but which came to mind after reading this post - the post is responding to & arguing against the assertion that in titanic, it is grody that all of the neat things rose does in the movie happen because she meets jack and he tells her what to do. the post has a number of counterexamples/reasons some of these situations aren’t that cut-and-dry (…erm, drowning pun not intended), and i think i agree with it, though i haven’t seen titanic in like ten years, so take that with a grain of salt.
but, another thing which is sort of touched on in the post and came to my mind while reading it is - sometimes, actually, falling in love does change/sort-of-save your life. including sometimes, when a lady falls in love with a dude (and obviously the other way), the dude changes her life/makes her see things super differently/helps her, in a huge fucking way, heal something about her past/acknowledge something about herself/whatever. i mean, i feel a little weird using this as an example, but harriet jacobs of fugitivus has publicly written that the catalyst for her deciding to leave her seriously abusive relationship was falling in love with another man. i can think of some ladies i know IRL - especially, generally, people with prior experience in abusive relationships, or survivors of some other kind of abuse - for whom falling in love with a good dude changed their life, or changed them, or made them realize they weren’t worthless, or showed them what love actually is. i mean, none of those things apply to me and i’ve been in love only once, as a teenager, and i still think i’m a different and possibly better person because of it. love can change the way you relate to the world.
and i feel like there have been times, though i can’t think of the off the top of my head, when i’ve seen someone roll their eyes that a dude heals a lady in some work of fiction, and i’ve been like… but sometimes that happens, and maybe it’s a story told too often, but it is sometimes a true story (see also: sometimes having children does actually completely fucking change your life/who you are as a person). and for me, the key to doing this well is the same as the key to avoiding a LOT of stereotypes, especially gender stereotypes, which is just to write well and write carefully and ultimately write characters that are real people. i’ve maybe said before that i think VERY OFTEN stereotypes in fiction come around as a result of people being shallow/lazy/not-very-good writers who happen to exist in a sexist culture. this is why to me, sexism in a work pretty much always (though, with some exceptions for older works because, what can you do) does hinder the quality of a book, because writing characters that aren’t real people is bad writing. and maybe it’s a chicken-egg situation. but i do feel like, if someone is really good at writing characters, very often they will avoid or mostly avoid stereotypes, or draw stereotypes that don’t feel like stereotypes because they are also whole people - because real people AREN’T stereotypes, and if you write real people your writing will convey that (really good example of this, though i’ve gotten into arguments about this before: f. scott fitzgerald, my god how i love the way he writes women - if you are like “but daisy buchanan” i will be like “but jordan in that book, also the entirety of tender is the night, especially nicole”). this is not always true (see: the way f. scott fitzgerald writes jews, jesus christ). but the two are often related.
i mean the reason i hate garden state isn’t because natalie portman changes zach braff’s life so much as the fact that natalie portman is just not a person in that movie, she’s this weird assemblage of quirks masquerading as a person (also, other reasons). if she had had an actual believable personality, with actual flaws that were addressed instead of being brushed off as cutesy (like, why does he just ignore the fact that she is a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR?), or with some kind of inner conflict herself, or WHATEVER, i would have been way more okay with it. (this is also why i was more okay with the mila kunis character in forgetting sarah marshall, because she had a real backstory, and also that kind of awesome scene where she freaks the fuck out at her asshole ex, and because other things happen to the dude, not just her magical love, to help him figure shit out, like that paul rudd surfing subplotish thing, and because their encounter has an impact on both of them. but, we’ve discussed my intense weakness for judd apatow movies before, so i don’t really expect any agreement on this).
i don’t really know what my point is here, except that i don’t think it’s inherently sexist to have a dude’s love completely change a lady’s life, because sometimes that happens. which maybe everyone knew already? but i never see talked about, so i felt like talking about it.
Again, something I can go on about, but will not add to this because it’s good writing and already long enough. :)
and i am just slow on the uptake, which: often true! but: it recently dawned on me that the whole snape/lily thing in the last harry potter book is… actually total bullshit! snape is basically just a Nice Guy (tm)! and i admit - i was completely taken in by it at the time! i was like, this chapter is so beautiful, this reveal is so wonderfully done, brb crying! but then i thought about it recently and i was like… wait no! this is the opposite of beautiful! this is an example of a trope I FUCKING HATE! goddamn you j. k. rowling and your seductive magical world that makes it so easy to get swept up in its storytelling current and ignore things that are problematic both in terms of the ideology of this world (especially in terms of gender oh my god) and also in terms of the actual fantasy of it (CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY WIZARDS DON’T NEED TO LEARN MATH? why do they still wear fucking robes like they don’t know what pants exist even though they have been dealing with muggleborn wizards AND wizard/muggle couples for a very long time? why is it that hogwarts students can learn to turn a MOUSE into a TEAPOT and yet no one can fix up ron’s old dress robes? like, seriously? you can waterproof glasses but there’s no spell to fix broken clothes or change their color or anything?)!
