Matangi said âhold my okolehao.â

seen from Angola
seen from Canada

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Iraq
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Singapore
seen from Yemen
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from TĂŒrkiye

seen from Australia

seen from Singapore
seen from TĂŒrkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States
Matangi said âhold my okolehao.â

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 âą No registration required âą HD streaming
Pals I'm trying to untangle the weirdly specific disability mixed-feels I have (layered in with all the broader metatextual feelings) about an immobilized Vader screaming for Obi-Wan not to leave him behind for the second time in his life but I seriously don't know if I can parse it myself, let alone put it into words.
Idk. There's a lot in Star Wars that gives me mixed disability feels but these are some of the mixed-est.
Did anyone else have Thoughts about wtf it means that his cybernetics are busted in that moment, that his side of their relationship is still 110% unhealthy and codependent except for one very extreme exception, that we know for sure he'd get up and follow Obi-Wan if he could, etc? Like idk it's turning my brain into heart stew.
Is it just me or is it kind of weird how many people didn't really have a problem with how Thor straight up slaughtered dozens of Jotuns for the actions of two (dead) ones...
Especially considering in doing so he, Heimdall, and the W4 [Loki too, but I'm focusing on the "good guys"] committed treason [for going against Odin] and also rekindled a war over a petty insult.
... and they still like him, yet at the same time will hate on Loki for trying to gen0cide them?
So is their problem that it's Loki doing it?
Or am I just seeing things that aren't there?
No, you're completely right. The problem is Loki and his villain coding. Those people would tell you "but Thor has changed and Loki hasn't" while ignoring the fact that Thor basically did the same thing to Fire Demons again over a bad dream. They say Thor was redeemed but Loki never did, while in fact Loki redeemed himself over and over again. I have written "Spot the Hypocrisy" series because of how the fandom treats Loki with double standards compare to other characters.
I think my dislike for Wanda Maximoff can be boiled down to the consistent theme of âheroesâ doing things equally as terrible as the villains and facing little to no consequences for their actions- theyâre just written off as âtragic mistakesâ- while âvillainsâ receive the least amount of sympathy and the harshest condemnation possible.
So according to What IfâŠ?, even without Thanosâ influence, Loki still wants to conquer the earth?
And Erik is still a bad guy who betrays everyone?
Iâm so done with this villain coding sh*t. đ

