Would you be willing to do some icons of Nikki (Inde Navarette) from Obsession?
like/reblog if you take, please! let me know if you want a different color
3 more icons under the cut
Peter Solarz

titsay

shark vs the universe
AnasAbdin
Game of Thrones Daily
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Today's Document

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣

@theartofmadeline
todays bird
cherry valley forever
h
NASA
almost home
trying on a metaphor
YOU ARE THE REASON
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

roma★
seen from United States
seen from South Africa
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Australia

seen from Malaysia

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from France

seen from Malaysia

seen from France

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@bidisasterhawkeye
Would you be willing to do some icons of Nikki (Inde Navarette) from Obsession?
like/reblog if you take, please! let me know if you want a different color
3 more icons under the cut
I’m new to all of this but why would paul get married on john’s birthday?? and like why would he do that to nancy?? omg he could’ve picked literally any date or was it a coincidence… i don’t think so.. geez.
Greetings, and welcome to the asylum, dear anon!
Something I think is important to remember, especially if you're more inclined to look at things through a McLennon Is True (In A Completely Reciprocal Sexual/Romantic Way) than I am, is that the other "characters" in this narrative besides John and Paul have agency. If it really bothered Nancy that they were getting married on John's birthday - or that they were getting married in the same location that he married Linda, which I definitely don't see nearly as many people bringing up as potentially upsetting to Nancy - I would be willing to bet that that would not have happened. Nancy would have said, "No, that's insane - we're not doing that." And Paul, more than likely, would have been like, "You're right - that is a little cuckoo-bananas, sorry."
My personal belief is that this is actually a bit of a happy accident. Here are the pieces that fell into place that made 9 October 2011 the Best Option, imo.
People make a lot of the fact that registry offices in the UK generally aren't open on Sundays, unless you specifically pre-book your wedding - but Paul and Nancy would probably already be doing that, not least because of the additional security needs they'd have. I don't think Paul wanted a repeat of the 1969 bedlam and I seriously doubt he and Nancy wanted to get any other hapless couples caught up in the celebrity vortex. So a Sunday, when any other nuptials would also have to be pre-booked, seems like a great choice.
The weekend prior was the London premiere of Martin Scorsese's documentary about George. This meant that some folks who are usually residing overseas - Ringo and Barbara, for instance; although I'm sure they would've made the trip anyway, lol - were already, conveniently, in London. So the closer that event is to the wedding, the better. (I think people forget that this was a thing, which is totally reasonable. I do not forget because I was in London and was at both events in an uninvited capacity, lmao.)
Why not book the wedding during the week, then? Well, because Nancy is Jewish and at least semi-observant. Rosh Hashanah - the Jewish New Year and the start of the High Holy Days - began on the evening of 28 September and Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, was 7/8 October. Getting married on Yom Kippur is a pretty major no-no and, traditionally, marrying during that interval between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur is also discouraged. It's not a good time to have a big party, basically, to the point where I think most Jews who engage with their faith or culture on any level would find it unacceptable and even offensive. So that makes the earliest possible date for their marriage... 9 October.
As a bonus, the four days after Yom Kippur - especially the very next day (Tishrei 11) - are considered "extremely auspicious" dates to get married. (I put that in quotes because that exact wording is used on multiple different websites I looked at.)
Given how chill and respectful Nancy is about Linda's continuing importance to Paul (and Paul's eldest children), I'd be inclined to doubt she'd feel any differently about John - regardless of what your take on the John/Paul relationship is. I'd be willing to bet that, when all these factors lined up for them to get married on 9 October, they both saw it as an additional "blessing" and a way for John - someone who is unquestionably very important to Paul - to be a part of their big day.
Hi Sandra! Would you be willing to make icons of the new Elle US issue with The Odyssey cast? It's Charlize, Zendaya, Lupita and Anne Hathaway as the four elements (wind, water, earth and fire).
like/reblog if you take, please! let me know if you want a different color
7 more icons under the cut
Oliver Stone: Inside/Out (1992)
"Our hearts were broken because it was awful, that war. He wrote me a story that he never mentioned it, on any interview, but I'm going to tell you. The awful thing about Vietnam was the marécage [swamp], you know, the water bed. They were up to the waist in water and leeches would come and climb…they had to tie up their penis [so] that the leeches didn't go inside to their intestine. That's what he write me! So [you ask] 'what do you feel?' How do I feel? It was awful." -Jacqueline Stone, mother (a non-native English speaker)
Absolutely incredible find on YouTube, the 1992 documentary on Oliver Stone originally made for Showtime here in the States and which aired on the BBC's Arena show in the UK:
