People keep asking “How can anyone have a problem with AO3 doing fundraising!”
And I’m just like…. Have people not noticed all the virulent anti-AO3 hate on tumblr propagated by the anti shipping community? Antis have a problem with AO3 raising money because they hate the fact that AO3 won’t allow them to censor content they don’t like and doesn’t tolerate bullying. That’s who is putting out these posts like, “how can this nasty site raise so much money?” Read between the lines.
And for all the people who are just like, “If they don’t want AO3 to to raise money why don’t they just not donate?”
Because antis are incapable of saying “this isn’t for me so I won’t support it but I don’t care if other people support it. They have to actively discourage other people from supporting the thing. At the same time, they also won’t stop using AO3 because 1) they’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites who want readership and that’s where the readers are and 2) they’re too lazy to put together their own archive using AO3′s open source code because that would require doing coding and buying servers and doing all the moderating they want, which is hard, and they just want to engage in empty virtue signalling, which is easy
Anyway, my point is, people need to be aware that these people are out there and they hate AO3 and they want it to go away even though they’re actively using the platform. They’ve even said they want AO3 to fail so something “better” (re, something they control) can take its place. Some of them are blatant about it, calling AO3 a cesspit of pedophilia, and some of them are subtle about it, saying more innocuous things like ‘Does AO3 really need 130K a year?” “Shouldn’t you give your money to individual needy people doing gofundmes for stuff that’s more more important?”
But all of these people have the same end goal, which is the destruction of the archive, and the way they’re going about it right now is to try to discourage people from donating.
So instead of asking, “Why do people object to AO3 raising money?” start telling people “Hey there are people out there who hate AO3 and want to destroy it and we have to protect the archive from them.” And donate, if you can, and signal boost, if you can’t.
So, wow, this post really took off and got more notes than I thought it would. But, since there’s been so much stuff in the comments (and my inbox) on the same few themes I thought I’d do an update with a couple of amendments.
First: AO3 made its fundraising goal! Which is amazing. Thanks to everybody who donated and signal boosted and I’m so happy to see that some people were inspired to donate because of this post!
2nd: AO3 does not host child pornography.
Child porn is illegal. Creating or distributing it is a felony in the US, where AO3 is located. It also violates AO3′s TOS. Since some people do not seem to know what child pornography is, I thought I’d post a definition for you:
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where–
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
The key words here are “Visual depiction,” “use of a minor,” and “identifiable minor.” In other words, real images of real children engaged in real or simulated sex. Stop calling written works of fiction which depict imaginary characters engaging in sexual acts “child pornography.” Stop accusing the creators of said fanworks of felonies with no evidence. Stop throwing around scary sounding words like “literal child porn” to make your point; it’s offensive to the survivors of actual child porn and diminishes their abuse. It doesn’t make people take you seriously. It just shows that you have no grasp of the definitions of the words “literal” or “child porn.”
Yes, AO3 does host works depicting underage sex, and rape, and incest, and all manner of works you may be uncomfortable with. Yes, I support the OTW, not despite, but because of, the fact that they host these kind of works.
Why? Because AO3 is a space whose members are majority queer, majority female, and those individuals are more likely to be the victims of rape, sexual assault, and childhood sexual abuse than its perpetrators. Lots of those squicky fanworks are produced by survivors who are writing about these themes with depth and intelligence. Many of these survivors use fic to process trauma, and many of them use AO3 to connect with other survivors. If you ban these kinds of fanworks, you are shaming and silencing a group of people who have already been shamed and silenced.
“But I wasn’t talking about those fanworks!” You say. Thoughtful works which critically examine the topics of rape and abuse are fine. I just want AO3 to get rid of all the gross fetishistic fic created by pedophiles so they can get off.”
The problem is, you cannot ban one without banning the other. Either you allow works that depict underage sex or you don’t. Either you allow works that depict rape or you don’t. Saying that you should ban works that are “graphic” or “explicit” requires people to make subjective judgments about which people will disagree. And in the end, what you’re really asking is for mods to judge and decide which works have redeeming value and which ones don’t. And you can’t. One persons trigger is another’s catharsis.
