#SHE IS FINALLY IN A HAPPY RELATIONSHIP | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

Post activity is at the highest at 4:00 pm EDT; notes peak at 10:00 pm EDT.

#SHE IS FINALLY IN A HAPPY RELATIONSHIP

drbtinglecannon · 9 months

Text

The thing driving me so insane about Loid and Yor communicating so openly is that this is how a couple in an actual relationship would address the problems they're having

She's asking him to rely on her, saying that he doesn't need to put up appearances all the time, that she knows he's capable but she's here to help and wants to, that he doesn't need to be perfect.

They're in a fake marriage. Loid has repeatedly told her she doesn't have to do anything but be around for specific events, but Yor still genuinely took up the role of Anya's mom and has been actively working to be a good mother to her fake husband's daughter this entire time, and now she's gently pushing back on Loid about not helping him either.

They aren't in love yet, or at least aren't aware of any developing feelings, but Yor is still reaching out to Loid in a way that someone in a real committed relationship would to their partner. She doesn't need to!! She's completely in her right to not help him, to not care!! He has given her the explicit permission of it multiple times!! But she cares about him, Anya, and Bond, this little family they've created. She wants him to lean on her like she does on him

#spy x family #sxf manga spoilers #twiyor #loidyor #whether you ship loidyor romantically or as qpps the writing of their relationship has been the best fake marriage i've ever seen hands down #she! cares! for! him! & want to help! & he's even realizing that he wishes he could lean on her more but cant! AHHH #but legit this was such healthy communication in this chapter that its like do either of you remember this is fake? that youre basically #roommates co-parenting a child who pretend to be married for your own respective safety? yor is an assassin. having a distant relationship #to her fake husband would only make that all easier for her but SHE DOESNT WANT THAT SHE WANTS TO BE CLOSER TO HIM!! BC SHE CARES ABOUT HIM #& APPRECIATES ALL HE DOES FOR HER!!! AND HES FINALLY REALIZING HOW MUCH HER HAPPINESS MEANS TO HIM TOO!! AHHHH #i'm being so normal about this #tc posts

927 notes · View notes

fromtheseventhhell · 2 months

Text

"I have no sister." The words were knives. What do you know of my heart, priestess? What do you know of my sister? | Jon VI

--metaphorical knives at feigning neutrality regarding his sister

Jon fell to his knees. He found the dagger's hilt and wrenched it free. In the cold night air the wound was smoking. "Ghost," he whispered. Pain washed over him. Stick them with the pointy end. When the third dagger took him between the shoulder blades, he gave a grunt and fell face-first into the snow. He never felt the fourth knife. Only the cold... | Jon XIII

--literal knives from breaking that neutrality to save her

#jon snow #arya stark #asoiaf #valyrianscrolls #it's like poetry it rhymes #Jon is just destined to suffer over his love for Arya huh 😭#god when is it finally their turn to reunite and be happy??#people read this and really think he would've done the same for anyone other then Arya?? the delusion is strong #gatekeeping their relationship from the heathens that try and turn Arya into just a /proxy for family/ y'all aren't worthy #George did NOT have to go this hard when writing about them but I am so glad that he did #/Jon will want me even if no one else does/ you have no idea 🥹#and when Arya parallels this by leaving the FM when she hears of his death I'm gonna be losing my mind

144 notes · View notes

emsylcatac · 10 months

Text

The thing with the "Adrien deserves to know the truth" is that while yes it's true, to me it's also a lot of "Marinette deserves to be happy too"

Because sure right now Adrien is happy and that's great for him, I've seen people argue that he might never know and that it's probably better because he deserves to be happy and not traumatised. But him never knowing means Marinette has to hide it everyday and live with the knowledge that she's hiding something big to the person she trusts the most, unable to share everything with him. And that's not fair at all

In the long run, Adrien knowing would hurt his happiness less than him not knowing would hurt Marinette's. And if the show chooses to let Adrien blissfully unaware of Gabriel's crimes (which I doubt but you never know), I'm not okay with Marinette hurting, nor with their relationship never feeling quite as strong as we know it should be all because of Gabriel

