māori man gets drunk and projects himself onto a rich, white, silent bride because he thinks he's innately unlovable and only people like her can find happiness, shortly before deciding to kill himself, as canon evidence it's what he wants.

(Also, please don't come in here with "lmao we're just having fun," I know, I get it. Unfortunately, I'm an academiapilled researchmaxxer, and some of youse need to remember that the word "canon" has meaning. NOW GO HAVE FUN PUTTING THAT MAN IN A PRETTY DRESS!! 💖💖)

[front-facing-pokemon]

[mariana-oconnor]

I really hate modern website design. Massive picture with a meaningless slogan then scroll down to magically appearing fluff text, then some more magically appearing fluff text, then some more until you get to the bottom of the page and have found nothing of actual use, only to discover a virtually invisible menu button in the top right corner of the screen that hides all the actual website from you. Website designers, when did useability stop being something you were allowed to care about?

[oldpotatoe]

so.

my silly little amnesia fic turns three today. a whole ass toddler. who’d have thought.

so in celebration of flowagabagoo’s birthday, (and to reassure everyone that this fic is not abandoned i swear--) i present to you with little snip of things to come:

[hikayunas]

there's a fun detail hidden in the animal motifs for the tart magica villains -- out of all non-human mammals, leporids (rabbits, hares) and felids (cats) are typically especially susceptible to the plague compared to other species -- cats are more likely to show clinical symptoms than dogs are, for example. conversely, non-mammals -- say, a crow -- are generally not susceptible to the bubonic plague at all.

corbeau sending 🐈 and lapin away in volume 4 so that they can safely utilize their plague-spreading magic without the risk of catching the two of them in the crossfire was already good, but this just adds a nice extra layer to it and their specific animal motifs as a whole, i think.

[becauseplot]

Hi hello here with my daily (hourly) (minutely) caged qphil musing because I have insane amounts of brain rot---I wonder if ccphil is gonna keep consistent with the fact that his character was still in his mexican independence day outfit when he got caught.

And other people have pointed this out, but I can't stop thinking about it, because like, assuming he does get rescued, the first thing his rescuer(s) are gonna notice is his outfit, and seeing him still in his independence day outfit---they're immediately gonna clock the fact that he's been in there since last friday. Like, qphil probably won't know exactly how long he's been in the birdhouse (there's no clocks in there, no windows, nothing; that's a whole other post entirely, though) but the others are gonna know. Immediately.

And it's not just that he's been in there since friday, but since the end of the labyrinth fiasco. Because yes, everyone else went straight from the party to the labyrinth without changing outfits, but then everyone went home. Went to bed or kept hanging out. Changed into comfier clothes. Not phil, though. He went to the party, to the labyrinth, to his house, and then was immediately dragged here. They're going to look at him and think, God, he was probably in the middle of getting ready for bed when this happened! (He was.)

There's something deeply unsettling about it, I just can't quite put my finger on it. It's like in a horror movie when a victim is picked off at a party and their body is found still wearing their cute dress or fancy button down, hair still done up, makeup still on. The knowledge that this person was caught completely unaware. The knowledge that they were having a good time, or had just had a good time, when it happened.

Idk if this makes sense but. Man. I hope ccphil keeps his mexican independence day skin on for when he gets out. I hope it's all dusty and wrinkled and torn up around the cuffs. I hope the red neck bow is coming undone. I hope it still has all its little golden tassels on it.

[ruvviks]

is this a safe space

[mothiidae]

these three make me so unwell, they are destined for failure :(

I actually put a little thought into each of the flowers and i believe they represent their respective person very well ^x^ the website link for anyone interested!

Tsurugi:

monkey orchid - evil, death, power, absolute authority

snapdragon - grace, benevolence, strength, protection, indifference, deception, denial

Rei:

rock rose - endurance, strength, determination

forget me not - hope, remembrance, true and undying love, funerals, death

gladiolus - strength, strong character, honor, moral integrity, remembrance, sadness, faithfulness, death

Teryua:

chrysanthemum - fidelity, friendship, modesty, loyalty, sadness, devotion, cheerfulness, longevity, good spirits, happiness, joy, beauty, death

[outoftoucherlocksholmes]

(american roadside billboard voice) HEAVEN is REAL and it is IN FLORIDA

[adhdandcomics]

adding to my tags because i’ve been thinkin a lot about the post i just reblogged and have more thoughts:

i’ll be real, the more i saw ‘hey adhd influencers are so annoying’ the more i worried that i was unconsciously contributing to the spreading reputation of adhd folks as annoying and over-pathologizing every symptom they experience

and then i realized. i am not a goddam influencer or life coach or representative. obviously i have some obligation as someone who cares about myself and the people that like my comics to not spread harmful ideology or blatant misinformation but i never intended myself to be a “’increase your productivity!!’ blog OR a ‘if you have XYZ you have adhd!’ blog. and i do this for fun, and originally started this blog bc i had a lot of internalized shame and self loathing about my adhd and thought if i could make it funny i might have less of that. let’s get real! and it worked!

i’ve obviously done this kind of thing— (hey these symptoms might be adhd!) a lot before in my life & on this blog, but there’s more to it than trying to be an “influencer” or whatever. a term that didn’t even exist when i started this blog!

i felt very isolated trying to find out if i had any mental problems & what have you originally because of large advice (etc) blogs with staunchly anti self Dx views at the time

so i overcorrected when i DID get dxed and tried to validate everyone who was like me. and of course. not the best course of action always for the ol mental health. tried to be the source of positivity and jokes that i didn’t see because the online adhd presence was near non-existent.

and anyway. i make a lot of fun of myself & the way m brain works in my comics obviously but it is not my obligation to... how do you say.... not be annoying online.

because if folks interpret MY little jokes as a strict guide to diagnosis. that’s on them, really, not me. i also believe “making adhd your entire personality” is a non-issue. so what if people find out they have it and get over excited with identifying as adhd. saying this as someone who DID do it. criticism of this gives the same vibes as people being annoyed that young queers make “being queer” their whole personality. im very obviously more than a guy with adhd, and id reckon other adhd comic artists are too. (im friends with a lot of them!) it’s fine to post about it online.

anyway. i just don’t take myself too seriously and i’m a comic artist for myself first! and you know what, i’ve been considered annoying my entire life. what do i care if a few more folks think i’m annoying. neurotypical or not

[screechfoxes]

do any followers who've had top surgery have any tips or things to keep in mind for preparation/recovery?