#or any conventionally cute animal | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

galactic-glamour-girl-posts · 11 months

Text

And now, an essay about Dot Warner because I have nothing better to do

In the series bible for Animaniacs, Dot is described as:

"everything that all animated female characters have never been"

Was that true at the time?

I think so, and Here's Why

Before I begin, I'd like to mention this is mostly gonna revolve around western animation...and by "western" I mean "not anime". Okay? OK.

Part 1 : Her design

I'll start by comparing Dot's design to the design of many other female animal cartoon characters that came before her, because a lot of them are...not great. For context, Animaniacs (and therefore Dot herself) debuted in 1993. At the time (and after) when it came to animal cartoon characters, guys would often be designed as "the default" or "the norm", and girls would be given extra visual signifiers to make it clear that they are, in fact, girls. Stuff like human-like hair, and/or really long eyelashes, and/or human-like body parts such as hips and breasts so they needed to be fully clothed, and/or smaller noses and mouths than the guys to make them look "cuter", and/or permanent makeup, etc.

Let's take The Chipettes for example:

They barely look like chipmunks! They're basically human girls with chipmunk noses! Their-I guess it's probably fur-looks pale enough to pass as white skin, they have human lips, even human hair. Their hair doesn't even match their "fur" colour, which makes it look like skin even more. I know it's a cartoon, I don't expect them to resemble real chipmunks completely, but I should still be able to recognise them as chipmunks, shouldn't I? Just look at them compared to the boys, it's jarring:

Although at least in their case, both the guys and girls are in full outfits rather than just the girls.

Gadget's probably another one of the best examples (pre-1993) of what I'm talking about (she has human hair and a more human-like body and hence needs a full outfit, meanwhile Chip and Dale do not), but Toodles is also a pretty good example (she has smaller, more human hands than Tom's, permanent makeup, really long eyelashes, and her figure even more human than Tom's). Even if they weren't in full outfits they usually were made to look more human:

Female animals were constantly given more human attributes than the guys, usually just to make them look "prettier". Honestly a lot of female animal characters are still designed this way.

Meanwhile guys can look as cartoony as possible and go around in half-complete outfits no problem, because they were drawn to be funny talking animals, not conventionally attractive human/animal hybrids:

Then in some cases they'd just take one of the pre-existing male characters, add a bow or skirt or eyelashes or something, and BOOM! A "new" character:

Yeah they have no human hair and have cartoony proportions, just like the guys...but they didn't have to make them look just like the guys to do that. I prefer these over the previous examples but...actually creative designs would be nice.

Now let's look at Dot:

See this? This is nice.

She has no human hair (the hair on her head is just more of her fur), no permanent makeup, no eyelashes needed to signify "she's the girl" (she's only drawn with eyelashes for comedic effect or when she's trying to look extra cute), no curves or hips, and isn't fully clothed and goes around with no shirt like Yakko, because she's a funny talking animal and should look like one, not a human girl.

Now let's compare her to her brothers:

She's a different height, has no whiskers, a slightly different head shape, and has longer but not human-like hair. She looks similar enough to look related to them, but she's not just Yakko or Wakko in a skirt.

For this section I'm mostly just talking about animated animal characters, but I also want to mention that even with human characters male leads often were allowed to look round or blocky or basically any body type, and didn't have to look conventionally attractive; but female leads were almost never designed to look as cartoony, and were often drawn to look as conventionally attractive or cute as possible by being given more (even if just slightly) realistic proportions, and were usually of the same body type.

Now, the three human examples I showed aren't actually bad designs. Honestly, on their own, they're good designs! But they're once again showing that there was a clear difference regarding how guys were drawn vs how girls were drawn.

Dot's cute but they don't draw her anymore realistically than they do her brothers nor is her cuteness over-exaggerated by giving her more human attributes than necessary to make her as conventionally pretty as possible. She's anthropomorphic, but no more so than her brothers.

Part 2 : Her personality

Now, there were of female leads before Dot where the tropes I mentioned don't apply and whose designs are unique, like for example Olive Oyl, who's allowed to look wacky (stick thin and not curvy, lanky with noodle arms, circular head, large hands and feet) and Penelope Pussycat, who's allowed to look like an anthropomorphic, but still cartoony cat and not too human. So what I talked about before wasn't the case every time.

But then you have to consider their personalities (or sometimes, lack thereof).

Many animated female leads were flat characters compared to the male leads, often because they fell under cliché tropes.

Some of the most prominent being: the token love interest, the eye candy, the damsel in distress, or the sensible one because "girl", who would often mostly just exist to set up punchlines the male characters would deliver.

Of course this didn't apply to every animated female lead, especially not by the early 90's, but it was still the norm.

Even Babs Bunny, who predates and is similar to Dot whilst being a good character in her own right, falls under the token love interest trope (also her design is basically a pink Buster in bows, although in her case that was intentional given that their "No relation" catchphrase was meant to poke fun at the "male and female love interests look and are even named suspiciously similarly" trope, so for her it works). Basically in some cases they'd just staple these tropes onto decent characters who didn't really need them.