#for the record i do believe this plot will be addressed #but i see ppl angry that adrien doesn't know and deserves to #and i'm like yes he does but not only for him but for marinette too she doesn't deserve that it is so unfair!!#& then i see ppl saying it's probably better he never finds out cause he deserves happiness and again!!!!! what about marinette's!!!#she deserves to not feel pressured by that knowledge and to live her relationship fully #ml spoilers #recreation #recreation spoilers #ml s5 finale #s5 finale spoilers

174 notes · View notes

blueskittlesart · 11 months

Note

any thoughts on how once again zelda was robbed of her agency because her "father figure" didn't listen to her? even if rauru was kinder to her than her father. and that she had sonia who was patient and loving for a little while before she died (just like her mother). i know rauru apologizes for his hubris but still, i wish we saw zelda be upset about it. and even if zelda was such a big part of the quest she still literally sacrificed her humanity once again because of someone else's mistake- because rauru literally didn't listen to the girl from the future that warned you that shit was going to go down. o know nintendo just loves putting zelda inside crystals and stones but i wish we got something better. even if it was her decision to become a dragon... did she have any other choice? it really just feels like they robbed her of agency again just like botw and the games before

i've been trying to figure out how to answer this one. because there are two ways i could analyze this plot point, either from a writer's perspective or an in-story perspective, but neither of those lead to me fully agreeing with your interpretation? I think there's definitely something to be said about zelda consistently being pushed aside in these games, but. well. ok let's get into it ig

from a writer's perspective, I do honestly have quite a bit of sympathy for the zelda devs as they attempt to navigate the modern political landscape with these games. The cyclical lore, though canonized relatively recently, holds them to a standard of consistency in their games in terms of certain key elements. one of those key elements is that there has to be a princess, and that princess must somehow be the main macguffin of the game. The player must chase her, and the end goal of the game must be to reunite the player and the princess. In 1986 this was an incredibly easy sell. women didn't need to be characters. players were content with saving a 2-dimensional princess whose only purpose was to tell them "good job!" at the end. but as society advances, that princess becomes a much more difficult character to write while adhering to the established overarching canon. (as a side note: i don't necessarily believe that the writers SHOULD be held to the standards of that canon. I think deviating from it in certain areas would be a good change of pace. but i also recognize that deviations from the formula are widely hated by the loz playerbase and that they're trying to make money off these games, so we're working under the established rule that the formula must be at least loosely adhered to.) Modern fans want a princess who is a person, who has agency and makes decisions and struggles in the same way the hero does. but modern fans ALSO want a game that follows the established rules of the canon. so we need a princess who is a real character but who can ALSO serve as a macguffin within the narrative, something that is inherently somewhat objectifying.

the two games that i think do the best job writing a princess with agency are skyward sword and botw (based on your ask, our opinions differ there lol. hear me out) in both games, we have a framing event which seperates zelda and link, but in both games, that separation was ZELDA'S CHOICE. skyward sword zelda runs away from link out of fear of hurting him. botw zelda chooses to return to the castle alone to allow link the time he needs to heal. sksw kinda fumbled later on by having ghirahim kidnap her anyway, but. i said BEST not PERFECT. botw zelda I think is the better example because, with the context of the memories, she's arguably MORE of a character than link is. we see her struggles, her breakdowns, her imperfection, specifically we see her struggle with her lack of agency within the context of the game itself. when she steps in front of link in the final memory, and when she chooses to return to the castle, those are some of the first choices we see her make almost completely free of outside influence; a RECLAMATION of her agency (within the narrative) after years of having it stripped from her. from an objective viewer's standpoint, this writing decision still means she is absent from 90% of the game and that she has little control over her actions for the duration of the player's journey. however I think this is just about the best they could have done to create a princess with agency and a real character arc while still keeping the macguffin formula intact--you're not really SAVING zelda in botw. SHE is the one that is saving YOU; when you wake up on the plateau with no memories, too weak to fight bokoblins, let alone calamity ganon. the reason you are allowed to train and heal in early-game botw is because SHE is in the castle holding ganon back, protecting YOU. When you enter the final fight, you're not rescuing zelda, you're relieving her of her duty. taking over the work she's been doing for the past hundred years. in the final hour, you both work in tandem to defeat ganon. while this isn't a PERFECT example of a female character with agency and narrative weight, i think it's a pretty good one, especially in the context of save-the-princess games like loz.

