mankytoes

+

King Bran I can sort of get along with. It's odd, but there are historical moments where you really don't know who should lead you, and the guy with magic powers isn't the worth choice. 

Some great cinematography as always. Tyrion among the rubble, Dany up high in front of the unsullied, the throne being burnt, all very nice.

Ser Brienne Tarth, Lord Commander of the Kingsguard. That plot has actually progressed very nicely, well deserved.

Jon's story turned full circle nicely (if you don't pay too much attention to his "there's still a Nights Watch" being a very relevant question).

-

Come on, people like Yara and the Dornish were never just going to accept that outcome. Wasn't Yara promised to be backed as Queen of the Iron Islands if she backed Dany? I thought the whole thing would break up back to individual kingdoms. Maybe with Bran as some kind of mystical Holy Roman Emperor type figure threatening to use his powers on anyone who breaks the peace.

The dothraki just left? Hmm, well that's convenient. Very similar to GRRM's famous criticism of the end of LotR, where Aragorn doesn't have to deal with orcs and that, he just "rules wisely" and we just assume the problems sorted themselves out. 

Sooo much fanservice for Bronn. A good death scene would have been a much better ending for his character. 

I don't give Tyrion's plans for future democracy and chosen leaders much chance. It's been tried, didn't work. 

I'll give it a seven, from where they were it wasn't bad, nicely shot, partly logical.

I liked them killing the dragon like that, first thing this series that has really made me go "oh, shit!", after last week was only unpredictable in how predictable it was. Although they should have killed Drogon instead, because that would have made for more conflict between Dany and Jon, with Rhaegal being her child but the dragon he rode. I guess indestructible Jon choosing not to ride it should have been a good hint. Though I didn't understand why Tyrion jumped in the water. 

Jaime/Brienne was alright, so clearly fan servicing though. I'm pretty sure he's going to try and kill Cersei, not get back with her. But then we're going to get more fan service with Sandor/Gregor... I guess it's just really jarring because it's pretty much the opposite to how GRRM writes.  

Ghost being left was horrible, but then they've already ruined his character, him suddenly being with Jon all the time would have been just as weird. 

Tormund was great as always, good on him for surviving I guess. 

Like Maisie Williams, I'm still not totally convinced by Sophie Turner. I liked her talking with The Hound, but when she is trying to act tough with Dany in the meeting, it looks laughable to me. 

Dany/Jon rivalry is a decent way to go from the point they were at. Though I don't really think much of Varys anymore, despite Conleth Hill's incredible performance. Tyrion is right, this whole "serve the realm" stuff is very abstract and doesn't really explain all his plotting.

Cersei totally should have killed Tyrion there. Why not? Apparantly she really wants him dead. They ruin a lot of the villain credentials they build up on her by making her repeatedly back down. Last series she threatened to kill Tyrion, then didn't. Then she threatened to kill Jaime, then didn't. Now she threatened Tyrion again... he was right there! Fucking kill him! Game changer! Only two episodes left! 

Instead she kills Missandri, which was well shot, but why kill someone she has no connection to instead of someone she's apparently desperate to kill? I really thought the main character's plot armour would be off by now. 

See I gave an eight but that's a lot of negatives. I try and enjoy the show for what it is and basically turn off my brain. 

5 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I don't know if anyone will find the information contained in the link, below is as problematic as I do, but if anyone doesn't think it is problematic, I'd really like to know why.  There are two quotes that are particularly troubling, because they can be used to lay blame at the feet of certain people, based on how they identify and live.  Because if someone is non-binary, or cannot pass, this article hints that those who are binary and pass, are part of the problem

" However, it was gender-conforming transgender individuals (i.e., feminine transgender women, or masculine transgender men) who were viewed as being the most threatening towards gender boundaries. As Broussard put it, “it is likely that conforming transgender individuals (because they can ‘pass’ as their authentic gender) are especially threatening because they provide some evidence that there are more than two binary genders, or that [one’s] binary gender can be changed.” "

" In other words, if you strongly believe that there are only two sexes and that those two sexes always create two genders, and that it is not possible for someone to change from being one gender to another, being presented with a masculine trans man (someone who was identified female at birth) who visually and behaviorally is indistinguishable from a cisgender man, may be a very jarring experience that challenges binary beliefs about gender. Furthermore, gender conforming trans individuals may elicit distinctiveness threat because if you yourself are a man and hinge a great deal of your identity on being a man, what does this piece of your identity really mean if someone born female can ‘pass’ as being just “as much of a man” as you? Thus, the more an individual strongly believes in the gender binary, the more threatening transgender individuals (especially those who ‘pass’) are to that individual’s own personal identity as either a man or a woman.  "

 

What Precisely Do Transgender People Threaten?

