Vampira76 - Viddy Well, Little Brother

My son is not synthetic

In approximately 9-weeks time I’m going to become a father. This weekend will mark week 29 of the pregnancy, and due to its specifics, labor is likely to be induced around week 38. If all goes to plan, before the end of May I’m going to be solely responsible for the life of a beautiful baby boy. I’m fortunate. In spite of the absurd lies told by society about masculinity, the instinct of fatherhood It’s the culmination of over 18-months of planning, and some extreme good fortune. It is of immense importance to me, it is not an anaemic thing, it is not a subordinate or inconsequential thing. I’m fortunate because for many gay men there is no way to easily realize the desire to be a parent. Unsurprisingly, and contrary to the picture of commodification painted by Domenico Dolce, there is no easy solution for a man wanting to become a father, where the old fashioned way is not an option. There are no uterus shops, no egg banks that we can go to, and in my country it’s even illegal to pay for surrogacy. For many men, therefore, adoption is the only option, and given the complexity of the adoption system, not to mention what was until recently open hostility to gay men, and particularly single gay men, adopting (hostility that Dolce verbalises in his recent contributions), often that option is no option at all. I am fortunate because I have a very close female friend who has spared me all of that, a gay friend who loves and values me enough to want to offer me an opportunity at something I had given up on.

My son was conceived by IVF using donor eggs. For the last 28 and a bit weeks he has been gestating away in squirmy, kicky happiness, and in 9-weeks time he’s going to come into this vast, incredible, complicated world and his entire life is going to be dependent on me. Everything he’s going to need, is going to be my responsibility: feeding and cleaning, nursing when he’s sick, boundaries when he’s acting out; toys, stimulation, education; he’s going to need to be shown how he can contribute to the world, how he can enjoy it, how he can live his life in it. Above all, he’s going to need the unconditional, unswerving love of a parent. And in that, he will be absolutely no different to all of the other children that come into this world, however they are conceived.

Nothing about him, therefore, and despite Dolce’s assertions, is synthetic. He is a real person. He has intrinsic value, and he has value to me, and to his mother, and to his wider family, and to the people who come to be his friends, to the woman or man who’ll one day be his lover. None of that is synthetic. None of that is less just because he was conceived by an egg “from a catalogue” and nurtured in the uterus of a woman who has had no sexual relationship with his father. His conception was no less an act of love, simply because his parents didn’t consummate a romantic relationship. The mere fact that we went to such extremes to bring him into existence is the exemplar of an act of love. Unlike in the case of some children conceived the “traditional” way, no child born in this manner is born for any other reason than love. No child born this way is unwanted, accidental, forced. Who is Domenico Dolce or Stefano Gabbana to say that the act of love that led to my son’s conception is a poorer kind of love, is an unworthy kind of love, is a less valuable kind of love than between a straight man and a straight woman? My love for my son is as fierce as any emotion I have ever felt; it isn’t a second place love. If his mother and I don’t love each other as a straight man and a woman might, what does it matter? I dare say our relationship of mutual respect and friendship will endure longer and be more productive than many marriages, and if anyone doubts the statistical fragility of straight relationships, I invite them to take a look at the divorce statistics for North America and Western Europe, or come spend a day with me in the Family Law Courts.

Western society has come a long way in a short period of time, and being gay doesn’t have the stigma that it used to have. But that doesn’t mean that it’s “easy”. There are still places in the world where they want to murder me just for being gay, places where I’ll be imprisoned, or whipped, or stoned, or hung, or thrown off a rooftop just because of who I fall in love with. There are still places in the West where I’d be called a pervert, or told I was disgusting, or that I was going to hell because God hates gays. There are still far too many places where people would call me “fag” or “homo” to my face, without knowing the first thing about me, except my sexuality. There are places where the majority believe I should never be allowed to have a family of my own, I shouldn’t be allowed to get married, I shouldn’t be allowed to be a father. Places where people think it’s perfectly okay to deny me the most fundamental, primal desires that most (albeit not all) human beings have: to be loved, to love, to have a family, to be a parent.