However, Dot doesn't fall under any of these categories. She's the younger sister so obviously she couldn't be a love interest, I just went over the fact that she wasn't designed to be eye candy, just cute but not in an over-exaggerated way, and she wasn't just cute to look appealing. Her cuteness benefited her character; either by the shock value of seeing a cute little girl swear or scare Satan or something like that, or by Dot using her cuteness fool foes (or at least make them look bad). She could hold her own in any situation and although both her and her brothers were captured a few times on the show, they escaped pretty easily each time. The one time she alone got kidnapped she basically saved herself, so I wouldn't count her as a damsel in distress because it never really feels like she's in real danger; the audience knows she's got this.

Most of all, she was definitely not the sensible one of the group. Sure she'd get annoyed when Yakko and Wakko did the Hello Nurse bit, but she was just as bad, and would react the same way whenever she came across a cute guy. She was of course written this way on purpose, she is very bit as wacky and silly and chaotic as her brothers. It didn't matter that she was the "cute one", she would go off-model if it meant she could make a funnier face. She'd gladly join in on tormenting their "special friends", without worrying about if their feelings got hurt or preaching that they should all try to get along. She'd gladly indulge in excessive violence. She'd gladly mess about and wreak havoc just as much as her brothers. I'm all for smart female characters (Dot is smart after all), but in a main group of guys and at least one girl, a girl doesn't have to be the sensible one every time.

It's no secret that Dot was written to be feminine. At the time, characters that were written to be very feminine often were written to fit within gender norms, meaning many were: passive, demure, soft-spoken, gentle, wide-eyed and innocent, and/or sensitive, etc; or at the very least more so than the masculine characters.

But Dot just wasn't any of those things. She was assertive, confident and acerbic, loud and outspoken, often acted more violent and angry then her brothers, witty, is as lustful and dirty-minded as her brothers, and doesn't get her feelings hurt easily and will instead pretend to be extremely upset/hurt for sympathy or for dramatic effect.

Before and around about the time of Dot's debut, if animated female leads were given personalities that broke many gender norms (and that already wasn't too common), they'd usually be tomboys. Now let me be clear, there is nothing wrong with tomboys. They're just as valid as girly girls and deserve to be and should be depicted in a positive light in animation, but this perpetuated the idea that to be tough and/or wacky, you had to be masculine, which just isn't true.

Dot was wacky and tough but still feminine and was by no means a tomboy, and I think that's important! She liked to look pretty, she liked pink and dresses and flowers, but she also made silly faces, liked to play rough and was more than willing to beat the living daylights out of someone who was asking for it.

Female characters in cartoons often either had decent personalities but their designs were lacklustre, or vice versa. Sometimes both their designs and personalities were lacklustre. Sometimes neither was a problem but their character was held back by having some trope forced onto them because "girl". Dot was a (at the time) rare case of none being the case whilst not having to sacrifice her femininity to be wild and strong.

Part 3 : Her role

By 1993, even if a female character had a good and unique design that didn't come with double standards and had a well-written personality that didn't submit to too many gender stereotypes, they were often:

A - An antagonist

I'm not saying these characters aren't bad people, but a lot of the time when we did get a fun female character, she was a villain.

Also (for this next point I'm not really talking about the three examples above), sometimes they were the only female characters in their show/movie/etc to go against gender stereotypes, which just perpetuates the idea that female characters breaking gender norms is wrong.

B - Essentially a clone of a male character

They'd act exactly like one of the male leads with minimal personality differences (those differences usually being more gender stereotypes) between the two, if there were any; again perpetuating the idea you had to be masculine to be wacky and/or tough.

Basically a distaff counterpart, or a half-identical twin, stuff like that.

C - Less important

Even when we did get a well-written, well designed female animated character who didn't fall under tropes associated with gender stereotypes, chances were she'd be a side character, or at the very least perceived as less important than the male leads.

I'll just use one example for this section since it's a lot more broad in terms of scope; Granny from Looney Tunes. She's one of the most well known female Looney Tunes characters, but even she was never really the "star" of the cartoons she was in. They're not called "Sylvester, Tweety, and Granny" cartoons, they're called "Sylvester and Tweety" cartoons. Even the show that was about Granny solving mysteries, what was it called?

But Dot doesn't fall under any of these categories. She's not a side character, she's not even a tritagonist, she's a protagonist. Yakko may have been the leader, but all the Warners acted as a unit and were presented as just important as each other. We call them "Yakko, Wakko and Dot", "The Warner Brothers, and the Warner Sister", etc.

I've already mentioned that's she's not designed as a clone of Yakko or Wakko, but she also had a distinct personality. She was more anger-prone than Yakko, she was wittier than Wakko, and she had a way bigger ego than both of them combined!

Dot's definitely not an antagonist, she wasn't a saint and she may have been chaotic, but you're meant to root for her. The people she and her brothers would go up against in their cartoons were often jerks, bullies, pompous, etc. Meanwhile the Warners had a strong sense of justice and morality. They weren't malicious (to people who didn't bother them at least), they just liked acting silly. When viewers saw Dot unapologetically being herself without conforming completely to how society thinks a cute little girl should act like, they weren't meant to hate her or love to hate her or anything like that, they were just meant to like her and laugh.