Neither can you say that something is inherently bad because its purpose is arousal. Arousal is a complicated thing. Some survivors were aroused during their rape or assault. Does that mean they wanted it? Of course it doesn’t. So why would we assume that readers who are aroused when reading a fanwork want what’s going on in the fanwork to happen to them or someone else in real life? Also, how do you know if the author was aroused when they wrote the fic, or if the reader is aroused by reading it? You don’t. So don’t use this as a metric.
People say that fanworks depicting minors having sex with adults are used to groom children. Abusers have been using toys and candy and promises to groom children for centuries. The blame should always be placed on the abuser, not the tool they use to groom.
People say that works depicting rape or childhood sexual abuse are triggering for survivors. Anything can be a trigger for a survivor. All kinds of innocuous things can become associated with traumatic memories. There are lots of things that are common triggers, and AO3 has Archive Warnings for some of the biggest: Death, Underage, Rape/Noncon, and Graphic Violence. There are others, too, like drug use, miscarriage, abortion, etc. Writers who use the archive are generally pretty good at using these warnings, and AO3 recently rolled out a new filtering system which makes it even easier to exclude certain warnings and tags from searches. Every person is responsible for curating their own archive experience, and reading fanfic, like everything else in life, comes with risks of being triggered. AO3 actually does a much better job than mainstream media, which generally has only vague ratings, at helping people navigate those risks.
Finally, there are people who just seem to be ignorant of how much servers and bandwidth cost, who insist that the AO3 fundraiser is a “scam” and that AO3 staff are “pocketing” money. To these people, all I have to say is that AO3 posts their budget online. It’s totally transparent. You can see exactly where the money goes (answer, 115K went to their server overhaul).
Anyway, thanks again to everyone who donated and signal boosted, we did it!
Re: the banning of “explicit” or “graphic” materials mentioned in this post, let’s not forget a big part of the reason AO3 grew popular was because FF.net and DeviantArt went on an “explicit”/”graphic” materials purge that disproportionately targeted gay content. Slash fic is an outdated term now, but it was a special category for a long time because there were homophobic segments of fandom vehemently against it. The internet isn’t that far past that era, either- look at Youtube and Tumblr putting content under an adult filter just because it mentions the word gay or lesbian in it.
If you’re relatively new to the fan fiction scene and wondering why people are having such a hair-trigger reaction to disallowing any fan fiction, it’s because historically, fan fiction sites targeting explicit/graphic content has almost always turned into fan fiction sites targeting gay content.
I started writing this as a comment on another post, but it got too long so fuck it, this is going to be its own post, and it’s going to be a collection of basically everything I can get my hands on about asexual oppression, history, and the shit aphobes say. Yeah, this is going to be long, heavy with links to a lot more reading, but I’ve had it up to here with the “discourse”.
Everyone who wants to is free to reblog this post and use it as a reference when arguing with aphobes. (fyi, I created the blog @asexuality-and-aphobia in the middle of this project to be a reliable source for my links.)
Asexuality was listed in the DSM as HSDD (Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder) until 2013, making it officially a mental illness that would be treated with therapy and medication. It is still in the DSM, except that you can ‘opt out’ if you self-identify as asexual, which is great except that asexuality is still so unknown that there undoubtedly many people who are asexual but don’t know that it’s “a thing”. This means that who knows how many asexuals have been sent to therapy and told they’re sick, then been “treated” for their orientation to try and force them to experience sexuality “correctly”.
Posts of people describing the hardship they’ve faced for their asexuality: x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x
The blog @acephobia-is-real has so many submissions and examples of hatred, harassment, hostility, and abuse, of aces who have been raped and/or sexually assaulted in an attempt to ‘fix’ them, and made suicidal due to aphobia and/or their own perceived brokenness, that it would be pointless for me to try and link any. Just go and start reading. Try their suicide tag.