as for totk, you put a lot of emphasis on rauru not believing zelda and taking action immediately, which, again, from an objective standpoint, i understand. but even when we're writing characters with social implications in mind, those character's actions still need to... make sense. Rauru was a king ruling over what he believed to be a perfectly peaceful kingdom. zelda literally fell out of the sky, landed in front of him, claimed to be his long-lost granddaughter, and then told him that some random ruler of a fringe faction in the desert was going to murder him and he had to get the jump on it by killing him first. the ruler which this girl is trying to convince rauru to wage an unprompted war on has the power to disguise himself as other people. no one in their right mind would immediately take the girl at her word. war is not something any leader should jump into without proper research and consideration, and to rauru's credit, he DIDN'T ever outright dismiss zelda. he believed her when she said she was from the future, he allowed her to work with him and he took her warnings as seriously as he could without any further proof. but he could not wage an unprompted war on ganondorf. that's just genuinely not practical, especially for a king who values peace among his people as much as rauru seems to. as soon as ganondorf DID attack, giving rauru confirmation that zelda's accounts of the future were real, he began making preparations to confront him. remember that zelda didn't KNOW that rauru and sonia were going to be casualties of the war--she didn't make the connection between rauru's arm in the future and rauru the king until AFTER sonia's death, when rauru made the decision to attack ganondorf directly. I think the imprisoning war and the casualties of it were less an issue of zelda being denied agency and more an issue of no one, including zelda, having full context for the events as they were unfolding. if zelda had KNOWN that sonia and rauru were going to die from the beginning and was still unable to prevent it that would be a different issue, but she didn't. none of them did.

I think another thing worth pointing out with rauru and his death irt zelda is that rauru is clearly written specifically as a foil to rhoam. this is evident in how he treats both zelda and link, with a constant kindness and understanding which is clearly opposite to rhoam's dismissiveness and disappointment. consider rhoam's death and the circumstances surrounding it. He died because, in zelda's eyes, she was unable to do her duty; the one thing he constantly berated her for. Rhoam's death solidified zelda's belief that she was a failure, a belief which she KNEW rhoam held as well. his death was doubly traumatic to her because she knew he died believing it was her fault. Now contrast that to the circumstances surrounding rauru's death. Rauru CHOSE to die despite zelda's warnings, because he wanted zelda and his kingdom to live. rauru's death was not agency-stripping for zelda; in fact, it functioned almost as an admission that he believed her capable of continuing to live in his place. With him gone, the fate of the kingdom fell to her and the sages. he KNEW that he would die and still went into that battle confidently, trusting zelda to make the right decisions once he was gone. where rhoam believed zelda incapable of doing ANYTHING without link, rauru trusted zelda COMPLETELY with the fate of his kingdom. several details in totk confirm that when rauru died there was no plan for zelda to draconify, that all happened after rauru was gone. it was HER plan, the plan which rauru trusted her to come up with once he was gone. and I think it's also worth noting that zelda's sacrifice with the draconification parallels rauru's!! Rauru gives up his life trusting the sages and his people to be able to continue his work in his place. Zelda gives up her physical form trusting link and the sages in the future to be able to figure out what to do and find her. these games in general have this recurring theme but totk specifically is all about love and trust and reliance on others. zelda relies on link, link relies on zelda, they both rely on the champions and the sages and rauru and sonia and they all rely each other. reliance on others isn't lack of agency, it's a constant choice they make, and that choice is the thing which allows them to triumph.

The draconification itself is something i view similarly to zelda's sacrifice in botw--a choice she makes which, symbolically & within the confines of the narrative, is a demonstration of her reclaimed agency and places her at the center of the narrative, but which ALSO removes her from much of the player's experience and robs her of any overt presence or decisionmaking within the gameplay. again, I think this is a solution to the macguffin-with-agency dilemma, and it's probably one of the better solutions they could have come up with. Would I have liked to see a game where zelda is more present within the actual gameplay? yes, but I also understand that at this point the writers aren't quite willing to deviate that much from their formula. the alternative within the confines of this story would be to let zelda DIE in the past, removing her from gameplay ENTIRELY, which is an infinitely worse option in my opinion. draconification allowed her to be present, centered the narrative around her, and allowed the writers to reiterate the game's theme of trust and teamwork when she assists the player in the final battle, which i think was a REALLY great choice, narratively speaking.

