boschs

[insert description of an incurably lazy bastard with a penchant for cheekbones]


about.
archive.
ask.

doctorassbutt benedryl

A Guide to Terminology as used by Western Males of the Species

societyghost:

Prude - a woman who won’t fuck you

Dyke - a woman who won’t fuck you because you have a penis

Slut - a woman who fucks other people and not you

Tease - a woman who won’t fuck you even though she smiled at you

Feminist - a woman who won’t fuck you because she has, like, thoughts and stuff

societyghost

bbatchs

incurablylazydevil:

'mary's past is similar to john's past'

incurablylazydevil

the thing about mary is that she's an awful awful person but an absolutely brilliant character, and i don't know why so few people understand that those things are not mutually exclusive...

asked by Anonymous

ceywoozle:

jennaknowsash:

cantpronounce:

dammit-sherlock:

cantpronounce:

dammit-sherlock:

I really can’t see where she is wonderful character…but yeh…

x and x

I like he idea of Mary as a villain, because she would be very interesting as a villain.

Mary as she is now? Nope. I don’t find her wonderful at all.

This is of course just my opinion.

Definitely. Villains can be good characters, and I’m fine with Mary being in the story, and being a villain. Of course brilliant characters can be awful people. (Like Cersei for example) But this one? For the most part I think she’s been written horribly. It’s been spelled out wonderfully many places, but she’s not terribly 3-dimensional, and falls into the stupid violent-women-are-by-definition-strong thing without good enough motivations or backstory (and appears to be let off the hook just for being female but I truly hope that’s not true in the end)

(Yes I’ve read many of the oh-she’s-great metas linked to and don’t agree with them)

i just don’t see how mary is “strong.” the fact that her fall back is shooting someone in the chest doesn’t indicate much strength of character to me. being capable of murder is not a strength. the inability to acknowledge your own faults is not strength. having a god complex is not strength. being good at manipulating people is not strength. lying so believably for so long that no one catches you out is not strength.

i just don’t even see how people can equate violent with strong. i makes no sense to me. and before you start going after me with “but john was in the army and killed people and sherlock shot magnussen” i would like to say yes, yes, they did. but these actions did not define them. sherlock showed remorse. sherlock shows a willingness to learn from his own past mistakes. john is traumatised from the action he witnessed in afghanistan. he does not shoot to kill people because he thinks he’s better than them or because he’s cleaning up the world. he does it because someone else is in immediate danger and there is no other way.

if people want a strong, antagonistic woman in sherlock, how about sally? she’s portrayed as being “against” sherlock but her motivations are believable and comprehensible. how many of us if we were in her position wouldn’t act exactly the same?

but mary? really? the things you look up to are dishonesty to the point of tricking people into marrying you, being incapable of seeing your actions as any way wrong or mistaken, placing all blame for your own horrible actions on the person you profess to love? this isn’t about her being “different” and “accepted.” this is about being a shitty person and why should someone be accepted by other people when they can’t even accept for themselves who and what they are? she shows no desire to be better. she shows no desire to learn from what she is. even as a villain these traits make her pretty boring if it weren’t for her position in john’s life and the fact that she’s carrying a baby.

dammit-sherlock incurablylazydevil

mymodernmet

mindphallus

wolfholmes bennyslegs

dqdbpb:

we’re halfway thru april, u know what tht means?

image

dqdbpb