There may be dissatisfyingly little research done on asexuality, but there has been enough done to prove that they do face discrimination, no matter how hard some may find that to believe. But guess what? You, an allosexual person, do not get to say shit like “aces don’t get kicked out” or “aces don’t _____” any more than I as a white person get to say that things I don’t experience must not happen to black people either. Just because you haven’t experienced it personally or witnessed it with your own eyes doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. You haven’t walked in an ace’s shoes, you don’t know what they deal with. Period.
Not even other aces can tell asexuals that their experiences aren’t real or aren’t valid. Different people can deal with different amounts of oppression, that doesn’t mean the lack of oppression is the default “truth”.
Nobody is trying to say that asexuals have it “as bad” or worse than gay or trans people, but we don’t HAVE to “have it worse” to be included and for our experiences to have merit without being compared to anyone else’s. Let me say that again: our experiences have merit without being compared to anyone else’s.
Told asexuals to die: x, x, x, x, x (tbh this is only a tiny sample and I don’t have the heart to go digging for more)
Are all aphobes this vile? Maybe not, but this is still the disgusting, hateful attitude festering in the gatekeeping community, and it stinks like shit. The examples I have provided above are only a fraction of the harassment and abuse that is perpetrated on a regular basis.
“Het aces/aroaces are straight”
Some het aces identify as straight. Some het aces don’t identify as straight, they identify as asexual, and it’s not your place to label them against their will. There is no world in which aroaces, people who experience no attraction to anyone, are straight.
“We accept SGA (same-gender attracted) and trans aces”
Firstly, SGA (same-gender attraction) is a term that was used and is still used in Mormon conversion therapy, so as one can understand, a lot of people are very uncomfortable being labeled with this description. Secondly, it enforces a gender binary of “same” and “opposite” gender that leaves a large number of nonbinary people out in the cold. Is a genderfluid person only “same-gender attracted” if they’re attracted to other genderfluid people who are genderfluid in exactly the same way? How about agender, intergender, demigirl/boy people? And before the argument “well they’re included as trans” is made, there are plenty of nonbinary people who do not identify as trans. I’m one of them.
The standard of “SGA and trans” as requirement for entry to the LGBTQ community is used nowhere outside of aphobic tumblr, and it seems crafted specifically for the purpose of excluding aces, aros, NBs, intersex people, and others not deemed “gay enough”.
The modern American movement was first known as the “gay community” when cis gay men refused to even accept lesbians, then the “gay and lesbian community”. (Good reading on the subject.)
“After the elation of change following group action in the Stonewall riots in New York, in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, some gays and lesbians became less accepting of bisexual or transgender people.
Critics said that transgender people were acting out stereotypes and bisexuals were simply gay men or lesbian women who were afraid to come out and be honest about their identity.
Each community has struggled to develop its own identity including whether, and how, to align with other gender and sexuality-based communities, at times excluding other subgroups; these conflicts continue to this day.” (source)
“From about 1988, activists began to use the initialism LGBT in the United States.
Not until the 1990s within the movement did gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people gain equal respect.” (ibid)
Insisting that LG people have always been accepting of bi and trans people is incredibly revisionist and does a great deal of injustice to those who have been excluded.
Despite the fact that bisexual and transgender people have always been around, and have done great things for the community, they have faced a great deal of lateral oppression from the LG part of the group that did not want to see them get an equal share of attention, support, or legitimacy. This post is not about proving LG transphobia and biphobia, but it’s so rampant that I don’t feel like I need to provide sources whatsoever. Nevertheless, here’s a collection of biphobia, and the blog @terf-callout documents some of the violent transphobia on this site, particularly in the lesbian community. This post is an example.
“The A stands for Ally so that closeted people can be the community without being outed”
No one is saying that we don’t care about closeted people, but a) even if you’re a closeted L, G, B, or T, you are still a L, G, B, or T. Allies do not need to be part of the acronym to be intrinsically welcomed. As someone said, this is like saying the ‘B’ in BLT stands for ‘bread’. We can pretty much safely assume that a sandwich is going to include bread, we don’t have to go of our way to give it a letter. Either you are outing every “ally” as a closeted queer person, or you are giving 100% cis straight people an LGBTQ member card, the very thing you are arguing against by trying to exclude asexuals.
