Aging rockstar Eddie Munson who goes viral on tiktok after dueting a fancam of him and Stevie that is backed by the bi wife energy audio.
It's shaky, clearly a spur of the moment response, Eddie is obviously captivated for a second by a clip of Stevie that starts to play. He sighs and directs his attention back to the audience. "I love my beautiful wife, the sun to my moon, the light of my life."
You can just make out another voice from somewhere in the background call out, "Love you too!"
"But I did not survive being an openly gay teenager in the 1980s in rural Indiana to be called a heterosexual!"
He zooms in closer to his face, it's unclear whether this was intentional, "I did not go through a sexuality crisis in the early 90s when she transitioned, to be called a heterosexual."
Stevie comes out from somewhere behind where Eddie is ranting to drape herself around his shoulders, "Oh that's a good picture of us." The original video is a step above thirst trap and the picture in question is a pap shot of Stevie and Eddie from a long past Halloween. Stevie is in the famous Farrah onepiece and Eddie is in first husband Lee Majors' Six Million Dollar Man red tracksuit.
"You just like it cause we actually ran into Farrah and she liked your hair."
"It was also-"
She isn't dislodged as Eddie fails, well practiced at staying on her perch. "I didn't cancel the back half of our 1995 tour because of morning sickness to get called a HETEROSEXUAL!"
Stevie's smile is indulgent and soft, it wrinkles the corners of her eyes in soft crows feet that betray her age. "You can be trans and straight."
"A fucking ally then!"
She's got a sage Mona Lisa smile as the video ticks to a close, "I love my husband, and he's actually bi."
733 notes
·
View notes
eiffel's problem is that he sees every injustice as an interpersonal issue. he doesn't understand how his flippancy or apparent leniency towards hilbert might look to hera; in his mind, it doesn't contradict his support for her. to eiffel, it seems obvious - he is also one of hilbert's victims, hera is his friend, of course he's completely on her side - but he fails to fully grasp how the stakes are different for her.
ep 19: "you need to stop treating this like a joke, officer eiffel." / "hey, i'm the person for whom the joke tolls." / "i get you're scared he put something inside you. but i hope you haven't forgotten emergency code alpha victor. he put that in me." and ep 51: "they're just jokes! they don't really mean anything." / "see, eiffel, you get to have that. they can be 'just jokes' for you because you're... well, you. but we don't get that."
the issue in shut up and listen is eiffel's repeated, if unintentional, microaggressions, but it's also his general use of dark humor as a coping mechanism - jokes he feels justified in making because of how the subjects of those jokes have impacted him. eiffel sincerely believes in treating people equally, but his idea of 'equal treatment' can be idealistic and naive. he has an awareness of interpersonal harm, but he's lived most of his life without ever being confronted with the reality of structural harm - being pre-judged and othered and having his life devalued on the basis of outside categorization.
but the thing about that is that it has happened to him, too. eiffel is an addict, and a convict, and marked as from a lower socioeconomic class than minkowski or lovelace, and those things are the reasons goddard futuristics was able to buy him as prison labor and - without his consent - consider him expendable for medical experimentation. none of that is a coincidence, but he doesn't see the systems at work, only his own actions and regrets. which he then equivocates to the worst actions of people who don't share his sense of morality or guilt.
eiffel's ability to recognize and bring out the humanity in the people around him is one of his best qualities, but... on the basis of his identity, he's been able to live a life where he conceptualizes himself as the default person, and that's been reinforced by the pop culture he loves so much. that's a massive blind spot. he assumes everyone navigates the world in a similar way, and so, on some level, he sees everyone around him as an extension of or a reflection of himself. if evil is always personal, then it can always be reasoned with.
121 notes
·
View notes
Hiiiii! So, a few days ago you were talking about the whole thing with Amy, Rory, and River. And when I saw those posts a thought arose in my head and I wish to share it with you.
Since River grew up with Amy and Rory as Mels. And Mels was Amy's best friend do you think that they ever talked about children? Since I know that it can come up when talking with friends, and like... do you think that Amy might've ever expressed whether or not she wanted children?
And if she didn't, that Mels would've had to listen to her mother say that she doesn't want children? The idea is so heartbreaking and sooo interesting.