In any case, I don't think it's right to say that zelda was completely robbed of her agency in botw and totk. Agency doesn't always mean that she's unburdened and constantly present, it means she's given the freedom to make her own choices and that her choices are realistically written with HER in mind, not just the male characters around her, and I think botw/totk do a pretty good job of writing her and her choices realistically and with nuance.

#as a note i do think that loz still has a LONG way to go in terms of defining female characters by their relationships with men #and i acknowledge that a lot of zelda's choices within these games are STILL made irt male characters like her father link rauru etc #BUT i still don't think it's fair to act like shes been completely stripped and reduced to a damsel because.. she hasn't.#she's a very nuanced depiction of a girl who is used to being dismissed and ignored and powerless #her initial response to that powerlessness in botw was to reject everyone. she got loud and mean and she tried to do everything alone #and she discovered that that wasn't the right way to get what she wanted. it didnt make her happy and it didn't win her anyones approval #what DID work for her was learning to rely on the people around her and work with them. she found solace in teamwork and family #which is why in the final battle she and link fight TOGETHER against ganon. neither of them can do it alone but they can together #the same thing applies to totk. she continues her own journey by finding others like her who understand her powers and can teach her #so by the time she DOES end up alone she has been given the confidence and skillset to figure out what she has to do #you get it. you understand what im saying #asks #totk spoilers #zelda analysis

162 notes · View notes

ineffable-gallimaufry · 20 days

Text

in depth analysis of why i didn't like les misérables (1998) under cut. because. i have actually coherent thoughts tbh but also. well it's a lot

section one: a thing that people didn't like (maybe) that i liked but it also leads into an actual issue i had

so, little lead in to this! so you know where valjean is stealing the silverware? happens every time? and then how they switched it up so the bishop walks in and then valjean fucking punches him in the face for no reason? yeah. so i don't have a problem with that. controversial take but yeah. lemme get into that... with... how jean valjean is introduced in the book!

so, there's three scenes we see of jean valjean before we go into his madeline era which show two sides of him namely that he is both a man made cruel by the prison system and a man rejected by society. what we get of jean valjean in the scene where he steals the silver is a first glimpse of the violence and desperation he is living in. mostly we see it in the scene with petit gervais but i digress. my point is, jean valjean in this part of the book is NOT the same as he is when we next see him in m-sur-m. so, what he can be is desperate. when he punches the bishop, that is because he is desperate to steal the silver so he can survive. that makes sense. also, it makes the bishop even better since he's willing to forgive jean valjean even AFTER that.

so. that's not the problem though. the problem is, this is jean valjean from the past! looping back around to petit gervais, this is where he actually gets better. when he meets the bishop, that's when he gets the means to get where he gets, and he is able to have someone believe he can be better. after petit gervais, jean valjean realizes he fucked up! he sees himself as a monster! and then THAT'S where he commits to bettering himself. (pleaseee adapt petit gervais into more things pretty please) but where '98 fucks up is that they don't have valjean grow! he doesn't get better! he's still the same guy! what the hell! he was supposed to improve and grow! and because he doesn't do that, this leads to quite a few problems later on. but that's other points.

section two: the police shit. aka beauvais

you betcha i have a problem with a random character who's name i couldn't even remember!! captain beauvais, in case you forgot, is the captain in m-sur-m and he's more sympathetic to jvj, he lets himself get knocked out after fantine dies (i will get back to the scene i promise) he's not in the book! and he's one of my biggest problems, that being how this movie handles the idea of the police!

here's how the book sees it. javert is a character who is clearly not in the right, but it is made explicitly clear that is BECAUSE he is doing his job. now i don't know if that's what victor hugo intended but the way i've been reading it is that javert is a good cop which makes him a bad person, or rephrased, it's because he is a cog in a fundamentally abusive system that he's our antagonist, not because he's uniquely malicious

in fact, this is basically stated outright in the chapter "Javert Satisfied", through the quotes "Javert, though frightful, had nothing ignoble about him," and "Without himself suspecting the fact, Javert in his formidable happiness was to be pitied, as is every ignorant man who triumphs," we see here that javert is not supposed to be malicious! what he is, evidently, is ignorant!! and where does he get that ignorance?

