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
hi! i'm victoria, and i'm making this post for my girlfriend @charlottewashing! charlotte is my light & love, and i owe her so much for being a kind, amazing, supportive, and loving girlfriend!
the love of my life is trapped with abusive family that controls her life and safety, and i want to help her raise funds to get out of there sooner rather than later. she's planning on moving in with her best friend, but she needs some funds to help her get there. any amount of help would sincerely mean the world to me!
thank you so much for looking, and please consider sharing if you can't donate! 🥺💙
it does suck that the government defunded PBS but it's also so fucking funny that now that they don't take uncle sam's slavery dollars they're running videos like "How america's foundation was built on genocide"
We Must Infantilize Superman for the Greater Conservative Good
[Kryptonite Spectrum #5, this pic is not entirely related to anything, i just wanted baby Superman]
James Gunn's 2019 film Brightburn is often described as an "evil Superman horror movie". And that's not really accurate. It's an evil Superboy film. It pulls influence from the "evil children" horror trope popularized by films like The Omen, but with a superhero twist of course. Children are innocent and harmless, so we project purity onto them. The horror comes from how messed up it is to see children corrupted to the point of being the source of evil. It's unnatural.
But we also expect Superman to be good to the point of projecting a kind of moral purity onto him. Following this logic, it would be horrific to see Superman be evil, right? So why didn't Gunn make a film about an evil adult Superman? Well, for the same reason The Omen wouldn't be as spooky if it was about an adult Anti-Christ. Powerful, evil men are things we expect, they're natural. Not only has Evil Superman been explored from the comics to the DCAU's Justice Lords, to the Injustice universe- but characters like Homelander would debut from The Boys series in the same year Brightburn came out. You could even argue that more morally complex characters like Dr Manhattan from Watchmen serve as speculative cynical deconstructions of Superman-like figures.
The point is, evil Supermen are a dime-a-dozen. Of course we expect grown men to misuse great power. An evil Superboy has an innocence that preys on a primal, if not conservative fear; what if we can't control who our children become? What if no matter how hard you Kansas Parents(tm) your son, he'll turn out to be something Other than a good liberal Christian American?
I've covered how weirdly controversial it is to ask "what is Superman's motivations?" before. You get all sorts of reactions from "Superman is a nice guy! Is it that hard to believe people can want to do good things?” to the vitriolic “It’s sociopathic to ask why people are nice without benefit! Lex Luthor mindset”. The distillation of Superman from a character with basic motivations and thematic interiority to a company mascot means the inevitable de-politicization of the more radical characterization of Superman as an undocumented immigrant. In my Why Superman Is Boring Sometimes writeup, I discuss how this unwillingness to define Superman's motivations inevitably leaves him up to conservative interpretation.
But I want to analyze this phenomenon from a different perspective. The popular empty response to "what is Superman's motivations? Why does he believe in what is right and wrong" is “Superman is a good man who upholds American values because he was raised by good Kansas parents”. This insufficient answer has always fascinated me. Why do people think "mom and dad told me what's right and wrong" is at all applicable to a grown adult superhero? Did Clark never rebel against his parents? Question their generation's authority? Did he ever come into his own politics as an individual?
I've discussed the inherit conservative root behind the belief that Liberal Christian American values are universal and inherit to human nature. And that itself comes from a fetishized idea of purity. In my personal opinion, children are innocent but they're not "pure". They don't come into existence with an internal set of perfect beliefs, they're impressionable. But to the conservative, children are pure until they find out what "transgender" is. Children were raised by their perfect parents and then become corrupted when they leave that bubble set by the correct adults. When children express agency and autonomy outside of their parents' desires, they have to be controlled.
Children are a marginalized group. They're weaponized as politicized pawns for "think of the children" fear mongering. To invest in them and their education is to invest in the future. But kids also have no agency over how they're largely treated. In the process of their innocence being turned into fetishized purity, children get dehumanized as property owned by their parents. Through this, children exist as mere extensions of their parents.
