ampkiss'd

ampkiss: how many times can i reblog this before people stop...

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:49:57 -0400

ampkiss:

how many times can i reblog this before people stop following me

flandus just makes me so happy u guyz

v brief hiatus because my work productivity has gone down the tube amongst all the internetting...

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:48:44 -0400

v brief hiatus because my work productivity has gone down the tube amongst all the internetting lately!

i’ll still be alive but i’ll not be on tumbls for a week or so, until i get my internet-impulse-control down again.

loves!

mallamun: gatisss: jesusfuck I don’t know where this is from,...

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:38:59 -0400

mallamun:

gatisss:

jesusfuck

I don’t know where this is from, but…

Between this and that Toyota commercial-

Man, I hope genderfuckery of this highly attractive magnitude just INVADES popular media until privileged heteronormative cismen who unthinkingly dominate the world around them through objectification of women and shaming of homosexuality are forced to think.

Forced to think because when they see an attractive ass in panties, they can no longer instinctively flap their dicks at it and say, “I’d own that” without having to think about gender or sexuality. Torn between their habit of reflexively objectifying women and gay-shaming themselves and others, they would have no choice but to open their eyes a little wider and actually think about the people they share the world with instead of living in a neverending reel of imagery that reinforces a narrow reality where they are king.

Very much like your published submission about Sherlock & sexuality issues! One comment, please: You say,"the entire problem with the creative team behind Sherlock: is that they expect us to agree with their reading of it when they didn’t write it in a consistent way." Actually, they've made clear that even when they mock somebody's disagreement with their comments, it doesn't mean anything. MOFFAT ADMITTED THEY TELL LIES. Thus, nothing they say can be believed; none of it counts at all.

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:14:55 -0400

alskjfhdoupiogk;lm THAT IS A VERY GOOD POINT THANK YOU

full of liars ahahaha

There's still a new Hannibal tonight, except we skipped an episode. Instead of 1x03-1x04 we just go directly to 1x05. The pulled episode is up on youtube, in six 'cannibalized' parts by nbchannibal so there aren't any continuity errors. But the disturbing case isn't included, though it will air overseas. I think it will be included in the season 1 DVD though, so we'll eventually get to see it in its entirety. ;)

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:14:25 -0400

thanks! I’ll look forward to seeing it and catch the abbreviated clips online tonight :)

They pulled the episode "Ceuf", which they then made into a six-part webisode (it's on youtube and the NBC website) that excludes the sensitive material. The next episode, "Coquilles," which would have been episode 5 is now episode 4 and will be showing tonight.

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:13:57 -0400

Thank you for letting me know! I appreciate it!

SHELDON COOPER WANTS YOU TO SIGN THIS PETITION FOR ALPHAS TO HAVE A PROPER FINALE

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:13:26 -0400

SHELDON COOPER WANTS YOU TO SIGN THIS PETITION FOR ALPHAS TO HAVE A PROPER FINALE

ALPHAS ON BIG BANG OH MY GOSH?!?!?!??????? SHELDON IS ME WHAT I SENT SYFY SO MANY...

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:11:58 -0400

ALPHAS ON BIG BANG OH MY GOSH?!?!?!???????

SHELDON IS ME WHAT

I SENT SYFY SO MANY EMAILS

WHAT

i came in and mom said “i have to confess to you that i’ve been recording our conversations and sending them to big bang, they’re very appreciative”a nd then rewound and oh my goghsh

ok wait someone explain to me what the deal is with Hannibal tonight? I gather that an episode was...

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:20:42 -0400

ok wait someone explain to me what the deal is with Hannibal tonight? I gather that an episode was pulled due to current events and sensitivity, which I personally think was probably a good decision. Are they airing the next episode, an old episode, or—? Is the pulled episode available online or on demand?

nakedwarriors: Norman Reedus + Sean Patrick Flanery ~ The...

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:52:01 -0400

nakedwarriors:

Norman Reedus + Sean Patrick Flanery
~ The Boondock Saints (Deleted Scene)

how many times can i reblog this before people stop following...

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:06:36 -0400

how many times can i reblog this before people stop following me

flandus just makes me so happy u guyz

reblogs favorite things again cuz its top of the tops ^_____^

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:57:49 -0400

reblogs favorite things again cuz its top of the tops ^_____^

oh-merthur: bradleyjizzames: #why they cut this out i will...

