If Anyone Is Interested In Checking Out The Playlist Me And My Friend Made For Severus Here! :D

My problem with Lily and James being seen as a super couple has nothing to do with Severus Snape but rather with the fact that when we look at the relationship between James and Lily through a feminist lens, it’s hard not to notice some pretty glaring issues that go beyond just whether or not they’re an “OTP” couple. Sure, on the surface it might seem like a story of two people finding love amid all the chaos, but scratch beneath the surface and you see a whole lot more about toxic masculinity, objectification, and the erasure of a woman’s agency. James is celebrated as this charming, rebellious “bad boy” with a roguish smile, while Lily gets stuck playing the role of the sacrificial, moral compass woman—someone who exists largely to balance out and even redeem the male narrative. And honestly, that’s a problem.

James is shown as this complex, active character who’s constantly surrounded by friends, enemies, and drama. His life is dynamic and full of choices—even if those choices sometimes involve manipulation and deceit. He’s the kind of guy who can easily slip out of confinement with his Invisibility Cloak, leaving Lily behind in a narrative that, over time, turns her into a background figure. This dynamic isn’t accidental; it’s reflective of how our culture often values male agency over female independence. Lily, on the other hand, is repeatedly reduced to her relationships with the men around her. Instead of being a person with her own dreams, opinions, and friendships, she becomes a symbol—a kind of emotional barometer for how “good” or “bad” a man is. Her character is used to validate the actions of others, which means her individuality gets smothered under the weight of a trope that’s all too common in literature: the idea that a woman’s worth is measured by her ability to tame or save a troubled man.

This isn’t just about a lack of depth in Lily’s character; it’s also about how her portrayal reinforces harmful gender norms. Lily is depicted as this kind of sacrificial mother figure—a person whose primary virtue is her selflessness, her willingness to suffer and sacrifice for the sake of others. While selflessness is often celebrated in women, it’s a double-edged sword when that selflessness is the only thing we see. Instead of having her own narrative, her role is defined by how much she gives up, not by what she contributes or the inner life she leads. And it’s not just a narrative oversight—it’s a reflection of a broader cultural pattern where women are expected to be nurturing, supportive, and ultimately secondary to the male characters who drive the action.

What’s even more frustrating is how Lily’s isolation is used to further the narrative of James’s redemption. Over time, we see Lily’s network of friends and her connections outside of James gradually disappear. It’s almost as if, once she falls in love, her entire world is meant to shrink around that relationship. And here’s where the feminist critique really kicks in: this isn’t a realistic depiction of a balanced, healthy relationship—it’s a story that subtly suggests that a woman’s fulfillment comes from being dependent on one man and his circle, rather than cultivating her own identity. Meanwhile, James continues to be portrayed as this larger-than-life figure who’s got a whole world beyond his romantic entanglement, a world filled with vibrant interactions, rivalries, and a legacy that extends beyond his relationship with Lily.

Another point worth mentioning is the way in which the narrative seems to excuse James’s less-than-stellar behavior. His manipulation, his lying, and his willingness to trick Lily into situations that serve his own interests are brushed off as quirks of a “bad boy” persona—a kind of charm that, in the end, makes him redeemable because Lily’s love is supposed to “tame” him. This kind of storytelling not only normalizes toxic masculinity but also puts an unfair burden on Lily. It’s like saying, “Look how amazing you are, you’re the only one who can fix him!” That’s a dangerous message because it implies that women are responsible for managing or even reforming male behavior, rather than holding men accountable for their own actions.

The imbalance in their character development is glaringly obvious when you compare how much more we learn about James versus how little we know about Lily. James is given room to be flawed, to grow, and to be complicated. His friendships, his rivalries, and even his mistakes are all part of what makes him a rounded character. Lily, however, is often just a name, a face in the background who exists mainly to serve as a counterpoint to James’s narrative. Her inner life, her ambitions, and her struggles are rarely explored in any meaningful way, leaving her as a one-dimensional character whose only real purpose is to highlight the moral journey of the man she loves.

It’s also important to recognize how this kind of narrative plays into broader cultural ideas about gender. When literature consistently portrays women as the quiet, isolated figures who are only valuable in relation to the men around them, it sends a message about what is expected of real-life women. It suggests that a woman’s worth is determined by how much she sacrifices or how well she can support a man, rather than by her own achievements or personality. This isn’t just a harmless trope—it contributes to a societal mindset that limits women’s potential and reinforces gender inequality. The way Lily is written reflects a kind of “tamed” femininity that’s supposed to be passive, supportive, and ultimately secondary to the active, adventurous masculinity that James represents.

