Based on some of the anons I'm receiving, I just want to clarify that pastimperfection is not me. I have no idea who they are. In fact, I blocked them months ago.
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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
“When we were kids, the Phonics Wizard came to our town to show off how the letter E can change the sounds of vowels. He turned a can into a cane, a pin into a pine. This one kid had a cap and he changed it into a cape, that kind of thing.
“And we loved it, we were all having a great time, but then he saw my sister and I, and he just got this - this look in his eyes, and then-”
She hesitated, worrying the coarse material between her fingers. “Things got pretty bad after that,” she muttered. “I know it’s silly, but I try to keep - her - comfortable. We don’t know if she can still hear us, or see us, or if she’s even still in here, but I like to think she is. I talk to her when I can, I leave music on when I’m out of the house. I tried to convince my parents to bring her with us when we went to Disneyland, but they didn’t - didn’t really take that well.”
After a moment, she put the ball of twine back onto its pillow. “Anyways. They tried to arrest the Phonics Wizard, but he had a plan in case something went wrong and he turned it into a plane and flew away.”
fun fact the reason why E does this is because of peculiar Pattern that existed with Long Vowels in Old English, whenever you had Long Vowels there would almost always be a short vowel on the other side of the Consonant, for example Naama and Moona, however by the time we get to Middle English many of those Short vowels shifted to the Schwa and then fell silent the Schwa of course was written with an E like in German but now that leaves a Silent E, now we have to throw in one last Sound change: The Great Vowel Shift, where all the Long Vowels became Diphthongs (a Vowel with a Glide which can also be analyzed as a sequence of 2 Vowels in one Syllable) and so because of this Naame, and Moone become modern English Name and Moon
also there is another Sound change called Derounding which happened around the same time to Vowels like Y, U, and O giving them their modern sounds in words like Why, Put, and Lot
prev I think his problem is that he's a lazy entitled hack, honestly?
Remember those parody horror adaptations from a few years ago, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?
I think Flanagan is just as lazy but less self-aware. He doesn't really see the problem with taking a Shirley Jackson or Stephen King original concept, tacking his own crappy half-formed idea onto it, and repackaging it as a creative adaptation.
Flanagan isn't really adapting these original works. Adaptations are supposed to use the original material as a springboard into some new creative work.
For example, in A Thousand Acres, Jane Smiley adapted the story of King Lear into a new story about a misogynist landowner and the cruelty he inflicts on all three of his daughters.
Smiley's adaptation took the source material into account. She used Lear's pride, his patriarchal entitlement, his alternately callous and grasping behavior towards his daughters, and the sorrow and bitterness that drove them into conflict with each other. She maintained much of the character and plot detail, and where she kept it she made sure to account for its effect on the story.
Smiley also built something new. Her adaptation focuses on the perspectives of Regan and Goneril, who in her version are heroic survivors. She also highlights the consequences of Lear's selfishness for the land itself. This theme was certainly present in King Lear, but she brings it to the foreground, and transforms it from a war of succession into generational environmental depredation. She also opted to change emotional incest into actual explicit incest, because she was interested in exploring patriarchal abuse of women.
Similarly, it would be interesting to see a version of Carrie whose mother is a tradwife influencer attached to a megachurch. Imagine the shower scene as a viral video staged by her mother! Who knows if that would be good, but it would be a creative exploration of the themes from the original: misogyny, shame, exposure, bullying. It would also involve using details from the original - the mother's inability to see her daughter as a person - to explore these themes in a new way.
If you "adapt" original work without acknowledging the source material or connecting it to a fully-realized new idea, you're just appropriating. You're using the reputation and quality of a more famous original work to add luster to your own thin premise.
It's clear that Flanagan doesn't respect the source material. He turned his Shirley Jackson "adaptation" into a paean to the transcendent love of the nuclear family. He doesn't care about what these original works are trying to say. He just likes the vibes. Spooky British Manor! Spooky Vampire Island! Spooky Telekinetic Girl!
It's hard to ignore the source material and use it effectively to build something new (imagine a version of King Lear where he's presented as a good dad), but it doesn't seem like Flanagan is even trying to present a novel idea. His works are atmospheric and competent, but they're just a hash of horror tropes. His Netflix series were more like a collection of vignettes than a cohesive story.
