Worlds #1 Elgyem fan

Mammal in a Sunday Dress explores the uneasy relationship between femininity, civilisation, and the animal body. At first glance, the figure appears modest and withdrawn. Her posture is composed, her gaze seemingly lowered towards her bare feet, recalling the conventions of nineteenth-century portraiture where women were often depicted as passive objects of observation. Yet as the viewer moves closer, the illusion collapses. Her eyes are not lowered at all. She is looking directly back. The delayed eye contact transforms the encounter. The viewer approaches believing they are safely observing a woman; instead, they realise they have been observed themselves. The work refuses the traditional power dynamic of portraiture, denying the comfort of anonymous spectatorship. Looking becomes a reciprocal act. For Cox, the painting considers humanity's persistent desire to separate itself from the rest of the animal kingdom. The title quietly undermines this distinction. A "mammal" is not another creature—it is us. The Sunday dress, rich with cultural associations of femininity, morality, and respectability, becomes an attempt to distinguish ourselves from nature. Yet clothing cannot alter biology. Beneath lace and ritual remains the same vulnerable animal body. The work also reflects on the historical relationship between women and nature. Across art, religion, and philosophy, women have repeatedly been positioned as closer to instinct, emotion, reproduction, and the body itself, while men have been aligned with reason, culture, and civilisation. Mammal in a Sunday Dress does not reject this comparison. Instead, it questions why proximity to nature has so often been treated as something lesser. Chiaroscuro isolates the figure within darkness, allowing the luminous dress to symbolise the performance of civilisation while the bare feet quietly return the body to the earth. Neither is presented as more truthful than the other. The painting exists in the tension between performance and instinct, refinement and biology. Mammal in a Sunday Dress ultimately asks a simple but unsettling question: if every layer of culture were stripped away, what would remain? Not a king. Not a saint. Not a gentleman or a lady. Only another mammal, looking back.

I like how Toby simultaneously confimred that a) yes, Yellow was a Woody reference, and b) 90% of Woody Theory evidence was completely hallucinated

I'm ultimately extremely thankful you are so vocal about gacha games because it's insane to me how popular they are and how you're expected to laugh off people being drawn into them. I remember when Uma Musume first got an English translation I found it fun to engage with the characters even without downloading the game but I remember seeing your post and being like Wait Yeah I Hate Gacha Games and then completely disengaging with it because the gameplay literally was just Horse Race Gambling when I actually saw footage

Anyway while I'm at it wrt boycotts, one of the reasons why they can be disproportionately effective against well-chosen targets is that the stock market will lose its shit at a company simply failing to meet growth targets, let alone losing profit.

me reading the tags people put in my notifications

That amatonormative question when..

quick post before bed

Okay, but for until chapter 6 I don't think it would be of any use trying to figure out what theory will be disproven due to a lack of crucial information because it could literally be every theory