At the heart of the issue is the lack of balance in their relationship as depicted in the texts. The idea that Lily “fell for” a man who was clearly not a paragon of virtue is problematic, but what’s even more problematic is how her role in the relationship is so narrowly defined. Rather than being seen as an independent character who makes choices and has her own voice, she is constantly portrayed as someone whose existence is meant to validate the male experience. Even when the texts mention that Lily had her own issues—like hating James at times or suffering because of the way their relationship unfolded—it’s always in a way that underlines her weakness compared to James’s dynamic, active presence.

Looking at the broader picture, it’s clear that this isn’t just about one fictional couple—it’s a reflection of how gender dynamics have long been skewed in literature. Male characters are given the freedom to be complex, flawed, and full of life, while female characters are often stuck in roles that don’t allow them to be fully realized. This isn’t to say that every story with a sacrificial female character is inherently bad, but it does mean that when a character like Lily is reduced to a mere symbol—a moral compass or a measure of male worth—it’s time to ask why and what that says about the society that produced that narrative.

So, what’s the way forward? For one, we need to start reimagining these relationships in a way that allows both partners to be fully fleshed out. Lily deserves to be more than just a side character or a moral benchmark; she should have her own narrative, her own dreams, and her own agency. And as much as it might be appealing to think of James as this redeemable rebel, it’s equally important to hold him accountable for the ways in which his behavior perpetuates harmful stereotypes about masculinity. A healthier narrative would be one in which both characters grow together, where mutual respect and equal agency are at the core of their relationship.

In the end, the story of James and Lily, as it stands, is a reminder of how deeply ingrained gender norms can shape the stories we tell. It’s a cautionary tale about the dangers of allowing toxic masculinity to go unchecked and of confining women to roles that don’t do justice to their full humanity. For anyone who’s ever felt frustrated by these imbalances, there’s hope in the idea of re-writing these narratives—of pushing for stories where both men and women are seen as complete, complex individuals. And really, that’s what literature should strive for: a reflection of the messy, beautiful, and often complicated reality of human relationships, where no one is just there to serve as a prop in someone else’s story.

Ultimately, if we can start imagining a world where characters like Lily aren’t just defined by their relationships to men, where their voices and stories are given as much weight as those of their male counterparts, then we can begin to chip away at the outdated tropes that have held us back for so long. It’s about time we celebrated the full spectrum of human experience—and that means giving women like Lily the space to shine on their own terms, without being constantly overshadowed by a “bad boy” narrative that has little to say about their true selves.

what is "FD"?

FD is “Forever Dawn."  It was the original sequel to Twilight (Before New Moon and Eclipse were written) and was what Breaking Dawn is based on.   From Stephenie Meyer’s website:

The basic story is the same. Bella and Edward get married and go to Isle Esme for their honeymoon. Bella gets pregnant with Renesmee. The birth just about kills Bella, but Edward makes her a vampire in time. Jacob imprints on Renesmee. Alice has a vision of the Volturi coming to destroy the Cullens with the "immortal child” as their excuse. Alice bails. Bella’s shielding abilities turn the tide in the Cullen’s favor, along with Alice bringing home another half-vampire to prove that Nessie isn’t a danger.

The things that are different:

Jacob and Bella are not nearly so close. None of the events of New Moon or Eclipse exist; Edward never leaves, so Bella and Jacob never bond. Jacob’s feelings for Bella remain at crush level.

Due in part to Jacob being a smaller character, the werewolf pack is only sketchily developed. It exists as a whole, but there isn’t much information about the individuals. Most of the wolves do not have names.

The entire story is written in Bella’s perspective. Because of this, there is a lot more emphasis on the pregnancy phase.

Jacob isn’t there at the delivery, naturally, so he imprints on Renesmee a few weeks later when Bella is visiting Charlie.

With no New Moon or Eclipse, Victoria and Laurent are both still alive. Laurent stays happily with Irina and sides with the Cullens in the confrontation with the Volturi. It is Victoria rather than Irina who informs on the Cullens to the Volturi. She creates a new friend, Riley, to make the actual accusation. She doesn’t want Aro to know about her agenda—or the fact that the baby is only half-vampire, of which she is aware.

The wolves kill Victoria. She is the only casualty at the final confrontation.