but so, on reflection - first of all, being “in love” with someone who hasn’t spoken to you in five years and never loved you back and is MARRIED with a CHILD is not sweet, or romantic, it’s fucking pathetic, like, yes it is shitty, spend some time writing bad poetry and listening to wizard emo music and then be a fucking adult and move the fuck on. i know apparently wizards can only fall in love once, but GODDAMN, SNAPE.
more importantly, snape was never actually in love with lily at all! he was obsessed with her! there is a big difference there! people who are in love with other people want them to be happy! you do not support the murder of the husband and child of someone you are actually in love with, just because they will live! maybe i am too harsh, but to me, my definition of love fucking excludes “being a-ok with robbing the person of the most important people in their lives!” also, saying you are in love with a muggleborn and then becoming a FUCKING DEATH EATER is basically the wizarding equivalent of saying you are in love with a black person and then joining the KKK! that is not a thing you do, join an organization dedicated to eliminating people like the person you are in love with, if you are actually in love!
snape is kind of the more intense version of the dude who told me he had a major crush on me, but never in any conversation i have had with him has even once asked me a question about my life or how i’m doing - uh, that does not mean you have feelings for me! that means you think i’m hot and think i would be a good girlfriend because i am entertaining and don’t judge you! if you had actual feelings for me, you would want to know shit about me and care about if i’m happy or not! which you CLEARLY DO NOT! so shut up, and don’t be a passive-aggressive little baby when i hook up with someone else!
and the thing is, dumbledore kind of calls snape on this? but then the book makes it seem like it’s okay, because he switches sides because the person he was possessively obsessed with and not actually concerned with the happiness of dies. wrong! that is not redeeming! redeeming would be if he did that because he actually realized, oh shit, voldemort is fucking evil, i should cut this shit out! maybe even if he did it because he was like, wait voldemort wants to kill people like this person i claim to be in love with because i have no idea what that word means! but he switched sides for completely selfish reasons! that’s not redemption, that’s snape’s completely inappropriate and unhealthy obsession turning to convenient ends!
and the book just lets him die as this tragic romantic hero, which, again, i totally bought, but DUDE. THIS IS NOT ROMANCE. IT IS SELFISH, SELFISH OBSESSION. like maybe if you actually give a shit about lily, try NOT BEING AN ASSHOLE TO HER SON because you resent the fact that she married someone who is not you! that is not fucking honoring her memory, i don’t give a shit WHAT your patronus is! and again - this is not inherently a bad thing, and it could have been done really interestingly, but because JKR basically doesn’t believe that people are actually complicated… it wasn’t! we were seduced (or at least i was, and i DO think she was aiming for that, based on the fact that HARRY NAMES HIS FUCKING CHILD AFTER HIM, like, okay maybe forgive him for supporting the murder of both you and your father, and actually aiding the person responsible, but PASSING ON HIS NAME? REALLY? REALLY?) into just accepting snape’s version of events, but snape’s version of events is bullshit! ARGH.
not to mention, JKR teased this whole thing as a big important reveal about lily, but it’s actually not at all! it’s a big important reveal about snape! we learned nothing about lily except that she was once friends with snape and she was spunky, which was a third of what we already knew about her (the other two thirds being that she was a kind loving person, and she was talented at charms). the fact that she thought it was a big important reveal about lily is symptomatic of a major problem JKR has with writing female characters who are real people! (yeah, “hermione and ginny.” eh. hermione is super stereotypical and often painted as a nag, like that’s not gendered at all, and honestly i think is a much less complex character than either harry - yes, harry, whose “hero-thing” is more interesting to me than hermione’s “i am brainy, and sometimes insecure, but mostly i am brainy” thing - or ron, who IMO is the best-developed character in the whole series. and ginny… i just never bought ginny as a character. i like some things that JKR tried to do with her, like her “lay off me and my business” speech to ron, but she just never seemed to have a real personality except kindly and spunky, which, huh, lookit that.) and DO NOT GET ME FUCKING STARTED ON THE ROLE OF MOTHERHOOD IN THE HARRY POTTER SERIES.
i mean, i still do love the books and will probably reread all of them a zillion times. but, goddamn.
Whoa. Dude. Totally didn’t catch that, but now that I think about it… yeah. I mean, really, I’ve read fanfic that developed the characters far more than the actual published books did (and were written better, though JKR is by far not the worst in terms of “published authors who can’t really write but goddamn can they worldbuild”).