This idea is an interesting one, but it's not Carrie, and it doesn't sound like he really plans to think through the horror implications of "a mother who tries to create a private utopia for a sensitive girl who turns out to have telekinetic powers."
I think Flanagan doesn't see the difference because nobody ever told him that being a horror auteur is about more than gorging on the classics and then huffing your own farts.
And this premise has already been made into several films, not counting Tangled: Run, Braid, Suspiria (the remake), Relic (role reversal), The Others, Room, Fast Color, Beloved, Interview with the Vampire, Widow's Bay. I think you can find a lot of similarities in Shrouds, Let the Right One In, Hereditary, Bring Her Back, We Need to Talk About Kevin, A Dark Song, Marrowbone (parentified siblings, isolation as protection from the outside world), and Censor (woman tries to protect her sister by creating an imagined utopia free from sexual violence). This premise - my monster child - presents a clear conflict with a lot of horror potential.
I saw a post on a terf blog before I blocked it from someone being like "Ummm is anybody else really concerned about the rise of antisocial kinks like pissing" and it made me laugh so hard I almost did a little antisocial kink myself
The notion of pro-social vs antisocial kinks is itself hysterical to me. As though there's no way to be abusive and exploitative in an orgy, as though there's no way to achieve immense intimacy and care by peeing on each other. Nothing needs to be intrinsically anything. Everything is a function of the people involved. And like not to Devil's Sacrament you but how are you even measuring the relative growth of piss kinks at all, I NEVER see that shit
relational trauma has to be healed relationally. the best way to practice having relatively "safe" interactions with ppl is joining a hobby group/club/whatever. I've recently joined like ten Fancy Leather Bag groups on fb out of deep curiosity and interest and the communities ppl will build around literally everything I swear to god. I've seen multiple ladies in these purse groups being like "thank you everyone in this hobby for getting me through my chemotherapy" like ... sometimes we dismiss the middle aged purse lady demographic but you know what they have got is a functional community where they support each other that just happens to be centered around purses. having now read many posts from these groups for several weeks I can see that the object being collected IS important, and is certainly the superifival draw into the space as well as something that provides an immediate shared interest, the actual benefit of localish hobby/collecting spaces is largely community and social support.
those of us who are Very Online Only could stand to learn from this sort of thing I think. it doesn't have to be purses it could be anything. but like. (gestures at the purse ladies who are getting each other through chemotherapy) Shared Interest Facebook Group And/Or Subreddit has it for you. i think.
this is actually my first step of learning emotional regulation. yes yes, restful sleep and physiologically appropriate exercise and getting outside and eating nutritious meals. these are all good. but also MEET. YOUR. SOCIAL. NEEDS. you need the relational foundation to cushion you while you work on these skills! i know it's really scary because we all have relational trauma but that doesn't mean we don't have a need for social connection and support!!!
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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
also on the subject of flanagan, i think about bly manor being set in the modern day misunderstands the role of governesses in 19th century england, like a modern day analogue would be how wealthy families frequently hire immigrant women as live-in nannies. this is not to say that i Want him to do that, but i just think its another blindspot in his adapting of gothic works, like failing to understand what the positions and lives of women in the stories he's adapting are like during the time and so he fails to properly transpose them to the modern day. alas!
You wouldn’t think that flamingoes are extremophiles just from looking at them. It’s like somebody tried to build the vertebrate equivalent of that fungus that lives inside nuclear reactors, and ended up with a gangly pink dinosaur with a spoon for a face.
For everyone in the comments asking how flamingos are extremophiles:
Flamingos can survive in low oxygen, high altitude, high temperatures, low temperatures, high alkaline, they can and will drink boiling water and they can be completely frozen at night and still get up the next morning
Oh yeah, this leaves out what I *did* know about them–they can also survive hypersalinity. That is, water so salty it kills practically everything else–water so salty it burns your skin.
(animal death) this is a real undoctored photograph (*though the body was stood up for the shot) of a dead flamingo on the surface of lake natron, a lake so salty and so alkaline that it’s naturally carbonated like soda and would eat through your stomach lining if you drank from it.
When this photo went viral years ago, most people assumed this poor flamingo must have been killed by the lake.
