#phospolarase

[helshades]

phospolarase:

I'm not dead, I've just lost interest in the Thor/Avengers fandom and am busy with university coursework.

Hey, I don't do only fandom-related stuff! I've just spent the last hour discussing sperm-swallowing. With a straw. In fanfiction. Alright, I only do fandom-related stuff.

But nevermind, I'm glad you're alive! I hope uni's going well for you.

[helshades]

560!

I miss Phosey, though.

[distractionactivated]

consultingcupcake replied to your photo “Because I was frustrated with the boob windows and...”

I love the harness! Both functional and aesthetic, not to mention that it matches the original designs (and Our Beloved Olde Blinge). They should go with that design!

Haha, I was only half-thinking of the functionality, only in making it No More Impractical Than Your Average Asgardian Combat Outfit. Thank you very much!

phospolarase replied to your post “Ooh, sounded like thunder.”

We had a sudden thunder/hailstorm about an hour ago here.

It's exciting! Most thunderstorms at home are one or two flashes of lightning over the hill and then gone, this one rumbled around for a good five flashes at least.

[helshades]

phospolarase:

Question, assuming you're up to date on the show: do you think the idea of Sherlock at the end of season 3 now being unrequitedly in love with John holds any weigh? Using your narrow definition: *is* there subtext there?

Ah.

Well, my narrow definition isn't my narrow definition, it is the dictionary's and, of course, my professors'. And mine, now, yes, but you know what I mean.

So, technically, I would tell you that no, there isn't any subtext because Steven Moffat would never make his hero in love with another bloke.

Except... eh. To Steven Moffat, the relationship between John and Sherlock is a real love story, of a super-platonic kind:

It’s always definitely a love story. I don’t see why that means that sex has to be involved. What a weirdly sexualized world we live in where you insist they much be having sex as well. Why would they? John isn’t wired that way, whatever Sherlock is. But I think that whole scene, when Irene Adler has to say she’s mostly gay, she has had relationships with men as well, it’s not what it’s about. Sherlock Holmes is indifferent to sex. So is Irene. She uses sex to get what she wants, and John Watson happily has a string of girlfriends. Sex is not really the issue among any of these people. Love is. Infatuation is. I think John Watson is infatuated with and fascinated by Sherlock Holmes. I think Sherlock Holmes absolutley relies completely and utterly on John Watson and is devoted to him. I think Sherlock is infatuated to the point that he can barely function around Irene Adler. And Irene Adler isn’t initially fascinated by him and then falls for him completely, thinks, ‘There’s another person in the world as damaged as I am, how brilliant.’ Who says any of them are having sex with each other?

(...) I think we’re obsessed with [sex], to the point where I know a lot of people are saying ‘Well, John and Sherlock clearly love each other, they must be having sex.’ But you can love someone without fancying them. If you're not wired to fancy someone, you just won’t. But what’s that got to do with it? Really, what’s that got to do with the important relationships? We know that love grows, sex sort of wanes. Older people, you don’t have sex as much later on as you do at the beginning. We know it’s the lesser thing. I always say, you have love stories and sex scenes. That’s the difference in stature in our lives.

Sorry, the excerpt is a little long, but I think it was needed to illustrate Moffat's views and values. However contradictory they may be.

In fact he is not answering at all. So it is a love story, but they aren't into each other physically... but there is "infatuation"... but they don't fancy each other????!

Listen, in any case, we know Moffat isn't writing his Sherlock Holmes as "in gay love" (urgh.) with John Watson, but I wouldn't put it past him to be playing with the fans' nerves. So there might be a... fake subtext in there somewhere. Trolling.

To be honest, John was very close to become a father at the end of the third series, so his relationship with Sherlock is going to be compromised, unless Moffat makes him a shit dad who leaves the wife alone to go fight crime with his platonic boyfriend.

[helshades]

phospolarase:

At this point you have to wonder whether they’re intentionally mis-dressing him to make him look goofy and more relatable.

Oooh... how horribly manipulative—I really like that thought.

I reckon it is entirely possible, actually, because those people are being used like living mannequins by brands to promote their products, and unfortunately for my refined tastes the Twiddles has fallen victim to the least flattering of those crappy but popular names. Ew.

[helshades]

phospolarase:

mytwospookiestxmenareundead:

I’m pretty sure Balder the Brave is actually a Disney Princess.

I thought that was obvious.

I have to admit...

He's immensely progressive, as Disney Princesses™ go, because he's a bit on the chubby side, our Balder—Fosthe would remark that this is a direct result of his past traumas, and I will add that a former hero stuffing his face with the Asgardian equivalent of ice-cream is probably the most realistic way any fictional character has ever dealt with depression.

And it's all in a comic that once featured the Norse god of thunder as a green frog.

[helshades]

phospolarase:

helshades: (x)

But they are not gods!!! *stomps frantically*

Ha. How does one define what is or isn’t a ‘god’, anyway?

For that matter, how do you define what is or isn’t ‘magic’? That’s the problem with applying terms for things that don’t actually exist (by their very definition!), to things that observably do (at least in their universe).

Ah. The problem is, we are dealing with a universe composed by people who were born in the 20th century of our era in North America or the United Kingdom, and are, if I'm not mistaken, all Christiansbelievers or not hardly matters, the religion of our forefathers has shaped our views on the world regardless of our personal beliefs.

In that respect, I tend to believe that if the writers had intended the MCU's Asgardians to be gods, they would have had the Christians' god in mind, and his kind of divinity.

Now, if we want to get all philosophical, which is where being an atheist is infinitely more practical because you don't have to face any ensuing guilt issues, we could define godliness as mere superiority. Compared to what is in our possibilities (for now) their prowesses are unattainable and, therefore, may be regarded as divine.

The problem with the very term of divinity is that the Indo-European *di- root from which it stems only refers to light, brilliance, in relation to the daytime sky. That's it. Etymologically speaking, divinity is inspiration, which we thrive to reach. You know that in my native language, the word for god is dieu (/djø/ — stemming from Latin deus) but in English, your etymological god's origins lie in Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰuto-, meaning “invoked (one)”.

So you may defend the Asgardians' godly nature, sticking to the notion that they used to be worshipped as such by the Vikings; at least, if you admit the risky idea that Asgard visited Earth in that time and that its warriors, thanks to their advanced technology, were mistaken for gods coming from above. Because, if the Asgardians for mistaken for the Vikings' gods instead, then they're just unwilling (?) imposters...

[helshades]

phospolarase:

And even then, they should have called you transphobic, not homophobic. The trolls are getting lazy.

I know, right?!!

If we can't even count on the damn trolls to be aware of stuff, where's the whole world's storage of hope gone, I wonder.

Wait.