None of that is okay, but you get used to it. You don’t tolerate it, but you get used to it. After all, it’s a message, in one form or another, that I’ve heard since the day I was born, and sometimes from those closest to me. And, even now, that kind of stupid, evil homophobia isn’t the only obstacle I face. Even now, today, in 21st century Britain, there are obstacles I have to negotiate simply to be a parent, to be a father. Social policies that seek to restrict parenthood to couples, which put a limit on surrogacy and babies born by IVF. Laws which completely subordinate my rights to my son to the good will of his mother: I have no power to enforce the agreement I have with my friend, I have no inherent legal right to my child, in the same way that she has. If our friendship falls apart, my only recourse is the long, prohibitively expensive march through Family Law Courts that are weighed to favor the rights of my friend (regardless of her actual genetic relationship to my son), and which will likely facilitate whatever unreasonable behavior she might possibly choose to indulge. This, the archaic sentiment of a society simultaneously indulging oblique misogyny and explicit hypocrisy. But again, while none of that is okay, it’s something I’m used to, sufficiently used to take a calculated risk, to act on the trust and affection I place in my friend. Homophobia, bizarre quirks of sexism, I can cope with. I’m used to that.

What I find hard to cope with, however, is such nakedly stupid and vicious bigotry from within the LGBT community itself. I would expect such intentionally cruel comments from the usual suspects of the fanatical (“Christian”) right; I would not expect them from two luminaries of the LGBT community. I would not expect such idiotic, consistently disproven assertions as they have expressed: “The only family is the traditional one,” says Dolce. Whose tradition? Biblical tradition? Which one? The traditions in the Gospel? The traditions in Leviticus? Exodus? In Genesis? Or do you mean white European tradition? Then what of all the non-white European traditions that don’t look like yours? What about the countless traditions of countless non-white cultures extant in the world today that look nothing like your concept of a traditional family? ”A child needs a mother and a father. I could not imagine my childhood without my mother. I also believe that it is cruel to take a baby away from its mother,” says Gabanna. Really? Firstly, that’s both an argument from ignorance and an argument from incredulity, and therefore a logical fallacy and therefore invalid; and secondly, your beliefs are completely irrelevant to fact. And the facts are these: No reputable sociological or psychological study conducted on children of gay couples (or gay singletons, for that matter) in the last decade, have shown any direct causation between the number or genders of parents and the wellbeing of their children. In fact, and to really put the knife in here, the children of gay parents tend to be, on average, smarter, happier and healthier than those of straight couples. So, not only is the argument invalid as a logical fallacy, it’s also simply wrong in fact. That it is an argument made by those who ought to know better makes it even worse.

And, there can be no argument that Dolce and Gabanna, of all people, should know better. I indulge a stereotype perhaps, but I struggle to believe that they are completely insulated from other gay people in light of their chosen profession; and they are also clearly smart and successful people, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that they should be quite capable of weighing the arguments on both sides, and concluding - as anyone with a brain and a moral compass has done - that the argument against gay families raising children is discredited, amoral garbage, and has no place in civilised society, much less coming out of the mouths of two gay men who should be leading the call for equality. It’s their failure of responsibility that is as unacceptable as the content of their convictions. Rather than using their influence in the public eye to advocate for - or at the very least, to support - the rights of gay families, they have instead given succour to the very homophobia that feeds the various irrational and discriminatory laws that seek to deny queer men and women the right to a family life, a right that should be inalienable for all. I don’t know what informs such convictions, whether it’s gross stupidity or a form of internalised self loathing, and I don’t much care; I do care about the words they have chosen, I care about what they have said about my son, and my family, I care about what message that sends to LGBTQ men and women, girls and boys, the world over; and I care that they have singularly failed to live up to their obligations as gay men with a public platform.