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:51:15 -0400

oh-merthur:

bradleyjizzames:

#why they cut this out i will never understand #and they put in arthur helping gwen sit down #like WE KNOW HOW MUCH SHE MEANS TO HIM #THEY GET MARRIED ASSHOLES #OBVIOUSLY HE TRUSTS HER OPINION #BUT THIS SHOW IS ABOUT MERLIN AND ARTHUR OKAY #WHY DID YOU CUT THIS OUT #THE MOMENT ARTHUR TELLS MERLIN TO COME SIT AT HIS RIGHT HAND #THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE SHOW IN ONE SCENE #I DON’T UNDERSTAND (colinmorgasms)

OH MY GOD i didnt see arthurs hand moving to the seat i just thought he looked down! (feels)

I feel a rising amount of concern at some of the misinterpretations of the post I made the other day...

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:48:00 -0400

I feel a rising amount of concern at some of the misinterpretations of the post I made the other day about queer interpretations of Sherlock, both in the show and in the ACD canon, so I just want to clear up a few points.

Firstly is that I bear no ill will and hold no judgement for anyone who disagrees with what pairings I may or may not prefer, and that I honestly fully embrace anyone who is in favor of Mary/John, Molly/Sherlock, Irene/Sherlock, etc, whatever their motivation. This extends to the writers of the show and the creative team behind and in front of the camera.

My only concern is the fact that Ian’s initial tweet and Amanda’s response did feel judgmental to a large portion of fans. I have also learned that Ian took the time to contact someone who had a very popular post about why what he said was hurtful, and while I still think his initial comment was ill-thought and rude, I am very impressed by that level of care and communication that he chose to foster with them. My concern is not that John/Sherlock was not going to happen, but that a queer reading of the narrative they had presented to us was being treated as completely invalid in and of itself, not just by Ian but as a recurring theme with the creative team, which not only do I strongly disagree with given the material, but that I felt was rude and hurtful to a lot of fans who had thought maybe this show would be different in that respect.

I have seen a few people interpreting my comments as being mad and demanding that John/Sherlock be written into the show, and that the lack of John/Sherlock canonization in and of itself is queerbaiting. I wanted to make clear that what I think is queerbaiting is that they wrote the subtext in and then made fun of people for taking it seriously, not that they didn’t follow it to a romantic conclusion. I hope that this clarifies something of my position and makes clear what I meant, but as I also hope I’ve shown, I’ll be happy to discuss anything about either my post or this interpretation of the material to a mutually respectful conclusion. I think the most important thing in this style of debate is that mutual respect and I hope that we can use it to come to an understanding.

Something witty goes here: pati79: ampkiss: repeat after me:Sherlock Holmes is not empirically...

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:27:35 -0400

Something witty goes here: pati79: ampkiss: repeat after me:Sherlock Holmes is not empirically...:

lyndsayfaye:

pati79:

ampkiss:

repeat after me:

Sherlock Holmes is not empirically straight in the canon

100+ years of queer lit theory and derivative works exist for a reason

Anyone who thinks people who make queer conjectures about Sherlock Holmes are fantasizing is dramatically and…

Yeah, excellent, actually. Cool.

Repeat after me: Sherlock Holmes is not empirically straight in the canon.

100+ years of queer lit theory and derivative works exist for a reason.

These are 100,000% true facts.

However,

This gives the writers of derivative fiction and/or artwork no commandment that they must shout at people producing TV adaptations. The ones who they deem are “doing it wrong because we like it this way better.” And picking on an actress? Really? That’s what the fandom has come to?

We basically are being given two choices here. Either they are queerbaiting, and they are assholes. Or they are not queerbaiting, and they are assholes. Or maybe, just maybe, they are writing their own scripts and sailing their own ships and are actual humans who are penning a show instead of these abstract points of data some folk seem to think they are, and also abstract points of TV-making data who are required to listen to you.

You are not required to listen to them. You get to make your own narrative. Can you grant them the same autonomy?

Are you going to demand Mycroft and Lestrade actually have a conversation? I thought not.

You know those TV writers you’re talking about? They’re also people, and are not as such required to see the narrative as you see it. They could write John/Irene into episode three of season 3 and have no one to answer to, because it’s THEIR STORY. (Please god, no.) So I beg of you, go and write your story, and share it, and even sell it to TV producers, and that would be marvelous. But stop shouting at people who don’t happen to ship your ship.

Why are you handing them the keys to your car, people? Why?

Oh, no, I definitely want to make clear that I’m not obliging anyone to write something the way that I want them to or to make any particular pairing canon. That’s not my intention in what I wrote. My biggest problem is that it’s been presented that that interpretation of their material is invalid, that people are dumb for seeing it that way, and that really grates on me, especially since a lot of their reasoning around it doesn’t make sense with what they’ve written, in my opinion.

I really don’t think anyone is required to listen to me and no one is remotely being asked to write in a couple that I want them to. This is about the fact that people got the impression, from certain parties’ words, that they were being mocked for having read it that way.

