abundantlyqueer

corpsereviver2:

tiger-in-the-flightdeck:

i-owe-you-a-tardis:

cumbercolllective:

I’m not actually gay.

I’m just occasionally hetero-negative

Do you ever get the impression that Benedict and Martin are convinced they are creating two entirely different shows? Like Benedict thinks he’s playing the lead man in a thrilling crime drama with a spunky sidekick; while Martin is the lead actor in a heartbreaking unconventional romance series that just happens to have a lot of explosions.

That explains so much, actually.

unfortunately moffat and gatiss think they’re performing a meta-art piece deconstructing the notional realism of ‘real world’ fiction by highlighting the essential meaningless of conventional signifiers of meaning, introducing multiple apparent signifiers of meaning which are then revealed to be, in reality, meaningless, thereby underling the real unreality of realism in fictional fiction that purports to be realistic [Die Fledermaus et al, 1903, also some translations of T.S. Zarathustra 2114.]

abundantlyqueer:

thanks to itemfinder :D

“I don’t want your money,” John says, thrusting the check back at Mycroft.

“Oh, it’s not mine,” Mycroft says, “it belongs to the British taxpayers – and you’ve taken money from them before, haven’t you?”

oh hey everytime i pass through a fandom i ask for two stories i’ve never found. aymk, i don’t grok bondage, not as it’s generally played in stories, but i do have an unfed kink for:

a) two people have highly cooperative sex with their right wrists tethered to each other. john would be so good at this, he’s left-handed :D

b) two people have highly cooperative sex while one of them is unavoidably tethered to something by one wrist (i started this as a scene for tabula rasa but then S3).

anyone?

provocatrixxx:

abundantlyqueer:

also, you wanna talk problematic fantasies?

apparently i think committing murder makes men better in bed.

Well, obviously.

I mean, bloodlust is hot.

And if you can strip a rifle without looking, you’re going to wind up being pretty nifty with your fingers.

it’s not even that nebulous, it’s “john’s good in bed, john shoots sholto, john is off the scale fantastic in bed that night”.

also, you wanna talk problematic fantasies?

apparently i think committing murder makes men better in bed.

on the upside, i am writing ‘the sign of the fire’

on the downside, i’m not writing *the next part* of ‘the sign of the fire’

thecumbercollective:

Sherlock Screencaps | The Empty Hearse | [18/ ?]

i hate this show. i fucking hate it. i hate this crap-ass scene. look at it. S2, when sherlock’s on the ground? the blood is sheer artistry - as graceful as calligraphy, and coming from a clearly defined impact point/side. it spreads on the ground even as we cut between him on the ground and john reaching him. one of my many, many concerns about the coming explanation was ‘how did they fake the blood so convincingly in the few seconds available?’

and OH LOOK the explanation for (pretty much everything) we saw is: it didn’t actually look like it looked when we showed it to you. because in the S3 version of the scene, the blood is jammy, darker and glossier than before, and the run that used to originate in sherlock’s nostril and went across his cheek now clearly *starts* on his completely uninjured cheek and heads up his nose. it looks like it was put on with a desert sauce bottle because IT WAS PUT ON WITH A DESERT SAUCE BOTTLE.

this is moffat the fuck all over (cf dr who): show you something for which there is simply no rational explanation, then go ‘here’s the explanation for a scene that vaguely resembles the one i showed you. the scene i actually showed you didn’t happen.’ it’s fuck as hell annoying to me in any format of show, but in one that uses the conventions of a mystery/detective story? it’s basically inviting someone to play tennis and turning up with an attack chopper and being all ‘see, you can’t out-think me!’

fuckwit

i do love jude-law!watson’s ‘send out the fast bowler!’

elluvias:

abundantlyqueer:

srsly stop. there are people out there i love, they’re lovely lovely people, but it drives me mental to see writers of pornography being told to stop glamorizing/eroticizing [subject of your choice]. pornography is not public health education materials. pornography is not an endorsement of an actual, real, harmful thing. it’s glamorized and eroticized by definition. there are kinds of pornography i cannot consume because i have too many Real Feelings about the subject being portrayed. so i don’t consume that kind of pornography. i produce pornography that i completely understand other people have Real Feelings about, and i respect that. but seriously, having erotic responses to things that are bad, wrong, dark, disturbing - wake up and smell the human condition. telling people it’s not suitable material for fantasy - gtfo. seriously.

May I play devil’s advocate with this? I’m gonna put it under a cut because this is a good point and I don’t want to clutter things up

Read More

and i’m going to play double devil’s advocate by saying, what makes you think that people who have ‘problematic’ fantasies are unaware of all this? given that a decent percentage of people who consume/produce non-con are themselves survivors of rape, i think they probably understand the issues very very well. and if they choose to consume/produce those kinds of pornography, and they say it is helpful and empowering or at least cathartic, i’m going to take them at their word. and i’m going to extend the same courtesy to people whose fantasies cover other sticky areas. i’m sure as shit not going to assume that people who get off on non-con are a) oblivious to rape culture, or b) not doing their bit to undo it. policing the non-commercial sharing of sexual fantasies just doesn’t strike me as a remotely useful exercise.