Part 4 : Today

There will probably always be room for improvement when it comes to female representation in cartoons, I mean, a lot of the tropes I mentioned are still commonly used (although I must stress that not all of them are inherently bad). However, it's better today than it was back then. We've gotten tons of well designed female leads over the past 30 years with three-dimensional personalities, ones who are gender non-conforming but still heroic, or who are strong but still feminine, or who are allowed to look and act as wacky as the guys on their show (if not more so), you get the idea.

I'm not saying Dot is the first good animated female character (or that her character was handled perfectly in the original Animaniacs-it wasn't), we all know that's not true, but she defied many tropes that so many animated female characters before her fell under, through her design, personality AND role. Notice that a lot of other animated female leads that also do that (both the examples I gave and any extra ones that you can think of) most likely debuted after Dot did.

To be 100% honest, you could argue that, even as of 1993 (or I guess 1991 considering that's when the series bible was written), describing Dot as "everything that all animated female characters have never been" is debatable, but I do think there was some truth to that statement at the time. I can't say for sure that she was a trend setter when it came to how girls in cartoons were handled, but I'll always appreciate the fact that her character turned out the way it did in spite of when she was created.

#animaniacs #dot warner #the warner sister #animation #cartoon #warner bros #wb #retro #classic cartoons #90's cartoons #90's tv #character design #essay #edit #princess angelina contessa louisa francesca banana fanna bo besca iii #no but seriously I unironically think Dot might be one of the most important female cartoon characters from the 90's #maybe even in general...or maybe I need to consume more media #I dunno I just wanted to gush about Dot 😅

139 notes · View notes

frauncestavern · 1 year

Text

SAME FACE SYNDROME: THE CONSEQUENCE OF ANIME

so this is something i’ve been wanting to talk about for a while. i’ve been seeing tutorials on how to stop having “same face syndrome” (aka always drawing the same face) that just rehash the same anime-style faces but with slightly different facial features. but a lot of these tutorials just… don’t work. and here is why:

you are not going to be able to draw different types of faces if you only draw young, attractive, androgynous anime people. im sorry but its true. if your only human subjects are literal cartoons, then your same face syndrome is not going to get any better. even if you’re tweaking the facial features a little bit, if you dont study real peoples faces (people who havent been photoshopped or airbrushed!!!! unedited human faces!!!) your art is not going to improve in the facial category.

well, then, how DO you get rid of same face syndrome? the answer is actually quite simple: stop trying to make everyone conventionally attractive. its true! stop only drawing people who are smooth, young, symmetrical, beautiful models.

you should try to draw people*— draw people that don’t look conventionally beautiful, pretty, or cute. draw people that are old. draw people of all different races and ethnicities, from all over the world. draw people with different body types. draw people with birthmarks, acne, wrinkles, scars, lazy eyes, crooked and yellow teeth.

also, if you use the face guidelines below for starting drawing faces, try to put the eyelines, noselines, and mouthlines higher or lower (closer or farther apart as well).

trust me, if you start drawing people from real life (again, not edited pictures, especially not faces covered in makeup to hide their features)? you will quickly find your same face syndrome disappearing. please stop only drawing cute anime twinks Please

also here are some faces to sketch or take inspiration from. observe the natural variations in the human face ^__^

*i am not saying that people with the features i mentioned are ugly. im saying that the people you draw should not always fit the conventional cookie cutter beauty standards, and thats a good thing!

#same face syndrome #art tips #art help #art advice

162 notes · View notes

thekimspoblog · 18 days

Text

Observations from rewatching "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" (1996) yesterday:

Esmerelda has huge balls. No wonder I always liked her.

Ok yeah Jason Alexander is REALLY out of place as the comedic relief, especially when other characters are saying dialogue which is actually witty and he's just interrupting. "A Guy Like You" isn't as bad as everyone says it is (I actually think the message of "you're not conventionally attractive but that gives you personality and women appreciate that" is really cute and important), but it goes on too long and this time around I noticed how lazy the animation gets for that sequence. There are like... nooo backgrounds in that scene.

Frollo got obsessed with Esmerelda specifically because she challenged his authority. This was the most powerful, brutal, humorless authority figure in the city, and she decided to sit in his lap and flirt with him just to mess with him. Again, huge balls. And the only way Frollo's brain could handle this was to conclude that either she secretly wanted him OR she was a literal demon sent from hell to test him. Watching "Hell Fire" over again, it reads less like the hooded figures are a representation of his repressed lust, and more like if Frollo admits he could be wrong about her and his absolute power, that would open the door to being wrong about everything else, and then he'd have to face the reality of his sins. He doesn't feel judged and tormented because he's hot for her; he feels judged and tormented for literally everything else but has been able to ignore the guilt up until now.

Nobody ever talks about how awesome "Court of Miracles" is. It's only a minute long but that has always secretly been my favorite. I'll be washing dishes and realize I'm humming "Where the lame can walk, and the blind can see, but the dead don't talk..." to myself.