In the badly researched trans-fear-mongering book, Irreversible Damage, we never get the perspective of the trans children most of the case studies in the book are about. The author is content to keep the perspective of the book solely from that of the parents of these trans kids. This choice comes with an implicit message; that parents know their children better than children know themselves. So we don't need to hear how the kids feel. The parents are the ultimate authority. Through their objective perspective, it's like their children just snapped one day when they got corrupted- regardless of observable dysphoria.
[Brandon Breyer from Brightburn]
Brightburn portrays our Superboy-stand in's corruption much like that of the trans children in Irreversible Damage. It sticks closely to the perspective of the parents, but whenever we do get insight on the child in question, they're depicted in this warped way. Brandon may have been a bit nerdy, quiet and moody, but the second he's seduced by the foreign alien calls of his origin planet, it's like he snapped into becoming a different person. We know Brandon seeks to feel in control of his life through newfound power, but he's not given the empathetic lens of other sympathetic horror monsters. He's the trans kid who visited a GSA one time and seized to be the kid you raised.
But I've misled you a bit there, most of the subjects in Irreversible Damage aren't children anymore. As of the book's writing, they're adults who sought out transition after escaping their parents. So why is the book still uninterested in their perspective? Well, it's because we can weaponize how we infantilize marginalized groups. The full title for Irreversible Damage is "The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters". Trans men are confused women, and women are pure like children. These silly kids fell for a "craze" like it's some sort of trend. They have been seduced and corrupted. "Our Daughters" dictates ownership of them. It doesn't matter that certain marginalized people grew into adulthood. If needed, we can still project a retained childhood status onto them to rob adults of their agency.
So you might think of something like Superman 2025 as a rebuttal to all this. It's not just the Kents who traditionally help define Superman's morals after all, it's the hopeful message Jor and Lara (Clark's foreign Kryptonian parents) send to their son too. So wouldn't a film that has Clark reject his biological parents break out of this conservative mold for the character? Well no, because Jor and Lara are written like the living embodiment of Replacement Theory and Yellow Peril caricature. So this only ends up solidifying the film's xenophobia. What about the Kents?
We have this scene much later in the movie where Clark is sitting with Pa Kent during a dark night of the soul moment. Clark idealized his foreign parents, and just found out they weren't the good people he thought they were from the incomplete message they gave him. Pa Kent tells Clark this:
"Parents aren't for telling their children who they're supposed to be. We are here to give y'all tools, help you make fools of yourselves. All on your own. Your choices, Clark. That's what makes you who you are."
Sounds good enough on the surface, right? But like most things in the film, it's lip service. Clark doesn't actually form his own opinions in the movie, he just ends the story replacing the foreign parents he put on a pedestal with his American ones. Idealizing them instead. Superman's character is static in this film. Clark doesn't grow, he just needed to be affirmed that his inherit purity was already on the right track. After all, it's his Kansas-Parents-infused upbringing that made Clark assume such a charitable interpretation of an incomplete Call To Conquer message from his foreign parents.
We have no idea why Superman is pro-Jarhanpur, an opinion so deviant from the American conscious of the narrative- that even his fellow co-workers at the Daily Planet are confused as to why Superman is against Boravia as an American ally. So somehow we're to assume he got this radical opinion from his parents too. After all, we have no evidence that Clark has opinions of his own outside of some parental figures' vague mission statement. Once you start looking back at the film through this lens, you'll realize that Superman is a deeply infantilized character. Not infantilized as in he's a character you want to cuddle like he's a helpless child. No, I mean Superman has become a politically infantilized character.
There's a reason why Lois comes around to Superman's ways by looking around his teenage boy-coded bedroom back in Smallville. Even though this scene has nothing to do with the couple's heated political disagreement, the film invokes childhood purity and innocence as a vague solution to their fight.
"When I was writing the scene of her looking around in his room, it was initially more just about the childhood of it all. [...] It's her seeing his parents being so sweet to him. And for me, that's a moment in which I think we see Lois understand who he is..."
-James Gunn in a Rollingstone interview.
