OC Questionnaire with Matthias
Name: Matthias Saint Evanoff.
Nickname: N/A.
Gender: Male, he/him.
Star sign: Aries sun, libra moon, scorpio rising.
Height: 193cm or 6’3”.
Sexual orientation: Homosexual.
Nationality/Ethnicity: Polish, born in America.
Favorite fruit: Plums.
Favorite season: Summer.
Favorite flower: Brassavola and Brassocattleya.
Favorite scent: Sea salt.
Coffee, tea, or hot chocolate: Coffee.
Average hours of sleep: 1-3 hours, if he sleeps at all.
Dogs or cats: Neither. Matthias isn’t a fan of pets. He has a cat, though. Her name is Odious.
Dream trip: Anywhere with Theo.
Number of blankets: Matthias sleeps in silk sheets and nothing else. He’s a temperamental sleeper and gets warm and feels constricted too easily.
Random fact: When he’s alone he frequently talks to himself in Polish. He also talks to the flowers in his garden and Theo while he sleeps.
tagged by @bunmou in this <3 i feel like i’ve already said so much about my ocs at this point that most of this is common knowledge but nevertheless i will still be talking about it lmao. will go ahead and tag @wldestluv-rs, @omgkayplays, @fizzytoo, @rottengurlz, @void-imp, and @birdietrait <3
31 notes
·
View notes
God the holidays were… I mean… Weird. I did have fun in places but overall, felt weird. It was very weird. However I did get to see a friend! Stayed till 11.30pm, arrived at 12. It was rather awkward with my mother sat right there, but what can you do. She seems upset that we’re not Together. But I swear! This guy is just me but with a moustache! I got to walk around and point at buildings and go “Did you know that in 17-something-hundred—“ and I had a rapt audience! He showed me how lime kilns worked when we walked by one! I love it!
It was really nice to see a friend and it was so so good to get out of this bloody awful place for a bit. I’m back now but at the very least my brother is in Germany and won’t be back for a few more days, so I’m safe there. But god. What a weird, WEIRD holiday.
6 notes
·
View notes
fascinating lens on taylor's goings on in s6 there re: Romance. epic win that they have rian turn them down but i'm also really not sure why they did. oh you know, rian who's always defined by being so prudent [montage of actually pretty much everything seemingly defining rian has been pretty anti prudent] like ok w/e
but we start out with taylor Particularly Unmotivated By Work and instead watching a The Bachelor beach proposal which involves extasis through this Reality(tm) pastiche of romance. i am assuming. wherein the journey Ends with this transcendent all-consuming joy upon the realization of said Romance for one contestant. then when their somehow still bestie mafee (relevant tangents about how all taylor's relationships seem to involve their having an approach where they have low standards like "well but i guess this is all i can get / expect" including that they can't even necessarily expect shit they like/enjoy/are at all supported by, while readily accepting whatever blame/reproach from others) is like "gee but are you really happy" they're apparently inspired to pursue happiness by pursuing romance. which they seem to consider is possible only through rian, intriguing here when the entire basis of their dynamic seems to be [trapped in work hell together] like boy we have nothing outside our jobs? i sure hope we can be Everything to each other then :) and how it's even more baffling that rian is completely unbaffled by this development when you might operate on some assumptions like "you should have ever seemed to enjoy any interactions you've ever had" to consider choosing more vulnerability and more time / effort spent on this relationship, and "you also don't need to have Found Fault with someone / otherwise have some grievances or dislike of them to not want to date them" especially if rian's apparent sense of responsibility for taylor's theoretical negative feelings about rejection supposedly doesn't involve thinking about any power dynamics, she just feels the need to repeatedly reassure them she'd actually Love to date or have sex but she's just so set on not dating through work, b/c of the complications, that she's never considered not having casual sex with bosses and also never mentioned this stance to turn down winston nor done anything but revel in how he might feel about even being rejected as a conversational partner. too prudent to mention it. certainly also a relevant matter that it Need Not Be Explained to anyone that winston for one is excluded as a potential Romantic partner for pretty much everyone i guess. whilest as this potential mirror to taylor, he's not only considering specifically rian w/"we're similar; let's hang out; i'd like to have sex maybe even" (though winston's sexuality, like his communicative capacities, is also simply Not Allowed) but also seems to be like "i guess this is all i can get / expect" or hanging on for a long time to the possibility of Otherwise at his own expense or taking blame / whatever pretty egregious treatment like. taylor being willing to talk to wendy still is akin to winston still being willing to talk to rian. though maybe that's changed by the end of s6; it'd be very warranted after the pretty make or break [rian & winston Share An Interest; hang out outside work about it] moment there and also after Everything Else on its own, just like how it'd be very warranted if taylor expecting Nothing Better from wendy could turn into their hardly being willing to interact
anyways, sure is fortunate for taylor (or is it???) that Work becomes more enriching for them suddenly, and through someone with whom they have this promising personal dynamic with, a Peer with whom, in fact, they do both seem to find reward in interacting with each other / want and choose to do so, imagine, while [reiterating for emphasis]: they are both finding reward in interacting and feeling Complementary rather than only seeing exactly themself in each other, while having this respect for each other and flexibility and knowing they don't Have to work together, and may not always be doing so.