This is one of the few kid's movies where the fake-out death feels earned. That's because even if you've seen this movie before and you know Esmerelda is going to be alright, the scene still has stakes: Quasimodo briefly was upset because he realized she only liked him as a friend, and this is the moment he realizes he'd give anything just to have his friend survive.

A lot of Renaissance-era movies rely on the plot device of an easily-led mob, but I just don't think it works as well here as it did in Beauty and the Beast. Like ok Frollo definitely ordered that guard to hurl the tomato, but the crowd still went from cheering for Quasi to lashing him down with ropes in less than 10 seconds.

If I had to rank my favorites (and we're talking the canon of Disney movies PROPER, not just any of the millions of flicks the studio has produced/acquired) I think Hunchback would be first, then Frozen, then Sword in the Stone. Although I feel like I'm forgetting something.

#disney movies #disney renaissance #the hunchback of notre dame #animated musicals #prediction: when they go to remake this one they're going to be angling for a PG13 and the movie is going to be trying so hard #to be needlessly gritty that it will lose sight of the simple straightforward drama which never needed to be more adult than it already was

18 notes · View notes

iamthekaijuking · 5 months

Note

One thing I wonder about the Monsterverse is why people, in universe, hate the titans so much?

I mean… the average American already wishes for the eradication of any animal that doesn’t directly benefit them or conventionally look cute.

So it’s not much of a stretch to assume that most people would want to kill an animal that can accidentally destroy your home and ruin your life even if it’s not their intention.

#ask #questions #writeroffanfiction #monsterverse #kaiju #daikaiju #godzilla #gojira

25 notes · View notes

sweetbugs · 7 months

Note

What gave you the idea to start making bug edits? I love them so much! Also, do you have a fav bug and non-bug animal?

thank you i started to make them mainly because i liked the aesthetic of a very conventionally "ugly" thing (no offense bugs are lovely to me...) with conventionally pretty/cute clothes and words it helped me cope with my own feelings of ugliness a little .. i just love insects also and i feel there is a severe lack of silly and friendly insect content

i love beetles and leaf insects and other non-arthropod invertebrates especially cephalopods ♡ i like fish and cats a lot too. i am not sure if there are any animals i dont like

#ask

23 notes · View notes

pokemonshelterstories · 10 months

Note

What are the top 5 mons you think would get more love if they were cuter/a different type?

it would be very hard to pick specific pokemon, but i can talk about the top 5 types that are hardest to adopt out from the shelter!

1. poison

poison types are by far the most difficult pokemon to adopt out. many of them aren't conventionally cute, require specialized care, and can't even be safely touched without protective gear. some of them also present hygiene issues, or have....less than an endearing scent. shroodle is probably the poison type we have the most luck adopting to people, but even then, they get passed up a lot

2. ghost

ghost types actually have more luck than poison types, honestly....i think there's a bigger subculture of people who like them? but some of them have pretty intense needs, and a lot of people are scared of them, so they tend to stay here a while

3. bug

same reasons as ghost, but with generally less specialized care needs. younger kids actually tend to like them a lot, and a lot of them are great starter pets!

4. dragon

this is more because we're very particular about who gets to adopt dragon types (unless it's an applin). it's not so much that dragons aren't popular as it is that the kind of person willing to put in that level of work for a pokemon is relatively rare

5. dark

i didn't include maschiff in this, because they're so stinking cute and people love them, but minus maschiff, dark types don't tend to get a lot of love. people have a lot of misconceptions about them- i mean, think of how many villains in animated pokemon movies are dark types! and while some of them can be hard to care for, a lot of them aren't nearly as difficult or scary as people think. i know i'm a little biased towards them, but i do think they get one of the worst raps of any type!

#charlietalks #pkmn irl #pokemon irl #pokemon adoption

32 notes · View notes

ruthlesslistener · 1 year

Note

It's literally a fucking fictional character who doesn't even do anything in the game. Nothing more than a bunch of pixels on a screen. Stop being such a righteous little prick.

I dont go here but I think it's kinda funny how uncomfortable you are about ppl thinking a video game character is cute lol

I'm not being a righteous little prick, I've stated before that I'm uncomfortable with people coming into the inbox treating this character like a small animal before. I'm not making an overarching statement about how EVERYONE should characterize or view him, but when my entire blog is dedicated to showing off how much of a tragic and terrible character he is, then I think it's safe to say that you should expect me to not really be super into things that makes him conventionally appealing. It takes all the fun out of it for me. And since I repeatedly said that the reason why I like him so much is because I relate to him and his problems, and that I write him as an autistic, depressed man struggling with a sense of self-worth who then abuses his children and the people around him unwillingly because of it, then you can see why I might not enjoy this sort of interaction as much.