Huh, I thought that was a really good article, because it is a question I've thought about quite a few times. Not why certain people don't accept aspects of modern gender norms, gender is a difficult subject. But why people care so much. People get so worked up about how trans women aren't women, often without giving any reason why they care, how it negatively affects them in any way. Ever since we can remember, we've been taught there are girls and boys. Girls have this room, boys have this room. Girls do this, boys do this. It's a key foundation for the worldview of many people. 

The thing I would always emphasise is, whatever your view of gender, saying "there are only two sexes and that's that" is pretty much akin to being a flat earth, scientifically speaking. Intersex people have always existed and this is very well documented. 

1 hour ago, A wilding said:

However, you tangentially mentioned Brexit. What is going to happen after Brexit is in practice still totally up in the air. Any promises of EU citizens being able to live here should, in my opinion, not be counted on. It is also quite possible that England may end up not being a very good place to live full stop. If at all possible I would suggest holding off for a year or so until the situation becomes clearer.

Please don't try to use Brexit to put off immigrants. The best chance for getting residency is to get EU residency as soon as possible. England will remain a good place to live. And don't forget, this is an LGBT thread, and there are basic rights to marry, adopt and be protected for hate crime for LGBT people in the UK that much of the EU do not grant. 

22 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Most people really don’t care about others personal business lol British are still quite reserved 

Yeah, I would say in my area (south east) there are quite a few homophobic people, but most aren't going to say or do anything public. I don't want to be dismissive of that, obviously it's still bad they have these attitudes and I can see why someone wouldn't feel comfortable around people who hold prejudice against them, but if it's facing outward displays of hatred that is the primary concern, I think England is as good as anywhere.

15 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

The plan for my wife and I, to move to Ireland, next year, had been going along, quite well.  Then , she read an article about a UK law granting  EU citizens and their spouses, permanent resident status, provided they are  living there by a certain date.  She's previously visited the UK and is fond of the Glastonbury area.

Anyone know anything about this, and whether the UK is a smart choice for LGBT people?  I mean, besides my seeing red, any time a plan that has been in place for a while, is changed,  My impression of UK politicians is that they are competing to be as bad as the US.

I mean, as much as I'm not thrilled by this idea, she is 11 years younger that I am, and I have to consider where she'd prefer to live, since she's likely to be their longer than I.

From our side of the pond, I can't see that. I can't see an equivalent to Mike Pence up there in a senior political position, and I don't think that could happen. To me, the important difference between Conservatives and Republicans is that Conservatives are much more amoral, Republicans more immoral. Like David Cameron, our last Prime Minister, he supported homophobic legislation when he was younger. But the public tide turned, and so did he, becoming a big support of gay marriage, which he got passed. I think this is pretty typical. He doesn't care about gay rights, but he isn't particularly against them, he just wants power to remain with him and his friends. Whereas Pence, as far as I understand, is not some opportunist, but someone with a very genuine, hateful religious belief, that gay people are deviant and immoral. I do think the crucial difference is that we've overwhelmingly rejected religion in this country. 

The Glastonbury area is beautiful, tolerant and diverse (in terms of people's lifestyles and beliefs. Not ethnically, the whole south west is hella white). 

On 3/27/2018 at 10:40 PM, brook said:

<3 I love you

Jumping late but had to laugh at the "guys have dicks" as if that was a selling point and not at best an interesting (& not universal!) detail & at worst an inconvenience. This particular bisexual view is that (on average, not all men etc) men are worse at sex, relationships, and being interesting human beings than women but they do come with the advantage of being much harder to fall in love with.

Well it wasn't my view, I always thought our best qualities were opening jars, reaching things and lending jumpers. 

Wow, maybe best all round if you stick to girls...

8 hours ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

You have a way of asking things that comes across as lecturing marginalized communities about what they should or should not actually feel or experience. That might not be your intent, but that's how it comes across. 

To answer -- I've had successful relationships with men, women, and NB/GQ individuals, and each come with their own challenges, both as individuals and in the pressures that society foists upon the relationship. As such, I don't think I could ever claim that one group was better than another. I do know that my current relationship is on year 14, with a cisgender man. In some ways we have it easy -- I haven't transitioned, so we look like your typical het couple. But we're not. And that sometimes brings its own stressors. 

It's difficult to appreciate how heavy a burden social opprobrium plays in relationships until one steps out of the "acceptable" areas, and that affects how stable a non-traditional relationship is. At the same time, social conditioning of men frequently makes dating them a challenge. (I got lucky in that Mr. X is awesome.) For some, the rewards outweigh trouble. For others...not so much. 

Yeah, if it makes any difference I tend to annoy non-marginalized communities as well. 