"Javert had been born in prison, of a fortune-teller, whose husband was in the galleys. As he grew up, he thought that he was outside the pale of society, and he despaired of ever re-entering it. He observed that society unpardoningly excludes two classes of men,—those who attack it and those who guard it; he had no choice except between these two classes; at the same time, he was conscious of an indescribable foundation of rigidity, regularity, and probity, complicated with an inexpressible hatred for the race of bohemians whence he was sprung. He entered the police; he succeeded there."

read that quote again! he was born in a prison (and yes i will get into the prison shit) and that's where the problem is. this upbringing leads him to believe that his only redemption is through policing, leading him to not question the methods and stuff! javert isn't good BUT the reason he isn't good is explicitly connected to the way the police system is broken!

and that leads us to ... captain beauvais! or rather what he represents, the idea that the system isn't the problem, javert is! this movie goes out of its way to portray javert as being particularly bad, something that goes counter to the fact that he is supposed to be an example of how no matter how noble someone believes themselves to be, policing is a fundamentally broken system that merely suppresses those seen as outside the pale of society, rather than treating people as people! the point is that javert is a part of the very same system that threw jean valjean in jail for stealing when he was hungry!

remember how victor hugo said, "So long as there shall exist, by virtue of law and custom, decrees of damnation pronounced by society, artificially creating hells amid the civilization of earth, and adding the element of human fate to divine destiny; so long as the three great problems of the century—the degradation of man through pauperism, the corruption of woman through hunger, the crippling of children through lack of light—are unsolved; so long as social asphyxia is possible in any part of the world;—in other words, and with a still wider significance, so long as ignorance and poverty exist on earth, books of the nature of Les Misérables cannot fail to be of use. "??? remember that???

javert is made out as particularly bad in '98! when they're chasing valjean, he is the one that specifically pushes them so hard the cart crashes! and beauvais is the main problem here because they insert him in as a sympathetic character from the police to juxtapose against javert, making it so that there's no longer an angle that is critical of the systems that are the problem! aka, the whole fucking point!! arghhhh!!!

section three: why tf did jvj beat up javert???

see. okay. while i do think javert deserved it for being a super extra huge asshole in this. and i think he was probably into it, that's not my point. it's not about javert!! it's about jean valjean. let's look at the book again.

so, this is in "authority reasserts its rights" btw. fantine dies, jean valjean threatens javert, talks to fantine and says ... well they don't say, but he gets his closure. and then what he does is, he turns to javert and he says "Now, I am at your disposal." he notably does NOT beat him up. he submits himself to the law! and that's really interesting! because that has implications!

see, because this isn't just a one time thing! jean valjean tries to break out of jail four times and this turns his five years into nineteen, the nineteen years that break him. when he is offered the opportunity to sleep in a bed, all he can remember is how he hasn't slept in a bed for NINETEEN YEARS! this greatly impacts his character going on and they aren't acknowledging it! when he escapes the first time, it's said that, "He wandered for two days in the fields at liberty, if being at liberty is to be hunted, to turn the head every instant, to quake at the slightest noise, to be afraid of everything," and then, when he is put at liberty finally, he is still afraid of conflict on the same level! victor hugo specifically says "Jean Valjean had entered the galleys sobbing and shuddering; he emerged impassive. He had entered in despair; he emerged gloomy." see, he emerges prison with two options, his violent impulses and the passive acceptance of what happens to him, BOTH bad! but as we see in part one, this violence is something that he grows out of! and this leaves one last maladaptive problem, his avoidant tendencies! this is what his response is, avoiding that violence and submitting to authority!