but most to the point it sure is something that the season starts off with taylor being dissatisfied with their work situation and responding by not being at work and instead watching people be overjoyed about their (also, relevantly, Peak Normal Correct Cishet) romance, though they don't outright claim to straightforwardly enjoy this. then they Do outright claim to us repeatedly, if ever begrudgingly, that everything rian does is worthy &/or sympathetic (and totally comprehensible and consistent so as to believably retain any sense of Character....) while every time they interact, it's a business meeting and one or both of them is unhappy about some part of it. but then once taylor's asked to think about their happiness Beyond Work they apparently are simply motivated to go ask someone out, and it may as well be rian For Lack Of A Better Option really, but then there's the wrench of "for some reason rian is unsurprised and not at all put off by this, or even just somewhat confused" and "for some reason rian's like 'sorry but no. fr im soooo sorry'" with these perspectives of [happiness Outside Work = romance] and [someone deemed Objectively Worthy = you'd of course at least consider romance, or else you must think actually they're Unworthy in some way, or have some more general Reason you'd reject others categorically in just the same way] (rian rejecting winston for unworthiness so much that she doesn't even need to bother actually telling him as much; rejecting taylor for [i don't date through work] with followups to reassure them it's Not the unworthiness) (that on and off paper winston & taylor have no reason to not be kissing but i think we can assume that won't happen, b/c billions itself may also assume we understand that [winston is unworthy] is just true. &/or that anyone Worthy understands as much)
so hoping that taylor has Some kind of enriching lasting relationship with philip, truly, which was the hopes for winston and rian but the updated hope is his enriching lasting disengagement with rian, f
2 notes
·
View notes
The relationship Meghan Kane and hotch had makes me mentally ill don't look at me
"Your the only man who's never disappointed me" pleasssseee
I've seen so many people ship her and hotch which is so strange to me because when I first watched this I thought they were going for a father/daughter thing? The parallel between her dad leaving her and hotch staying with her? The girls got major daddy issues so it made sense to me, despite the fact everyone things they f*cked lol
i looooove thinking about them aksjdhlgksj but yeah it definitely doesn't feel like a romance at all.. and honestly i'm not sold 100% on the father/daughter thing? there's definitely those ~vibes~ but i think what was truly profound between them was their kinship. they aren't necessarily in similar situations, but it still seemed like they understood each other with minimal effort. they're distinctly aware of who the other is--it's not quite a reflection of themselves, but it's so easily recognizable
meghan notices hotch and sure yeah she's definitely got daddy issues and i'm sure that helped fuel her willingness to reach out and connect, but she could very easily figure out the type of guy he was. through press clippings and brief exchanges, she understands him better than some of the members of his team. hotch, being a profiler and all, already has the skillset to empathize/put himself in someone else's shoes. yet he has a unique insight with meghan that
i'm not quite sure what it is that connects them so strongly. i think it's how earnest they are. they clearly label things as right and wrong, and they believe it's their duty to carry out said justice, but they consider themselves straddling the two categories: good and bad, bad but tries to be good, good but wants to be bad. they're honest with their intentions, even if they glance over their personal reasons for it. by all means, considering their dedication to their assigned tasks, it'd be easy to say they're passionate, but i don't think that's the case. they're driven, but it's not from ambition or being idealistic. they're not naive enough to think they can change the world, but they're foolish enough to try. the effort they each put into it leaves them both in a state of hopelessness, meghan was just the one who decided she'd had enough
yeah the "you're the first man who didn't let me down" is definitely a comparison to her father, but it hits hotch different and i think she knows it. they're both people who try over and over again to try to make things right, a seemingly futile task. when she says he hasnt disappointed her, she's acknowledging his efforts the same way he acknowledges hers. but it's more than that: it's passing responsibility. it's encouragement. feeling supported is foreign to meghan, and it's warm comfort now that she's decided to end it. so i think she decides to return the favor. it's a short conversation, but they're both capable of expressing so much with so little.
14 notes
·
View notes
i really like when porky and sylvester are paired together but i always got the vibe from these cartoons that porky,,,, just isnt a cat person lol
like yeah in kitty kornered he does straight up say he hates pussycats. i have a hc that in these cartoons porky never even adopted sylvester he just showed up on porky's doorstep 1 day and never left. i do like chuck jones' take on sylvester also but i can very easily interpret porky in those shorts seeing sylvester as just some guy who follows him around over an actual pet. anyways im glad they returned to the sylvester as porky's pet cat dynamic in the put the cat out segments on looney tunes cartoons
MAYBE… Porky has a history of not being super great with pets to begin with (mainly i think his issue in Kitty Kornered is he doesn’t like being CHALLENGED by his cats, he’s all smiles when putting them to bed but i think the moment they get wise with him THAT’s when he’s like I’LL TEAR ‘EM LIMB FROM LIMB. mainly a personality thing more than the cats BEING cats… i think he just hates being challenged and so when domesticated animals challenge AND OUTSMART HIM it purposefully makes a bit of a bad image for him HAHAHA. guess you could argue Sylvester in the Jones shorts is “challenging” him too even if he WAS in the right and Porky is just being his stubborn little self and thus explaining the aggravation) but the cartoons he does have cats with—Sylvester or otherwise—he treats them a lot better than his dogs who he WILL berate for… just… existing LOL. i’ve been indoctrinating an irl friend into these shorts and we’ve both been poking a lot of fun at how mean he can get with his pets but dogs in particular… poor dogs.
different contexts and all but same director, one year apart LOL.
