Something about how physically small Ellie looks in this episode just makes it all so much more intense. How little she is curled next to Joel, how big the rifle looks when she holds it, the way David is able to pick her up so easily. The contrast in the size of their hands when he's telling her that she, a 14-year-old, is his only equal, and how tiny hers look when she wraps her arms around Joel; the way his coat reaches her knees when he drapes it over her. Every second the camera spends on her is forcing you to look at how young she is and it just makes it all so much more awful.
8K notes
·
View notes
rewatching the "would u kiss me? if i asked you?" tomgreg scene and well we all know tomgreg gay whatever but the gist of it is tom trying to adopt roy language. i mean hes trying to get in, find a spot at the table, and he tries by getting logan a gift to win him over/show him his appreciation, but also he's trying to not only become adjusted to the environment but also seamlessly fit in. and he knows the roys use sexual language to assert dominance.
so atp he hears logan tell shiv that he will have greg as his competition, and he feels threatened obviously. so, he immediately gives logan the gift and then, proceeds to go tease greg and play it off as friendliness, including the kissing lines.
the problem is kissing, while it can be rough, is just commonly associated with tenderness, its something soft. this type of language doesn't carry threat or violence in its use, as opposed to the violent use of fucking, handjobs, blowjobs, etc. the mere use of kissing instead of fucking immediately sets him apart from the roys, he doesnt have that inherent violent business sexuality to him.
also, the fact that they're starting w the deal with lawrence, a gay man, and the characters constantly paint this sexually violent images in regards to him and express sex as little metaphorical favours they'll do to win him over.
sex to them is violent and forceful and a business strategy and a mere threat that doesn't actually get carried out. and tom tries to replicate that, but a kiss is not sex, sex is rough and ugly and a kiss is soft and graceful, and he starts off with an ask of consent and tries to save it with the luring threat of forcefulness but it falls flat, he already revealed his true nature.
467 notes
·
View notes
Fiona and Cake spoilers seriously
(Something I noticed abt Betty and Simons relationship)
I love Betty and Simon’s relationship, I think their back story is so cute and romantic and all that lovely stuff don’t get me wrong.
But there’s this under tone of Betty constantly giving things up for Simon and we don’t really talk about it a lot???
Like, Betty let Simon have his moment with the artifact and the pubic, she also doesn’t go to her trip in favor of going on an expedition with Simon. Then when she goes to leave again she stays for Simon.
Even Fiona is like “you went with her on the bus?” And Simon just looks all confused like “what? No, why would I do that?” Like- hello???
Then after that she gave up her entire life and mind to get Simon back to the point where she literally says “I don’t know who I am without him anymore.” And that just sucks! Since the beginning Betty has been the one giving up the most, her mind, her own possible career, and it’s a story of love of course and it’s very sweet but it’s also a story of sacrifice.
Their love wasn’t a perfect solution, it was already sort of imbalanced when it started and I lowkey love how we see those cracks even before they’re together.
Again, I love their relationship and I think it’s sweet. I just think we should talk about Betty’s side more, especially when she tells a story of what most women do in relationships, sacrifice.
216 notes
·
View notes
What I’m about to say is probably a much less generous interpretation of what people usually intend when they say “transphobia hurts cis people too,” but the problem this framing runs into, over and over again, is the implied argument that often runs underneath it, which is that if transphobia were contained to just trans people, that if 100% of its targets were transgender, it would be somehow more legitimate or more reasonable, even if you still concede it’s wrong to be transphobic to trans people. Like the logic being used here isn't that transphobia at its core is destructive and irrational because it harms trans people, it’s that the people doing the transphobia are doing it “wrong” by picking the “wrong” targets. And I think this framing tends to put a lot of emphasis on individual transphobic actors or individual instances of transphobic violence (eg people attacking cis women who “look like men” in bathrooms, transvestigators, etc) by way of arguing that these bigoted people are incapable of governing their own bigotry appropriately, that it keeps spilling out into the broader cis public (where it ought not to be) because they’re too stupid to recognise their real targets and mistakenly keep picking the wrong ones, and because of this we need to do something about it. Like what keeps getting highlighted in conversations where I see people repeat this line are the bigots’ errors in judgement, that these pattern recognition errors (this continued failure to clock “real trans people”) are too frequent for the cis public to ignore - effectively, transphobia is spilling out of the transphobia department and into other departments of social life, and this is the problem that needs correcting. Fundamentally what I keep hearing when people use this argument is that reactionaries are getting too unruly, too imprecise in their targeting mechanisms, and that this is the cause for concern, not the underlying bigotry itself. Yes, transphobia is expansionary, it will continue to find fresh victims even in hypothetical futures where “the transgender problem” has been fully dealt with, but that shouldn’t be your primary concern lol
86 notes
·
View notes
actually the jessica rabbit paradigm is one I'm going to take onboard more in regards to characters: "does this character actually fuck, or do other characters just want to fuck them?"
otherwise known as the "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way" dichotomy
obviously first coined by all those clever people who dubbed jessica rabbit an ace icon, and is applicable to other characters who are considered sexy by others, but which doesn't reflect their own canon attitude towards sexuality. this often including the writers and audiences of the text, who likewise project an allosexuality into a context in which it doesn't necessarily exist, based on the perceived attractiveness of the character and how other characters react to that perceived attractiveness
193 notes
·
View notes
yknow sometimes the way trans women talk about testosterone and being on estrogen is indistinguishable from the way terfs try to convince afab people not to start hrt
this is not a criticism mind you, their experiences are their own and completely legitimate, it's just a matter of competing needs - they need a safe space to talk about their dysphoria and how testosterone makes them feel and i need to not hear about how i am destroying my body with hrt
ordinarily these things are pretty insular to transfem circles but since instagram has been feeding me transfem content i'm seeing it more and more and yet again the algorithm is fucking me
27 notes
·
View notes
So just started Hannibal and binged the first two seasons, and I knew I was getting into something crazy but that show is fucking insane, it is so messed up. It's wonderful, I love it.
33 notes
·
View notes
Okay, wait. Am I the only one that felt like we were missing an entire episode or some plot-point somewhere? Like, the last time we saw X-5 he was touching foreheads with the psycho lady and then next thing we know, he's been living a whole life as "Brad Wolfe" and found Sylvie working at McDonald's somewhere along the way???? Like what the fuck did I miss?
48 notes
·
View notes