and that's our problem from part one again. he hasn't grown. if jean valjean, at this point, reacts with violence, he hasn't grown! like, and we can see this tendency again and again! when jvj sees the chain gang in... well, "the chain gang" they say, "Jean Valjean’s eyes had assumed a frightful expression. They were no longer eyes; they were those deep and glassy objects which replace the glance in the case of certain wretched men, which seem unconscious of reality, and in which flames the reflection of terrors and of catastrophes. He was not looking at a spectacle, he was seeing a vision. He tried to rise, to flee, to make his escape; he could not move his feet." he is trying to run! when he is confronted with the horror of his past, he wants to run instead of confronting the problem head on! when javert shows up after jvj and cosette arrive in paris, when jean valjean sees javert, it is said, "He recoiled, terrified, petrified, daring neither to breathe, to speak, to remain, nor to flee, staring at the beggar who had dropped his head, which was enveloped in a rag, and no longer appeared to know that he was there," and even when he has javert completely at his mercy, he says, "I do not think that I shall escape from this place. But if, by chance, I do, I live, under the name of Fauchelevent, in the Rue de l’Homme Armé, No. 7."

what does this all mean? jean valjean WOULD NOT beat up javert. that's just a complete failure to understand that during and after his madeline era, he is non-confrontational! i mean, when i said avoidant, that was honestly a misnomer. he doesn't even run. what he does is submit himself to the law. time and time again. when he frees javert, he offers himself up. when he sees anything that threatens him, he freezes! and that's why in this scene, it makes the most sense for him to immediately submit to javert, and the law! whoever wrote this movie SUPER fucked up with jean valjean! and speaking of fucking up with jean valjean...

section four: how the fuck did they screw up cosette so bad‽

do i really need to go into this. over protective mother jean valjean is how he do be, and he does hate marius because he has a weird fucking relationship with cosette but like. let's not get into his weird complexes. because here's the main thing:

HE WOULD NOT FUCKING SLAP COSETTE

let me back this up. "two misfortunes make one piece of good fortune" specifically gives us of valjean, "It sometimes happened that Jean Valjean clasped her tiny red hand, all cracked with chilblains, and kissed it. The poor child, who was used to being beaten, did not know the meaning of this, and ran away in confusion." this is important, because it shows that valjean is explicitly counter to the thénardiers in his parenting! where the thénardiers beat cosette and shit, jean valjean DOES NOT. he is supposed to be gentle. he's not "figuring out what he's doing and super fucking up" he literally helped his sister raise her kids! and he forgot what that was but upon starting to raise cosette, he comes back to this! he loves her so much you guys! and let me bring you another quote, victor hugo tells us of valjean and cosette, "He protected her, and she strengthened him," HE PROTECTED HER! that's the whole g*ddamn point! he's an overprotective mom, he's scared to have his daughter leave him alone again, and he loves her so much he wouldn't become that horrible! and he doesn't!

jean valjean would never hurt cosette, and if you wanted to go in that direction, make that actually hold weight! make him realize that he's hurting cosette by clinging onto her so hard! make him realize that he's in the wrong, and make him more self sacrificial because he feels extremely bad about doing that! i mean, obviously... i don't think it works. but my point is, if you do it, give it weight. make it matter! they didn't do that and they fucked up their relationship in the process. bad movie. don't do that.

section five: uhhh wtf was up with marius

i don't actually have in depth analysis of this. i am done with my in depth thoughts. they just entirely fucked up les amis de l'abc. idk what to say. horrible job. i'm gonna call it a day tbh. it's late. i don't have any like actually interesting things to comment on. hope you enjoy if you did read this since... it's my analysis and i wrote it up and all that

#les mis #les miserables #les misérables #jean valjean #javert #cosette #inspector javert #les mis 1998 #i didn't like it. not my favorite. i did like jvj and fantines relationship though. that was cute #i liked how they both couldn't read and it was cute because she finally had someone care about her and she was so happy #like. i just liked that dynamic. but i am being negative since. i can't stop thinking about it