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 âą No registration required âą HD streaming
I thought this trailer was definitely better than the first one in that it felt more like loki and I was super happy to see him use magic and also snark at people instead of just get mocked. I also liked his snarky lines. esp him being all âitâs adorable you think you can manipulate me.â like yeah. you go loki. burn the TVA. both figuratively and literally. lmao I hope he double crosses them and escapes in the end.Â
 I was also glad to see more moments in the trailer when he had his more reserved, subtle air and expressions. tho there were still moments like the over-exaggerated startle at the cat still felt a bit ooc to me. some of his dialogue still felt a little too casual and different from his usual rhetorical style. this is picking up after Avengers so Loki should be in the same mindset he was in at the beginning of Thor: The Dark World. Heâs just been tortured and now heâs been captured by an organization he doesnât trust and that doesnât trust him or have his best interests at heart.Â
also from a narrative perspective I'm not sure that the âI know everything about youâ thing really works as a storytelling device. if theyâre trying to do a buddy cop dynamic between them, how is that supposed to work if he already supposedly knows everything about loki and has made up his mind about him? like then they canât get to know each other and he canât learn about loki or change his opinion on him.
also if he knows everything about him already why doesnât he care the took was tortured and mind controlled into invading NYC by Thanos?? also why does he think Loki constantly betrays people? In Thor 2011 he spent centuries watching the othersâ backs before he finally snaps early on in the film. And even then he doesnât actually betray anyone that often. Like sure he FIGHTS Thor but he doesnât often outright betray him.Â
I feel like it would make more sense for the TVA to know less about Loki if theyâre going to distrust him so much. I mean if they just knew him as the person who attacked a town in thor 2011, invaded New York, and stole the tesseract their attitude would make more sense imho. OR it would also work if they had the TVA to just be evil and want to use Loki and not really care that he was tortured.Â
My issue isnât âoh theyâre not being nice to him.â It's that despite the fact that they apparently know all about his life the TVAâs characterization of Loki as fundamentally untrustworthy and their complete lack of empathy for the fact that he has literally just escaped being tortured and mind controlled, and their lack of interest in the fact that he didnât invade NYC of his own volition, are all framed by the narrative as justified. So it again feels like unfair villain coding of Loki. Though of course itâs hard to completely judge from the trailer. this was however a huge improvement from the first trailer so I am somewhat hopeful.
im sorry that every cishet white y/a author decided to villain-code every mentally ill and/or queer and/or abused character with any depth to them so i can only relate to villains now
Dr. Poison from "Wonder Woman" is one of the latest.
[Doktorâs Note: This article contains spoilers for Wonder Woman.]
Darth Vader, Freddy Krueger, and Voldemort all have one thing in common â theyâre villains with disfigured faces. Â In Wonder Woman, Dr. Poison (played by Elena Anaya, who is not facially-disfigured herself) plays a similar role as one of the film's main villains as a character who wears a prosthetic mask to cover her visibly scarred face.
There's no doubting Wonder Woman's importance for representation of women both in front and behind the camera, especially considering that it smashed records at the box office.  But along with the good, there's some aspects of the film that could have been better.  Wonder Woman has already been criticized for its lack of representation for women of color, and with the character of Dr. Poison the film also handles disability representation equally poorly.  Dr. Poison falls into the easy trope that suggests disability â and in this case, specifically facial disfigurement â means that a character is evil.  We never find out Dr. Poisonâs backstory and whether her facial scarring caused her to become a villain or happened after she already was one, but the message is the same: We should be afraid of people whose faces and bodies are different from our own.
Ariel Henley, a writer with Crouzon Syndrome, tells Teen Vogue, âThe idea that to be beautiful means to be good and to be disfigured means to be evil is not new. Â Itâs a really tired, unoriginal trend in the movie industry, and only perpetuates damaging beliefs about individuals with facial differences.â
That trope is exactly what plays out in Wonder Woman. Â The filmâs hero and titular Wonder Woman, Diana (played by Gal Gadot), is physically fit, able, and beautiful. Â Her romantic love interest who also acts as a sidekick, Steve Trevor (portrayed by Chris Pine), is equally attractive and able-bodied.
Showing facial disfigurement as a signifier for evil has consequences for real people with facial disfigurements. Â âPeople with facial differences are often discriminated against because of our appearance, and rarely given a voice and accurate representation in mainstream media,â says Henley.
However, this is far from the first time this trope has appeared. Â The Wicked Witch of the West in The Wizard of Oz has a green face and a noticeable wart. Â Darth Vader has a scarred body that he hides underneath a black cloak and mask. Â Bruce Banner literally turns into a green monster when he becomes The Hulk, and although heâs not a villain, he struggles with the urge to destroy every time he undergoes the transformation. Â Tom Riddle is attractive when he begins learning about dark magic at Hogwarts, but his journey to becoming Voldemort also makes him facially disfigured; many online memes poke fun at the fact that he has snake-like nostrils.
In terms of Wonder Woman, toward the end we see Dr. Poison without her mask for the first time. Â In the scene, sheâs in a state of vulnerability that we havenât previously experienced with her character. Â Ares, the god of war who has spent centuries trying to rid the world of humans, is prompting Diana to turn her back on humanity and offers Diana the opportunity to kill Dr. Poison and join him as a god. Â As Diana considers her decision, Dr. Poisonâs mask falls from her face in the wind, revealing her scarred and disfigured face. Â Weâre meant to feel sympathy for the character and reconsider her villainy, and itâs clear that Diana does as well, since she lets Dr. Poison live.
These kinds of âfacial revealâ moments are common in visual media where a character has a facial disfigurement or other disability. Â In Wonder Woman, the scene is meant to encourage sympathy, but itâs clear that audience is still supposed to be shocked by the sight of Dr. Poisonâs face, since earlier in the film, we see a photograph of her before she was scarred. Â The movie sets us up to spend time wondering how she became disfigured, as if disability is an exciting or terrifying mystery and not a facet of a personâs lived experiences.
Diana ultimately says that she stands by humanity because she believes in love â something thatâs visually shown when sheâs looking at a photograph of Steve in present time â but the physical removal of Dr. Poisonâs mask, and her disfigurement in general, isnât necessary for this character development. Â It gives the audience the impression that if we donât see disability and disfigurement as inherently evil, we must see it as something worth pitying, even when the disabled person has been nothing but villainous. Â We arenât supposed to come to conclusions about Dr. Poison based on her actions in the film, but instead based on the way her face appears.
Henley adds, âThere were so many opportunities for Dr. Poisonâs story to be interesting, for her role to be about more than her facial difference, but these threads simply weren't explored.â
Even when the media chooses to tackle facial disfigurement in a positive way, as with the upcoming movie Wonder (based on the book by the same name), people with facial disfigurements are left out of the conversation. Â Wonder follows the story of Auggie, a ten-year-old boy with a craniofacial condition who starts mainstream school for the first time. Â The creators of Wonder chose to cast Jacob Tremblay, an actor without a facial difference, in the role of Auggie, and instead prosthetics and makeup will be used to make Tremblay appear to be disfigured. Â The film would have been the perfect opportunity to cast a facially disfigured actor and break down the problematic trope that disability is a negative experience. Â Shows like ABCâs Speechless have been hailed for casting a disabled actor in a disabled role (Micah Fowler, who plays JJ DiMeo, has cerebral palsy just like his character does) instead of âCripping Upâ actors and erasing opportunities for disabled actors.
When we pigeonhole disabled characters into basic roles that are easily defined, such as sympathetic and pitiable or villainous and evil, weâre reinforcing the idea that disabled people donât live full, meaningful lives the same way non-disabled people do. Â We need more media that offers a diverse perspective on disability and facial disfigurement, and doesnât just boil our vast experiences down to a plot point.
âThe idea that to be beautiful means to be good and to be disfigured means to be evil is not new. Itâs a really tired, unoriginal trend in the movie industry, and only perpetuates damaging beliefs about individuals with facial differences.â