TVSTRANGERTHINGS
we're not kids anymore.
sheepfilms

ē„ę„ / Permanent Vacation

Kiana Khansmith
taylor price

Andulka
almost home

tannertan36

ā

if i look back, i am lost
Peter Solarz
cherry valley forever

⣠Chile in a Photography ā£
RMH
Game of Thrones Daily
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda

pixel skylines
Cosimo Galluzzi

seen from France

seen from Malaysia
seen from China
seen from Sweden
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from China
seen from United States

seen from Sweden
seen from Poland
seen from United States

seen from Sweden
seen from India
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Sweden

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
@disasterburr

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
What really happened in "The Story of Tonight: Reprise"
Laurens: Well, I heard ya got a special someone on the side, Burr!Ā”
Burr: I could say the same for you
*cricket noises*
Hamilton: *sweats nervously*
I strike him right between his ribs
I walk towards him, but I am ushered awayĀ
They row him back across the HudsonĀ
I crack open a cold one with the boys
iāll see you on the other side of the war. iāll see you on the other side of the war.
what time is it? show time!

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
ā¦the schuyler sisters!
Okay time for another Burr-and-Hamiltonās-tragic-friendship meta analysis because apparently I cannot stop seeing these things.
Someone pointed out in a post a little while ago (that unfortunately I canāt find, or else I would link to it) the genius of the musical themes of Hamilton, and specifically how it applied to Alexander and Elizaās relationship. It focused on how Alexander was never quite singing the same tune or matching Elizaās style until āItās Quiet Uptown.ā Another meta-post along the same vein mentioned how Angelica was instantly on Hamiltonās level in the underlying musical sense when they first met: you see it in Satisfied, when he says āAlexander Hamilton,ā she replies in the exact same tune, āWhereās your family from?ā and then he shoots back also in the same tune, āUnimportant, thereās a million things I havenāt done.ā Theyāre matching each other musically for the entire conversation, just as Angelica describes, even though throughout the show they both have their own distinct styles and themes.
The one other person who has a very different singing style than Hamilton, but specifically matches Hamilton when he wants to, and the only other person that Hamilton as well makes a specific effort to match in various songs, is Burr. The first one that I noticed was one of my favorite exchanges in the whole show, the Levi Weeks case in Non-Stop:
Gentlemen of the jury, Iām curious, bear with me. Are you aware that weāre making history? This is the first murder trial of our brand new nation, The liberty behind deliberation! I intend to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt with my assistant counselā
Co counsel! Hamilton, sit down! Our client Levi Weeks is innocent, call your first witness. Thatās all you had to say!
Hamilton is shooting off at the mouth, and Burr matches him word for word, the same speed, the same style, which absolutely no one else is able to do, at least not when Hamilton is on a long angry rant. This moment highlights the underlying fact that Burr isnāt just some jealous villain, heās a true foil to Hamilton. He was a genius, he applied to Princeton at eleven, applied again and got in when he was thirteen. That āgraduated in twoā? Yeah. That happened when he was thirteen to fifteen, let that sink in.
Burr can match Hamilton completely when he chooses to, he just rarely chooses to. In fact, the irony of the exchange in Non-Stop is that Burr gets frustrated enough with Hamilton and Hamiltonās inability to shut up inadvertently insulting him (assistant counsel? assistant? seriously Hamilton?) that he is pushed to act more like Hamilton, and in acting more like Hamilton, succeeds in shutting Hamilton up. Which is pretty much exactly how and why the duel happens.
But no, in my opinion, the more tragic are the times when Hamilton matches Burr. Allow me to direct you to āStory of Tonight (Reprise)ā:
Congrats again, Alexander. Smile more. Iāll see you on the other side of the war.
I will never understand you.
Hamilton emulates Burrās tone and tune exactly to tell him, āI will never understand you.ā Because thatās Hamilton trying to understand Burr, thatās Hamilton on the underlying musical level making the effort to sing as Burr sings, to speak as Burr speaks, heās asking Burr to let him in. *Let me* understand you. Burr being Burr keeps his cards close to his chest, and walks away. The effort was there, the invitation was there, that is the first time in the show, arguably, that Hamilton actively changes his style to match someone elseās. And Burr walks away, because Burr is terrified about people caring about him. In āWait For It,ā heās perfectly fine admitting that he has feelings about Theodosia, but he devotes an entire verse to āwhat in the world is the reason that IĀ am at her side and that she cares about meĀ when there are a whole bunch of other people who have tried too.ā Burr isnāt scared about loving people, heās scared of them loving him, he doesnāt understand why or how it happens. The line isnāt āeveryone I love has diedā, itās āeveryone who loves me has died.ā