It's very telling that Oliver's recounting of his combat experience is limited to basically one funny anecdote, and it's a fellow solider and his mother who recount the horrors:
"Oliver and his platoon saved our lives one day. We'd walked right into the middle of a U shaped ambush. We all thought we were going to die. We thought they were going to come out of their bunkers with their .45s and finish us off when it got dark. I had one bullet left - our whole unit had one bullet left - and I shot it into the air, and that was the signal for Second Platoon to come up. They had been out of the fire - out of harm's way to this point - and Oliver came running up. I said, 'You guys be careful, they're all over the place out there. We've lost a lot of men. There's guys dying out there.' He said, 'Don't worry about it, we'll go get 'em.' And they jumped over the anthills and they went up there to get the Viet Cong [and] NVA. There was a lot of shooting going on, hand grenades, and I was afraid all of them had gotten killed. Then they came crawling back, and Oliver had been wounded. I think all of them had been wounded. But they had done their best to save us, and I credit him with saving my life. There are survivors of our platoon that day [because of it]." -Larry Robinson, 25th Infantry Division
"He wrote me [that] he save the life of this platoon….I said, 'How can you do such a thing? How can you kill somebody?' You know, I could not even think. When you're the mother, you see your son as…how could he have killed another person, you know?" -Jacqueline Stone
Dearest Sandra! :) Another icons request: Nia Long.
like/reblog if you take, please! let me know if you want a different color
4 more icons under the cut
So happy you're back! Could I request Naomi Scott icons, please?
like/reblog if you take, please! let me know if you want a different color
4 more icons under the cut
Taylor Swift The Life of a Showgirl icon pack
12 400x400px icons below the cut
please like or reblog if using/saving
Project Hail Mary (2026) + Tumblr text posts
people on this website be like “it’s actually school’s fault that i don’t know how to read because i wanted to write my essay on the divergent trilogy and that BITCH mrs. clarkson made us study 1984 instead. anyway here’s a 10 tweet thread of easily disproven misinformation about a 3 year old news story and btw, who is toni morrison?”
i KNOW most of y’all are lying about being in the gifted program as children because none of you could pass the basic reading comprehension assessment they give third graders today
this post is mean and I never read divergent or whatever the fuck but 1984 sucks and is rape apologism so if somebody wanted to write about divergent or whatever good for them
this reply is like literally exactly what op is talking about lol. like firstly ops point isn’t “1984 is good”, ops point is that analysing complex stories teaches you how to form opinions and think for yourself. and like secondly in 1984 you’re supposed to think damn it’s fucked up that he’s thinking that way about her, i wonder if this ties in with the central theme of “a society like this will fuck you in the head”? (this is the thinking for yourself part). like do you think orwell just put that in for fun? do you think that just because winston is the protagonist you’re supposed to agree with everything he does?
You know I feel like this post just gave me an epiphany for what is wrong with how Tumblr Fandom/Internet Fandom responds to media-or not *wrong* but makes it very hard to respond to anything but a morally correct, and heroic protagonist.
When an English teacher, or reader, taught or picked up 1984, it wasn’t with the intention they were going to love the protagonist. They picked it up with the intention of reading a whole story and trying to grasp the theme or catharsis from the story. If the protagonist was a *shitty* person it played into the the themes or the story, because it wasn’t about morally judging the book or *liking* or feeling attachment to the protagonist. Sometimes and often times, books were just about gaining another perspective.
No one read Lolita expecting to endear, or like, or be inspired by Humbert. You are supposed to be upset by his behavior, you don’t read Lolita with the intention of being inspired. You read it to learn more about what the fuck is going on inside someone’s head when they behave like that. How children get sucked into abusive situations. Or read “The Great Gatsby” not because they want to fall in love with Gatsby or Nick, but to better understand and analyze the experience of the 1920s or destitution of the American Dream.
A lot of internet and fandom culture has changed that though. When we say something like “I love the Great Gatsby” it comes with the idea or association that means you must *love* or relate to one of the characters. And maybe you do, but the first assumption is not longer about the quality of the work or themes, or cathartic impact-it’s about character admiration. And with that character admiration, in tumblr stan culture, or kin culture, or exalting characters with fanart/romance/so on you don’t just ‘admire’ or find that character ‘compelling’ it now translates to ‘you LOVE that character’ or you ‘DIRECTLY relate to that character.’
You can’t say “I love how Humbert is written, it’s so fascinating and dark”, without it directly translating you somehow relate to a child abuser or condone his actions. Taking in media has become an act of worship and connection. We no longer watch meant to just see the story as a whole, we watch expecting to connect to a character and if we offer them our “worship” as it’s become, as opposed to just attention or interest study as it traditionally was, it means we are condoning the character or saying we directly empathize with all their actions.