The last chapter ends the same way, but there is an epilogue. It involves Max (J. Jenk’s assistant). Bella’s initial interaction with him is a little bit longer and, feeling she owes him a favor, she gives him her number and tells him she will help him out in return if he ever needs a favor of his own. Max gets himself into some trouble, and Bella gets to play Superman.

Sirius and Peter make me believe in karma. The dog and the rat suit them so well. I still don’t understand the connection between James and a stag, but Peter as a rat? Absolutely and the dog fits Sirius perfectly too.

I may not be Hindu, but sometimes it’s hard not to believe that a fly could be the reincarnation of an annoying person who wasted their life nervously wandering around. After flying so many times, maybe its few neurons align with the life of a fly. And doesn’t that remind you of Peter?

I don’t hate him , I actually find him an interesting character , but honestly, the way his Animagus form reflects his personality deserves an essay.

Action Painter, 2011-2014

Kahn + Selesnick                                    

Louise Burgeoise

a few great films that are free on the internet archive

in decent quality too!

here is the archive collection of these films so you can favorite on there/save if desired.

links below

black girl (1966) dir. ousmane sembene

the battle of algiers (1966) dir. gillo pontecorvo

paris, texas (1984) dir. wim wenders

desert hearts (1985) dir. donna deitch

harold and maude (1973) dir. hal ashby

los olvidados (1952) dir. luis bunuel

walkabout (1971) dir. nicolas roag

rope (1948) dir alfred hitchcock

freaks (1932) dir. tod browning

frankenstein (1931) dir. james whale

sunset boulevard (1950) dir billy wilder

fantastic planet (1973) dir. rené laloux

jeanne dielman (1975) dir. chantal akerman

the color of pomegranates (1969) dir. sergei parajanov

all about eve (1950) dir. joseph l. mankiewicz

gilda (1946) dir. charles vidor

the night of the hunter (1950) dir. charles laughton

the invisible man (1931) dir. james whale

COLLECTION of georges méliès shorts

rebecca (1940) dir. alfred hitchcock

brief encounter (1946) dir. david lean

to be or not to be (1942) dir. ernst lubitsch

a place in the sun (1951) dir george stevens

eyes without a face (1960) dir. georges franju

double indeminity (1944) dir. billy wilder

wild strawberries (1957) dir. ingmar bergman

shame (1968) dir. ingmar bergman

through a glass darkly (1961) dir. ingmar bergman

persona (1961) dir. ingmar bergman

winter light (1963) dir. ingmar bergman

the ascent (1977) dir. larisa shepitko

the devil, probably (1977) dir. robert bresson

cleo from 5 to 7 (1962) dir. agnes varda

alien (1979) dir. ridley scott + its sequels

after hours (1985) dir. martin scorsese

halloween (1978) dir. john carpenter

the watermelon woman (1996) dir. cheryl dune

EDIT: part two here + the letterboxd list

Happy birthday to Severus Snape! the edition is done in Shuffles

One of my favorite movies <3

FILMS WATCHED IN 2025 LADY BIRD (2017) Dir. Greta Gerwig.

Sexual Violence: Concept, Implications, and Consequences

I'm going to say this very seriously because I couldn't care less if you dislike a character and have a pathological need to justify another one at all costs, just because you can't handle being a fan of a guy who wasn't actually a hero. I usually like characters who are absolute pieces of shit, so I have no problem with this, but it seems that some people take it way too personally.

But I don't care. I don't care if you hate Severus Snape. I don't care if you need to call him a Nazi or a racist or any of those things that are neither true nor have any real political, social, or cultural comparison within the lore of the saga. I don't care if you have to invent that he was a stalker or a harasser when he wasn't, or if you need to say he never showered and was ugly because you have the mental age of a five-year-old. I don't give a damn.

There is something beyond fandom, beyond personal taste, and beyond internet wars, and that is the fact of JUSTIFYING a sexual assault.

So, as someone who, due to life circumstances, has spent several years in therapy, had to go to therapy precisely because of being in relationships involving violence and abuse, and who also has training in the prevention of gender-based violence, sexual violence, and sexual abuse, I am going to extend an act of courtesy to all these people who, either out of ignorance, lack of knowledge, or simply because they have empathy shoved up their ass, are denying that certain things constitute sexual violence. I will provide a free lesson on this very serious topic, because I am seeing people who literally have the same discourse as the average potential abuser who denies violence unless the victim is half-dead in a hospital. And I will explain why this view is so incredibly problematic.