CUTE HEADCANON THOUGH YES!!! reminds me of the greatest image in existence, every time i see this it sends me into a fit of laughter for some reason
SEEING SYLVESTER AS A RANDOM GUY WHO FOLLOWS HIM AROUND WOULD BE… VERY ODD BUT FUNNY LOL another “Goofy vs Pluto” thing i guess. i do love the Porky/Sylvester shorts though and that Sylvester is given a purely domesticated angle. Kitty Kornered is so much fun because it has both angles (we’re led to believe that Sylvester and the gang are all domesticated animals but they immediately launch into a—rather intelligent given the circumstances—scheme to throw Porky out of his own house), but that would be a bit odd in practice to be petting your cat goodnight or something and having him say goodnight back to you HAHAHA.
BUT YES SAME HERE i am VERY excited for more Porky and Sylvester. in spite of my gripes with The Looney Tunes Show i really adore that the pilot had Porky as Sylvester’s owner instead, and even Wabbit/New Looney Tunes had an episode with them that was pretty true to the original Jones format which i love
BUT YEAH, i see him much more as a cat person than a dog person, but i am 99% sure i’m just projecting because i technically own… 10? cats? it’s a long story that i’ll shove into the tags but. i am VERY much a cat person LOL they’re all i’ve known my whole life so i’m probably imparting my bias onto Porky. i just think it’s funny that he’s deemed such a humanoid character that he’s able to OWN any pets to begin with. like… how weird would it be if Daffy owned a pet dog
9 notes
·
View notes
When I was in ninth grade I wanted to challenge what I saw as a very stupid dress code policy (not being allowed to wear spikes regardless of the size or sharpness of the spikes). My dad said to me, “What is your objective?”
He said it over and over. I contemplated that. I wanted to change an unfair dress code. What did I stand to gain? What did I stand to lose? If what I really wanted was to change the dress code, what would be my most effective potential approach? (He also gave me Discourses on the Fall of Rome by Titus Livius, Machiavelli’s magnum opus. Of course he’d already given me The Prince, Five Rings, and The Art of War.)
I ultimately printed out that phrase, coated it in Mod Podge, and clipped it to my bathroom mirror so I would look at it and think about it every day.
What is your objective?
Forget about how you feel. Ask yourself, what do you want to see happen? And then ask, how can you make it happen? Who needs to agree with you? Who has the power to implement this change? What are the points where you have leverage over them? If you use that leverage now, will you impair your ability to use it in the future? Getting what you want is about effectiveness. It is not about being an alpha or a sigma or whatever other bullshit the men’s right whiners are on about now. You won’t find any MRA talking points in Musashi, because they are not relevant.
I had no clear leverage on the dress code issue. My parents were not on the PTA; neither were any of my friend’s parents who liked me. The teachers did not care about this. Ultimately I just wore what I wanted, my patent leather collar from Hot Topic with large but flattened spikes, and I had guessed correctly—the teachers also did not care enough to discipline me.
I often see people on tumblr, mostly the very young, flail around in discourse. They don’t have an objective. They don’t know what they want to achieve, and they have never thought about strategizing and interpersonal effectiveness. No one can get everything they want by being an asshole. You must be able to work with other people, and that includes smiling when you hate them.
Read Machiavelli. Start with The Prince, but then move on to Discourses. Read Musashi’s Five Rings. Read The Art of War. They’re classics for a reason. They can’t cover all situations, but they can do more for how you think about strategizing than anything you’re getting in middle school and high school curricula.
Don’t vote third party unless you can tell me not only what your objective is but also why this action stands a meaningful chance of accomplishing it. Otherwise, back up and approach your strategy from a new angle. I don’t care how angry you are with Biden right now. He knows about it, and he is both trying to do something and not doing enough. I care about what will happen to millions of people if we have another Trump presidency. Look up Ross Perot, and learn from our past. Find your objective. If it is to stop the genocide in Palestine now, call your elected representatives now. They don’t care about emails; they care about phone calls, because they live in the past. I know this because I shadowed a lobbyist, because knowing how power works is critical to using it.
How do you think I have gotten two clinics to start including gender care in their planning?
Start small. Chip away. Keep working. Find your leverage; figure out how and when to effectively use it. Choose your battles, so that you can concentrate on the battle at hand instead of wasting your resources in many directions. Learn from the accumulated wisdom of people who spent their lives learning by doing, by making mistakes, by watching the mistakes of their enemies.
Don’t be a dickhead. Be smarter than I was at 14. Ask yourself: what is your objective?
38K notes
·
View notes