Burr walks away because the possibility of Hamilton caring about him is more than he wants to deal with. Goodbye I have disintegrated into a puddle of tears.Ā
But no, thatās not even the worst part! The worst part is how Hamilton argues with people. The precedent is set in āFarmer Refuted.ā Hamilton takes a very specific tone and rhythm as a counterpoint to someone singing.
Allow me to direct you to āYour Obedient Servant.ā Burr begins the song by singing his letters, and Hamilton practically speaks his letters back. He takes a different tone, he employs a different rhythm, because thatās how he confronts people. He only matches Burr back when itās utterly dripping in sarcasm: I have the honor to be your obedient servant, A. Ham. Burr keeps singing back (āCareful how you proceed, good manāā) as he keeps just trying to ask for an apology, and Hamilton keeps his own infuriated style at least musically in replying (āBurr, your grievance is legitimate, I stand by what I said, every bit of itā) and itās Burr that has to match Hamiltonāwhen Burr finally challenges Hamilton to the duel, Burr is speaking, not singing:
Then stand, Alexander, Weehawken. Dawn. Guns drawn.
(Although even then, itās not ~perfectly~ matching Hamilton: the words are slow, they all have weight, theyāre carefully pronounced, theyāre well thought-out and well chosen. Succinct, persuasive indeed. But Burr is speaking, heās not singing anymore, heās taking this down to Hamiltonās level, which is the āfight meā level.)
And then, one last time, Alexander matches Burr perfectly:
Youāre on.
emiliomkĀ Today is going to be a good day. #dearevanhansen #tonyawards Shot for @broadwaycom
*trumpets in distance*
Hear ye, hear ye! (my name is Samuel Seabury)
Are yall searching for fellow hamilton trash? (or you just need friends) Do you think Eliza is a hurt bean and should be protected? Well look no further, the Hamilton net is here for you!
pros:
-hang out with us
-fangirling about gay beans, political children and Jeffersonās hair.
-philosophical conversations about the comma after dearest and how ThE fUk did Alexander write the other 51.
-frens..????Ā
-appreciate Lin and Eliza (and everyone else tbh and peggy)
cons:
-you have to deal with us, weāre sorry in advance.
-constant references
rules:
-You donāt have to watch the musical live (we havenāt either, we cryĀ every night)
-You have to follow Toto, Lana and this blog.
-reblog this post
-You have to fill out this application.Ā
-The applications have to be done by 20th of June (members will be announced on the 21st of June)
-10 to 15 members depending how many people sign up
We hope to see you! :D (If this gets less than 50 notes this never happened) if you have any questions feel free to message us if you have questions.
unpopular opinion but people try to cover up the fact that many 18th century white women, while not having the same power as their husbands, were still awful racists. theyāre constantly portrayed as being āā benevolent masters āā who tookĀ pity on the people they were keeping enslaved and were the exact opposite to their emotionless husbands, and it just isnāt true. white women participated in vile treatment and the oppression of black men and women just as much as men did.Ā and by calling them āpure babies who could do no wrongā, etc, it isnāt helping get rid of the stereotype either.
Ā to quote directly from Olivia A Coleās blog when she was discussing the issue: āBut white women whipped black bodies. They burned them. They posed next to the murdered bodies of black people who were lynched. They called people n*ggers. They scratched faces. They separated families. While wearing their pretty dresses, they ruined lives.ā
The Founding mothers are perfect examples of this.
Martha Washington is this feisty broad who took care of herself while always being there for her powerful hubby, right? Well, yeah. She also had no desire to release her own slaves, gave young women as WEDDING GIFTS, & only released her husbands slaves early because she was afraid someone would assassinate her to get freed early, in accordance with Georgeās will.
& Dolley Madison was the charismatic first lady who lit up rooms with her decadent outfits & strong, extroverted personality, getting even her reclusive hubby to join in on the fun, right? Well, yes. She was also the one slaves FEARED at Montpelier, to the point where a hired chef caught some of the slaves stealing food & threatened to tell Mr. Madison. They laughed, until he threatened to tell DOLLEY.Ā
Women could be as bad as their husbands.
Women could be WORSE than their husbands.
& frankly, if you donāt believe they had the agency to be horrible, horrible racists, youāre playing into their husbandās belief that they didnāt have agency at all.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Flashback to this time last year when Scamp was getting ready for the Tonys with his Hamilton gear!
