Avatar

the Boyd Holbrook characters union

@evenmyhivemindisempty

She/her, late 20’s, currently Boyd Holbrook fixated #DonaldPiercesupremacy Darthpumpkinspice on Ao3
asexual/bisexual
Avatar

Boyd Holbrook as Cal in The Bikeriders - behind-the-scenes photos

📸 On-set photography by Kyle Bono Kaplan, Bryan Schutmaat and Adam Stone - cinematographer

For the Vandals: The Photography of The Bikeriders book

Credits to the rightful owners, photographers, cinematographer, the book's publisher - Insight Editions, production companies and to Focus Features

The book is incredible and these photos are so wonderful and amazing! Boyd is such a handsome man! He’s incredible! He’s the best! And I love him and admire him so much! And I can’t wait to see him in this movie! ❤️🌟🔥🥰😍❤️‍🔥

I’m super excited to see the entire movie!

Avatar

Boyd as Donald Pierce in Logan (2017)

Tank Top Edition - part two

Okay, but the way I am so obsessed with this scene and how Holbrook played it, especially considering how *different* it was in the script?? Just how quiet and subdued he is with the nurse, silently taking the tool she offers him – versus the original script that called for him to be abrasive and demanding (with some borderline sexist undertones!)

The way the script calls for him to get a little excited when he sees the photo (“makes his eyes bright”) and the way Holbrook plays it in an almost melancholy way?? If anything his eyes kind of darken and he gets a bit somber when looking at the photo (maybe it’s hard seeing Gabby after he had her killed??)

Continually fascinated by all the choices Holbrook made for this character, and that Pierce starts off the movie hyping himself up - being threatening and playful and energetic with Logan and Caliban - but really, after that Caliban interrogation scene he seems to lose most of that attitude and slips into what’s possibly his more natural personality when he’s not putting on a show - a little quieter, a little more thoughtful.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

did you mean ty shaw for that post? or am i forgetting one of his characters???

Lmfaoooo this is what I get for posting at midnight! Corrected!

Avatar

My friends, I am pleased to announce after thorough review and analysis I have put together a totally unbiased and completely academic ranking of Boyd Holbrook’s characters’ sexual prowesses, ranked from best to worst.

For your viewing pleasure and fandom rage. Behold.

Ty Shaw - Fucking amazing in the sack. He’s enthusiastic. He’s game. Wanna bring in another boy or girl?? Hell yeah, partner, he’s down! This man is the best combination of eager to please and self-confident without being cocky – and he’d absolutely take it in stride if you asked for him to change positions or switch things up. Life is a rodeo and he’s ready to ride! Or be ridden! 10/10

Klaber - As much as it hurts me to say it, he’d be pretty damn good. He’s got that big puppy energy and working dog excitability, and he’d definitely be bringing that into the bedroom. He seems like the sort that would let his partner take the reigns - but he can service top and service dom just as gamely as anything else. And tbh, unlike a bunch of Holbrook characters, he seems too dumb to really be able to get too in his own head about sex. 8/10

Quinn McKenna - He’d be perfectly competent. He knows what he’s doing. He’s down to do it. He’s got stamina and knows how to effectively utilize his strength and his body. He doesn’t seem particularly self-conscious, and he also seems like he’d be pretty tuned-in to his partner’s pleasure. THAT BEING SAID. He would absolutely be distracted. He’d be thinking about that meeting he has tomorrow morning as he fingers you. His endurance would be insane, but he might fall asleep on top of you before he finishes. He might kink shame you. …But he might still do those kinks anyway. This is unfortunately the last Holbrook character that is unequivocally good in bed. 6.5/10

The Corinthian - I am frankly a little amazed that the Corinthian has gotten such a fandom reputation for being a sex god! Look. This boy screams “pillow princess” so goddamn loud. He strikes me as someone that’s not afraid to get what he wants, but also doesn’t give a single shit if that’s also what his partner wants. He is a hedonist, and he is here for *his* pleasure, and unless you’re his master, you’re just the thing giving him that pleasure. That being said, he’s definitely picked up a couple tricks over the years he might bust out if you’re lucky, and watching him enjoy himself would certainly be a show! But good chance he also kills you and eats your eyes after. 5.5/10

Steve Murphy - The one thing I can say about our favorite DEA agent is that he’s *trainable*. Look. This is somebody that will do what he’s told and commit to his tasks with a laser-like intensity. He will work hard! But I doubt he thinks to communicate much about sex on his own, and if his partner doesn’t force the issue, he’s just gonna do the Standard Sexual Routine and assume you probably came sometime during the missionary. 5/10

