— The Moon and the Yew Tree, Sylvia Plath
[text ID: How I would like to believe in tenderness]
Making fun of bi women married to men and het trans people makes you a loser btw and it's not going to get you any pussy or clout, it just makes you look like an asshole. Pride month PSA
Queer mlw relationships are as valid as every other queer relationship
We are the Pride Knights, and this is our battle cry No enemy can shake us, as hard as they can try There’s a fire in our eyes that no hatred can kill A passion in our hearts that’s as strong as our will To our fellow queers who fight their battles on their own We promise to fight with you, you are never alone To our fellow queers who have fallen with the pain We thank you for your courage, your fight is not in vain We are defenders of the right to be proud of who you are To love who you love and to accept every scar We are your knights, protectors of our pride Together we stand, together we ride
LIMITED EDITION: The Pride Knights Playing Cards are now officially available for pre-order in our store until June 30, 2023!
prideknights.com ⚔️🌈
I JUST ORDERED THEM IM SO EXCITED
Only 2 days left!
I think it’s a mix of the great designs and dated graphics that really inspire me to draw Morrowind fanart. Like, I want to further explore the designs beyond what the game is able to show me. That’s Suran by the way and the lady is the actual silt strider npc
Good for him
Intense flex I wish I had his sauce
Asexuals were always part of pride and it really fucking shows when people think it's a recent term.
Although not going by the term "asexual" yet, asexuality was spoken about alongside homosexuality as far back as the 1890s. Asexual history is just as vital to queer history as any other term and I'm so tired of watching us being treated like a new thing
This image is so so fucking important to me
Reblog this, cowards
The two moods of cooking: FOOD GO IN POT and 17 million steps FANCY XD
Hey,
Have you ever been writing and it feels like every word you put on paper is just wrong? How do you get past that?
You get all the wrong words down.
Then the next day when you have your mojo back you fix them and find some of them were the right words after all.
I thought this was just known
I'm sorry, where's the controversy?
Yeah, this is not controversial. I’ve never found Leonardo DiCaprio attractive in the slightest. Brendan Fraser though? Was then, is now.
Just to say that this is the work of the UK-based artist @foragedfibres (instagram, Facebook) and that she often uses native British plants that she collects without damaging the environment, like dandelion stems, flag iris, English Ivy, etc. She also uses plants that behave invasively, like bindweed. But in general she is using indigenous UK plants that are overlooked and/or unwanted, and harvesting them ethically.
eating buttered bread with honey and some cheese like a medieval peasant . this shit is sublime
where did society go wrong . why cant i just eat slices of meat with bread and cheese and butter and honey and fruits . why do i have to nuke something in the microwave
fucking post cancelled i just remembered chuck cutlery boards exist
dear god we boogified scharcookie boards
bougeie-fied
nobody fucking look at me
One important thing that you should do as a queer person is to find another queer person whose brain works just like yours (romantically or not) and then adopt a cat together and then finally steal that fucking Pikachu and make it big
'But thy eternal summer shall not fade.'
This Crowley is very much inspired by Shakespeare's 'fair youth'. 🖤
Absolutely losing my mind here. Like it's not just the INCREDIBLE art, it's every single detail incorporated into Crowley's presentation driving me insane with both History Nerd Hyperfixation and The Genders.
The ruff was worn by both men and women. (See Aziraphale in ep3). This one's larger, as if it were meant for a dress perhaps, but it's deliberately hard to tell what upper garment that is. A doublet or a bodice? The pearl chains are feminine; the buckle and strip across the chest are not, to my knowledge, or at the very least not commonly. The adornments on the sleeves are anyone's guess; the flattened chests of the era only contribute to further questions. The hair is long, but the style could only be feminine in a private context at odds with the formal clothing. Men wore their hair down; women didn't, as a rule (again see ep3, but this time Crowley). That bonnet/cap (? Trying to find the proper English word) is also pretty ambiguous, but funnily enough it reminds me of descriptions made of Rosalind's cap in her male outfit (from As You Like It). Which, in Shakespeare's time, would have been a young man pretending to be a woman pretending to be a man. How's that for gender fuckery? The kind that Crowley has a penchant for?
Specifically, it reminds me of the description Dorian Gray makes of Sybil Vane wearing that outfit, the "dainty little green cap with a hawk's feather caught in a jewel" (only, obviously, in Crowley's color, and with what appears to be an Angel's feather instead, supremely interesting that; we don't know if the jewel is there or not, as it would have been at the back), which was a heavy nod to queerness since he specifies "she had never seemed to [him] more exquisite" than crossdressing as a boy, and that she reminded him of a male Tanagra figurine in Basil's possession. That style of pearl earring was all the rage during the Elizabethan era, both for men and for women, but it was much more common for men to only wear one. That seems to be what's happening here, but due to the way that Crowley's hair is arranged we can not know whether it's one or two being worn. That makeup is not regular makeup, at least not around the eyes: the lily white skin and rouged cheeks and lips may well be worn by an affluent woman, but not those heavy dark shadows and shapes on and around the lids. It's theatrical makeup. Women weren't allowed onstage, but there's also plenty of theory about individuals we would today categorize as some flavor of transfem taking to the profession and the female roles. The "fair youth" the artist references is established to have been a man, but who that young man was is anyone's guess, a subject of contention, and of plenty of theories, one of the most popular being that it was one of the actors in Shakespeare's own company, whose age and physical description as per the sonnets would have made him suited for the female roles. And let's not forget the centuries-long erasure and insistence that Shakespeare could only be talking about a woman.