Well, that's a very thoughtful answer, thank you. 

I think it can be a bit confusing for guys. Is marriage like losing your freedom, or is perennial singledom pathetic? 

If I've learned nothing else here, it's that all girls who like them deserve a bag of dicks.

35 minutes ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

You were at uni. Every relationship there is a shitshow. 

True, it's more the level of drama than quality of relationships, I mean they seemed to all be enjoying themselves. It wasn't lost on any of us that, in our halls, the gay girl was getting more girls back to her room than the rest of us. But I'm more asking than explaining, because bisexual people do have a unique insight on this issue.

If you're looking for less anecdotal evidence of lesbian relationship volatility- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lesbian-couples-more-likely-divorced-male-same-sex-marriages-uk-ons-figures-a8006741.html

1 hour ago, Lily Valley said:

Lol, last time I counted I had 14.  It's been a while since I had to find my patience to do this awkward preliminary fragile man feelings mating dance.  It's exhausting.  

I am genuinely impressed.

Are girls really that much better though? When I was around a lesbian group it was the most ridiculous soap opera of cheating, breaking up, love triangles, etc, I'd ever seen. I mean that was uni, so I'm not saying that's a fair judge of these relationships in general, but nothing I've seen makes me think it's a peaceful option. I guess maybe the female bullshit is different to the male bullshit, and at least you can understand the female bullshit better?

50 minutes ago, Lily Valley said:

I am living with someone else, so the whole I love you and want your babies thing is definitely not right.  We also both have grown children.  I think that some dudes play cool to promote insecurity or because of their own insecurity.  Really don't know what's going on in his case.  I'm pretty up front, so I intend to just ask this weekend.  I don't do exclusivity.  Maybe he does?  Dunno.

*AND*

Tell your friend I have a whole bag of dicks. 

Ok, I was assuming you were a lot younger to be honest. I only know about insecure men in their teens/early twenties... I mean the insecurity thing could well be a part of it, is that really a dude thing, though? If you've been up front about not being exclusive, maybe it's the exact opposite to what I said, he wants something exclusive and he doesn't want to get too attached because you don't.

I'm just trying to think how many a bagful is... and I'm not trying to be all "battle of the sexes", but if I tell people I have a whole bag of vaginas, it's seen as creepy

1 hour ago, Lily Valley said:

I don't know?  Had a week of totally fun amazing, er, exercise and then he got weird.  Snappish.  I took off, because life is too short to hang out with someone who cant speak to other people respectfully.  Chalked it up to a bad day,  but since then he has been lukewarm on making plans.  I ran into him at my "office" (the local tavern) and the chemistry was still DEFINITELY there, but he was on a date so I split.  Texted him the following morning about making plans and he was all, "call me Friday and I'll see what I'm up to."  All together is smells like some bullshit dude emotional mind game nonsense.  I forgot how cagey dudes behave early on and when things are going well.  That whole "act cool so she doesn't think I like her that much"  Or maybe he doesn't like me that much. 

I find the latter hard to believe.   He has a pretty reliable "thermostat" that I read with the all detail that a trained scientist can bring to a new field of research. 

Anyway, I'll be seeing him this weekend since he's in my Mardi Gras Krewe and we're planning our Easter party.  :shrugs:  It's just been a looooooooooong time since I had to deal with the EPIC nonsense that most men bring to the table with their poor emotional awareness and general immaturity.  He's my age, btw.  Just reconfirming that I'm pretty gay these days by CHOICE and very grateful that it's an option for me.

To my beautiful bi pals up on this board:     ******GO TEAM BISEXUALS!  TWICE THE OPTIONS AND TWICE THE FUN.  GO AHEAD CALL ME "GREEDYAND I WILL CACKLE ALL THE WAY TO MY GRAVE WITH A DATE ON FRIDAY NIGHT!********

All the love from New Orleans.  If I haven't mentioned it recently, thank you all.  Especially @brook @Xray the Enforcer @Theda Baratheon for helping me find the guts to come out.  Better late than never.  <3

As an emotionally unaware immature dude, I would say the most likely explanations are that he's trying to keep a bit of distance because he's worried about you going all "I love you and want your babies" and/or he wants to avoid/put off exclusivity because, y'know, no matter how good that chocolate ice cream is, doesn't mean you don't want some strawberry.

Your comment about having amazing exercise (can we just say sex?) but him being a bit annoying otherwise reminded me of something a bi female friend told me that I found hilarious, when I asked her whether she generally preferred men or women- "well girls are so sweet, they do all these little things that make you feel so loved... but guys have dicks...."- dunno if this is a popular line of thinking? 

15 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I think it is simpler than that.  When people see that those in power are attacking a group, they worry what will happen if those in power see them as supporting that group.  It's a reaction based on fear of what may happen to themselves.

