Ghost

My Button Collection

mrs-ostrich:

Okay but imagine person A of your otp picking up sleepy person B and carrying them to bed and person B just snuggles their face into person A’s shoulder you know on second thought don’t imagine that

forceguardian:

lpfan9976:

croatoanhero:

Harley is a gift from God.

This is why Harley is like my all time favorite!

Why did they leave out the best part of this scene?;

image

image

image

image

The character development of Harley is probably one of the better things DC has done with their characters.

(Source: breakourbones)

eatingmoonflowers:

gbbo-blog:

suck-mypokeballs:

Yeah but imagine a Great British Bake Off AU 

fanfiction is very welcome

I’m going to have to write this I’m sorry it’s too good

For reals? Because that would be rad.

I think I’m gonna do it but literally only you and me will understand it cuz I don’t think the overseas Thommy fans know about Great British Bake-Off

sapiosexualitea:

30king:

bobwasnothere:

The urge to drink is high tonight.

This is the most important thing I’ve read all week

Favorite post in all the land

(Source: rodrigoseaburre)

Life On Mars?

David Bowie

it’s a godawful small affair to the girl with the mousey hair

(Source: melloncolliesinfinitemixtape)

a-rabbit-hearted-girl:

Downton Abbey ‏@DowntonAbbey

2 days to #DowntonDay! #CountDownton #Downton 

 
A gay man in the early 20th century being closeted and in a relationship with a woman, how odd. That has never happened before in our history. Burn the producers for a realistic historically accurate storyline for an early 20th century working class gay man. Anonymous

flippyspoon:

msjosephinemarch:

tragic-cranky-porcelain-doll:

msjosephinemarch:

alittlewhos-this:

causeimdifferent:

tragic-cranky-porcelain-doll:

flippyspoon:

celebrategaylove:

Umm.. NO. It would have been realistic if it had happened in the first couple of seasons. Not after FIVE fucking seasons of NEVER giving Thomas, the ONLY gay character a love interest. He has ALWAYS been out, proud and comfortable about his sexuality. NOW, 10-15 years later he’s all of a sudden going to question it?! LMAO. It’s fucking ridiculous, offensive and insulting. It makes no sense and it’s a total retcon. Another way for the producers to get away with not giving Thomas a proper love interest.

Heh this is the first argument about this where I disagree with both sides.

I honestly don’t even understand the problem. :D It’s offensive that Thomas wants to change something (and can’t change it as Rob already said) that, due to the way society treats him, has brought him nothing but heartbreak and loneliness so far? It’s not ridiculous at all to have a crisis initiated by a traumatic experience related to his sexual orientation, especially considering that the characters is absolutely starved for love and desperately lonely. Can we please not expect a servant in a life of dependence to be the first Edwardian gay pride leader and feel personally insulted when a character has to deal with issues that the majority of gay men would have had to deal with back then?

And Thomas as not been out and proud until season 3 and even then he was outed involuntarily.

And come on, it’s not like he will end up married. The furthest I can see Thomas go is to maybe try and get to know a woman. He’ll realise soon enough he can’t force himself to be attracted to her.

This.

Can we please not expect a servant in a life of dependence to be the first Edwardian gay pride leader …?

heeeh-heeeh *clapping in awe*

Well, one of the well-known Edwardian (and, indeed, Victorian) gay activists was an uneducated Yorkshireman who lived on a farm with his partner for decades, so why not?

I’m with Charlie on this one. The idea that proud queer people didn’t exist, and definitely wouldn’t among the working class, is a weak defense for this plot. Also, people were not often “out” in the way we think of it now at that time (though there were some who were and that is awesome!) but whether Thomas was “out” in the modern sense or not — Thomas was a character who never showed shame regarding his sexuality. Not since Season 1, Episode 1. Hell, him being so unabashedly queer is what got me watching the show. I honestly thought “oh look! a queer man in a period drama who’s angst isn’t focused on his sexuality! how refreshing!” and I latched on. Then Season 3 happened and I thought, “okay well there was the one plot that will focus around it and it was handled pretty well overall so I’m satisfied with this… moving on!” and now… this.

It is lazy story telling. It is offensively lazy storytelling.

I am interested to see how Fellowes pulls this off, though, because I just cannot imagine this for Thomas at all.

No one said that absolutely no proud gay people back then existed. But dependence is the point. Those guys living on a farm were their own masters. Thomas isn’t his own master. He isn’t even master of his on little room. It’s not an excuse, it’s realistic. If Thomas, say, owned a little shop or club in London, now that would be a different story. But Thomas is a servant, extremely dependet and lives in an environment that is decades behind other countries or individual cities like Paris or Berlin back then.

I don’t see it as lazy storytelling when a character actually goes through changes. There is no such law that a character can only become more modern or move forward in a sense. How is it not a developement that Thomas realises that society isn’t going to accept him? If he’s the way he is because of the way society treats him then he has obviously always experienced discrimination or the stress of having to hide his sexual orientation. He used to be stubborn and proud enough to at least try and pursue love and happiness. But how is it lazy storytelling when he finally realises that path will end with him possibly dying alone?

And who came up with the idea that Thomas is going to show shame regarding his sexuality? Shame was not once mentioned by Rob. He can be perfectly fine with being gay on a moral basis and still want to change it because he has come to believe he will never find happiness and love as a gay man.

I’d see it as lazy storytelling of they gave Thomas an uncomplicated love story. Because the way he lives that is pretty much impossible. He would risk prison with every encounter in his room. Hell, if his man is from outside, he wouldn’t even get him into his room. And he has a couple of hours off work per month. Not to mention how difficult it would be to actually find a guy.