Donald Pierce - This boy is kinky as all hell, and don’t get me wrong, there are absolutely circumstances where he could probably be a fantastic sexual partner. HOWEVER. He is just oozing insecurity and self-image issues - good luck getting him out of his own head long enough to even coax a full erection out of him. Pierce is constantly fronting and putting on a show - no way he’s gonna stop doing that when the clothes come off. In fact, it might just get worse! All that being said… he probably is pretty good at oral, and your orgasm is more important than his. 4/10

Clement Mansell - Similar to his singing, sex is a skill Clement thinks he’s amazing at, and is not. His arrogance and certainty that his dick will take his partner straight to nirvana only serves to make the mediocre foreplay and jackhammering that much worse. He will sprawl out on the bed afterwards with a self-satisfied smirk and drawl something like, “Told you I was good!” or “Bet you need breather after that, baby.”. He buys Magnum condoms he doesn’t need. The one upside is he’s got that energizer bunny gusto – if you *are* just into vigorous penetration, he’s the guy for you! 3.5/10

Cap Hatfield - Does not have sex. Does not want to have sex. 0/10

I sincerely hope I have done some psychic damage to my followers!! I welcome any additions or dissenting opinions!!

Avatar

I wish age gap discourse hadn't spiraled the way it has because I want there to be a safe space to say "Men in their 40s who date 25 year olds aren't predators, they're just fucking losers"

Avatar
dollblooms

... honey you just described a predator LOL

No, I said what I said. But thank you for providing an example of how this topic has become insufferable on the internet.

i am honestly burningly curious about how a 40 year old man who fucks around with college grads is not a predator

"College grad" is not a developmental stage, nor is it what I would describe a 25 year old as. I was 4 years out of college at 25. My mother had two children at 25. You can be a fucking congressman at 25.

There's a difference between a man who is immature and buys into misogynistic views of beauty and aging and one who is a predator. Also, many actual predators? Not losers and able to move through society pretty freely being seen as cool and the ideal, so conflating the two isn't helpful.

This is going to be my final response to any attempt at discourse. You're welcome to continue amongst yourselves.

also sometimes a 40 year old and a 25 year old just weirdly find each and it's a perfectly normal relationship - like all human relationships are complex and situational, it's so rarely an either/or thing let alone just one thing only

if a 40 year old dude only dates 25 year olds, DiCaprio style or something adjacent to it, then yeah he's a loser

if a 40 year old dude meets a 25 year old through social event or friends or whatever and they happen to hit it off and make a go of it, and this isn't some sort of reoccurring pattern for the guy, that's just a relationship with an age difference

being predatory means something specific, and man I agree w/ OP and really wish people just stopped ascribing it to any and all relationship dynamics they personally might not like

predator and groomer - two words that need to go up on the "can't use till you learn their meaning" shelf

Something I find really stressful is this seemingly endless creep of infantilisation and removal of autonomy from young people. Like, not to be all “in my dayyyy” about it, but… at 16, my friends and I were expected to be broadly responsible for our presence in the world. Most of us had jobs, we navigated public transport, looked after younger siblings. We were expected to make informed decisions about our future careers and our sexual partners. We were allowed to leave education and work full time (this was not necessarily good thing - I think increasing the school leaving age to 18 was broadly for the best). Most of us were smoking, or drinking, or both - again, not good things, but just facts - and many of us were sexually active. Many of the AFAB people I knew were on the pill. Legally, we could live independently, or get married with adult consent.

Legally (I live in the UK) we were not minors, although we inhabited an odd legal limbo until we turned 18, and we were certainly not “children”. Intellectually, socially, though, we were considered (young) adults, or at the most “older teenagers.” We were expected to read mostly adult books (rather than middle grade or YA), watch the news/read papers, watch mostly adult television.

And I do think we a bit under-protected, under-supported, and in some cases - neglected and financially exploited - and I’m not necessarily advocating that. But it did make us feel, I think, in charge of our own lives, capable and competent to make decisions.

At 16-17 my parents knew they could leave me alone overnight/for a couple of nights, and I wouldn’t starve or burn the house down. I felt comfortable getting cross country trains on my own, or booking and staying at a hotel (yes, with my boyfriend.)