23 notes · View notes

garbagequeer · 8 months

Text

haha guys it’s not that im pushing for heteronormativity i swear i just think it’s problematic to have more characters come out late in the game other than the designated gay side characters haha not because i think main characters shouldn't be gay or because it makes me uncomfortable when gay characters don’t come with a designated partner and instead of staying confined to their part of the story experience desire in many directions it’s just because it is queerbaiting! to make new characters gay! somehow! or fetishistic! or something! but it is not okay! but i swear im not pushing for a heteronormative story i swear it’s just that i think it’s cowardly to not make the characters end up all in their respective monogamous relationships and instead portray a more realistic idea where they can be with more than one person and their relationships can change during their lifetimes and they still hold love for each other in a way that is not limited to traditional romantic models haha. because you know you can’t end the story without telling me how your characters straight marry each other and have kids haha that’s just a cop out to avoid a real ending even if you tell me your characters’ lives to the day they died. yeah no it’s not heteronormative to consider classic endgames the only form of closed ending because i would support the designated lesbian and gay ship also getting married and having kids haha. what do you mean your story has been poking fun at the concept of endgame the entire time dont be silly haha

#riverdale #a week since the finale if i see one more person be like but the ending is just to avoid picking barchie or bughead i will kill you #they did barchie for a while and bughead for a while and beronica for a while and the quad for a while and then they didnt #and then they died and went to pop's. because they love each other forever. 'wahh but who is in a relationship in the big pop's in the sky'#they are dead. this is a representation of the afterlife where you are always 17 and therefore wont see anyone you loved past that age #but you are so happy because you really did love all your friends from high school you drifted from after a while #SO much it was your dying wish to see them again #and people wan to ask well but did she love archie or jughead more? she's dead. she's 86. she's 17. she is at pop's. it's a stupid question #thing

91 notes · View notes

pyramidofmice · 11 months

Text

Sally's apology to John really struck me as a raw, meaningful parent-to-child apology. She didn't dumb anything down, she didn't lie to soften anything, she claimed all of her actions... he was so young, and Sally reacted to his age not by talking down to him, but by finding a way to describe the whole truth so he could understand

Most importantly I think is how she kept saying that John is a good person. Like...she thought she was about to die. And she didn't spend that time asking John for forgiveness or to remember her in a good light. She dedicated her words to making John feel loved. She spent that precious time giving him something to make sense of it all, to heal somewhere down the line even when she's not there

#HHHHHHUHHHHHHHHHH #i know that Sally & John's interactions at the college indicate a bunch of fucked-up-edness #ie him saying 'i love you' & her not hearing it. her asking him for reassurance #but i see the apology scene & her concern for him after the shooting #as evidence that she's going to give him SOMETHING good as his mother.#call me what u want but i have faith in them.#She's not perfect and they've got SOOOO much shit to live with. the both of them.#but amongst all of her motivations there is a genuine desire to see her son safe & happy #and i'm crossing my heart & hoping to die that -- now that Barry's not there -- that love for John comes through. and that he feels it.#the fact that they had an easy conversation outsite the theater; there was no indication Sally is using substances; John is sober;#and that John has friends.... I'm choosing to take these as indicators that -- despite the genuine problems that Are there --#John & Sally are reasonably healthy and so is their relationship.#oh god. this show. takes a fucking Lot out of me #barry hbo #sally reed #john berkman #barry finale #barry meta #pyra speaks

99 notes · View notes

sukibenders · 7 days

Text

Looking back at Girl Meets World, it will forever irritate me especially for how they handled/treated Angela. Oh this show really hated black women because how do you not only 1.) describe her, one of (correct me if I'm wrong) only few black and MAIN characters of the og show, as a "concept" 2.) have characters show obvious disgust at the small mention of her name 3.) depict her as a homewrecker for a new relationship that, really, shouldn't have ever happened 4.) have her old friends treat her like dirt and her old lover like she is the root of his problems, when there was nothing but positive love there 5.) reuse all the concepts from said previous love story just to elevate the new ship with a yte woman and 6.) compare her to Hurricane Katrina, one of the deadliest hurricanes that caused significant numbers of death, harm, misplacement, and trauma to people, largely of whom were black? Mind you, all these points I mentioned were toward the only main black character of the OG show before the spinoff, and the only, from what I can remember, black female character of the spinoff who didn't even stay long. Not even getting into the racist drama with some of the members on set, but you cannot look me in the eye and tell me that the way the show handled Angela, her story, and her relationship with the other characters + Shawn wasn't fucking disrespectful, you can't because I won't believe you.

