in dreams @lyriid - Tumblr Blog

firstprinced

#ilya ur so nonchalant king i promise <3

#heated rivalry

thecollectibles

Azure Dragon by TJ Foo

#art

kingcatnine

we need to instill a new storytelling rule of thumb into people called "show don't tweet" where we encourage them to put all pertinent canon information into the actual story and its official supplemental material instead of using reddit AMAs as lore dlcs

not-a-casual-fangirl

he is so passionate abt feminism

mutantriftidol-deactivated20260

@valentitans

#clark x bruce

ymutate

Rachel Clearfield (British Artist, born 1946)

"The Stream", 1996.

Oil on Canvas, 24 × 20 inches.

Private Collection.

#art

ysociety

#photography

swearphil

HUDCON WEEK 2026 | day 3: favorite outfit/look

Hudson Williams at the Golden Globes on January 11, 2026

#hudson williams

important-cat-pics

fellshish

and another thing… idk about you guys but my crowley and aziraphale are a demon and an angel, enemies to friends to situationship to almost-lovers, a 6,000 year slowburn. and they were fully shaped by the fact that they are supernatural beings, and by all their shared experiences, good and bad. that crowley and aziraphale have now semi-canonically been snapped out of existence, they have *never* even existed in this universe, they were basically book of lifed, the very punishment that was a threat in s2. and no weird ooc human au can ever be them because what they’ve been through and what they’ve learned is so much of who they are

mountainssugar

This is a very old work, and I still really like it. I want to try to move further in this direction of art

#the Witcher

alphacentaurinebula

The destruction of the entire universe and every soul in it is a truly depressing ending. Just because God replaced it with another universe that looked similar doesn't change anything - this is Job and his children all over again. Job doesn't want new children, and neither do I.

alphacentaurinebula

YES @untouchedsoap exactly.

finaphoto-blog

Wild stallions in Bosnia, September 2015, Day 3

thedeepmiracleperfection

To everyone saying "they don't need to kiss to prove they're in love"

Do you understand the implications, especially in today's political climate, of a show that revolves heavily around a queer/queer-coded couple where the only onscreen kiss between said couple is their breakup? Especially one that explores themes of sin, forbidden love, religion, dogma, and high control groups? One where the character associated with hell is the one forcing the kiss and the character associated with Christian heaven (even if heaven in this case is bad) is the one who is not receptive to that affection? A show where the heaven associated character tells the one who kissed him "I forgive you"? One where the main characters have had to hide their relationship for fear of their lives in a storyline that is heavily analogous to the persecution of queer people? Where even in a scene that showed explicitly they were married, the show still would not deign to display physical intimacy between two men? Y'know, some of the most highly stigmatized kind of affection there is?

If they had never kissed at all, I wouldn't mind. But by kissing in season 2 when they broke up, they showed that they were willing to cross that line. They stopped being ambiguous in that moment. They're whole "we're not humans and don't show love like humans" went out the window when the show decided they would in fact engage in an overtly queer act. But the only time there is unambiguous queer affection is when it's used to separate the characters.

If they had never had a full on sex scene between two hetero characters who had just met in season 1, I wouldn't mind. But the show was more comfortable with displaying physical intimacy between a man and a woman that we never saw after season 1 than they were between the two main characters of the show.

If they hadn't had an ending that literally showed their wedding rings, showing that they clearly can and will display a queer couple and also conform to heteronormative standards by having them married at all, then I wouldn't mind. But they went as far as having the characters who famously had a relationship that was open to interpretation and put them in the husband/romantic partner box, but wouldn't dare go as far as physical intimacy?

I know that many people who are not amanormative or allonormative are frustrated that a relationship that was previously ambiguous/up for interpretation was boxed into a romantic label. But now that they have, it says something that they chose to display queer relationships, and they chose to display physical affection, but not both at the same time. It says something even if they didn't intend to. It's just too awfully convenient that the couples who are always subjected to "well you don't need to be physical to be in love" are the queer couples. In a political climate that promotes homophobia and violence against our community, increasingly sex negative and pro-censorship legislation regarding online spaces, and legislation that aims to categorize participating in anything remotely queer in public as a sex crime, I think anyone who looks at a story of romantic love between two masculine presenting people and says it's not necessary to have overt physical acts of affection has lost the plot.

It's a cop out, plain and simple. And queer fans deserved better.