I think that’s why there is often now so much fuss over *toxic* characters or not. Or whether that classical novel is showing good or bad things anymore. We’re treating the characters as people we should love or want to draw or write about. Sometimes a story is just about getting the the theme or catharsis or learning another perspective. We don’t NEED to like the character. Or we don’t HAVE to like a character to be impressed by how they’re written or intrigued by their behavior.
I think if internet culture could learn to view stories as small insights into other lives or single takes of one perspective instead of purposeful moral inspirations we’d be a lot less worried about how toxic or not toxic they are.
it must be pretty torturous to be on tumblr and not think paul was queer lmao. do you think he was just like crazily obsessed with john to an unhealthy degree? i feel like if you apply occam's razor, all of paul's confusing statements and behavior make the most sense if there were romantic feelings involved, even if they went unacknowledged/unreciprocated, because it's either that or paul is certifiably insane lol
The main "torture" is the constant flood of posts implying that believing that is stupid, when I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and really try to assess new evidence whenever it crosses my dash, even forcing myself to reconsider when my initial kneejerk reaction is a confirmation bias-infected "DOESN'T MATTER!"
First, I do wanna point out that whether Paul and John were lovers wouldn't really affect whether Paul's attachment to John is healthy – I don't think interpreting his most intense tendencies towards John as based in romantic attraction automatically makes them healthy.
In short: I think it wouldn't be wrong to say that, on the whole, Paul has an unhealthy relationship with John/his memory (though I think it's about as good as it can be by this point and I want to emphasize that I don't think this means their relationship was lacking in love and/or meaning). I jot this down to the trauma of fame, the trauma of the Beatles breakup, the trauma of John's toxic behaviour towards Paul in particular, the trauma of losing John suddenly in a way that will always feel fundamentally unfair and never make a modicum of sense, the trauma of being publicly raked through the coals while John was elevated to a saintly status. Add onto that bonding over losing their mothers young, bonding through songwriting, bonding through dunique experiences like LSD. All of these factors are entirely independent of whether or not Paul was in love with John, and even one of them would suffice for their relationship to read as at least a bit odd IMO.
I feel like if you wanted my full assessment, we'd have to go through the different pieces of evidence one by one, because how I interpret them falls into one of several bins:
The rare instance where Paul is saying something that I agree are most easily read as romantic: it's your "Maybe if I had been a girl, I could go out and…" – that type of thing (Note that not every single quote about Yoko falls into this category). Overall, I think marriage analogies are complicated because of the way we put romantic relationships on a pedestal, but I cannot deny that that is the particular analogy Paul chose to make many times – there just aren't enough other indicators to sway me.
Quotes and behaviours indicating very deep and complicated feelings towards John, but that I don't think are necessarily romantic: it's your "delicious broth of boy", your "it's only me" anecdote, your "I wish I had sat and just hugged John all the time". Refer to my "In short:" paragraph for how I interpret these. Also, Paul being Weird™ about any implication that John wasn't straight belongs here too, because I think he has a complicated relationship with all that due to his complicated relationship with John.
Song lyrics: I generally put a lot less stock into these because I think you cannot often say for certain who a song is about, and even assuming certain songs are about John, artistic license makes it incredibly difficult to draw conclusions about the exact nature of Paul's feelings based on the lyrics, especially because his writing style is not all that diaristic and he quite often chooses words for their pure phonetic appeal. I always like bringing up "Girl" and "Day Tripper" in this context, because both of these songs are romantic on the surface, but, according to their own writers, they are in fact about religion and the drug scene. Generally, lyrics are malleable to many plausible interpretations, in a way I find unuseful to reconstruct history.
The "strong correlations": this is stuff like Paul admiring Joe Orton's work, him having a close relationship with Robert Fraser, adopting more campy fashion during certain periods, in short: Paul being adjacent to queer culture. I don't necessarily think these things mean nothing, (though I find it can come across somewhat backhanded to imply Paul would only enjoy Orton's Loot if he was queer, despite the fact the play clearly appeals to other things Paul was interested in, such as criticizing religion). I mostly think this is a very shaky foundation to build a theory on, and, frankly, there are plenty of quotes from Paul that read as intensely clueless regarding queer life ("If there was to be gayness…"). So it kind of becomes a net zero for me.