This post is going to be long, guys, so get ready:

Sexual violence is a complex phenomenon that encompasses much more than rape. There has been a concerning trend of minimizing or even denying certain forms of sexual violence. This has a serious impact on both society’s perception of these offenses and the struggle of victims for recognition of their suffering. I'm gonna address what constitutes sexual assault from a legal, moral, and psychological perspective, why it is problematic to deny or minimize it, and how such denial not only discredits victims but also contradicts the very principles that many people defend in other areas.

1. What Is Sexual Assault and What Acts Does It Include?

Sexual assault is not limited to rape. In general terms, any sexual act committed against a person’s will, without their consent, or through coercion can be considered sexual assault. This includes non-consensual touching, forced exhibitionism, sexualized verbal harassment, and, in some cases, acts that involve public humiliation of a sexual nature, such as forcibly stripping someone against their will.

From a legal standpoint, different jurisdictions have established that sexual violence does not require penetration to be considered an offense. For example, the Spanish Penal Code, following its 2022 reform, specifies that any act that violates a person’s sexual freedom without their consent is considered sexual assault. In other countries, similar legislation reinforces the idea that rape is only one form of sexual assault but not the only one.

2. The Importance of Consent

One of the key elements in determining whether an act constitutes sexual assault is consent. Consent must be explicit, informed, and voluntary. It is not merely the absence of a "no" but the presence of a "yes" that is free from coercion. In cases such as forced public stripping, the lack of consent is evident, and the humiliation imposed on the victim has an undeniable sexual component, making it an act of sexual violence.

Moreover, the perpetrator’s intent is not the determining factor in classifying an act as sexual assault. That is, the aggressor does not need to have a sexual intent; what matters is the impact on the victim and the nature of the act itself. This is a fundamental distinction in criminal law and forensic psychology.

3. The Psychological Impact of Sexual Violence

Sexual assaults have devastating consequences for victims. Various studies have shown that people who suffer this type of violence may experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, shame, and loss of self-esteem. In cases such as forced stripping, there is an added element of public humiliation that can generate an extreme sense of vulnerability and helplessness, with lasting psychological effects.

When it is denied that these acts constitute sexual assault, victims’ suffering is minimized, and their experiences are delegitimized. This is particularly serious when denial comes from individuals who identify as human rights advocates, as it perpetuates the very structural violence they claim to seek to eradicate.

4. The Minimization of Sexual Violence and Its Implications

Denying that certain actions constitute sexual violence has multiple negative consequences:

It minimizes victims’ suffering: By denying that something is sexual violence, victims are told that their pain is not legitimate or that their experience is not valid.

It discredits years of feminist and legislative struggle: For decades, feminist and human rights movements have worked to ensure recognition of the multiple forms of sexual assault. Denying these assaults is a step backward in these advancements.

It reinforces a culture of impunity: When sexual assault is justified or minimized, it contributes to a culture in which these acts are neither socially nor legally sanctioned.

It implies victim-blaming: Denying that something is sexual violence can lead to blaming the victim for their emotions or for "exaggerating" their suffering, which is a form of revictimization.

5. The Hypocrisy of Justifying Assaults Based on Ideology

A serious issue arises when certain sectors justify sexual violence against specific individuals based on their ideology or social position. It is deeply ironic and hypocritical that those who accuse a person of being a "Nazi" or "racist" without solid evidence then deny that this person can be a victim of sexual violence. This attitude is not only morally reprehensible but also aligns dangerously with historical strategies used by totalitarian regimes, where sexual humiliation was employed as a method of torture and punishment.

Denying sexual violence against someone because of their ideology is, in essence, justifying it. This is not only a form of dehumanization but also contradicts the principles of universal human rights. Legal protections must apply to all individuals, regardless of their ideology, past, or character. Justifying violence based on the victim’s ideology leads to a dangerously fascist stance, the very thing that many claim to oppose.

6. Conclusion about this:

Sexual violence is a structural problem that goes beyond fandom wars or ideological debates. It has real psychological damage, serious legal consequences, and a profound social impact. Denying or minimizing it is not only irresponsible but perpetuates a culture in which victims are silenced and perpetrators remain unpunished.

Those who consider themselves progressive and human rights advocates have a moral responsibility to be consistent in their discourse. One cannot condemn one form of violence while justifying another depending on who the victim is. Sexual violence is sexual violence, regardless of whom it is committed against, and denying it is a betrayal of the fundamental principles of justice and human dignity.