I'm also not bothered by people thinking that he's cute or that his design is cute, I'm uncomfortable with people treating a character that's basically a human being in terms of story like some sort of pet animal. I write and view the Pale King as a human-analogous character, one with cognition and boundaries that are similar to people. If you think that his personality is cute the same way that a person is, or find his design adorable, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. I consider snakes and crocodiles cute as well. But you don't treat those animals like cats or dogs, because they aren't, and when you slap human level cognition and behaviors onto one, then treating them like a domestic animal becomes even more weird. It's like looking at a 50 year old human man and asking him if he wants belly rubs or chin scratches or something. It's uncomfortable for me, and I have already gently stated previously that I do not enjoy such content. Fuck dude, I consider Lurien cute, but you don't see me going to the inboxes of people who like him and say that I want to give him butt scritches or scoop him up into a jar. I don't know how they view him, I wouldn't do that unless it was clear that they understood the joke and thought it was funny.

Me expressing my boundaries isn't being a 'righteous little prick'. This is my fucking blog. If I was bothered by a depiction of PK that was being posted in the main tag, then I wouldn't say anything and would move past it because it wouldn't be any of my fucking business. But if you come into my house and demand that I interact with you in the way that you want, then yes, I am going to get uncomfortable. I didn't even state my discomfort in an explicitly rude manner, or claim that EVERYONE in the fandom must depict him in a certain way. I just asked that people stop coming to me about it, because if it's a joke then it's something that I don't get, and it ruins the fun of the character for me, and it's something that makes me deeply uncomfortable. I maintagged the post specifically with the hope that it would reach whoever was sending me those asks, not to police how people treat the character- because again, I don't care as long as it's not in my inbox. But it is.

You're right. He's a fictional fucking character. He's just pixels. But I'm not, and I have the right to put an end to a topic when I find that I don't like or understand it.

#theres also the whole deal of me deeply relating to him as an autistic man who doesnt like touch #and struggles with emotions/family #hollow knight #the pale king #so you can see why i would be fucking bothered by people treating him like an animal #if you're saying hes cute bc you think hes sexy then thats totally fine idk #i dont see it but it doesnt bother me #if youre mad at me for being uncomfortable with a character i relate to being treated in a dehumanizing way #then thats a whole other fucking story

35 notes · View notes

m3gahet · 1 month

Note

Red apple, strawberry, tomato -> Edi and Eddy ♡♡♡

🍎 Who does your OC value above all else?

Edi- That’s a tough one but I’m gonna say Eddy. Her and Eddy have been through everything together, the good, the really good,the bad, and the really bad. He’s the only family member who she’s felt actually understood and loved her without expectations. Things aren’t always great between them but the two of them always come back together.

Eddy- No surprise here but it’s Edi. Not only for the same reasons as above but because he wouldn’t be the person he is without her support and encouragement. She’s the stronger, braver, and smarter of the both of them and he wishes everyone could see just how amazing Edi is.

TLDR They are a bonded pair. DO NOT SEPARATE.

🍓 How do they feel about 'cute' things?

They both find just about anything cute in the right context. Weird art, knickknacks, animals not deemed conventionally pretty. The threshold for ‘cute’ is low but the love is MAX.

🍅 How misunderstood is your OC? In-universe or IRL.

Edi - Edi is treated pretty poorly by her peers at times because of her positive outlook and promiscuity. She’s often perceived as naive and outright dumb simply because she chooses to assume people are good initially DESPITE the fact Edi has multiple degrees and certifications in her field (psychology). She also isn’t taken super seriously because she enjoys sex and has a very positive and open relationship with sex.

Eddy- People do not realize just how scared this man is at any given time. He comes across as very laid back and like his trauma doesn’t affect him but a tiny reminder of his childhood or family (outside of Edi) will make this man unravel. He has pretty intense anxiety connected to his family and the church and it’s gotten him in some bad spots.

#mega yells #mtl oc #metalocalypse oc #Eden gardyn #Eddy gherkin

4 notes · View notes

theliterarywolf · 2 years

Note

Hold up, I'm sorry but what the hell is "pro child" propaganda??

You know how, back when Darling in the Franxx was coming out that people swore up, down, and sideways that the whole anime was funded by the Japanese government, specifically late former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, to encourage Japanese young people to get married and have kids?

Well, some people in recent motions have taken what was mostly seen as a joke to try and decry any anime or game that centers around a functional, conventionally-setup family. The core target of said comments was Spy X Family.

Which, as I said, is funny because as great as Spy X Family is and as cute as Anya is, I never left an episode going 'I should get married and have kids'.

It's fucking Bluey, the Australian children's show that goes way too hard in its writing sometimes, the same show that has full-grown people oddly thirsting over the parents despite the art-style being...

That had me thinking, one day, 'Huh. Maybe children... are... a possibility?'

#also that above content wasn't me making a dig at the art style #it's cute as all hell #to the point that whenever I see people brushing this show off as 'peppa pig with dogs'#I want to scream 'NO! This show doesn't make my eyes bleed!'

146 notes · View notes

croptopscout · 1 year

Text

Please stop beautifying mutilated characters

TW: major spoilers for the Shadow and Bone trilogy (post Siege & Storm/book 2) and minor spoilers for Sally Face

Very random rant about smth that’s been bothering me for a while.

Why can’t people just let “disfigured” (I looked for a different word that explains what exactly I mean and couldn’t find it, but I’m aware that it’s not okay to say that about someone, I’m just trying to express what I mean as specifically as possible) be “disfigured”???!!