In short: the portrait manages to capture an almost perfect androgyny and plaster a giant question mark over Crowley's current gender while simultaneously visually referencing the mystery and misdirection applied to the inspiration for said portrait, this "fair youth" of the sonnets that, in the Good Omens universe, could very well have been Crowley themself, and create a visual impression that is nothing short of masterful both in those regards and in its sheer beauty, and my little queer history nerd Crowley-loving nonbinary heart couldn't possibly be more thrilled.
Wow, thanks so much for writing such a long analysis!!! It's so spot on. Indeed this portrait is all about gender fluidity and a mix of men's and women's styles of the era (Crowley seems to like dressing themself this way in the TV Series). I also thought about the fair youth in the GO universe could very well be Crowley themself! Whee!
I'll just add a few portraits I used as references for Crowley's style here. The sitters' dates are pretty close together but I wasn't being too strict...
- The Earl of Southampton (1573 - 1624). Known for his beautiful long hair. He is also a popular candidate for Shakespeare's 'fair youth'.
- The Duke of Buckingham (1592 - 1628). He was James I's lover and seemed to have a penchant for pearls (which were indeed more commonly worn by women), as he was painted with LOTS of them in two of his portraits.
- Sir Walter Raleigh (1552 - 1618). No reason, I just really like his little bonnet in this portrait.
If you like the word “queer” reblog.
i identify more with queer than i do with any single one of the initials
It’s not really possible to express my identity without the word queer
One of the really fun and interesting things about writing a polyamorous romance as someone who is ambiamorous/polyamorous is finding new ways to make sure the narrative hits the expected genre beats without just sort of... mushing it into a pre-existing monogamous romance mold, which is what I'm afraid happens a lot of the time.
Trust me, it was my job in the publishing house to make them fit that mold. I hated it.
Reading other poly-centric romances, I can always somewhat tell when someone is writing polyamory from a sexual fantasy aspect (zero shade; I'm here for all the group sex) without actually considering how it functions as a relationship dynamic, which can often come off as... well.
It's lacking for me as a romance.
Erotica-wise, it's fine. But it misses the romantic beats for me that I want as a polyamorous-leaning person.
There's so much emphasis on the polycule and never the individual dyads within the larger relationship.
For example, in a triad, there are actually four relationships to handle.
The dyad between A + B. The dyad between A + C. The dyad between B + C. And the overarching relationship between A + B + C.
With monogamous-leaning authors or authors that've been pressed into conforming to the pre-existing genre beats, there's a tendency to treat the relationship as a homogenous mass where everything is fair and equal, and you treat all your partners the exact same way.
And I get it. It's easier to write everything as peachy-keen and to have external conflict be resolved with either acceptance or a brave confrontation.
But it doesn't always land for me as someone who wants to see my style of love represented in the genre.
In healthy polyamory, either closed or open, each relationship is unique in its own way. Taking the example of a triad again, the way A acts with C likely differs from how A acts with B.
And that's a good thing!
Because C might not want the same things as B, so trying to treat them both the exact same is a surefire way to make sure someone isn't getting their needs met, and that will lead to conflict.
Polyamory isn't striving for equality between partners but rather equity.
What are your individual needs, and how do I meet them, as well as meet the needs of my other partner(s)? What do you want from the larger relationship as a whole? How do we accommodate everyone without making someone feel neglected or uncomfortable? How do we show this in the narrative? How do we make sure character A isn't just treating B the same as C in every interaction? Do they ever fall into that pitfall? How do they remedy it?
It seems like common sense when you write it out like that, but it's a major pitfall I see time and time again. The characters never alternate their approach between partners, if there's any focus on the individuals at all.
The other major telltale thing I've noticed is that taking time to be with one partner is seen as a step down from the "goal" of the greater polycule.
The narrative is framed in such a way that they might start out with individual dates, but the end goal of the romance is to eventually be together 100% of the time all the time, and wanting individual time alone with any one partner is somehow "lesser."
Which is the goal of romance in monogamy, but it's not the goal of romance in polyamory.
Granted, you do need to end on a Happy Ever After or Happy For Now for it to fit the genre requirement. And a nice way of tying that up is to have everyone together at the end as a happy polycule all together all at once. I'm not disputing that as a narrative tool. I'm just pointing out that there's a tendency to present those moments as the sum total of the relationship when in actuality, there are multiple relationships that need to end happily ever after.
The joy of polyamorous love is the joy of multitudes. It's the joy of experiencing new things, both as individuals and as a polycule. If you're not taking care of the individual dyads, however, your polycule is going to crash and burn. You cannot avoid that. So why, then, is there such avoidance of it in stories meant to appeal to us?
Is it simply inexperience on behalf of the author? Or is it that they're not actually being written for us? Is it continued pressure to meet certain genre beats in a largely monogamous-centric genre? All of the above?
Either way, I'm having fun playing around with it and doing all the things we were warned against in the publishing house.
I'm having fun with Nathan and Vlad enjoying their own private dynamic that is theirs and theirs alone. I'm having fun with Ursula and Nathan being so careful and vulnerable around each other. I'm absolutely 100% here for the chaos of Vlad and Ursula without a chaperone. And I'm here for the chaos of Vlad and Ursula together and Nathan's fond, loving eye roll as he trails after them, too enamored to tell either of them no because where would the fun in that be...
Anyway. Don't mind me. Just getting my thoughts out while everyone else is in bed.