What do you think about it?
no, no, see, you're so right and this drives me wild.
because, the way i see it, i don't think amy wanted children. she's somewhere on the 'hasn't thought about it' to 'vaguely negative feelings about it happening' range to me, which falls sharply into 'Not Happening Ever Again' post-s6. (specifically, in terms of having a kid herself, even if she could, i really don't think she would. i do love that she and rory end up adopting a kid later, because that does make sense, for amy pond who grew up alone in one universe with her family swallowed by cracks in time before the doctor helped her set it right again, for her to want to make sure another child won't be alone in the world like she was. getting off-track here.)
and that's so. because the first real memory river/mels has of amy is of amy shooting at her. and depending on how well the silence fucked up the rest of her memory, it might be one of the very first memories she has at all. that's how she met her mother, crying for help and getting a bullet instead. her mother tried to kill her, so of course, you have to think. she must have needed to hear that she was wanted, right? even if she was taken away, even if amy shot her, at some point, melody must have been wanted?
river is good at getting people to do what she wants, but she is very, very bad at subtlety. and mels is younger, has less practice, so when she wants to know this, she's just going to ask. blunt and quick, easy enough because amy's used to the way mels will open her mouth and you just have to be ready to roll with what comes out if you want to keep up. it's why they're such good friends (like mother, like daughter.)
they're nine, and mels asks if amy wants kids, and amy wrinkles up her nose and says she won't have time for children, obviously, once her raggedy doctor finally comes back. they're fifteen, and amy and rory dance will they-won't they in a way that makes mels twitchy to watch, and taunting amy about wanting to have rory's babies is a good way to get on her nerves. but amy calls her gross, tells her she's got more life planned than children would leave room for, and besides, imagine her, a mom? it'd be a disaster.
mels does. a lot. she looks at her mother and just sees her best friend instead. she's not even sure what she wishes was there, but. maybe amy's right. and besides. imagine her, a daughter, instead of the ticking time bomb she really is? it'd be a disaster.
they're sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, and on. mels stands on the outside of a love story that births a universe. and her. how do you compete with that? not that she would know, not yet, she hasn't been there. but it doesn't make her feel any less alienated when amy and rory talk in whispers about a half-remembered world that's bled through to this life, about roman soldiers and boxes and the big bang of belief.
all these memories, they never mention children. on amy's wedding day, she's different, not like someone remembering a dream but someone who lived it. rory stands straighter, won't leave her side, and they're both so much older than they were yesterday. maybe now, right? a wedding's as good a time as any to decide you want kids.
mels not being at amy & rory's wedding is such an obvious lazy way of them trying to explain why they totally didn't just throw this plot twist together at the last minute that i'm not even going to acknowledge it. of course she was at their wedding. she's their best friend. there's too many people around the doctor, and she wasn't ready today of all days, so despite this horrible burning need under her skin to strike, she stays her hand. doesn't let him dance with her because she might just tear his throat out if he gets too close. stays with amy and rory as the maid of honor should. she must have been there for the awkward questions that always gets asked, 'so, any plans for a baby?' 'when am i getting grandkids?' 'oh, you two are going to have gorgeous children together.' standing a few feet from amy in her wedding dress and watching her mother tense and grit her teeth and brush off the questions. watching her look nervously at rory but never ask if he means it when his mom asks him if he'd prefer a son or a daughter, and rory answers 'either one, some day, not anytime soon.'
god i'm just going on and on, aren't i. but really, what's it like to know that amy never changed her mind. the next time she sees them, she's already been born and stolen. i don't like let's kill hitler for. so many reasons. but there is something compelling about how recklessly river lashes out at the world, at the doctor. even her sacrifice at the end is almost suicidal, throwing all her regenerations into this man without knowing if that will even work or if it might kill her to do it. but it makes more sense in the context of someone who has reached the end of a long, long wait for some kind of indication, any kind, that her mother wanted to have her. and finally been told, no. she didn't choose melody.
7 notes
·
View notes
REVISION.
Revision is SO fun, easy, and effortless to do! Revision is changing the past or an undesirable event that didn’t go the way you wanted it to. When we revise, we don’t only “change our memory of the situation” which I think is one of the biggest misconceptions. No, you literally change the past on how you wanted it to go. For example, If I got my phone taken, because of a heated argument with my Mom. I would immediately go in imagination and simply state, nope that never happened. I have my phone, what are you talking about I never got it taken. Just like that done, revised. You don’t have to keep persisting in the fact that it’s revised (which is of the reason I love revision soo much and don’t know why it constantly gets over complicated.) Whenever the thought comes to mind over the fact YOU DON’T HAVE YOUR PHONE. Remind yourself that you already revised it, therefore you have it already just because you said so. Don’t only think logical when manifesting too. You can revise traumatizing events to have never took place, something that happened 10 years ago, 1 minute ago, 3 weeks ago, ANYTHING.YOU.WANT. You guys there literally been success stories of people REVISING DEATHS. YES LITERALLY DEATHS of their loves ones, pets, ect. Now that is just so insane to me. Just goes to show the LAW IS 100% REAL. Whenever I get doubts I just go back to “people are literally revising deaths and you don’t think you can manifest xy and z?🤣😂” Literally anything is possible the world is you oyster and if in your reality you never wanted something to happen, IT NEVER HAPPENED. Happy Manifesting!💝💝
846 notes
·
View notes