Furthermore, this puts forth the argument “I’m willing to let cishet straight people into the community for the sake of a few closeted people” while at the same time stating “I’m not willing to let the A stand for asexuals because I don’t think letting cis heteroromantic asexuals into the community is worth giving all asexuals representation and support”. Which says that you consider asexuals less valuable and more of a threat than cis straight people.
“I have proof of an asexual being homophobic/transphobic/racist/a terrible person”
Of course there are asexuals who are terrible people. There are legions of gays and lesbians who are racist and transphobic. Does that make them not gay/lesbian? Does their bigotry invalidate their sexual orientation, or remove the L and G from the acronym? No, I don’t think so. Some asexuals being bad people doesn’t justify you trying to invalidate all of us.
“’Allosexual’ is a bad word because ____”
I actually have an ‘allosexual’ tag just for posts about why ‘allosexual’ is a perfectly fine word: x, x, x, x, x. x
“The split-attraction model is homophobic”
What we call the split-attraction model was first described by Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, a gay advocate from the 1800s, as “disjunctive uranodioning”. (source) (credit to this post)
“The term ‘corrective rape’ was coined by South African lesbians and should only be used by lesbians”
No one means any disrespect to lesbians or other victims of corrective rape, but this is not a correct statement.
“We’ll Show You You’re a Woman” describes the violence directed towards LGBT people in South Africa, stating, “Negative public attitudes towards homosexuality go hand in hand with a broader pattern of discrimination, violence, hatred, and extreme prejudice against people known or assumed to be lesbian, gay, and transgender, or those who violate gender and sexual norms in appearance or conduct (such as women playing soccer, dressing in a masculine manner, and refusing to date men).” It goes on to say, “Much of the recent media coverage of violence against lesbians and transgender men has been characterized by a focus on “corrective rape,” a phenomenon in which men rape people they presume or know to be lesbians in order to “convert” them to heterosexuality.”
The Wikipedia article on corrective rape in South Africa states that, “A study conducted by OUT LGBT Well-being and the University of South Africa Centre for Applied Psychology (UCAP) showed that “the percentage of black gay men who said they have experienced corrective rape matched that of the black lesbians who partook in the study”.”
It is not only lesbians, but also bisexual women, transgender men, gay men, and
gender non-conforming people
in South Africa who experience corrective rape. This is not in any way meant to minimize the horror of the epidemic or shift attention away from lesbians, but other victims, including asexuals, deserve attention as well. Do not silence or speak over victims of rape by policing their language.
“Aces are valid, they’re just not queer/LGBTQ”
You cannot in one breath say “Asexuals are valid” and in the next deny their experiences. Spend five minutes in the community and you will see testimony after testimony from aces describing their abuse, their sexual assault(s), the countless times people have called them confused, broken, wrong, mentally ill, inhuman, sinful, and how these experiences have left them feeling hopeless, alone, alienated, subhuman, depressed, and suicidal. Almost every asexual out there will tell you a story of how their orientation has caused them pain and struggle, and you can’t call them valid while at the same time calling these experiences invalid and nonexistent.
“Aces take resources from other LGBTQ who need them”
I’ve seen some pretty wild claims about this one, insisting that asexuals “steal” things such as scholarships, beds at homeless shelters, food and space at pride events, suicide hotlines, and so on, yet I have never seen any actual proof that any “stealing” has ever taken place. For one thing, I thought “you’ll never get kicked out or fired for being ace”, “no one is suicidal because they’re asexual”, so why would you think aces need these resources? Either we don’t need them or we don’t use them, you can’t have it both ways.
For another, how heartless do you have to be to tell asexuals that they can’t use suicide hotlines? Do you realize that you’re saying that asexuals should be denied life-saving services? That, in essence, asexuals are suicidal due to their orientation, but you think they’re not “queer enough” so they deserve to die? Because that is the logical progression of refusing someone suicide prevention, and that’s the message aces receive when you tell them they are “stealing” suicide prevention.
