Ridiculously boring, so completely satanic

I'm going to be honest I think the notion that there is a clear-cut list delineating what is and isn't a romantic or platonic behavior that is universal to every culture, time and unique life experience is a complete load of shit.

I'm an unreliable narrator by my mother's side and i have my father's confidence so i'm always saying some bullshit

It's cause you're always balduring that damn gate...three

"the inherent divinity of" bro what inherent divinity 😭😭😭 everythings freaking normal

i do think what gets ignored about carrie as a character is that she’s an incredibly easy target to bully; she’s a chubby, sheltered acne ridden teenage girl who wears frumpy grandma clothes and regurgitates the jesus freak shit her violently abusive mother tells her. she has violent thoughts about her classmates and is uncomfortable to be around. she’s far more interesting being a victim that’s somewhat uncomfortable to be in the head of than a tragic waif. she’s not a martyr, she’s a child and a child who’s been victimised her whole life shouldn’t have to be kind and angelic to be recognised as a victim. suffering teenage girls shouldn’t just be presented on screen as toned down glamorous thin ophelias, suffering teenage girls can be fat and poor and think violently. i do think we need to examine why culturally we need teenage girls to be beautiful and kind to valorise their suffering and treat it as bad

God I fucking love being a monk at the Monastery of Lindisfarne on this fine morning of June 8th, 793. I love looking at all the gold and silver objects and alive monks that live here.

religion is so fucking funny the world is just too beautiful there must be a higher entity behind all this. lets oppress women

who cares if you don't fully "get" the weird postmodernist novel on your first read, or if the experimental arthouse film is opaque to you on your first viewing? you are not being graded. you are not being scored. there is value in the attempt. every time i've read House of Leaves or watched Blue Velvet, I've gotten something new from it. the idea that you might not "get" something and therefore shouldn't bother with it is so silly to me

i’m sorry but it is absolutely a conservative impulse to believe that an ancient work has some kind of “purity” that can be “desecrated” by adaptation. think about what you are saying. why do you think adaptational change or reinterpretation is an “offense” to “culture” that must be answered for? what could motivate a person or movement to designate a certain story as “sacred”? when you do this, are you conjuring an idealized past? in the same breath, does this position modernity as a threat?

There’s a catastrophic female loneliness epidemic happening rn but nobody gaf bc women aren’t going out and hurting people about it we just betray and destroy ourselves for nothing