Liv Hewson & Lauren Ambrose as VAN PALMER in Yellowjackets — happy birthday @overtherise 💛
Acquired Stardust
No title available
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year

ellievsbear
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda

PR's Tumblrdome

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
Not today Justin

Discoholic 🪩

★

roma★
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
Jules of Nature
Keni
No title available
Peter Solarz
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
art blog(derogatory)
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
Sade Olutola

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Spain
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Australia

seen from Türkiye

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
@overtherise
Liv Hewson & Lauren Ambrose as VAN PALMER in Yellowjackets — happy birthday @overtherise 💛
so truly genuinely we need to get more funding towards freaks and perverts to make weird horny movies and tv and art i would rather watch someone’s barely disguised fetish with an interesting point of view than another soulless corporate shell with boring beautiful actors and nothing to say
The work of the director David Cronenberg proposes that transformation can attend disgust and that our desires might be elevated only when w
Most people would give anything to be turned into anything else, because most sex is mediocre, and the measure of its mediocrity is that it leaves us unaffected. No one falls ill; no one transforms into a fly or a cockroach; nothing changes. As the narrator of Norman Rush’s novel “Mating” sagely observes, “Sex can be various things, but in my experience the usual thing it is is considerate work on the part of both parties,” accompanied by the exchange of careful courtesies: “after you, no, after you, mais non.” No one has transformative sex all the time, and there is nothing wrong with sex that is merely pleasant. Indeed, a polite volley of pleasantries is probably the best thing that unecstatic sex can be.
Of course, many mediocre sexual encounters are rote in a more pernicious way. Heterosexual sex that follows the standard scripts, with its spankings and its schoolgirls, is not always devastating or traumatic, but its tiresomeness is nonetheless not innocuous. Women are the most obvious losers when the scenarios faithfully reënacted in the bedroom so consistently favor male predilections, but men who inherit their desires from the prevailing sexual culture—or, worse, men who feel they must satisfy a virile masculine ideal whether it appeals or not—lack the opportunity or the means to develop sexual agency. For both parties, the resultant comedy of errors is not satisfying. What nefariously underwhelming sex has in common with respectfully underwhelming sex is that neither brand is especially surprising or especially erotic.
To have sex erotically—and ethically—is to have it with someone else, and a person demonstrates her difference from the self by being impossible to predict, domesticate, or assimilate to preëxistent fantasy. It is not erotic to impose a ready-made desire onto someone pliant, or to slot her into a fetish that has little to do with her. Eroticism occurs only when someone rewrites us so completely that she rewrites even the quality and content of our appetites, and only when this radical rewriting is reciprocal.
Eroticism does not arise every time there is sexual activity, no matter how plodding, but it is also not the exclusive concomitant of love, marriage, or conventional commitment. Most sexual pairings are no more dishevelling than a game of tennis, but it is constitutive of sex that it has the potential to thrust us into metamorphosis that may be sweet, may be sinister, and may be both concurrently. When at last we grow wings, who can say exactly where we will want to fly?
Can a person consent to dying? Can she consent to a complete renewal, which amounts to the same thing?
Surely she cannot consent in the normal way. To consent in the normal way is not merely to grant permission but to grant permission on a particular basis—perhaps a reasonable expectation of pleasure, security, or safety. In any case, there is some positive inner state to which the outward utterance of license is supposed to correspond. A woman, almost always the presumed consenter in a heterosexual exchange, is exhorted to have sex with someone only when she has good reason to believe that she will have a generally happy time with him. Over and over, she is told: you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do; you don’t have to do anything that makes you uncomfortable. Because she is assumed to know exactly what makes her comfortable, and because comfort is assumed to be a necessary condition of good sex, the procedure the consenter is instructed to follow is not unlike the operation favored by decision theorists. First, she is to imagine what sex with the partner under consideration will be like; second, she is to assign a value to the experience that she has conjured; third, she is to assign a probability of accuracy to her prediction. Having done all this, she finds herself in a position to make a rational decision, consenting if and only if she foresees that an exchange will turn out to be unimpeachably agreeable. Should she prove wrong in her predictions, should she ever feel the slightest scintilla of unease, she should withdraw her consent and beat a hasty retreat.