Lastly, do you not realize we are also PROVIDING resources? We are bringing bodies and minds to the community, we are here to be voices, to volunteer, to bring encouragement, information, and support. We earn our keep. You just have to admit that you don’t WANT us here.
“Nobody wants to hear about your nonexistent sex life”
Knights with guns is a real historical thing and, well, if you want a serious answer it’s probably because actual Medieval war history is not well-known or well-represented in pop-culture.
That’s one of the reasons why I find real Medieval arms and armor so cool, especially when placed in a fantasy setting. It’s because most writers of fantasy settings are copying what the previous generations of writers described, and the previous generation was describing what they saw from the generation before them, and none of them were doing any research, resulting in a long line of distorted and warped representations of “Medieval” warfare. Because of this, when a writer or artist actually does the research, it improves the coolness factor not only because you know that more work was put into the piece of media you’re experiencing, but also because that historically accurate stuff you’re seeing is new. Since it’s rare to see historically accurate arms and armor in fiction, the historically accurate arms and armor make the work feel creative and original compared to its peers, even though technically it’s just copying something that really exists in a museum somewhere.
And knights with guns is a pretty extreme example of that. It’s one thing to have historically accurate 15th century armor in your fiction
but pop culture teaches us that the handheld gun is a very recent thing that, once invented, brought about the end of the knight in shining armor because bullets can pierce plate armor and that’s why U.S. Marines aren’t out there in 60-pound suits of steel, but history and technology arn’t ever that straightforward. People don’t immediately give some traditional thing up just because a new invention has made it useless(look at how many armies still marched slowly in formation during WWI despite the spread of machinegun and mortar technology), and even if people did immediately give up the old ways as soon as something new came along, plate armor sticking around despite the popularization of handheld gun technology is not even an example of that. If you want to put guns in your story, don’t think that it automatically removes plate armor because plate armor is now useless(hell, most writers keep every character in full plate armor even though they write swords cutting straight through it, effectively making it useless extra weight in the world of their story.).
Plate armor doesn’t become useless just because a bullet can pierce it. If that were true, it would have been useless the same decade it was invented(the mid-14th century), because at that time, English longbow arrows and crossbow bolts were said to be piercing it too, or at least hitting with such force that it badly concussed the wearer inside the armor. But that hardly makes armor useless. Arrows, crossbow bolts, spears, etc. were piercing chainmaille before plate armor was invented and they still wore that.
Here is a metaphor:
Your objective is to cross a rainy parking lot without getting wet, and you have the option of taking or leaving your umbrella. Thinking that plate armor disappears as soon as guns are introduced to the setting is like saying that the umbrella is useless because it won’t protect you from a firehose. When you’re standing twenty feet from an English longbowman who has practiced so rigorously for twenty years that his left arm is visibly deformed, NOTHING can protect you,
but when you’re two-hundred yards away being pelted by arrows falling from the sky at an angle, you want as much armor coverage as you can get, even if it wouldn’t protect you from a canon. Even just a really thick shirt is better than nothing in that case, because even that could block a few arrows, or at least stop them from going into your body as deep as they would otherwise.
You can’t just cut through plate armor with a sword either. It’s too solid and swords are too light. That doesn’t mean an unarmored man can’t kill an armored man with a sword–he still can if he gets it threw the viewport or caves the helmet in with the butt of the sword–but it’s a hell of a lot harder for him to win than his opponent because the targets he has to hit on his opponent’s body are a lot smaller; and that’s what armor is all about: It will never make you completely invulnerable, but it makes your weak point a whole lot smaller than your opponent’s. For virtually any weapon, an unarmored man’s whole body is a weak point.
And even then, the evidence is in favor of the fact that plate armor wasn’t even just one of those things that stuck around because of tradition after guns became widespread. In fact, they were using handheld guns for as long as they were using plate armor.
(A handheld gun from the 14th century.)