Why do some people so desperately want to see Thomas be something he can’t be as a servant and why shouldn’t he finally understand that there are extreme restrictions to the way he can lead his life after getting  burned several times? Would we rather see Thomas as learning-resistent and not changing in over 10 years? When I think, awww, it would be nice if Thomas could be open about it and just bring his bf to his room, all I need to do is to remind myself that Thomas would risk prison, hard labor and a destroyed life by making just once mistake. He learned that the hard way in season 3 and wouldn’t it be ridiculous of that hadn’t left scars and had not been a (scary and negative) learning experience?

Yes, because Downton THRIVES on historical accuracy, first of all. I feel the need to point out the many times Fellowes has chosen to make Edwardian lifestyle more flexible for his choosing.

Also, servants hardly ever  married and he’s not exactly at risk of being carted off to jail at the moment. Season 3 was swept under the rug (oh hey look! another possible historical inaccuracy! how convenient!) and everyone is just going on with no threat to Thomas’s security. He doesn’t need to marry. He doesn’t need to worry about going to jail (unless he were to get a love interest and be caught doing the do with them, possibly). All of the motivations you’re talking about don’t make sense.

I don’t get how people are separating shame of one’s sexuality and wanting to change it. If you want to change something about yourself it’s pretty much always because you’re unhappy/ashamed of it. I really don’t get the separation there. If Thomas goes through the extremes of trying to change his sexuality then I am going to easily assume that something has suddenly made him ashamed of it.

Perhaps it isn’t out of character. It is a far cry from the character that made me fall in love with this silly little period drama. It hurts. I am allowed to be upset. And no, “historical accuracy” is not an excuse I will bye.

I’m tapping out of this conversation now.

I disagree about the shame thing. I don’t know how it’s going to be written but logically speaking I could see a weird cold kind of pragmatic thought process of: Well, I certainly don’t believe there’s anything wrong with me banging dudes but it never works out and it’s illegal and I hate being alone etc. I wonder if I can just switch around? 

I mean it’s weird and I’ve never seen it written that way before-but I’d be fascinated if it was. But I think that’s different than ‘I’m defective and wrong and I need to be fixed.’ I’ve also never seen this story for a character that’s already been so confident in his sexuality and JF has always written Thomas so well in my book so I’m hella curious how it will go.

blackcountrystylefaggot:

freshmountains:

"i wish i had a british accent"

ah yes, the british accentimage

the singular british accent

Erm you missed out the black country accent…

(Source: clepse)

Showbiz reporter Dan Wootton gets an exclusive look behind the scenes at Downton Abbey as the highly acclaimed drama returns for its fifth series. (x)

for chelsie-carson

(Source: itssoinevitable)

Put To Rights

eatingmoonflowers:

Apparently my way of dealing with the distress of the build up to s5 is to make Jimmy cry. From Daisy’s PoV because I can. There’s a lot of Daisy thinking about shit, but it is Thommy, I promise. I started this ages ago for one of the playing card prompts - I think the things were hurt/comfort, rain, Daisy and the kitchen. Making Jimmy cry is the berries.    

Read More

Perfect - crying!Jimmy is my favourite. Just what I needed to read on a rainy evening, thank you! <3

knowhomo:

I only met one other homosexual in the army. That was in Le Havre in 1917. We was on the boat coming home. I don’t know how these things work, whether it’s through conversation, or whether it’s the attitude of the individual concerned, but we seemed to come together, see. All of a sudden his arm was round my neck and this, that and the other, and then, of course, one thing led to another. And that was Phil, my affair that I had for seven years. When I come out of the army we stuck together. I was living at the time in Ilford. I rejoined the army in 1920, then I went out to Germany. I was living with Phil at the time and I saw him when I came home on leave and we kept a flat together. I was in the army because the army was my life at that period. He was somebody just like a wife to come home to…
… I don’t think our friends or family knew, yet they had a very good suspicion. Phil and I often talked about it, only he said, well, he says, as long as we love each other, what’s it to do with other people? And that was the true situation.
Text: First person account as told by Gerald, born 1892, Norfolk, England.  Excerpted from Between the Acts: Lives of Homosexual Men 1885-1967, Jeffrey Weeks and Kevin Porter (eds)

knowhomo:

I only met one other homosexual in the army. That was in Le Havre in 1917. We was on the boat coming home. I don’t know how these things work, whether it’s through conversation, or whether it’s the attitude of the individual concerned, but we seemed to come together, see. All of a sudden his arm was round my neck and this, that and the other, and then, of course, one thing led to another. And that was Phil, my affair that I had for seven years. When I come out of the army we stuck together. I was living at the time in Ilford. I rejoined the army in 1920, then I went out to Germany. I was living with Phil at the time and I saw him when I came home on leave and we kept a flat together. I was in the army because the army was my life at that period. He was somebody just like a wife to come home to…

… I don’t think our friends or family knew, yet they had a very good suspicion. Phil and I often talked about it, only he said, well, he says, as long as we love each other, what’s it to do with other people? And that was the true situation.

Text: First person account as told by Gerald, born 1892, Norfolk, England.  Excerpted from Between the Acts: Lives of Homosexual Men 1885-1967, Jeffrey Weeks and Kevin Porter (eds)

qrei:

whenever my favorite character isnt in a group photoset i get personally offended

(Source: transtoudou)

alittlewhos-this:

I feel like Ed and Allen ought to take to dressing Rob.

Frankly I think Rob should be offended that Allen and Ed went to a thing without him… ;)

Button Theme