We have authorial admission from the director that he meant to invoke childhood vibes initially, but ultimately landed on the theme of parental care in this scene. Despite Superman being a full grown adult, he still needs his parents nursing him back to health like a child. Please forget our grown up political debate, I'm a little kid with sweet parents. Argument over.
Earlier in the movie, we see Clark Kent go to his job at the Daily Planet while taking a video call from his parents on his phone. The Kent parents are portrayed as old fashioned. They relatably struggle with tech and yell too loudly over the phone all while Clark doesn't really pay attention to them as he greets his young friends at work.
Clark is distracted by the hustle and bustle of city life. By the time he's tired out and has his dark night of the soul moment, Clark's reminded that he almost got corrupted by the world outside of Kansas. In a way, Smallville is representative of pure innocent childhood and Metropolis is adult life with its complications. That's why Kansas farm life is portrayed so romantically in the movie. In the big city, Clark's superhero peers are chill with murder and his co-workers at the Daily Planet are all centrists about Jarhanpur and Boravia. It's like being a kid dealing with peer pressure. Clark needed mommy and daddy to tell him that his own beliefs are cool too. Punk rock, even.
To bring this all back to Gunn, it fits so neatly into his "we've lost the American way" mindset.
"I mean, people did value kindness in the past. That was an American value, was kindness. And it doesn't necessarily seem to be that way to me anymore."
-Gunn in an Entertainment Weekly interview.
We're all children who are corrupted and confused. What we need now more than anything is to return to the unquestioned, universal, inherit, and most of all pure, good of our conservative parents. Don't worry, you're choosing to idealize your parents, so it's almost like having agency. If that's not convincing enough, we can lampshade it with some dialogue about being your own person. Geez, don't think about it too much!
I, and likeminded fans, like to interpret Martha and Jonathan Kent's adoption of a baby Kal-El as a defiant act against conservative America. The two of them agreed to adopt and protect an undocumented immigrant as if he was their own. But it would be disingenuous to say that every incarnation of Superman's adoption follows that lens. After all, the Kents adopt a baby from a culture they don't know about or have access to. They have no choice but to raise Kal El as Clark Kent, with Christian American culture and values. Kal may be foreign, but he's still a white passing baby. Adoption, while a loving act, is also historically a tool for settler colonialism and cultural assimilation of the foreign Other. It's not unheard of for Superman stories to play into this notion of an American couple civilizing a savage foreign baby.
"The message of the Superman movie is *not* "rah, rah, immigrants!" it's "look at the amazing values, ethics, and morals someone not from here, no matter their native land, can learn from people who are good and kind Americans." how is that not the most patriotic message imaginable?"
-Mark Waid, facebook post
"The whole point of the movie is that a child came to America with nothing and no knowledge of how to act, and he learned what is good and noble and right by growing up here. How is that possibly anti-American?”
-Mark Waid, from a Forbes aritcle
I don't mean to imply that a rebellious childhood is an inherently progressive thing to write. It's totally fine to write stories about characters with nice upbringings through kind and grounded parents. But children are not their parents. Children aren't paper cut out clones of their parents. Children aren't just extensions of their parents, they are their own person.
This rhetoric applies to adopted kids as well. Superman, even as a baby Kryptonian, is more foreign than any human adopted child. He's from another planet. If even kids butt heads with their bio parents, then how come a foreign child from outer space can't have any conflict with his adoptive parents? Does it get too close to home when a foreigner starts questioning and challenging his American parents? When his foreign existence can't be assimilated away by the tight grip of protective parents?
[panels from Superman Smashes the Klan]
Superman's coming of age is ripe for conflict and drama. Writers who aren't afraid to write Clark's relationship with Ma and Pa Kent as flawed and even antagonistic at times will ultimately find themselves with stronger characterization for Superman. Because this means Superman's beliefs aren't Copy Pasted from the Kents. Superman's ideals come from his unique circumstance and existence as an adopted undocumented immigrant.