Until pretty recently in the lifespan of guns as a technology, plate armor could stop bullets. Guns didn’t bring an end to plate armor because they were just too powerful for it, it was because rulers realized that guns were just so much easier and cheaper to use than fully-armored knights. You could train someone to use a gun faster than you could train someone to use a bow, and for a whole lot less money. A wagonload of gold could buy you one fully-armored horseman, or one-thousand lightly-armored handgunners. Even though the knight could probably 1v1 all of them in a row, he can’t stand up to a whole army at one time(oversimplified but you get the point). Thus, heavy armor gradually gave-way to large formations of musketmen firing in volleys.
But that still means there was a several-century period of time were plate armor and guns were frequently found on the same battlefield.
In conclusion: Knights holding guns is cool not only because you’re combining two things together that are already cool on their own, but also because in real life knights used guns, yet you never see it in movies or video games because nobody does any research, so in the rare cases when you do see it it’s something new and fresh and original.
This is excellent, and fun, too.
Here are some extras for @sirobvious’s post:
This is an example of a knight with a gun (with armour that richly decorated, he’s a knight at the very least) from the Elizabethan period about 1588…
Here’s another from the Thirty Years War and English Civil War period, about 1640s, members of Sir Arthur Haselrig’s cuirassier regiment known as The Lobsters.
This fantasy art features vaguely late-medieval Gothic with a sallet and bevor, but to my eye rather modern-looking guns…
I reblogged it a couple
of years ago, and commented that an axe-head wasn’t a good “bayonet” since that assault-rifle
gun was all sorts of wrong shapes for an efficient axe-haft. Gun-axes (and gun-swords) did exist, but the firearm was an accessory to the blade; bayonets are an accessory to the firearm.
There were period weapons which would make better bayonets, such as the partizan (top)
and Ahlspiess:
The battle of Crecy (1346) was one of the most notable Hundred Years’
War victories won by use of the longbow (more so IMO than Agincourt) but it
also saw the one of the earliest uses of field artillery, which may have been
volley-guns called “ribauldequins”,
“crakys of warre” or “organ guns” rather like this repro.
…though they may also have been single-barrel guns like this…
Here’s the sort of “transitional” armour worn at
Crecy, though “knights on the same battlefield as guns” isn’t quite the same as “knights armed with guns”…
That multi-barrel
arrangement kept turning up in subsequent centuries, but always with the
same
drawback: it took (barrel number) times longer to reload than a
single-barrel gun. Obviously the gunners didn’t need to reload all of
them every time, but not doing so rather defeated the purpose of having
all
those barrels in the first place…
Here are a couple more period images of knights, or at least men-at-arms, using guns. The earliest is a “fire-pot” which shot enormous arrows, from about 1290 – that nervous-looking gunner’s all-mail armour with ailettes (the little shields at his shoulders) is from the late 1200s…
…while this is a “hand-culverin” or “hand-gonne” from about 1400…
It’s still not a convenient personal “gun” whether pistol or rifle,
more along the cumbersome lines of one-man light artillery. I found this page from Funcken’s “Age of Chivalry Vol.2″ which
has, among other things, a modern interpretation (9) as well
as a mounted knight with a hand-cannon.
It’s based on this engraving from about 1860-90…
…which most sources I’ve seen claim is based on an illustration from a treatise, “De
Machinis Libri Decem”
by Martinus Jacopus,
written about 1449 .
Unfortunately I’ve had no luck finding that original, but
the engraving is as close to being a historical picture of “knight armed with gun”
as I can think of.
A fantasy setting – once you take trouble to explain how it came to pass
– lets you reach a century or so beyond the baby cannons used
alongside High Medieval plate armour, or even the long saddle pistols of the 16th and 17th centuries.
Now you can include very early revolvers – this 9-shot Stopler wheellock
from 1597 Nuremberg is the oldest one known…
…though at least one article points out it’s too
well-made to be the first of its
kind. There were others before it…
There were also breech-loading wheellocks, called “chamber pieces” – once its cartridge was in place the gun was
primed and its spring wound in the usual way. Henry VIII of England had
at least one arquebus like this.