I am actually completely fine with Mary Morstan in the stories and in the show and I am interested in how they will interpret it. I’ve never yelled at Amanda Abbington and I bear her no ill will for taking the part. I beg you to please not misconstrue my discussion as shouting at people who don’t ship my ship, because that is not at all the issue. I have many friends who ship many, many things that I may not be into, and I bear them no ill will or judgement. This is in response to feeling judged unfairly for my reading of the text.

i-was-a-tree: HEY BUDDY. FUCK THE POLICE. ALSO - FEEL BETTER...

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:00:17 -0400

i-was-a-tree:

HEY BUDDY.

FUCK THE POLICE.

ALSO - FEEL BETTER ABOUT THE INTERNET! HERE’S A BUNCH OF THINGS YOU LIKE!!!!!!!!!!!

DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE THINK, MANY OF THEM ARE DUMB AND UNWILLING TO SEE ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THEIR OWN LITTLE BOX SO FORGET THEM AND ROCK ON. IF THEY WANNA BE PETTY BABIES, THEY’RE THE ONES LOSING OUT. MAYBE IT’S A GOOD THING THAT YOU PUT OUT THE ENERGY AND EFFORT TRYING TO MAKE SURE YOUR VOICE IS HEARD INSTEADA BEING LIKE ME AND NOT BOTHERING BECAUSE I DON’T FEEL LIKE HAVING ASSHOLE JUMP DOWN MY THROAT BECAUSE THEY’RE TOO IGNORANT TO LISTEN OR EVEN BE OPEN TO DIALOGUE. JUST DON’T LET IT BRING YOU DOWN ANYMORE OK CAUSE LOOK

LOOK AT ALL THAT.

AND YOU’RE MY BEST FRIEND.

SO FUCKK THE POLICCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LET’S GO FILL THE WORLD WITH OUR POINT OF VIEW, BE THE ARTISTS CREATING THE STUFF WE WANNA SEE IN THE WORLD! WOOWOOWOOOOOO

THIS MOTIVATIONAL POST IS GETTING STRANGE ANYWAY ALRIGHT BYE

LSAKFMALSFOIHDUPIKGL;MFNJSBHDOAKLFMNSDHGIODKLSGM baby

this post is my new favorite one ever

look at all that LOOK AT ALL OF THAT LOVE THAT I LOVE SO MUCH ALL THAT FUCKIGNDKGMFSF FLANDUS AND MACMANUS AND SHERLOCK AND REID AND MORGAN AND HITOMI AND AOISFJKMSDGMDSLF UCKING EVERYTHING

thank you for being so wonderful and making me feel good every time i get caught up in jazz that stresses me out

i love you babyface ♥♥

ivorylungs: ….forgot this was in my sketchbook finished it up...

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:30:32 -0400

ivorylungs:

….forgot this was in my sketchbook

finished it up and well now, here you go.

Photo

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:25:46 -0400

So! I wanted to take the opportunity you kindly offered when I contacted you in your ask to talk...

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:07:39 -0400

So! I wanted to take the opportunity you kindly offered when I contacted you in your ask to talk this up a little, because I see a lot of points where we agree and a lot worth talking about. Of course if I get boring feel free to skip away. I’m getting way too affected by this issue, honestly; it’s been riding down on me all day and I’m sort of hitting a brick wall mentally on it as well, so I’m not sure I’m going to be saying anything productive but I feel the need to express it anyway.

That said!

Re “in the ACD canon Watson is married”- yes, he absolutely is. And reading him as straight is a perfectly acceptable interpretation, and the most popular one! It just bothers me a little when I see people using his marriage as an argument against his sexuality, because it’s symptomatic of bisexual erasure. So I feel since his sexuality is not stated in the canon beyond his interest in women, it’s important to keep in mind that the two aren’t necessarily exclusive, although a lot of people think of ACD-canon Watson as hetero and that’s fine.

But more to the topic at hand: what this is really all started by is actually something Ian Hallard and Amanda Abbington said on twitter yesterday-day-before-I-don’t-understand-time-zones. It’s been posted and reposted a million times today in the Ian Hallard and Sherlock tags, but in case you haven’t seen it, what he said was “OK, I get that some people like to fantasise about Sherlock & John as a couple but no one seriously thinks it will actually happen,do they?!” to which Amanda Abbington replied “I do think it’s funny how much people get worked up about it.” Later, Ian clarified a bit of his opinion in a twitlonger post and said that people are entitled to their fantasies, but that he questioned the extent to which those fantasies have turned into a belief.