It is actually the lake where 75% of its global population are hatched. This is a photo from the same lake:
Some species of flamingo actually subsist almost entirely on a diet of bacteria! In other words, there is a species of dinosaur that eats only bacteria and lives in lakes so toxic they would kill almost anything else—and it is best known to the average person as a kitschy lawn decoration.
Yes, Sarah Wynn-Williams violated her deal to stay silent. But the power disparity bolsters the view that Meta is a heartless bully.
On May 31, Sarah Wynn-Williams took the stage as a panelist at the prestigious Hay Festival, alongside law professor Tim Wu and journalist Carole Cadwalladr. Before she said a word, she was greeted by cheers. She never did say a word, sitting in silence as the two other panelists discussed the evils of big tech. Nonetheless, her silent presence galvanized the audience, Wu later told me. ‘It’s the only time at a book panel that I’ve got a standing ovation.”
Wynn-Williams did not speak—could not speak—because of an interim ruling by an arbitrator that prevented her from promoting or even mentioning her best-selling book about her time at Meta, where she worked as a director of global public policy. In 2017, the company fired her, and with her lawyers she negotiated an agreement where the company would pay her $780,000. The agreement stipulated that she would refrain from making any “disparaging, critical or otherwise detrimental comments” about Meta. In March 2025, Meta found out that Wynn-Williams was about to publish a memoir, Careless People, which was basically a 400-page disparaging comment. Meta immediately called for an emergency arbitration, and the interim ruling was that Wynn-Williams could not promote her book in any way. That ruling is still in effect, with a more sweeping arbitration hearing scheduled for October.
Now Wynn-Willliams has spoken at length, under the protection of a lawsuit filed on June 25. She is suing to essentially vacate the arbitration ruling and move the dispute to the public courts, on the grounds that the process has violated her right to free speech. Her professional prospects, she claims in her declaration, have been eviscerated because Meta alleges—with the arbitrator's backing—that almost anything she says regarding tech policy might be interpreted as promoting the book. Any time she does this, she risks incurring a $50,000 fine. Her lawyers assert that the ruling has “constrained Ms. Wynn-Williams’s speech for well over a year and prevented her from fully participating in increasingly urgent public conversations.” As she put it in her declaration, “It feels like Meta has open-ended control over my speech, livelihood, movements, and ability to associate with others.”
Meta’s response filed this week calls her suit “a last-ditch effort to circumvent the bargained-for arbitration process and avoid a final merits determination.” It repeatedly cites the fact that Wynn-Williams agreed to both the non-disparagement clause and the arbitration process itself.
The importance of this legal proceeding doesn’t hinge on which side prevails. At a moment when Big Tech is being questioned for its power and impunity, the optics of the case speak louder than the niceties of any contract dispute. Those optics advance the narrative that Meta is a heartless and negative force determined to stifle the truth about its misdeeds.
In her declaration, Wynn-Williams says she made the choice to agree to the contract stipulations under duress. (Meta says that she had expert employment lawyers negotiating for her, and she knew full well that she was giving up her free speech in exchange for a $780,000 buyout.) She contends in her legal filing that when Mark Zuckerberg spoke at Georgetown University in 2019 touting free speech, and when Meta said it would no longer force harassment complainants to settle in private arbitration, she felt that the terms of her agreement no longer applied. She didn’t bother to check with Meta whether this dubious premise was correct, and kept the book a secret.
On the other hand, she has a point that the breadth of her restrictions have limited her professional options. It seems reasonable that she should be free to address general issues of tech policy without worrying about talking herself into bankruptcy, especially since Meta’s representatives travel to monitor her public appearances. Still, there is a certain coyness in how she defines what is or isn’t book promotion: Sitting in silence at the Hay Festival seems more combustible than actually repeating the damaging anecdotes in her book. “Isn’t this baiting the bear?” I asked one of her lawyers, Corey Stoughton. “This bear will be baited by anything,” she told me, referring to Meta’s relentless pursuit of this case.
The public shares that impression. Even if you concede that Wynn-Williams may have been unscrupulous in stealthily unleashing her bestseller—and imperious by not returning the $780,000 paid to her for a vow of silence she violated big-time—the spectacle of a $1.6 trillion company siccing its vast resources on an unemployed policy wonk is shameful on its face. One can’t help but feel that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who comes across as a creep in the book, appears to be pursuing a personal agenda here. (Interestingly, Meta has not launched similar legal attacks on whistleblower Frances Haugen, though her document dump to The Wall Street Journal was much more damaging than the gossipy Careless People.)