My son is not synthetic. My family is not synthetic. I am not a lesser parent because I’m not in a relationship with a woman, or because I’m - more or less - raising my child alone. How dare you, Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabanna, say such offensive, hateful, deceitful, ignorant things about me and my family, and families like ours. How dare you. And how dare you seek to shield yourself from criticism by playing the martyr, by asserting freedom of speech and decrying all who call you on your foul, stupid, bizarre moral illiteracy, as fascists. There’s no fascism here, only the well earned calumny for a pair of ignorant, self loathing men, who lack the imagination or the moral courage or the intelligence to crawl out of their received archaic attitudes to family. You chose to put those words out there, and now you must suffer the consequences of them. That’s not bullying, it’s just quid pro quo.

11 notes View Post

vampira76

9 years ago

What the....!? I’m glad I live in a nation where bathing with your children is a bonding exercise and considered a norm (rather than a deviation from the norm).

(Different anon) Perez Hilton has been taking a lot of hits lately because he posted a picture of him and his child bathing together to make it more fun. Danneel then responded with "it's so absurd! I bath with my daughter everyday, sometimes twice a day(if it's a super dirty day) Saves times and we have fun!" it's on her twitter replies. I think both were asking for trouble with talking about a controversial matter such as that, I don't care about Jessica and Jep, but I can see the anger.

Ah! Okay. I missed that. I honestly don’t understand people getting worked up about bathing with your child. I used to do that sometimes when my oldest daughter was little and we were in a hurry to get somewhere. But tweeting about it is a little bit TMI maybe? I don’t know. Thanks, anon! –Admin N

Supernatural 11.10

When it was first suggested that Lucifer may be making a return to Supernatural, I was among the first to express some skepticism. Not only did it strike me as lazy writing, to resurrect a villain defeated five seasons before, I also had no confidence that this writing team could do the character justice. Experience is instructive, and I fully expected that Carver’s version of Lucifer would be as shallow and spiritless as many of his other villains have been. If it seemed that I was more upset by that thought, than I have been by the treatment of other villains, that is because I believe that the Lucifer of Classic Supernatural, and the story told around him, is such a powerful and complete piece of writing. A piece of writing that I did not want to see subjected to Carver’s usual vandalism.

Unexpectedly, however, I was given cause to doubt my gut instinct on the subject. The first half of season 11 aired, and I was pleasantly surprised. Suddenly it wasn’t the plastic, tawdry junk I had been subjected to for the preceding three seasons. There were episodes that I enjoyed; there was compelling writing, and engaging characters, and Sam and Dean looked a little bit more like Sam and Dean than they had in a long time. For a moment, that ridiculously little flame of hope burning deep in my fannish heart, leapt. Perhaps Carver had clued in to just what a disaster he had made of the show, had recovered his soul and had become again the writer that had given us AVSC and Mystery Spot.

Of course, I should have listened to my gut. Whatever goodwill was earned by episodes 1-9 of season 11, it was disintegrated by the contrived garbage I watched last night.

The only redeeming feature of “The Devil in the Details”, was the acting. With one notable exception, everyone was on their A-game. Pelegrino and Padaelcki were mesmerizing together, and Jensen Ackles was as much Dean as I have ever seen. Even the ridiculous Pantomime Dames of Supernatural, Crowley and his mother, earn a mention for their solid performance (the nonsensical pre-credit sequence notwithstanding). And, I suppose, I should also credit the “broments”. Dean’s “have you met me” line was perfect, and Sam’s strong statement of faith in his brother was a particularly satisfying moment, following as it did four seasons where one might have been forgiven for thinking the brothers really didn’t like each other. If I hesitate to laud those gems of fraternal devotion, it’s because the totality of the episode had the effect of making those moments feel like obligations. They were added because that’s the “Supernatural formula”, and it’s what the fans’ expect. In other words, poor currency that didn’t purchase nearly enough goodwill to endure the remainder of the episode.

