Rick describing Thalia in Sea of Monsters as "somewhere between a punk and a goth" (plus every subsequent time he uses "emo" and "goth" interchangeably to describe Nico, and that one time Percy describes his ideal self as punk) tells me Rick has no idea what music/fashion subculture terminology is.
im like 90% sure he thinks "goth" and "emo" are the same thing. He's literally just describing emo/punk here. there is nothing here that screams "goth." this was 2006. sir.
1K notes
·
View notes
Ever think about how the author of PIDW transmigrated into his most nothing character who only existed to push the protagonist on the “right” path to popularity before dying? Ever think about how he transmigrated into that character from their birth, completely deleting that person from existence, while his own existence as the creator of the world he now inhabits is so thoroughly erased that we readers only know his “real name” as the character’s name? How the only name he carries over from his first life is a shortened version of his innuendo pen name? As if his existence as a person is nothing next to being the author, which is only marginally less nothing by virtue of the job’s one purpose: to make sure a story is following the “right” path to popularity before dying to enshrine that fame/infamy amongst readers?
No? Just me? Ok…
175 notes
·
View notes
Maybe controversial, but on posts about being dumb where girls are like saying ‘but I’m actually smart.’ Like tbh, I don’t really believe them. Like if you’re smart why does feeling dumb feel so good or hot or whatever to you then? I kinda feel like it’s having an excuse to let go of trying as much as you would be when you’re saying your smart. If you’re like really actually smart, I don’t feel like a break from ‘being smart’ would be such a relief or like as appealing.
142 notes
·
View notes
could you reword /post/719924987074609152/? i can’t make heads or tails of what you’re saying there, i’m sorry 😵💫
[post]
i'm responding to a strain of reactionary positions on sex and desire and kink which stakes its criticism on the grounds that practitioners of particular sexual practices have failed to apply some form of "critical thinking" to their understanding of the practice in question, and were they to do so, they would understand it + their relationship to it as the result of social conditioning brought on by occupying a particular subject position. to be more precise, i was thinking of kink discourse & specifically the idea that women who desire certain kink practices which an uncharitable onlooker might have grounds to claim is "reproducing" the logics of patriarchy only desire (or think they desire) these practices because by virtue of being women they've been conditioned to, idk, think of themselves under the particular subject terms that the kink allegedly imposes. this critique essentially posits that the practitioner needs to be made to understand that she actually only wants, eg. BDSM, CNC, whatever else, because of her patriarchal conditioning, and women's liberation means absconding from this conditioning and therefore absconding from these practices.
reactionary position on several levels, but in that post i was specifically trying to note that this is v misogynistic---far more so than a woman who asks her boyfriend to spank her during sex might be. it's incredibly patronising. it starts from the assumption that the woman in question not only has no agency in this scenario but also no awareness of the supposed subjectivity that she imposes on herself in participating in it, and leaves no room for the notion that women have a say in their own desires and an understanding of how to negotiate them within consensual boundaries without bringing the entire composite force of the patriarchy down on their heads. these poor women are too stupid to know they're being oppressed under patriarchy, as is evinced by their horrible sex thoughts :(
94 notes
·
View notes