This— okay, I’m sort of at a point where I’m used to feeling brushed off, marginalized, and insulted by things that Moffat says. He has a very forceful way of expressing his opinion, and I have a very personal disagreement with some of the positions he’s taken on sexuality in his shows and in his personal interviews. But I’ll be honest that I was shocked to see this. Not necessarily because I thought the show was going to put John and Sherlock together- like I’ve said and a bunch of other people have said, even the most dedicated of us have begun to realize that the showrunners won’t do that for reasons that are not so noble as characterization. But because this is basically admitting full and frontal that all of the queerbaiting in Sherlock is, explicitly, just that. They’re positing that the concept of Sherlock and John getting together seriously is, in and of itself, laughable, and more importantly that they have done nothing in the show to suggest that it IS a possibility, at any point. This goes beyond John and Sherlock’s respective sexualities and into the fact that at the beginning of this show, everyone connected with it thought it was wonderful that people would think they were gay, that it said something positive about society. That kind of rapidly delineated though, and between S1 and S2 fans saw a massive backing off of this kind of acceptive rhetoric that the crew had in S1. In S1 everyone was talking about how Sherlock’s sexuality didn’t matter, and that it was great that people would make that supposition about their relationship, because it had been talked about for so long. By S2 they were aggressively distancing themselves from this, saying publicly that Sherlock isn’t at all gay, or at all asexual, and reading it like that was completely unintended but people can do what they like. Now they’re acting like the entire notion of it is absurdist and fans who at any point may have thought it was a possibility are only coming to that conclusion as a byproduct of their own sexual fantasies. (As it is, sex is only a part of the John and Sherlock dynamic that people are seeing, and there’s so much more to it than just sexuality, not that sexuality is anything less than a completely valid and respectable part of it).

Tangenting! Anyway.

I both agree and disagree with you when it comes to Irene and her sexuality as presented in the show and behind-the-scenes, in contrast to John. (Keep in mind this is referring just to the show narrative and doesn’t relate to the ACD canon at all, unlike my earlier conjectures about ACD canon Watson being bisexual). I see where you’re coming from that we if we are going to be accepting a character’s own definition of themselves, we should also accept their definition of whom they’re sexually attracted to. But I think I have to disagree with the application of that to this show, because Irene and John were not written with their sexualities treated as equally respectable. (While I have a personal feeling on John’s sexuality and his coming terms with previously unexplored homosexual attractions at his age and within the confines of the story- that’s my interpretation of the text, and I wanna stick with what the show is telling us.) The show told us that Irene was gay but attracted to and interested in Sherlock anyway, and drew a concrete parallel through her dialogue to John being straight and any potential feelings John may have. Yet we’re told that John is straight, absolutely, fixedly, eternally, and that there is no budging from this. Irene’s sexuality is discounted in behind-the-scenes interviews, where Moffat and Benedict have both spoken about how much sex they think she and Sherlock had in Islamabad. Irene’s sexuality is treated as mutable, the exception made for the brilliant Sherlock Holmes, but when those same writers’ and crew are asked about John, they argue that he’s straight, so it would never happen. For Irene’s sexuality to be so casually tossed around by the crew, and for me to respect that creative decision, I had to assume that there was a reasoning behind it and that it was being used as a plot point not for Moffat’s jollies but to continue the parallel they explicitly spelled out in the episode. I recognize that that obviously, at this point, is not what was happening- not with the way the crew is reacting to what honestly I sort of see as a reasonable interpretation of what they’ve written. But like I said, I do totally see where you’re coming from in terms of- we should respect what each character says about themselves. It’s just frustrating because I feel it’s very apparent that the writers don’t do them that same respect.

I also do want to say, I saw your post in your blog about how Sherlock isn’t inclusive at all, and I do agree with you- I was wrong to use that word in my initial post when Sherlock is completely lacking in LGBT characters, religiously diverse characters and characters of color. When I first started watching it, I thought that it was going to be representative of some of the world that I get to see, and it ended up very much not-being. I just wish I had that feeling back, because it’d waned significantly by S2, and by S3 is going to have been crushed entirely underfoot. I remember the feeling of the first time that they said “it’s all fine”, and I’m desperate for that again because it’s not something you get very often in mainstream media. And now, I feel like they’re acting like that sentence was nothing more than a joke, when I know I am not the only person that it felt refreshing to.

So- yeah. I mean, I don’t disagree with you. I think almost everyone can agree that they’re sick of how this is going. I just am taking it personally because I can’t shake the feeling that I and people like me are being laughed at for having been so stupid to think at any point that this show was going to be different.

Regardless of our disagreements on the interpretation of some of the text and show narrative, thanks for responding to my questions in such a civil way, and I’m appreciative of the discourse that we were able to have on this issue. I think it’s important to talk about and it is wonderful when people are able to do so civilly.

Photo

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:00:18 -0400