Meta says that the veracity of Wynn-Williams’ book is irrelevant to what it calls a contract dispute. But as far as the public is concerned, her damaging portrait of a company that cares little about its negative impact on the world is front and center in this litigation. That’s why Meta’s brief calls Careless People an exercise in “falsity” and why Meta circulates a statement from Elliot Schrage, the executive who fired her, in which he calls her “an unreliable narrator.” Indeed, her book takes pains to cast Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, and global policy head Joel Kaplan in the worst possible light.
Nonetheless Wynn-Williams has a powerful counterattack to Meta’s attack on her credibility: the company’s over-the-top zeal in pursuing her. A couple weeks before the Hay Festival, Wynn-Williams received the “Freedom to Publish” honor from the British Book Awards. She accepted the award onstage. The presenter noted that Wynn-Williams was unable to say anything regarding Careless People, but she would make remarks about the author who shared the award with her—Virginia Giuffre, who took her own life before her account of victimization by Jeffrey Epstein was published. “We are living in a world that now, more than ever, is dominated by networks of powerful elites, whose wealth too often puts them above the law,” Wynn-Williams said, ostensibly talking about the other book. “When you try that hard to silence a woman who is telling the truth, you announce to the whole world that the truth must be very dangerous indeed.” You think she might have been talking about someone else?
Her remarks were greeted with lusty cheers, not surprising in a climate increasingly intolerant to bullying billionaires. Meta doesn't seem to get that, or doesn’t care. Wu surmises that Meta “seems to have made the decision they’d rather be feared than loved.”
That’s a risky approach for Meta and its leader. Zuckerberg can’t hide in podcaster dens forever, and one day someone will be in the White House who can’t be bought off by donations and UFC fandom. Meanwhile a cinematic sequel to The Social Network is due this fall, and if the trailer is any indication, actor Jeremy Strong’s Zuckerberg makes Jesse Eisenberg’s Zuck look like Mother Teresa. Meta has much bigger problems than Sarah Wynn-Williams, or silencing ex-employees in general. Its relentless insistence on pursuing her is making those problems worse.
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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
funny to see that flanagan can't commit to the depth & messy complexity that good stories require both in his adaptions (carrie's mother wasn't evil!! she was just misguided <3 no she was a terrible person who experienced terrible things and then inflicted that same pain onto the one person who she had control over AND looked up to her all in the name of the god who let those terrible things happen in the first place (as a lesson of course. how else will you learn not to sin?) that's what makes their relationship so tragic and layered!! sorry whatever. whateverrrr) AND his original shows. my introduction to him was through midnight mass and the setup was sooo juicy (exploring the thin line between divinity & monstrosity) but it became obvious very quickly that he's only interested in storytelling at a very surface level. not in a show-don't-tell way but like... look at how subversive and scary my work is ooooh rather than really grappling with the weird, fucked up dynamics that pop up in highly religious small communities & families. idk if that makes sense i just remember thinking fuck ok i NEED to know more about the muslim sheriff of this small white catholic island town like. there's sooo much to unpack there but he was so busy trying to tell everyone's story that he ended up telling no one's story imo...? so everyone had to be flattened to archtypes. idk it's definitely one of those ouugh-the-missed-potential shows for me and now i just laugh when i hear him described as a horror darling or whatever (sorry for super long ask!!!!)
noooo don’t apologize! i honestly feel euphoric at seeing so many people agree that he’s not the horror auteur he’s made out to be. i haven’t seen midnight mass and don’t plan to but i can’t say i’m entirely shocked that his issues carry over to his original content. he strikes me as someone who is afraid of making his protagonists truly nuanced or even irredeemable, so they all have to be flattened to archetypes, like you said. i genuinely don’t know why! does he think it’d reflect poorly on him? that his audience is so dumb as to think of the characters’ flaws as his own? why get into horror if you can’t stand darkness or uncertainty?
prev I think his problem is that he's a lazy entitled hack, honestly?
Remember those parody horror adaptations from a few years ago, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?