In fantasy you can also play with other repeating or multi-shot
mechanisms – the
“harmonica gun” has been used, but there’s also pepperbox, duck-foot, volley gun,
multi-lock, superimposed load, etc. etc. – which came and went, sometimes in a single
loud and very final explosion. Will
the fantasy multi-shot go Bang! – Bang! – Bang! as intended or, as often in real life, Boom! Can someone find my hand? when everything goes off at once.
Furthermore, in that fantasy setting you may well find wizards,
sorcerers and other bright-lights-loud-noises-and-death-from-a-distance
merchants who have something to say about non-magical weapons trespassing on
their specialty. They never strike me as the sort of people who would settle for just a
cease-and-desist letter…
Read “Men At Arms” by Terry Pratchett for one example of a firearm in a late-medieval / early Renaissance setting, before Discworld in general and Ankh-Morpork in particular settled on the late-Georgian / early Victorian feel that it maintained to the end.
The firearm in question (Terry confirmed it) is a
harmonica gun
like this one.
After trying to keep it a mystery in the text, Terry wasn’t pleased when the art by Josh Kirby for the UK first edition had a spoiler right there on the back cover…
While we’re at it Tarzan could get it too. White dreads and all.
hey baize do you accept criticism on your posts
he’s a british man from the 1800s, he’s probably not circumcised, and he’s been living with gorillas. it doesn’t matter what he’s packing he’s probably got some of the strongest aged dick cheese under his hood…
Gorillas are actually pretty clean animals, and a nice river bath before the great dickdown of 1892 would clear any remains dirt right up
*throws holy water on this post*
*Washes Tarzans cock (yeah, I said it) with it
My ex and i were watching that a few years ago and she absolutely ruined the whole movie for me by saying “so how bad to you think he destroyed jane’s pussy the first time because gorilla’s ain’t exactly bout that gentle lovin”
She probably had months of construction work after the first time. Probably had to build a whole new pussy from scratch
We need more discussions like this
Thank you! The Tarzan dickscourse is so important. Like did you see the size of his thighs? If the dick didn’t kill you on contact the piston power from those thighs definitely would. Have you mad and crawling around the jungle like
why are star wars planets more boring than earth and our solar system like sure we’ve seen desert, snow, diff types of forest, beach, lava, rain, but like…
rainbow mountains (peru)
red soil (canada/PEI)
rings (saturn’s if they were on earth)
bioluminescent waves
northern lights (canada)
salt flats (bolivia, where they filmed crait but did NOTHING COOL WITH IT except red dust?? like??? come ON)
and cool fauna like the touch me not or like, you know, the venus flytrap.. and don’t get me started on BUGS like… we have bugs cooler than sw aliens
BASICALLY like???? come on star wars you had one (1) job where are the cool alien species
I KNOW!! I did a report on filming locations in Star Wars last year and just made a list of places that looked so surreal they could make a convincing other planet. You covered some on my list but if I could just add a couple more:
Tsingy di Bemaraha, Madagascar
Zhangye Danxia, China (similar to the Rainbow Mountains in terms of appearance)
Chocolate Hills, Philippines
Giant’s Causeway, Northern Ireland
So many missed opportunities with cool ass things on Earth, Lucasfilms smh…
Earth is effing amazing!
Quebrada de Humahuaca, Argentina
Lake Retba, Senegal
Tepui, Venezuela
Tianzi Mountains, China
these would make amazing Star Wars planets OR fantasy material:
Tsingy du Bemaraha, Madagascar again (but a different part)
(those are razor-sharp, if you were wondering. very little of this area has been explored because YIKES)
Lake Natron, Tanzania
(looks cool, but is alkaline enough to Kill Your Shit)
Lake Baikal, Russia
(the deepest lake in the world, seriously)
and I’ll wrap it up with Son Doong Cave, Vietnam, the largest cave in the entire world.
it puts anything Dagobah has to offer to absolute shame:
(seriously, the largest chamber is 660 feet high. you could jam a fucking skyscraper in there and still lose it)
anyway I really like caves thanks for coming to my ted talk
Gay Hell 