There is a strange irony at the heart of Superman 2025. It's a film that desperately wants to prove to the viewer that Superman is human. It does this by having Superman assert his humanity through the rejection of his foreign alien heritage. By placing America at the center of universal human kindness, the film argues for xenophobia and the assimilation of foreigners.
[panels from Superman Smashes the Klan]
But there's another wrinkle to the irony of Superman 2025. Through the political infantilization of Superman in all the ways conservatives fetishize childhood purity and innocence, the film in turn, dehumanizes him. It turns Superman into the property of American Kansas Parents, an extension of them with no rebellious thoughts or feelings of his own. Only through Superman's supposed corruption, could he ever be free of how we marginalize children. The immigrant is now the eternal child who doesn't know any better and is not allowed to grow up.
One of my hottest transfeminist takes that I have is regarding drag and ballroom actually. Read the whole thing in depth instead of skimming it then getting mad at me.
I think that the US transfemme desire to disown drag/ballroom is a symptom of both white culture’s destruction of ancestral ties and the importance of cultural continuity, and of the predominantly white ignorance of it as a gentrified Black art form similar to how whites treat other Black art. They want a destruction of it because they see the effects and results of the gentrified version and assume that’s all there is/was.
In particular it’s frustrating because while some drag queens are cis, a lot are trans women, non-binary, or otherwise transmisogynized and drag/ballroom and the tipping culture associated with it existed in part because the transmisogynized are so fucking unemployable and it provided/s a method beyond mutual aid for the redistribution of money, through the labor of performance.
In relation to trans women, I view drag queens as a pathway to transness similar to crossdressers, femboys, (unfortunately) sissies, and similar - where although the perception of them currently may cause harm to the perception of trans women at large due to the ways they compromise with predominantly white cishetero society to allow transfemmes to explore their gender, they are, in fact, still functionally people within the spectrum of transfemininity even if they haven’t fully accepted their gender expansiveness for themselves. Harm they cause to the perception of transfemmes does not lessen them from that societal assignment, any less than we can say Caitlyn Jenner, Blair White, or Kelly Cadigan are less trans women because of the harm they’ve done to the perception of trans women. They are all, in effect, varying levels of transmisogynized whether they realize it or not.
When I was in DC I knew a lot of drag kings/queens and literally 95% of them are trans and either came to drag/ballroom as a way to explore their gender through art and/or make money bc poor, or started it and it was a gateway to unlocking their gender. Not counting the cis performers elevated by stuff like RuPaul, who is explicitly transphobic, I think I can count on my hands how many cis performers I’ve met. Hell, even with RuPaul shit a number of drag artists who have been on his shows later come out as trans (such as Bosco, who I literally grew up with), in part because they suppressed their transness publicly to maintain their career until they reached a point the blowback of coming out wound impact them less. Pulling a F1NNSTER to keep cash flowing for survival, if you will.
Iunno like. The earliest Balls we have records of were literally 1880-90s, predominantly Black (the oldest drag/ballroom performer we have records of was a Black trans woman from DC), and was one of the only safe places for trans people to exist as themselves. So I find the idea of writing it off due to a much more recent gentrification and commercialization of it as ignorant as how people often treat other demonizes or commercialized Black art.
“I just don’t like the spectacle it makes of transness and harm it causes-“
Baby all Blackness is spectacle to crackers and An Amount of modern drag is white people doing minstrelsy of all Black women - not in the sense of gender at all but in the sense of race.
Like. A lot of Black culture in the US specifically is Big and Loud *because* of the repression of it we’ve faced and the force towards respectability politics, which has echoed to queer culture because queer culture in the US is made vast majority from Black culture. Our existence is a spectacle so why not make a show out of why they hate us and try to erase us so that they can’t get rid of even more.
Hating “the spectacle” of an actual performance art form is solidly rooted in white supremacy and white cultural notions of propriety/respectability. Many aspects of “spectacle” seen in drag are directly taken from Ballroom or adapted from it/vogueing.