I’m so tired of seeing people draw characters like Sal Fisher and Genya Safin as just pretty faces with a couple scars. Can we be for real for 2 fucking seconds? I don’t wanna put any of the fanart I’m talking about in this post because I don’t wanna call out any artist in particular, I’m sure most, if not all, mean well doing this, I just think it’s a little fucked.

Sal’s face was messed up when he was a kid. Canonically a whole piece of his jaw is missing. The cartilage of his nose is at least partially missing. He is not a pretty anime boy with a few lines on his face. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. That’s doesn’t make him a better or a worse person, it’s just a fact about his appearance. It says absolutely nothing about who he is but it is an important part of his character and definitely impacts his actions and personality.

When Alina first sees Genya after what happened to her, this is how she’s described (literally copied and pasted from the fucking book)

“It was not Baghra. I didn’t know what it was. The bites were everywhere, raised black ridges of flesh, twisting lumps of tissue that could never be healed, not by Grisha hand or by any other, the unmistakable marks of the nichevo’ya. Then I saw the faded flame of her hair, the lovely amber hue of her one remaining eye.”

She looks so different that Alina doesn’t recognize her. At first she describes her as a “what”, because that’s how affected her appearance was by that happened to her. So you’re gonna sit here and tell me that it’s perfectly sensible to draw her (post nichevo’ya) exactly the same as before but with a cute little eyepatch and a few lines over her face? Stop trying to beautify characters that have had accidents like this. They’re not conventionally pretty and that’s not a fucking character flaw.

I absolutely hate policing people’s art. Draw thin characters fat, give able bodied character disabilities if you want, make characters black or Asian or whatever you want, I’m all for representation, but please don’t erase this important part of who they are. Because it is an important part of who they are. It impacts so much of their lives in canon. And we can still love them exactly how they look. We should still love them exactly how they look, without trying to erase these horrible things that happened to them.

I chose to focus on these two characters in particular because they’re the ones I’ve seen this being done to the most, but this is true for any characters who have suffered through horrible things that heavily changed their appearance.

And before someone comments on this saying that it’s just fictional characters and all that bullshit, I’m well aware. I’m also well aware that this post is not gonna change jack shit and people are still gonna draw Genya and Sal and any other characters who don’t look “normal” as pretty, conventional faces and there’s nothing I can do about that. I have no intention of fighting with any artist that chooses to do this. I’m just asking that if you are one of the people who choose to erase these kind of physical characteristics about these characters, that you ask yourself why you feel the need to do it. If you like the character enough to want to draw them, why can’t you actually like them how they are? If you read all this and still don’t give a shit, good for you, that’s not my business. I just thought it was worth bringing this up.

Anyways, if anyone wants to actually have a discussion about this I’ll be happy to, this has just been bothering me for a long time and I felt like ranting about it. Hopefully at least one person actually stops to thinks because of this post. Maybe no one will. That’s okay.

If you have had an accident that left your appearance similar to one of these characters, I hope you can still see representation in them, no matter how their appearance is treated by the fandom, and I hope you know that you are worthy of love no matter what you look like.

#rant #tw mutilation #grishaverse spoilers #siege and storm spoilers #genya safin #ruin and rising #the darkling #leigh bardugo #discourse #fanart discourse #sal fisher #sally face

36 notes · View notes

rifki16 · 2 months

Text

What do I want and how can I know it

So, I just broke up with my boyfriend. I broke up with him because our relationship became more of a burden rather than a help, a safe haven, for the both of us.

When I told him that we were better off not as a couple, he asked me to explain what my thoughts were about our relationship, and I told him that, one of the biggest mistakes in our relationship was that I never really wanted to be in the relationship to begin with.

We were just hooking up at first, and somehow I got roped in with the tides, and the next thing I knew, we were calling each other boyfriends, and he told me that he loved me. At first, I wanted to go along with the relationship as I never had a boyfriend before, and I really wanted one. Why? I suppose, just because.

I understood that relationships don't need "sparks" or "chemistry". I mean, there was this show on CBS called "Mom". I used to watch the series when I was an undergrad. In one of the episodes, Kristy, the main character, was asking her new AA sponsor about the new romantic fling that she's having, and how, according to her, she just doesn't have any chemistry or sparks with said person. The sponsor replied that she didn't need one to have a functioning relationship. Because what she and any other addicts see as "sparks" or "chemistry" is the excitement of instability, the fear of being abandoned by their previous romantic endeavors. I get that reply. I thought to myself, that was what I needed. I needed a steady hand, a reliable partner with whom I could share my thoughts, problems, and anxiety. Someone with whom I can have a home.

And I mean, the show was not the only Western show which uses this perspective about relationships, the show "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend" also showed Pam and her husband's relationship as something that's not exciting but reliable. I think in an interview, David Sedaris also talked about how, even though it's not what he had imagined, he still loves his partner.

Our relationship was beige. and I think I liked it. It was as dependable as I had hoped it would be. But then, both of us became mired in our own problems, and for some reason, I think, the relationship couldn't really stand against each of these stress strains. Both of us became absent in the relationship.