@catalpa-waltz I have also recently been informed by @john-laurens that teenage John Laurens had a horse named Brutus because apparently even years before the Revolution he was really into the idea of classical allusions and stabbing tyrants
I firmly believe he said āEt tÅ«, Brute?ā to his steed at least once every day
There was another group of women who exercised sexual independence within post-Revolutionary Philadelphiaā those who engaged in sex commerce. In many ways, their economic an sexual independence was the most obvious manifestation of female autonomy. Prostitution enjoyed an enhanced position within the community because the world of nonmarital sexual behavior had expanded. Amid the permissive sexual culture of the city, the behavior of those who engaged in sex commerce was less distinct. Women who engaged in sex commerce were more public than in the late colonial era but also more integrated into the broader sexual culture. Evidence from Philadelphia suggests that during the transition between the sexual system of the late colonial period and that of the nineteenth century, prostitution took on its most fluid and least exploitative form.
[passage about historian who says sex work in New York at this time was not significant and mostly invisible]
Philadelphia could not have been more different. Sex commerce prospered during the 1790s as part of the expansive, permissive sexual culture and was well integrated into the public and semipublic leisure world of the city. It was neither geographically segregated nor isolated from the urban centers. Bawdy houses occupied all regions of the city. There were bawdyhouses on the cityās main streets and more modest establishments among its alleys. Sex commerce also took place in the backrooms of taverns, in the prison, and in the theater and often spilled into the streets. Women solicited men in the streets, mixing with the legitimate evening strollers, meeting men, and then retiring to rented rooms or bawdyhouses. Sometime they even engaged in sexual transactions in the cityās alleys and abandoned lots. Much of this activity took place within the public view. Women called to men from their doorways soliciting their business, and other strolled about the street in pairs to meet men. Prostitutes were known on sight when they were seen shopping, socializing about the town, or entering the almshouse. The identities of their clients were also often common knowledgeā many men were not concerned about secreting their behavior. Some demonstrated a striking disregard for being seen. OneĀ āwell known gentleman,ā Moreau de Saint-MĆ©ry tells us,Ā āleaves his horse tied to the post outside one of these houses, so that everyone knows when he is there and exactly how long he stays.ā
Bawdyhouses were not places for secret, anonymous sex, but social places where individuals encountered friends and associates. John Moore, for example, ran into two acquaintances when he spent the night in one. Men often socialized together with the women of the house before they retired to upstairs rooms, and eve then they were often still among company: illicit sex regularly took place in rooms shared by more than one couple. Even some wives were familiar with the bawdyhouses used by their husbands and sometimes retrieved them from the premises. Prostitution under these circumstances was a very social event. ā¦ā¦.
Sex commerce of the early national period was part of a continuum of illicit sex, and it was not always easy to distinguish which encounters crossed its fluid boundaries. Prostitution operated in many of the same social spaces as other forms of nonmarital sex, integrated into these worlds of socializing and public amusement. Women brought men to the same disorderly houses for prostitution that couples frequented for illicit sex. Taverns andĀ ānegroā houses accommodated those who sought socializing, drinking, gambling, andĀ ālewd companyā. Bawdyhouses themselves were not always highly organized. Women residents would come and go as their needs required. Some rented rooms by the night or the week, and other worked as operatives in houses run by other women. As such, prostitution was mixed up with the social and sexual activities of those engaging in noncommercial sexual ventures.
People from all walks of life had sexual encounters that were not markedly different from those of prostitutes and their clients. The woman who supplemented her income by periodically strolling the streets to meet a man who would pay for a sexual encounter had much in common with the woman who frequented taverns accepting food and drink from a gentleman with whom she later had sexual relations. Gifts of goods, food, or drink were part of the sexual exchange in many relationships. Prostitutes who worked the theater expected the gentlemen in the boxes to treat them to the wines and liquors served during performances. This custom was not that different from the gift giving that accompanied adulterous liaisons, where lovers presented gifts and sometimes cash to their partners. Like the women of the town, women who engaged in adultery were treated to gifts by their lovers.Ā
Authorās footnote: Alexander Hamilton [in the Reynolds Pamphlet] admitted giving such gifts to his mistress.