In summary: traditions are meant to change with situational, cultural, and environmental need but still be sustained as part of a culture. Gentrification is a poison to this that makes it harder for those the culture belongs to to practice it as it should. White ancestral shame is a poison that makes them think they should nuke everything historic/cultural that makes them uncomfortable regardless of whether it’s theirs or whether it’s something they stole and gentrified. Also yeag like,,, it’s a job/gig income predominantly for societal “undesirables” to make money when they’re under/unemployed due to marginalization. And it’s also been gentrified to *gestures at RuPaul, et al.*
No matter what you think about drag or ballroom, poor predominantly racialized trans folks still gon be doing it because it is part of our culture no matter what tv shows and big names and people who have only seen those do to it, and it’s always going to be seen as one of the “disreputable” pathways to transness that makes other trans people look down on them because of the complicated ties to transmisogyny, because until someone publicly says the words “Im also a trans woman”, WE also view them as a personification of what we fear the world sees us as—a man in a dress—rather than an egg finding their way to gender in a way we deem unacceptable because it doesn’t align with how we think it “should” be done.
And I think that’s on us honestly, not on them. If we say it can take as long or as quickly and as easily or messily for someone to sort out their gender as needed, this also has to be extended to the transmisogynized we view as “disreputable” regardless of if/when they reach a conclusion we deem acceptable or whether they die in the shell, never able to remove their masks fully.
Also as a clarification, I am not saying that you, personally, must enjoy/like/do drag or ballroom. Im saying that drag, crossies, sissies, femboys, etc. are all transmisogyny paradoxes because of the way they interface gender exploration with surviving doing so in a transmisogynistic system by compromising for safety or a degree of acceptance within spaces they’ve found accept it.
Like, as an example, I *hate* sissies because of the racism endemic to sissy culture, but I still recognize they’re transmisogynized regardless of the harm they do or the disgust I feel towards them.
I also had someone comment on it as a facet of US cultural imperialism, of which I do want to note - drag/ballroom based on Black origins was spreading outside the US back in the 1800s/early 1900s too, there’s photos from other countries of balls explicitly influenced by Black Balls mainly started by Black folks in said countries, an example being early 1900s photos from France of both transmasculine and transfeminine Black people. While modern gentrified drag is 100% exported as part of US cultural imperialism, its original spreads outside of the US were via Black diaspora in-culture. I honestly couldn’t tell you definitively where it stuck and where it didn’t from that original wave, but it’s important to know it existed that way.
I have some physical books on this I might see if I can add to the archive tbh, if I can I’ll reblog this again with links.
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
since my OTHEr ghostsona was really more in the spirit of plot point wish fulfillment with my face slapped on it rather than being based on my Actual Personality…….IVE MADE A NEW ONE!!!!
They disappeared on a cruise in the Bermuda Triangle and I haven’t thought of a punny name for that yet. They didn’t die, they just kind of wasted away in the Ghost Zone. Don’t have their powers totally figured out yet but boy do I have some OP ideas!!!
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
The Welsh singer died in Portugal, her family said Thursday. She had been receiving treatment in the hospital for weeks.
Legendary pop singer Bonnie Tyler, best known for hits including “Total Eclipse of the Heart,” has died after weeks in the hospital, her family said Thursday. She was 75.
“Bonnie’s family and team are heartbroken to announce that Bonnie unexpectedly passed away last night in hospital in Portugal as a result of the illness that she was being treated for,” a statement said on her official social media accounts.
The raspy-voiced Welsh singer gained global popularity in the 1970s and 1980s for her power ballads including “Holding Out for a Hero” and “It’s a Heartache.”
[...] “Total Eclipse of the Heart,” came out in 1983 and made it to No. 1 on both the U.S. and U.K. charts. The bombastic ballad then became a karaoke anthem. It has had more than 1 billion streams, boosted by real eclipses in 2017 and 2024.
“I never get tired of singing it,” she once told BBC News. “I love it because everyone can’t wait to sing it.”
Tyler earned three Grammy nods, represented Britain at the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 and was awarded a medal of honor for her services to music by Queen Elizabeth II in 2023.