I don't really know why the stress was overpowering the strength of the relationship; I told him every secret I have, as I think he has as well, we tried to talk our way through every problem we had -- never backing down from it.

Is it because I never had sex with him? I don't know why, but I couldn't really do it with him, even though I was just like a sex demon before we became boyfriends. My psychologist thought that maybe I was just not attracted to him physically. That might be. But he was cute, nice, moderately conventionally handsome. I don't think it was it. Regardless of my problem, he knew that I had this problem, I had asked him so many times before if it was a problem for him, and he said it was okay as he also had only a few sex with his ex-bf.

Maybe the relationship was not meant to be because I just didn't want it.

In the past month, I have indulged myself with so many Japanese BL works, from the anime to the live-action, from the series to the films. The works have really shown me, even though some of the plotlines are problematic, that all of them really know that they like/love their boyfriend, and they're willing to fight for their relationship. And as our relationship just became ever bitter this past month, it really emboldened me to break it off with him.

But then how can I know what I want? I know what I need. Want? that's a new concept for me. My zealot upbringing and my socialist belief really teach me not to be selfish, not to want, but to be altruistic, and selfless.

I think my toxic upbringing with my parents also made me weirded out, and alienated by the idea of "What I want". They never really let me choose. They're social science lecturers; they know very well how to manipulate me and how I think.

And I mean, putting aside my traumatic childhood and adolescence, as well as my socialist convictions. Can anyone really have desire or even free will? I'm not trying to be a hard determinist, but I can't really quite grasp what "want" is.

I think this confusion, and dilemma about "want" has been going on for quite some time in my life. The time when I was selecting middle school or high school. However, I chose my major for my undergrad. I chose my major for my master's. When I think about it again, did I? When I was in elementary school I actually wanted to take literature. But I somehow convinced myself that I wanted to take biology. I still excelled at it, but the more that I look at it, it seems that I just want to look cool by having a natural science degree rather than a social science. When I got my bachelor's degree, I knew full well that I wanted to study gender studies with the focus on public policy and participation in public spaces. But I couldn't take the major because I knew full well that my parents wouldn't fund my study if that was my major.

I think it's a very long and hard process to understand what "want" is for me personally.

Baby steps, I think.

I know I want to work abroad with this master's degree that I will and have to finish asap.

When I broke it off with my boyfriend, he actually offered me to just take a break from the relationship, not to break it off clean. But I refused. Because that's not what I wanted. I wanted him, and me, to benefit from the status of being single and not some grey undefined status of "on a break".

Baby steps.

#gay #mental health #gay problems #breakup #heartache #japan bl #free will

5 notes · View notes

blubushie · 2 months

Note

I love every parasite even if they make me squirm a little bit (especially the more leggy kind). The axolotl-lookalike I'm thinking of was cave-dwelling, had neutral tones, blind or mostly blind, very much just an axolotl without legs, it even had the cute lil' whisker gills. They're also not as conventionally cute.

[Animal Fact Anon]

I don't know of any without legs but are you perhaps thinking of olms, animal anon? They're white, cave dwelling, blind, and have whisker gills. They DO have legs but their legs are very very small!

#blu whos #blu zoo

2 notes · View notes

jonahinnn · 10 months

Text

Ok i'm doing the essay on why I think Latch handled it THE BEST when it comes to characters who are not traditionally masculine

(This essay is mostly built up with my opinion and judgment, so don't take it like i'm trying to speak facts and also there will be no negative shoutout to any non-latch characters)

1. They don't make androgyny/femininity a foreign thing or something exclusive to non-men

As far as I know, NOBODY in the series ever brings up others' distinctly non-masculine features. When they do, it's either simple compliments like "You look cute!" "He's so pretty" or a character expressing their own style (ex: Mario's iconic GIRAGIRA JYARAJYARA style and Yuuri's elegant style).

2. They aren't afraid to break off what usually depicted as standards

The best examples here is Shio, Tsumugi, Kyuuto, and Satsuki. Shio is a feminine man with short hair and very masculine figure and personality, Tsumugi has hairstyle that is mostly depicted as feminine (Other than that he's masc), Kyuuto is a guy with sorta twintails(?), and Satsuki is... Satsuki Hanabusa. Four of them are pretty much unusual for their preferred styles and it makes them look like they wear them as something they are comfortable with than just visual style.

3. Pink image color isn't made exclusively for "pretty guys" here

Pink is usually depicted as feminine color and usually given to feminine/androgynous/female characters although it was initially a masculine color as it is close to red. There are three Latch characters with pink image color and two of them are masculine characters. Even Yuuri, pink and conventionally pretty, is a gentle-gentle-gentleman.

4. What the characters look like ≠ their whole personality

This is what I like the most from the way Latch handle their characters in general. The way a character appears/dresses up never meddle with their personality; If ever, it doesn't overlap their personality and/or relationship with other characters. Kyuuto, as one example, may be vocal about his brand as local cutie, but that fact is mostly sprinkled in as bits (Like how they show it in Autumn side story and Tell Me Latch sessions) but he still retains what he truly is outside that brand in actual stories.