#boy meets world #girl meets world #like this show had so many issues (from its depiction of autism to religious intolerance to supporting grooming)#but this was a whole other level #it was especially hurtful as a young black girl to see growing bc i really tried to like this show with its lacking diversity #but coming from watching bmw to this a show from the 90s that depicted a black character better than a 2010s show- u get my point #and its so wrong bc it depicts angela as being the one to end the relationship when all she said in bmw how she #didn't want to see her leaving as a goodbye and there was ambiguous hope for the future #also shoving shawn to be with maya's mom was really unnecessary #not only bc of how it depicted being raised in a single parent household so negatively #but that the only way to solve maya's problems was for her...to have a dad? like that really isn't how it works #i blissfully live in the delulu where angela and shawn came back together once she left europe and he eventually married her #after they graduated college and have a beautiful family together #shawn x angela #don't even get me started on how whenever there was a guest cameo it was met audience applause and happy reactions #but when it was for angela: crickets 😬#back to maya- i feel like it would have been better for her story if shawn didn't marry her mother (and was with angela) and u would see her #hope and wish for the opposite to where it nearly consumes her only to finally be sat down and informed that #even if shawn isn't with your mom he'll still be in your life as a father figure no matter what #i personally feel like that would've been better #but this is largely just s rant so forgive the structure of it al

10 notes · View notes

maddykomtrikru · 6 months

Text

ok i will say, they are kinda cute IM SORRY OKAY

(im taking a U turn i know, i’ve had a long morning)

ive been looking into it more and he really does match her energy and i find it quite cute his reaction to her changing the karma lyric. man was blushing. i havent actually heard anything bad about him and whether he’s a beard or a real romance, it’s interesting to see this play out. i saw someone say that the reason she’s being so open is because he isn’t trying to hold her back or whatever which i can see in a sense. her lyrics still contradict that but i see the appeal.

this is not me coming out as a shipper in anyway of this but simply stating if it is real, i dont hate it entirely. i still think everyone needs to be quiet with the “they’re getting married in the next year” bc that’s weird.

#im writing this half asleep #taylor swift #bisexual #bi icon #so yea this is my final take on this #at the end of the day i just love her music and want her to be happy #if she is happy being really public with a relationship after sayin she prefers them out of the public eye then i literally have no say #like she doesn’t know i exist my opinion doesn’t matter #we aren’t her friends all we can do is watch and see what else is to come #maybe they’re both bi #i said what i said #gaylor

21 notes · View notes

detentiontrack · 2 months

Text

I need some advice. So my parents divorced when I was 13 and I never saw my dad again (he was very abusive and disowned me when he found out I liked girls) and my mom started dating someone when I was 16, and now that I’m almost 19, me and him are very close and I see him as more of a dad than my biological father ever was. I want him to adopt me and officially be my dad. The thing is, I don’t know how he’ll react to me being trans. He’s always been super supportive of me being a lesbian (he’s even tried to set me up with girls my age he meets at work) but I know some people draw the line at transgenderism. He’s a tough ex military guy who has a history of being somewhat in between politically conservative and politically liberal. I CANT lose him like I lost my dad if I tell him I’m trans and he’s not accepting. What do I do? Is there any way to find out what his reaction may be without coming out? Should I keep it a secret and continue pretending I’m a cis lesbian woman? Should I wait until I move into college in August to tell him?

#I doubt I’ll be kicked out #I think even if he wanted to kick me out. my mother wouldn’t let him #my mother has always been very supportive and I don’t think she’ll take this badly #and she may or may not stand up for me if there’s an issue #but I don’t want to damage their relationship #my mom is finally happy #I don’t want things to blow up #my father literally tried to k*ll me when he found out I liked girls #tw homophobia #tw abuse mention #trans journey

11 notes · View notes

Last Seen Blogs

bzzy-b

tokyus

. 𓆩★𓆪 ׅ

zbame

escepticismo-a-la-felicidad

rakkoma

Transient Gnosis