People who hate "blackwashing" have got to be pissed how much richer and more deep a character becomes when they're not white. Literally any other kind of POC turns that character into something so much more. Anyway I just saw that Hercules on Broadway is being played by a black man, and it hit much harder when he said he'd go anywhere to find where he belongs...
So why do you guys keep trying to steal our cultures then?
If being poc makes a character "so much more" why dont you make poc characters set in their own cultures. Why do you have to steal european and asian cultures, why blackwash those characters? Why not make aztec characters? Why not make south african characters, why not make indian characters. Why are you always riding the coat tails of european and asian cultures. Why do all the black characters have to be blackwashed versions of egyptians? Of celts? Of the norse? Of the slavs? The chinese the japanese or south east asians.
You can't say the characters have more meaning when they have a darker skin tone when everything about the character belongs to a race of a lighter skin tone. The cultures of europeans and asians are their own accomplishments, not black africans/african americans.
Also that last line there has aged so poorly in todays climate. Immigrants pouring into european countries and murdering and raping them. Perhaps where you belong is where you came from. Instead of appropriating our cultures you should go embrace your own because if theres one thing hercules would not do is he wouldnt do or support whatever the fuck you are doing.
"Immigrants pouring into european countries and murdering and raping them"
OK, so this is just blatant antiblackness, racism, bigotry and xenophobia. Everything else this person is saying also incorrect and offensive, but that sentiment is the core of what they really think
This started with me wanting to draw a really nice Sarge face... which turned out better than I thought it would (all the shapes in the features look really solid). So I kept going, and because I'm a glutton for punishment, I had to pick tricky face-angles for some of them. Oh, and because I drew these on paper, I used a combination of colored pens/pencils blended, then added a little more high-lights in MS 3D Paint. I used mostly blues and greens (sorry, Sarge), then de-saturated it, before tinting it a warmer tone. Acceptably light-ish red now. Also, I love you Lopez, but I'm not good at drawing armor/helmets...
Sarge is looking forward, with a relaxed expression, and his head tilted slightly (I imagine him being very boxy, with a nose that's been broken a couple of times, a scar above his eyebrow from getting shot, and he still keeps the buzz-cut). Grif is leaning back against Simmons, his eyes closed and smiling contentedly (he's chubby, his double-chin visible, stubble around his jaw and chin, with long hair that is thick/curly and parted in the middle, the area around one eye a shade lighter than the rest of his skin). Simmons is cozy and close to Grif, looking down at him and smiling with affection (he has a defined curve to his nose, hair parted off-center and pulled back into a low ponytail. the left side of his face has cybernetics around his eye/jaw/chin). Donut and Doc are together. Donut is smiling big and bright, mid hair-flip like he's in a shampoo commercial (he has a scar around his right eye/ear from the grenade, and he keeps that side of his hair clipped short in an undercut, the other side flowing longer). Doc is tilting his head back on Donut's shoulder, smiling and giving a wink... which may be from O'Malley (he has a nose with a narrow bridge that is broader at the bottom, and short hair that is very curly). Locus has his head turned, with his eyes closed, with a peaceful and thoughtful expression (his hair has recovered it's more curly texture, a few strands loose at the top, the rest pulled back in a pony tail. the rest of his features are similar to his face reveal from the animated mini-series, but showing that some time has passed). Poppy, my OC, is posed as if she's turning around and glancing over her shoulder, smiling (she has long hair that is swept up across her shoulders, with bangs that frame her face. her features are round and solid)
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
Another Grif tattoo idea; at some point before he and Simmons get married, he asks for Simmons to write out his signature on some paper. Simmons jokes like- "What, are you gonna forge my signature for a phony will, then kill me?" and he knows that isn't it, but Grif keeps his idea a secret... until a little while later, after Grif has been spending some time with Kai, he just casually waits for Simmons to see him with his shirt off, and THERE IT IS. A tattoo of a heart-shape, sort of lop-sided, right over the area of his actual heart, which he got from Simmons. The outside of the heart has little dots that make a gradient. The inside of the heart is Simmons' signature of his name
