queer pranks played by lightning

it's well made, well shot, well directed, the music is interesting, the costumes are both thoughtful and subtly period accurate, the sex scenes are intentional and, again, accurate to what hooking up when you're like 18 actually feels like...the actors are of course attractive but they look like real people. the characters are varied and well fleshed out, the acting is really, really strong

so many shows and films shoot and then slot in whatever music kind of fits or could be licenced in the budget after time, but you can tell that the scenes in hr were shot with that specific music in mind. and the same intentional approach runs through the whole thing

Ladders, 2017. 57" x 45". Machine pieced, machine quilted, cotton fabrics, cotton batting.

Sycamore. 1989. 74" x 52". Machine pieced, machine quilted, cotton fabrics, cotton batting.

This was prompted by me and my boyfriend discussing handedness and being able to tell apart left and right. And me, being ambidextrous, was baffled by how do people with an obligate dominant hand mix up which side is the one with their Writing Hand and which one isn't?? And my boyfriend pointed out that I go "turn left - no I mean right" so much when giving directions that I have lost my navigator privileges.

I argued that mixing up the words isn't the same thing as mixing up the directions. Like if your mom accidentally called you the dog's name doesn't mean that she literally can't tell you apart from the dog. And he looked at me like this

Consider: baby Shane who pronounces ‘puck’ as ‘fuck’. Like. Teeny (fat) baby. He’s about 14-15 months and in Yuna’s arms watching a hockey game on TV.

“MAMA FUCK!”

“Yes, sweetie. PUCK.” *glances at her in-laws awkwardly.”

He’s almost two and running around with a baby hockey stick, and a cousin takes it.

“My fuck my fuck my fuck!”

because, let’s talk for real, the problem isn’t just direct violence — it’s the dehumanization of children, which feeds prejudice against childhood, childism, and adultism. this logic IS NOT neutral, and it’s one of the most sophisticated ways prejudice gets perpetuated.

“not liking/hating children” reinforces the idea that they’re annoying, dramatic, inconvenient... less human — and therefore easier to discard, silence, or sacrifice for adult comfort.

elisabeth young-bruehl defines childism as prejudice against children as a social group, comparable to racism, sexism, and homophobia. it functions like any other -ism: an ideology that legitimizes treating a group as property, as inferior, or as available for exploitation. she also shows that childism isn’t limited to extreme cases of violence — it shows up in a whole range of practices that aren’t in children’s best interest: neglect, underfunding of schools, the abusive use of medication on children…

saying “i don’t like/i hate children” isn’t an innocent preference or just a phrase — it’s literally the biased expression of a worldview that dehumanizes and diminishes this group. that’s exactly what childism is.

young-bruehl emphasizes that adults who practice childism “all rely upon a societal prejudice against children to justify themselves and legitimate their behavior.” [p.1] a lot of people may not consciously “hate” children or raise a hand to hit them — but the prejudice allows them to tolerate structures that harm children on a massive scale (child poverty, incarceration, violence, abuse, exploitation, neglect, etc.).

rebecca adami uses the concept of childism to analyze adult resistance to actually implementing children’s rights: prejudice against children gets translated into laws, policies, and practices that deny basic freedoms and normalize their subordination. just like a racist can say “i don’t want to see black people getting hurt” while supporting policies that harm them — an adult who “hates children” is, in practice, feeding the cultural climate that makes violence against children thinkable, justifiable, or dismissed.

adami also shows that childism helps us understand how children are exposed to “prejudices, negative attitudes and discriminatory structures in society” — and how this connects to the weak implementation of the un convention on the rights of the child.

the old idea that “children are just mini adults” has been challenged by childhood sociology, and children are now recognized as rights-bearing subjects who deserve to be heard and respected in their choices.

claiming it’s “fine to dislike and/or hate children” means refusing them that status — putting them back in the position of nuisance, of “noisy things,” of objects. which is exactly what critical theory identifies as the core of adultism and childism.

madeline lane-mckinley argues we live in a world that is “deeply against children,” where they’re treated as extensions of the family, the state, or capital — not as autonomous people. she also talks about “adult supremacy” and proposes a politics of solidarity with children, understanding them as comrades in the fight for a better future.

lane-mckinley also points out that the figure of the child has historically been weaponized in service of white supremacy, empire, and political projects that decide which children deserve protection — and which ones can be abandoned to poverty, war, forced migration.

in other words, discourses of hatred and contempt for children participate in the symbolic economy that makes some children’s lives more exposed to violence.

and finally — in ethical and political terms, there is no way to separate “hating” (or “disliking”) children from passive participation in structures that authorize harm against them.

the only position that’s coherent with children’s rights and with critiques of childism is to let go of that hatred and commit to recognition, listening, and active solidarity.

chapter one of two, 10.8k — ao3 here # self-indulgent eroticization of needles, piercing play, pain play, dom/sub, orgasm denial, undefined relationship, intentional scarring

It happens again the next time they’re at Hollander’s Montreal apartment. Ilya remembers the first time he held a sewing needle to someone else’s skin. Ilya’s got two slivers of a scar on his hip. So pale they are barely noticeable, overpowered by the brown smattering of birthmarks. But they’re there, can be felt against a tongue, and he knows that Hollander has tasted them because sometimes as he is taking Ilya into his mouth, Hollander’s thumb will absentmindedly rub over the raised skin. His eyes trained on Ilya, who peers back at him, puts his hand over Hollander’s to keep it there, on the scars. “No one else knows of these,” Ilya tells him, and there it is, that glint of possessiveness in Hollander’s eyes. It makes Ilya’s head reel. And it is why he doesn’t hesitate to say, “I could mark you just like that. If you want.” Hollander moans around him, his hand scrambling to get past the press of his jeans, into his underwear, to get himself off. “Would last longer than bruises,” Ilya continues. “Maybe forever.”