ERROR 404 MORE CONTEXT NEEDED: here's where I put stuff like Paul responding "in bed" to how he would spend a day with John. He could be joking, he could be being flippant because the question is personal, he could be revealing a very intimate but potentially platonic desire, he could be (inexplicably, tbh) alluding to the fact he would like to fuck John. Ultimately, a two word answer in a print article is essentially uninterpretable IMO.
Genuine nothingburgers, i.e. stuff that either does not mean anything in relation to McLennon or Paul's sexuality, or has been taken wildly out of context: my go-to example for this one is "John had beautiful hands" where the fact Paul is comparing John to his teenage son – whose hands he explicitly also praises – is almost always omitted. Also stuff like Paul saying "I am the binary" when the context is very obviously duality in the song "Hello Goodbye", which is a song about the push and pull of pessimism vs. optimism.
Speaking as an oldhead, the "strong correlations" resonates with me, because my experiences with slash fandom is that those "clues" people look for often veer into homophobia and gender essentialism. For example, the absolute obsession some have with Paul having had a gay man (Robert Fraser) as one of his closest friends. Wearing a flower patterned shirt (in the Sixties!!!), wearing a pink dress shirt, having long lashes (literally something he cannot control), etc. Those are the oldest, dustiest, most damaging stereotypes: straight men cannot wear colors, straight people can't love their queer friends, straight men cannot have "feminine" features. Trying to dress those offensive stereotypes into some form of cloak of empowerment that they're "clues" because you think these people are having a hidden relationship doesn't change the reality that they're offensive. (This is true of every RL slash fandom, from the Beatles to One Direction).
Even worse is when people use slurs. The use of faggot, faggy and fag in this fandom is quite frankly disgusting. Using that slur to describe when you think a straight man is acting "camp" (by like, dancing? or doing something you don't think is masculine) is not endearing or progressive.
The problem with real-life shipping is that, no matter how much you argue or pretend or pretzel yourself, you are rejecting how people define themselves. Paul identifies as hetero, and in his experience, John only expressed a heterosexual identity to him. Paul (I'm using him because he's the living one) has real life partners. Arguing that you know his identify and sexuality better than him invalidates his ownership of his own self and his real partners. Whatever excuse you want to put on it, arguing that his entire life is a lie and he secretly can't be his "real self" (something I've seen over and over in this fandom) is both offensive to his own self-agency, and offensive to the historical realities of real queer oppression and what being in the closet actually means.
If you think Paul McCartney is gay, there is no way around it: you are calling him a liar, because he already publicly identified as a cis straight man. You either believe people have the right to self-identify and you respect it, or you don't. You can't claim that right for gay and trans individuals only, while denying it to everyone else.
You also hit on another point which is important, and is probably frankly why so many very young people are into slash: the notion that sex and romanticism are the supreme endgame for any relationship, and the only relationships that matter. The thesis is that an intense friendship or partnership between two people cannot matter unless there was also a sexual component.
Critics of slash have focused on the notion that it implies straight people can't have nonsexual love or bonds with each other. But weirdly, there is also an implication that if two people in a relationship are both gay, there is only result: they must be boning.
I take that personally as a gay woman, because the assumption is that if I have a close bond with another gay woman, it can only be rooted in sexual attraction. It plays into stereotypes that all queer people are promiscuous and can't control themselves, even around straight people. Or that they are always tragic and mooning over straight people not interested in them. Look at those who even acknowledge Paul is straight, but believe John was bisexual and therefore obsessed with Paul, or that Robert Fraser, being gay, must have been secretly "in love" with Paul.
m*a*s*h top 10 episodes as rated by imdb / insp.
made as part of the MASHoles 2025 Secret Santa
THE PITT ICON PACK #2
30 icons
200x200
credit not necessary but please reblog if you use/save
view them all under the cut or check out my icons page
Oh, I couldn't buy your car. It's not my type.
The Golden Girls – 1.14: That Was No Lady
some people think writers are so eloquent and good with words, but the reality is that we can sit there with our fingers on the keyboard going, “what’s the word for non-sunlight lighting? Like, fake lighting?” and for ten minutes, all our brain will supply is “unofficial”, and we know that’s not the right word, but it’s the only word we can come up with…until finally it’s like our face got smashed into a brick wall and we remember the word we want is “artificial”.
I couldn't remember the word "doorknob" ten minutes ago.
ok but the onelook thesaurus will save your life, i literally could not live without this website
REBLOG TO SAVE A WRITER'S LIFE
Update: I have already needed this multiple times in the three days since I saw it. 20/10 where have you been all my life??
Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness
AFI's 100 Greatest American Films Of All Time 86. Platoon (1986) dir. Oliver Stone