Simmons finds that very sweet, but also? How is he supposed to compete with that! No fair doing the most romantic thing EVER, of all time, and Simmons can't even do something half that good! Grif tries to be all casual, reminding Simmons that "romance isn't a competition" (yes it is, and he's winning~). Sometimes just drawing on lined notebook paper helps me get through an art-block, so that's what I did for this picture (oh, and because I use whatever pens are handy, I actually used a couple of light/dark pink pens and shaded with regular pencil, then after scanning it, I adjusted the colors to be more golden-brown)
Description; a drawing of Grif, all in warm-brown tones, his torso/upper body the focus (his face and his legs below the waist aren't visible). He has his head tilted casually to one side, arms loosely bent, hands in the pockets of pajama pants. His body type is thick and very chubby, with strong muscles in his arms, and a large belly. He has body hair across his chest, his stomach, and his arms. He has scars from the surgery/skin-grafts, and some stretch-marks. His left arm is a lighter color than the rest of his body. He has a double-chin, and the small part of the bottom of his face has facial hair. His long hair is very wavy, falling across his shoulders. The heart tattoo with "Simmons" written inside it is on the left side of his chest, partially on the lighter skin, and partially on his darker skin
Is there actually room in Church's lap for Caboose? No, but that isn't going to stop him. Tucker just gets comfortable on Caboose's back, and now Church is "trapped". He definitely hates this
Church is only partially visible, in a sitting position; he has a thick and somewhat short build (slightly resembling the Director, but more chunky). He has dark hair, styled sticking up in the front, with a little flared around his neck, sideburns, and facial hair on his chin. His eyes are closed, with a pleased/calm expression on his face, he has thick eyebrows and a broad nose. His arms are wrapped around Tucker and Caboose, with one leg shown as Caboose drapes himself across Church's lap
Caboose is very big, with strong yet soft features. He has his chest resting in Church's lap, his face resting in the bend of Church's arms, and his own arms comfortably folded in front of him, one arm dangling down loosely. He has a slightly darker skin-tone than Church. His eyes are closed, but with a very happy expression, implying he may be awake and enjoying himself. The side of his cheek and nose are squished just a bit against Church's arm. His hair is fairly short, but very think, with a little fluff/volume, with bangs that fall across his forehead, and lengths that curl up slightly in the back
Tucker is on top of Caboose, back to back. Tucker has his arms folded across his chest, with his hands clasped together. He has a darker skin-tone than Caboose, is a little bit more slender than Church, but with strong muscles. Tucker's face is shown on the side in profile, he has somewhat "regal" features that are also "youthful" and looks a bit younger than he actually is. He has a small smile on his face, his eyes shut as well He has a broad nose with a defined and soft curve. He has black hair, very thick texture, longer at the top, and styled as a fade. One of Church's arms is wrapped around him, across his chest and hanging loosely down the side. His face is pressed close to Church, and Church's chin is sitting slightly on top of his head
(this is somewhere in my story-line, with Church and Tex getting to come back in synthetic human bodies, so they can do people things. this is specifically after Church has gone through some time to adjust, both physically and emotionally. he has a lot of recovered memories from Alpha and Epsilon, plus his experiences just being... Church. yet again, he's the same guy, but he's also a new guy, and also a bunch of guys. Caboose has been very patiently waiting to be able to hug Church without accidentally crushing his frail new body, so he's making up for that big time. Tucker was also avoiding him for a bit, but for more subtle reasons... it's hard to admit somebody was your best friend, and you never got to say good-bye to him, then somebody else came along, and wound up being your best friend AGAIN, and he died trying to protect you, and it just sucks that every time he's always your best friend and every time he never STAYS. they finally get through that whole conversation, and now get to catch up on happier things. Church has often had the things he cared torn away from him, including his memories, and his response to that was being an a-hole. he secretly really likes being a source of comfort, and when he's not being a jerk out of habit, he's actually pretty good at this~)
areudirty
titsay