Excerpt from: Sex Among the Rabble: An Intimate History of Gender & Power in the Age of Revolution, Philadelphia, 1730-1830, by Clare A. Lyons.
I donāt think itās entirely correct to read Maria Reynolds as an abused woman who was forced into prostitution by her husband. Given what Iāve been reading in this book, it makes more sense to see her as a lower-class woman seeking happiness and fulfillment through sexual autonomy, as many women did at that time. If her husband was a way, she took lovers. Because her husband was basically a grifter, money wasnāt always arriving on schedule, and he was often away for periods of time. She supplemented her lifestyle by taking lovers and accepting, probably even requiring, gifts and money. Her husband, when he found out about her affairs, because he was a consummate sleazeball, was more than happy to cross the boundary from low-key, female determined, sex commerce to full-blown pimping of his wife. Iām also fully ready to believe that they were in it togetherā they set up a blackmail con together.
But I get really irritated with people who see Maria as this helpless victim. She was not. She exerted a lot of agency. I think itās likely that her husband was abusive, though at that time beating and verbal abuse were normalized to the extent that no one intervened unless things violated an unspoken community standard, or the woman herself was blameless andĀ āpureā. James was a disgusting lowlife and Iām sure he used Maria and treated her badly. She may have truly been hoping for a better life with Hamilton. I suspect she was aiming to be his kept mistress, and did not succeed. I feel for her regardless. She was typical of many lower class women of her time, for whom sexual autonomy and economic sufficiency were often intertwined.Ā
How do I see Hamilton in all this? Hamilton was clearly up for having the relationship of an adulterous lover to her. He was ready to give the gifts, money, and so forth. This was exceedingly common for men of all classes at that time, and he was in no way out line in this regard. But when James started blackmailing him, it threatened his marriage and his political career, and he kicked them both to the curb. When Callender published the details, he didnāt hesitate to throw Maria under the bus, but at the same time, he does own up to his own failings in the matter. I wish that Maria had published the pamphlet she wrote in her own defense. I really wish we had her side of the story.Ā
Mariaās divorce from James was neither exceptional nor uncommon, by 1790s standards. Women, especially lower class ones, got divorced all the time. Women were expected to endure a certain amount of cruel treatment, even abuse, but surely, being prostituted by oneās husband crossed the line. And, Ā if they *were* a couple of con artists in the whole thing together as equals from the get go, their con ended up in failure and, again, it makes all the sense that Maria would leave him. In this time period, it was still possible for aĀ ādisorderly womanā to go on to marry respectably and become a respectable woman. Maria chose this path, and succeeded eventually. Given the lack of her perspective, I think the fairest thing we can do is see her as a strong woman seeking emotional and sexual fulfillment, along with economic stability, who through her own efforts and in spite of hardship, eventually achieved her goal.Ā
I feel like this whole situation is best understood within the context of the times and without the over the top moral judgement it gets from all quarters of the fandom. No one here, except probably James, is horrible, no one at all is a helpless victim. In fact, the whole thing shows me a woman who was climbing tooth and claw to a better life, and in the end, she seems to have gotten it. We donāt know if she was happy in the end or not, but thereās no reason to see her as this helpless, innocent creature who is only victimized by men.Ā
Constitutional Convention: So it's agreed: we'll have freedom of speech in this convention. Anyone can throw out any ideas they have, and can expect complete confidentiality. Nothing you say here will come back to haunt you.
Alexander Hamilton: Oh sweet. Listen, I know we just overthrew a monarch, but I got this idea about a president for life and I know what this looks like but -
tbh though it still does amuse me that in his first letter Ham really goes off on this whole extended metaphor about LaurensĀ āāseducingāā him in this really flowery and poetic way that leaves a lot of ambiguity for people to read between the lines or just take it as it is.
And then in the next letter we have, after Laurens finally responds to his love letter after way too long, he practically just. gives up all subtlety altogether.Ā āI was just LIKE a jealous lover when you didnāt respond to me, Laurens, responding in EXACTLY THE WAY a jealous lover would, isnāt that funny, how much EXACTLY LIKE a JEALOUS LOVER I was!! Metaphorically!!!!!!ā

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Have a happy pride month everyone! šā¤ššššš
musical theatre challenge Ā· {3/10} shows: In the Heights
We donāt need electricidad! Get off your butt, avanza! Saca la maraca, bring your tambourine Come and join the parranda
@linsnavi