Yeah GNC characters aren't exclusive to Latch, especially ones that is canonically part of LGBTQ+ (Which I think Latch lacks compared to some other anime music series I follow), but I still think Latch has best take in GNC characters.

#station idol latch

7 notes · View notes

donuts4evry1 · 1 year

Note

turns out one of my friends is afraid of jellyfish so i'm trying to help xem out a bit, do you have any suggestions on cute + harmless jellies i could show xyr? other than the obvious moon jelly lol

in lieu of me not being on my laptop right now, I've compiled a list of harmless looking jellies in nonthreatening positions to help you and your friend on your journey :)

The first types of jellies I'd like to recommend are Rhizostomeae jellyfish, which have relatively mild stings and short oral arms, absent of long tentacles, and thus look nonthreatening (though I'd recommend showing shots of them from the side- Rhizostomeae means "many mouths" and they can look kind of scary from a bottom view)

Here are some examples!

From top to bottom:

Cauliflower Jellyfish (Cephea cephea), Fried egg jellyfish (Cotylorhiza tuberculata), and Cabbagehead jellyfish (Stomopolus melagidaris)

We also have the famous Palau jelly (Mastigias Papua), which is even more nonthreatening and cute thanks to their mild stings, if any, and the yellow zooxanthellae that lines their body, giving them food

At the end of the Rhizostomeae category we have the Upside down jelly (Cassiopeia sp.) and this specific picture of the Flame jellyfish (Rhophilema esculentum)

I suggest showing xem exclusively side views of these jellies, as a full view of their oral arms is probably a little freaky, ehe...

The flame jellyfish usually only looks pretty scary but this particular one (paired with the caption "Orphan no parents") makes me pity it quite a bit, lol

I'm going in assuming that your friend is scared of most "conventional types of jellyfish", so I'll stay away from Sea Nettles and Lions manes (they do have numerous, long, and painful tentacles anyway)

Comb jellies (specifically the Lobed and Beroe varieties) are also a great option, granted you don't tell xem the creepier parts of them. Comb jellies are also aggressive proponents of queer rights, constantly displaying the rainbow with the movement of their cilia and many being simultaneous hermaphrodites (or male and female at the same time). These guys just don't do gender.

They also have no nematocysts, instead trapping prey with "sticky trap" cells, as Lisa-Ann Gershwin likes to call them.

Now for the final stretch, I'll show you some Hydroazoan jellies (categorized by the numerous peripheral tentacles on their bell, much like a moon jellyfish). They can vary on how scary they look, so I'll just put the nonscary images I have readily available to myself

Here, we have the freshwater/peach blossom jellyfish, found pretty much worldwide, and the snow globe jellyfish (a picture I took myself at the monterey bay Aquarium ehe 😎).

I think they're just cute, haha.

One last jellyfish for the road:

This one's a screenshot because the phone I took it on doesn't save files as png or jpg for some reason?? Whack. Anyway this is a juvenile purple spotted jelly (Chrysaora colorata), classified by the darker spots, small oral arms, and a lack of peripheral tentacles. It's just,,, a lil baby... I love it.

alright, I think that's all I have for now, but I'd like to add some words of my own ehe:

Jellyfish are, regrettably, creatures that aren't often conventionally attractive. Their movements may be rhythmic and hypnotic, but some are off put by the tentacles and their toxicity. I compiled the list with criterium such as "short tentacles" or "small body" but the reality is that the term encompasses an extremely diverse group of animals, and they can be quite freaky or scary.

I don't blame your friend for xyr fear. Jellyfish can be dangerous, and touching them is never recommended (unless you're me, bc you know most of the venomous jellies already lol /j). In that sense I kinda feel a kinship with them, since I don't really like being touched either (sometimes I wish I had deadly venom to prevent other people from making unwantef contact with me ehehe). Anyway, these are definitely species that are a "look, but don't touch" kinda deal.

Still, even just a surface dive in jellyfish lore (ugh, can't believe I'm saying that) makes you step foot into a surprisingly interesting and foreign world. Invertebrates are infinitely interesting, and jellyfish, being one of the oldest, are sure to reveal hidden powers and abilities that one would not even be capable of fathoming.

The optimistic side of me hopes that your friend overcomes xyr fear of jellyfish, but at the very least, I hope that xey can learn to be comfortable with the idea of jellyfish, haha.

#It's a bit difficult to compile a list without knowing exactly what your friend finds scary about jellyfish but hopefully this list helps!#These jellies all have varying levels of toxicity btw but the ones that are not harmful are the hydrozoans I've talked about and the comb-#-jellies #The upside down jellyfish has a reportedly mild sting but depending on the person something as bad as a poison-ivy like rash could develop #Same goes with the Papua jelly - but only slightly #Apparently the cauliflower jelly and Cabbagehead jellyfish don't have a terribly painful sting but they can pack a punch as well #Uh anyway #Hope you found this helpful :). I enjoyed talking about jellyfish #ask #mun rambles #jellyfish

26 notes · View notes