I think Flanagan is just as lazy but less self-aware. He doesn't really see the problem with taking a Shirley Jackson or Stephen King original concept, tacking his own crappy half-formed idea onto it, and repackaging it as a creative adaptation.
Flanagan isn't really adapting these original works. Adaptations are supposed to use the original material as a springboard into some new creative work.
For example, in A Thousand Acres, Jane Smiley adapted the story of King Lear into a new story about a misogynist landowner and the cruelty he inflicts on all three of his daughters.
Smiley's adaptation took the source material into account. She used Lear's pride, his patriarchal entitlement, his alternately callous and grasping behavior towards his daughters, and the sorrow and bitterness that drove them into conflict with each other. She maintained much of the character and plot detail, and where she kept it she made sure to account for its effect on the story.
Smiley also built something new. Her adaptation focuses on the perspectives of Regan and Goneril, who in her version are heroic survivors. She also highlights the consequences of Lear's selfishness for the land itself. This theme was certainly present in King Lear, but she brings it to the foreground, and transforms it from a war of succession into generational environmental depredation. She also opted to change emotional incest into actual explicit incest, because she was interested in exploring patriarchal abuse of women.
Similarly, it would be interesting to see a version of Carrie whose mother is a tradwife influencer attached to a megachurch. Imagine the shower scene as a viral video staged by her mother! Who knows if that would be good, but it would be a creative exploration of the themes from the original: misogyny, shame, exposure, bullying. It would also involve using details from the original - the mother's inability to see her daughter as a person - to explore these themes in a new way.
If you "adapt" original work without acknowledging the source material or connecting it to a fully-realized new idea, you're just appropriating. You're using the reputation and quality of a more famous original work to add luster to your own thin premise.
It's clear that Flanagan doesn't respect the source material. He turned his Shirley Jackson "adaptation" into a paean to the transcendent love of the nuclear family. He doesn't care about what these original works are trying to say. He just likes the vibes. Spooky British Manor! Spooky Vampire Island! Spooky Telekinetic Girl!
It's hard to ignore the source material and use it effectively to build something new (imagine a version of King Lear where he's presented as a good dad), but it doesn't seem like Flanagan is even trying to present a novel idea. His works are atmospheric and competent, but they're just a hash of horror tropes. His Netflix series were more like a collection of vignettes than a cohesive story.
This idea is an interesting one, but it's not Carrie, and it doesn't sound like he really plans to think through the horror implications of "a mother who tries to create a private utopia for a sensitive girl who turns out to have telekinetic powers."
I think Flanagan doesn't see the difference because nobody ever told him that being a horror auteur is about more than gorging on the classics and then huffing your own farts.
I don't give a shit if Democratic elected officials want to share mild condolences for Lyndsey Graham. I think people who complain often about mainstream Democrats focusing on performative gestures over actual achievements ought to think about why they care so much.
that Brian Eno quote about how whatever you find most repulsive about a medium (film grain, record scratches/fuzz, CDs skipping) will be the first thing you try and emulate once that medium is obsolete because it's "the sign of a moment too powerful for the medium assigned to contain it".... man.......
“Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided. It’s the sound of failure: so much modern art is the sound of things going out of control, of a medium pushing to its limits and breaking apart. The distorted guitar sound is the sound of something too loud for the medium supposed to carry it. The blues singer with the cracked voice is the sound of an emotional cry too powerful for the throat that releases it. The excitement of grainy film, of bleached-out black and white, is the excitement of witnessing events too momentous for the medium assigned to record them.” -Brian Eno
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.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Seeing people I know and like using AI is making me understand the protagonists of those old time sci fi dystopia's.
"Oh I don't normally use AI, I just wanted it to plan my trip"
You lived on this planet for decades, you know what you like, there are hundreds of websites where you can type into any search engine " things to do in [area]" and have at least a hundred different options.
"Oh I only use it so I can figure out what to make during the week with what I have"
The most popular website as you type in "recipes" into google have sections where you click dinner- quick and easy and those usually rely on staples + 1 or 2 items. I found 30 recipes on chicken alone.
"I had a writing idea, so I typed a few sentences into Chat GPT and I was able to write 20 pages with it."
pixelskylines
blakekathryn
kianamaiart