I’m not even sure where to begin with my substantive criticism, because there was so much that disappointed, or straight-out offended me. I suppose Lucifer is the obvious jumping point. My principal concern when I heard the Devil was returning for a major part in season 11, was a conviction (not disproved) that Carver would not be able to do that character justice, but worse would completely negate everything that had gone before. The Winchester’s war with the Morningstar was a complete, and powerful story; “Swan Song” the perfect denouement to the drama and pathos of season 5. That fight needed no further elaboration, it needed no further examination. It was perfect: Sam and Dean defeated the Devil, and they did it with brotherly love. Perfection doesn’t require elaboration. Resurrecting the Devil after that would be like Sauron climbing out of the rubble of Mount Doom, or the Emperor clawing his way back up the Death Star’s reactor shaft, or Voldemort appearing on the back of Lucius Malfoy’s head; in other words, a piece of poor quality fanfic, that rendered the trauma and sacrifice of the heroes completely nugatory.

That is, of course, exactly what I think happened last night. In one episode, Jeremy Carver and his team have succeeded in completely invalidating everything that Sam and Dean fought and died for. And for what benefit? The totality of the dialogue in 11.10 was a redux of themes in season 5; almost verbatim in some places. That doesn’t even deserve the title of elaboration; it’s naked, lazy plagiarism. Even more offensive than that, was the opportunity the writers took to make their voices heard through the dialogue. The whole sequence of Lucifer’s play, to the backdrop of Sam and Amelia, was overwhelmingly redolent of Jeremy Carver’s known, and particular, opinion on the brothers and their relationship. I didn’t hear Lucifer speaking in that sequence, I heard Jeremy Carver via Andrew Dabb. Writing 101 teaches that the writer’s voice should never be heard, not even in the narrative; it’s for your characters to communicate your argument, if you have one to make, and communicate it subtly. Not as a piece of anvil-dropping that amounted to nothing so much as a rebuttal to criticism. This is what I heard in that dialogue; not an expression of Lucifer’s character, but an argument directed at the fandom, or at best, a piece of very thin apologia for the character’s resurrection.

Invalidating Sam’s 140 years in hell, and enduring Carver’s lecture, are of course, not the only reasons why resurrecting Lucifer is a bad idea. The other obvious problem is the appalling creative laziness it implies. Apparently, this writing team is completely bereft of ideas for antagonists, themes and characterization. It is an appalling thing to acknowledge, that since Carver took over, the only original villain of the Supernatural universe, is its most irritating, Metatron. Almost all of the female villains – Eve, Abaddon, Rowena, Amara – are near carbon copies of each other, because again apparently the writing team can’t contemplate any female roles that aren’t a version of “sassy hot bad ass, usually with a thing for Dean”. Not a single one of those villains, comes even remotely close to the delicious menace of Meg, or Yellow Eyes, or Lilith or Alistair. Devoid of the skills, or the inclination, to give us an original, powerful antagonists, the season 11 writing team resurrects Lucifer, and rehashes season 5 for us. I’m not inclined to be grateful. If they were going to bring an old villain back, they could at least have given us Alistair or Meg. Certainly, we need another female character now that they’ve killed off Rowena. I was no fan of the Pantomime Witch, but again her death served no purpose other than to show how awful the Devil was (we know, he’s the Devil, we saw him a lot in season 5, remember?), and has successfully reduced female representation on Supernatural to a bit-part reaper, and the cameos of Sheriff Mills and Donna.

Of course, Lucifer wasn’t the only angel to suffer at the hands of the writer’s lack of inspiration. There was Castiel, too. Castiel. What on Earth, is the fucking point? If Castiel is so boring, so irrelevant, that the only way you can make him interesting, is by making him into Lucifer, then you have to start wondering whether it’s worth keeping him. Does he contribute anything, anything at all, to the story, now? Because, it seems that the only time Castiel is relevant, is when he’s not Castiel. Is that meant to be irony? Perhaps his motivation is meant to be ironic; after all he’s making the exact same mistake he made in season 6. More redux from the inspired creative team at Supernatural. It would be funny if it wasn’t so infuriating.

What wasn’t funny was the pre-credit sequence I mentioned earlier. Other than a brief piece of exposition, that could have been disposed of in a line, this added nothing. All I got from it was an excruciating feeling of second hand embarrassment, and an inclination of how the rest of the episode was going to go.