Sounds very plausable, like a natural survival tactic. A bit like little kids no longer wanting to be friends with the one who wet himself in class. I'd think that thought of thing was mainly subconscious?

13 hours ago, KiDisaster said:

Piece of human garbage Steven Anderson (the piece of literal trash who said that there were '50 less pedophiles in the world' after the Pulse shooting) was planning to go to Jamaica to seep his vile trash juice at the UWI campus in Kingston. 

A petition was started a while back to get the government to disallow it, and today he was officially banned from entering the country at all. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/29/jamaica-bans-anti-gay-arizona-pastor-from-visiting-country

Small steps forward I guess. Still have those awful laws on the books though :\ 

 

That sounds really positive, considering how homophobic my impression of Jamaica is.

20 hours ago, Yukle said:

If you were born a gay man or woman in 50BCE within the city of Rome, nobody would have cared. Emperor Hadrian was openly gay, for instance. 1,000 years later and it was cause for disinheritance - at best.

It says a lot about how people like me, who don't fall into the category of LGBTQIA+ must work so hard at supporting fellow humans' need for the recognition of their rights. There really isn't an excuse for the institutionalised discrimination that exists and it's disheartening to see a drop in those classified "allies" in the document.

It's an interesting topic, because the normal Roman view of homosexuality would still be considered highly offensive today, they thought recieving was absolutely shameful, in fact I'm sure I read it was a crime for a patrician to take the submissive role to a plebian. It's certainly a mistake when people assume every society before 1960 ever was Victorian style homophobic, but at the same time I'm not aware of any that view homosexuality as modern, liberal society does.

It's a pretty generous definition of "ally". None of those things make me uncomfortable, but I don't call myself a gay ally, anymore than I'm a black ally, a Muslim ally, etc, just an egalitarian. Don't you actually have to,y'know, do something to be an ally?

16 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

The problem I see is in the section entitled "A Shift From Allies to Detached Supporters."  I'd really like to see an ind depth analysis of why that drift is occurring.  Whether its a case of people protecting themselves in an increasingly problematic political climate, or the specifics of what is making people uneasy.

And yes, there is always a pendulum effect to progress in the social arena, but with the mobilization of reactionary forces, this is starting to look like one step forward and two steps back.

Even in a private survey, could it partly be that people just feel emboldened, even subconsciously, by seeing powerful figures openly voicing bigoted views? I thinks socialisation is a strong enough force that it could effect whether someone would tick a box saying they felt uncomfortable around gay people, if they felt that was taboo.

On 26/01/2018 at 7:43 PM, Robin Of House Hill said:

Why am I always the one to point out how the current reality is worse than the old one?  But, I'll be honest.  These statistics aren't as bad as I thought they would be.    https://www.glaad.org/files/aa/Accelerating Acceptance 2018.pdf  But category 2 is worrisome.

I thought the acceptance of gay marriage one was pretty depressing, I'd have thought legalisation would have made it go the other way. Regular conservative people tend be relatively quick to give way on these kinds of things. Like in the U.K, first we had Civil Partnerships, and conservatives opposed them. A few years later and those same people are saying "we don't need gay marriage, I support gay equality, but we have that through civil partnerships!". Maybe it will take a few years.

4 hours ago, Damitol said:

 I gave it a 10 after giving last week a five. Very good episode with so many good moments. Yes, there wasn't much in the way of  surprises, but when you have a  Big community debating various possible outcomes, chances are someone is going to nail it.  I'm just glad they finally settled the nonsense at Winterfell (very satisfactorily) and we got to see the dead marching south as the season's final scene . It's going to be a very long 10 months or so. 

There's some truth to that, but with regards to the ending scene, I feel like it was the show that made it unsurprising. They kept all saying "the dead will invade the north, then the south if we don't stop them", no one was saying "we have to stop them at the wall, we have to protect the wall, the wall has stood for thousands of years, if the wall falls humanity is doomed".

It seemed like they all assumed the wall would fall/be bypassed.

It had its' moments, but I can't say anything really excited me like some of the other episodes.

We have descended from rape of Sansa, to rape of a young girl by a Kingsguard. Epi 9 hit an all time low.

In Victorian London, not even medieval times but just a few generations back, that sort of thing was common. In 1885, a report was published about thirteen year old child prostitutes. This was legal (the government responded by raising the age of consent to sixteen). Why should a tv show not depict something that would realistically happen in that environment? There are plenty of shows for people who, quite reasonably, don't want to see the horrors of reality. This has never been one.

I agree it was a low point though, for a very different reason. Stannis burning his daughter, his only God damn heir. No no no. I like Stannis. Well not show Stannis, now.