The cauldron spilled over.
Purple ombre / jelly sandwich, bottom —› top:
- Zoya Miley
- L’Oreal Lilac Coolers
- L’Oreal Berry Nice
- Max Factor Fantasy Fire
- Kleancolor Chunky Holo Black
Orange swirl dry marble:
- Sinful Colors Cloud 9
- Sinful Colors Opal Glitter
- NYC Purple Pizzazz Frost
the hetalia rp comm & fandom is a strange & frankly terrifying place of misconstrued facts & alarm
True magic is neither black, nor white - it’s both because nature is both. Loving and cruel, all at the same time. The only good or bad is in the heart of the witch. Life keeps a balance on its own.
The Craft (1996)
The Flatiron by Edward J. Steichen
1904, printed 1909Steichen added color to the platinum print that forms the foundation of this photograph by using layers of pigment suspended in a light-sensitive solution of gum arabic and potassium bichromate. Together with two variant prints in other colors, also in the Museum’s collection, “The Flatiron” is the quintessential chromatic study of twilight. Clearly indebted in its composition to the Japanese woodcuts that were in vogue at the turn of the century and in its coloristic effect to the “Nocturnes” of Whistler, this picture is a prime example of the conscious effort of photographers in the circle of Alfred Stieglitz to assert the artistic potential of their medium.Steichen and Stieglitz selected this photograph for inclusion in the “International Exhibition of Pictorial Photography” held at the Albright Art Gallery (now the Albright-Knox Art Gallery) in Buffalo, New York, in 1910. The exhibition of six hundred photographs represented the capstone of Stieglitz’s efforts to promote Pictorialist photography as a fine art.
Part 1 of *42
Second Row from Left
2. Kamba 3. Luo
Third Row From Left
4. Maasai 5. Meru 6. Mijikenda
8. Sagat Clan (Tribe: Kalenjin, sub tribe: Tugen)
*There are 42 official tribes but there are also many smaller tribes that the Kenyan government ignores.
You ever think you’re over something and then it’s like no, nope, still bitter. Going to live and die on this hill, this is my home now.
People who think that the biphobia in the last episode of HTGAWM can be reduced to Michaela asking Aiden “are you gay?” instead of “are you bi?” have a somewhat superficial understanding of bi erasure IMO. It doesn’t make sense to pin everything on Michaela… except that this functions to give people a pass on misogynoir since now there’s a “reason” to dislike Michaela and call her a bitch. Black fans have already been commenting on this. If you’ve come away from this episode completely accepting of Connor but hating on Michaela, you really need to examine your reaction there and look at what’s causing that double standard.
This whole subplot is an interpretation of bi sexuality. It’s an interpretation that invalidates and casts suspicion on bi sexuality and same-gender desire in general. Men who have had relations with men but who are now with women are treated narratively like a ticking time bomb. The specter of “homosexuality” is something that threatens and destabilizes man/woman relationships. This is how Connor treats Aiden’s sexuality: he capitalizes on the fact that same-gender behavior is threatening in order to hurt Michaela and sabotage Aiden’s relationship - for no real reason except that he’s a spiteful person! And Michaela responds to his hints by feeling threatened and first attempting to ignore/silence this information and then eventually confronting Aiden.
That two-sided dynamic between Connor and Michaela (which Connor initiates and brings to a head) is what drives the whole subplot, with the end result being that Aiden’s sexual history destabilizes his relationship. The narrative use of past same-gender behavior/desire as a threat to a man/woman relationship is homophobic and specifically biphobic. Looking only at Michaela’s questioning at the end seems short-sighted.
Of course no room is given in the narrative for a stable bi sexuality to exist, because it interprets (bi men’s) same-gender desire as inherently destabilizing. It’s something that needs to be defused and rejected: same-gender desire is just a phase, the result of being a stupid, horny teenager [note how it is purely sex-driven], and must be - and is - completely denied in order for a man/woman relationship to be stable. Otherwise, how could the man ever stay fulfilled and invested in his relationship with a woman? Even with Aiden’s disavowal of any same-gender desire, doubts may still linger because he
has been infected with teh gaymay still be “deceiving” his fiancee even accidentally - who’s to say he’s not still repressing his true feelings?
Again, these narrative assumptions/interpretations are both biphobic and homophobic. A lot of these stereotypes also relate to gay sexuality (it’s just a phase, purely sexual, needs to be disavowed in favor of a man/woman relationships but remains suspect), because the common factor here is same-gender desire.
Acting like the only problem is Michaela not asking Aiden if he’s bi or assuming that he’s gay seems to miss the point. Why would the writers’ have made bi sexuality a valid consideration here? This whole narrative would have fallen apart. The “threat of same-gender desire” device doesn’t work if anyone here understands bi sexuality. Which isn’t to “excuse” the narrative but to say it never should have taken place. It is 2014 and there is no reason we can’t have a straight woman marrying a comfortably out bi man, where sexuality is something that is openly discussed in the relationship. They still could have revealed that Connor had previously slept with Aiden without it being something that caused strain on Michaela’s relationships.
It’s a huge disservice to Michaela’s character to write her as a mouthpiece for this. And it’s misogynoiristic to use this shitty subplot as an excuse to write off her character, especially if we’re still stanning for Connor despite his spiteful, manipulative, and biphobic actions.