In summary, then, and speaking plainly, the episode was awful. I hesitate to describe it as contrived garbage, because I seem to use that phrase often in relation to this show, and I don’t want to be guilty of a lack of imagination. But contrived it was, and I think that’s Supernatural’s enduring and apparently insurmountable problem. It absolutely is a flaw in the writing, but more specifically a flaw in how the writing is approached. Episodes of Supernatural are no longer flowing, organic pieces of storytelling. They’re Lego Kit writing: a preconceived piece of shallow spectacle, built from little perfectly formed bricks of wow. The ambition here is not to tell a story; it’s to amaze, it’s to impress with the next piece of Dramatic Dialogue, to scintillate with the next piece of awesome SFX; to show how cool-awesome the next Big Bad is. The same gaudy pieces stuck together repeatedly, following a check-list, and packaged to impress us with its style.

The problem is, there is no story beyond the formula it’s built from. The Emperor really does have no clothes.

20 Images Of Norwegian Architecture Plucked Straight From A Fairytale

The Norwegian countryside is strewn with architecture that looks better suited to crown the pages of a fairytale book. More commonly known for its Vikings heritage and fjords, these photographs display a wide variety of architectural styles that have been used throughout the Middle Ages to the 19th century in Norway. Check out the stunning collection below.

Crooked and towering wooden churches beckoning like an old crone’s fingers, winding stone path weaving through a forest, hidden waterfalls and lonely wooden cabins overlooking a vast valley at its base are some of the outlandish homes and architectural designs we have featured in this series. Teetering Stave churches, eerie waterfalls cascading down like a creature with its own mind, wooden homes made in the typical Norwegian indigenous style called byggeskikk have none of the linearity or conformity that modern buildings do, and have whimsical elements that heighten its sense of magic.

Each of these structures below have a particular way of being set into its own environment, standing out from the elements without obstructing nature. Most of the buildings and bridges and pathways have been built with stone and wood balance the scene it has been engineered upon.

Barn In Valldal

Renndølsetra

Ancient Road Vindhellavegen

Bridge Over Låtefossen Waterfall

Kvednafossen Waterfall In Norway

Old Farmhouses

At The End Of The World, Tjome

Natural Swimming Pool In The Forest

Old House

House In Norway

Fjord Houses

Old Village

Fisherman Hut, Undredal

Bridge In Norway

Rogaland, Gullingen

Lake Bondhus

Small House In Norway

Fairy House In Hunderfossen, Lillehammer

Under The Aurora

h/t: boredpanda

60K notes View Post

vampira76

10 years ago

I just said this to ahillmadeof42dogs , but I decided to also make a post. Honestly sometimes it really does feel like the writers are ruining the show on purpose. I think it’s more likely that they just don’t care at all, and are doing whatever will bring in the most viewers in their opinion. Which duh, it’s a business, but the lack of deference to the integrity of the story and characters that were set up for 6+ is still insulting and sad. Supernatural has lasted so long because of it’s loyal fanbase, overhauling the show is a big “fuck you” to that fan base.

Losing the blue collar Americana vibe, brightening the show, subtly changing up the wardrobe, giving them apparent endless funds, as we never see them hustle or scam. Ripping the boys apart, having Dean nod along to a song about Mary’s death, taunting us with the fake samulet and then immediately getting rid of that too, the boys staying separate even when they leave the bunker, Dean doing “Bitch” “Jerk” with everybody except Sam, now someone random dude being allowed to call Sam “Sammy”? Switching out urban legends for fairy-tales and straight up fiction (Oz). All this shit on top of the lack of scary villains and general OOC-ness? What’s left of the original show?!

69 notes View Post

vampira76

9 years ago

There’s no way this bunck of secod-rate performers willl outdo the Norwegian parodies (executed by some of Norway’s best comedians).

https://youtu.be/vPLsFTOpCRU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aMU4g2B_Wo

https://youtu.be/Cv0oCQrQCZ4

That Hillywood show is now asking fans to help them raise 25k to create a new parody video.

Wow, just wow

What exactly do they need money for? THEY are the ‘stars’ of the parodies. Their sets are cheap cardboard. I”m sure extras are their friends, so what exactly do they pay for?

14 notes View Post

End of content

No more pages to load