Then there was this… creeping of sentiments that we were all Too Young to trouble our heads about certain things. A lot of it was good - more stringent licensing laws, raising the school leaving age, raising the minimum smoking age(!) - but some of the broader cultural stuff was… a bit patronising? Eg, the introduction of “New Adult” as a category of books aimed at 18-25 year olds, the way cartoons and books written for the 9-12 age group were being marketed as for the 12-15 age group, referring to late teens as “children,” etc etc.

Then, in 2008, there was the big financial crash and suddenly my generation were (broadly) robbed of all the usual markers of adulthood and success, meaning that we got ‘stuck’ in the lifestyles and modes our late teens/early 20s. And suddenly, all the emphasis shifted from social and legal protections for late teens/ younger adults, to legal restrictions on their freedoms/rights, and strange philosophical protections on the emotional states.

So, OF COURSE a 23 year old can’t buy a beer without carrying an ID card, and a 17 year old can’t have a crush on a 16 year old, but also, because you’re *children* you don’t need to live like adults. So the UK government got to save money by saying “18 isn’t a proper adult,” then “20 isn’t a proper adult,” and “25 isn’t a proper adult” because it meant they could refuse to give single occupancy housing benefit rates to people of those ages (I think they’ve raised it over 30 now.) Or by refusing to clamp down on exploitative temporary/zero hours contracts - because they’re just “temp jobs for young people!”, or by raising the retirement age because “60 is far too young to retire. You’re not a real adult until 35.”

And it means the discursive environment is such that you can claim that a 21 year old trans person is too young to make their own medical decisions, or a 15 year old is too young to consent to the contraceptive pill.

Meanwhile, they are not offering additional *protections* to these newly infantilised adults. 18 year olds are still encouraged to saddle themselves with enormous educational debt, or allowed to have credit cards, or expected to pay rent, or no longer receive child benefits. You still have to *work*. In fact, in the States, they’re looking to removed child employment restrictions - but that’s fine, because 20 year olds are being protected from making their own medical decisions, and adults get to say which books their teen kids are reading in school, and kids aren’t allowed to change their name or what they wear without parental consent.

We can see what these people are doing to the rights of children - so why are we being so complacent in expanding the definition of ‘child’?

Regardless - 25 is VERY CLEARLY an adult. At 25 I was married, had two kids, an overdraft, rent to pay, and experience of living in the world for 6 years. I had more in common with someone of 40 than I did with someone of 15. Hell, at*20* I had more in common with someone of 40 than someone of 15. Any sexual or relationship decisions you make at 25 are your own to make.

Of course there are likely to be power imbalances in a 15 year age gap - which is why most 25 year olds don’t date 40somethings - but not actually necessarily. And yeah, a 40 year old who only dates 20somethings is a skeeze - just like a 30 year old who routinely ingratiates themselves with rich 80 year olds is a skeeze.

But if any young people are reading this (doubt it)… your rights are much, much more important than your protections.

Yes, young people should be protected, but if someone claims they’re protecting you while denying you access to personal autonomy, financial stability, intellectual curiosity, or sexual self-determination because you’re “too young” to need, or understand those things… be very suspicious of their motives.

And if you’re legally an adult, ask yourself why you don’t feel comfortable defining yourself in those terms.

Avatar
traycakes

This thread is from 2023, and now with the Cass report we have seen the real, tangible danger that comes from infantilizing adults in their 20s.

Avatar
Avatar
ernmark

In writing, epithets ("the taller man"/"the blonde"/etc) are inherently dehumanizing, in that they remove a character's name and identity, and instead focus on this other quality.

Which can be an extremely effective device within narration!

  • They can work very well for characters whose names the narrator doesn't know yet (especially to differentiate between two or more). How specific the epithet is can signal to the reader how important the character is going to be later on, and whether they should dedicate bandwidth to remembering them for later ("the bearded man" is much less likely to show up again than "the man with the angel tattoo")
  • They can indicate when characters stop being as an individual and instead embody their Role, like a detective choosing to think of their lover simply as The Thief when arresting them, or a royal character being referred to as The Queen when she's acting on behalf of the state
  • They can reveal the narrator's biases by repeatedly drawing attention to a particular quality that singles them out in the narrator's mind

But these only work if the epithet used is how the narrator primarily identifies that character. Which is why it's so jarring to see a lot of common epithets in intimate moments-- because it conveys that the main character is primarily thinking of their lover/best friend/etc in terms of their height or age or hair color.