Three faulty assumptions are baked into this model. The first is that people in general, thus women in particular, can predict, if roughly, what a prospective partner will be like during sex; the second is that people in general, thus women in particular, can predict what they will be like during sex with a prospective partner; the third is that sex can and should be comfortable.
In fact, we are not impermeable packages of preformed desires, importing our likes and dislikes around with us from one encounter to the next like papers in a briefcase. An erotic craving is inextricable from the ferment that foams up when oneself is sluiced into another. Not only is it impossible for us to know whether an encounter will be deflating or transformative but we cannot know what sort of metamorphosis will ensue if the sex is as jarring as we can only hope it will be. We can have no more success when it comes to divining how we will change our partners than we can have when it comes to divining how they will change us—or, following Cummings, how their changes will change us, and how our changes will change them, iteratively and indefinitely. Maybe we will grow the wings of cherubs, but maybe we will find ourselves meshed with the coarse bristles of gigantic flies. All we can say with certainty is that sometimes, when it is working, sex carves out new bodies for our bodies, and these bodies can be both better and more brutal than the ones we could invent alone.
From Cronenberg’s fever dreams, we can surmise that there is a further reason to reject the decision-theoretic model of consent: not only is it impossible for us to know what we will become if an erotic encounter is transformative but we should not want to. To determine in advance what a transformative experience will churn into existence is to sap its power, for the very essence of transformative experience is that we cannot predict how it will transform us. To be sure, it is uncomfortable to stand on the precipice of metamorphosis, but unless we are willing to assume genuine risk we cannot be undone and remade.
"ꜱᴏᴍᴇᴏɴᴇ'ꜱ ɢᴏᴛᴛᴀ ʙᴇ ʜᴇʀᴇ ᴡʜᴇɴ ʟɪᴛᴛʟᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴄᴏᴍᴇꜱ ʙᴀᴄᴋ"
ᴛᴇᴇɴᴀɢᴇ ꜱᴇx ᴀɴᴅ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴀᴛ ᴄᴀᴍᴘ ᴍɪᴀꜱᴍᴀ
has anyone figured out how to turn off the thing where you love your pet so much it slides inexorably into grief-borrowing
“For me this glass is already broken. I enjoy it; I drink out of it. It holds my water admirably, sometimes even reflecting the sun in beautiful patterns. If I should tap it, it has a lovely ring to it. But when I put this glass on the shelf and the wind knocks it over or my elbow brushes it off the table and it falls to the ground and shatters, I say, ‘Of course.’ When I understand that the glass is already broken, every moment with it is precious.”
lost highway (1997) dir. david lynch
No I think it's really great when a friend group of approximately twenty seven individuals spread out in the sidewalk as they walk so nobody has to walk behind the group. There's nothing better than when I'm trying to get home and I see the tableau of Jesus at the Last Supper gliding towards me like Jamiroquai in the Virtual Insanity music video and I have to decide who has the narrowest frame that I can shoulder-check my way past
therapyspeak jigsaw: are you in the right headspace to play a game that could possibly hurt you?
Silver cathedral cuff bracelet by Mia Gosset
LESBIANISM - Why settle for less? Melbourne, 1985
Ph. Jill Posener, “Louder Than Words” Pandora, 1986
Hua Xi, from "The Past Still Needs Me"
cherry jones please i'm nothing
When abled people are involved, the concept of "doing it once in a while for a few seconds doesn't mean you can do it consistently on command like it's nothing" is easily understood.
For example, if someone is able to walk outside without a jacket in the cold to get the mail, everyone would easily understand that they'd still need a jacket if they were outside for a prolonged period of time. If someone is able to hold their breath underwater for a few seconds, everyone would easily understand that they'd still need an oxygen tank in order to stay underwater indefinitely.
But when disabled people are involved, that concept is somehow forgotten. You can stand for a few seconds? You must not actually need that wheelchair. You can socialize once in a long while if the conditions are exactly right? You must not actually struggle to socialize and any struggle you think you have is just fear and negativity. You can be physically active for an hour on a good day? You must not actually be too disabled to work. You have a lot of knowledge on a topic because it's a special interest of yours? You must be "smart" and any bad grades you get are because you're lazy.
(source)
don't worry about me when I say this but I think in a way being hunted for sport would be a relief. my nervous system would be like, wow. finally, a proportional reaction
its cool how every language has wordplay.... we created language like ok step 1) convey info so we can stay alive 2) get silly with it