And really, this is me, so can I just say that I also have some very serious reservations about the Decemberists’ lyrics regarding mothers as well. If anyone’s actually interested I can rant about that but after a long rant like that, I feel it might behoove me to make that a separate post. :) (Note: I still lovelovelove the Ds, please do not get me wrong on that!)
I’m just gonna keep going on about this, feel free to ignore me. I just can’t get behind what amounts to intergenerational hazing. Everyone’s a little nuts when they’re teenagers (no offense intended, teens, it’s just true), but that doesn’t mean they’re stupid, or ignorant. How do you expect people to grow up learning to think for themselves if you’re creating a culture that says, “Your thoughts are invalid until you turn 18.” How do you expect people to grow up questioning authority when you are implying that age of all arbitrary things is an authority in and of itself? What is that nonsense?
“Be brave enough to live life creatively. The creative is the place where no one else has ever been. You have to leave the city of your comfort and go into the wilderness of your intuition. You can’t get there by bus, only by hard work and risk and by not quite knowing what you’re doing. What you’ll discover will be wonderful. What you’ll discover will be yourself.”—
Do you ever just feel like you’re not cut out to deal with life?
And everyone else is? And what on earth is the matter with you? Was everyone else given valuable life lessons while you weren’t paying attention? Why are things so hard?
Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, YES.
And then I realize that everyone else is struggling too, they just hide it well enough that it doesn’t show. Which isn’t actually all that comforting, considering we’ve been spoon-fed on the myth that there are people who have got it all together and primed to idolize them, and now it turns out they don’t actually exist.
“The first time I see you I want something to happen, not because of the way our eyes meet (they don’t) or any psychic shockwaves your electromagnetic field sends down my spine, but because the skew lines of your hips and shoulders when you turn to me, the fault lines of your dark jeans stretching over what Rachel would call a “classic boy butt,” small but defined, the effortless mess of blonde hairs lazily swooping in to cover your zits, hit my stomach like sodium hitting water, explosive and hot, and because I have been waiting for something to want.”—
one time i started writing a YA novel and this was the first sentence. (via isabelthespy)
It started off kind of well, which led me into a false sense of complacence.
1. Our reps will wait their turn in medical offices and refrain from waltzing in front of ailing patients because they think their time is more valuable. They will NOT get their own room in medical offices with laptop stations, ice water, and swivel chairs or chatter about the stress of sales quotas on their cells in the waiting room.
… and then segues right into the slut-shaming, and the half-hearted attempt at false equivalence for guys:
Female reps will not sell with cleavage and spike heels. Male reps will not high five each other or call the doctor “dude.” Reps who sold drugs that were later withdrawn will be banished from doctors’ offices.
From there, we learn that all those silly people thinking that, like, something which is severely interfering in their ability to go about their lives is, like, actually a problem, are just dupes for Big Pharma.
3. We will stop upgrading anxiety to depression, depression to bipolar disorder, and bipolar disorder to “treatment-resistant depression” in order to sell drugs. We will admit that studies are beginning to show that the reason depression is sometimes treatment-resistant is because it wasn’t depression to begin with but consumer advertising.
We will admit that our cocktails of depression/bipolar/mood brightener/mood stabilizer drugs occlude the fact that they do not work individually, they raise insurance rates, and they create withdrawal symptoms in patients who might have been fine before taking the drugs.
GET SOME SUN AND EXERCISE, ALL OF YOU. You will find yourself instantly cured!
Then the off-hand remark about fibromyalgia (which is one of those Scaremonger Diseases that these sorts of medical professionals like to appropriate and subsequently misrepresent for the sake of their lecture), and immediately after that WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
6. We will stop replacing $600-a-month blockbuster drugs that insurers no longer wave through with vaccines and biologics no one wants or needs. We will give up the attempt to vaccinate boys with Gardasil when it didn’t even work with girls or ship it to poor countries plagued with HIV, malaria, or dengue fever. We will stop selling biologics like Humira, which cause cancer and infections like TB, to perfectly healthy college kids with Crohn’s disease-scare campaigns.
7. We will buy every child under 12 in America a bicycle or skate board as reparations for our reign of terror in treating them for depression, bipolar disorder, ADD, ADHD, mixed manias, oppositional and conduct disorders, sleep and mood disorders, schizophrenia, agitation, anxiety, and other “psychopathologies” they may not have even had.
And then we go right back to the slut- and crip-shaming to tie it all up in a neat little bow.
10.We will stop rolling out celebrities like Sally Field and Brooke Shield to hawk drugs and acknowledge the celebrity drug-spokespersons the public remembers most are Michael Jackson, Anna Nicole Smith, and Brittany Murphy.
REMEMBER, KIDS, JUST SAY NO. Or you could end up fat, slutty, ugly, and dead!
… You mean that depression hasn’t dissipated yet? Oh, yeah, you’re still stuck at that computer. GO OUT AND GET SOME SUN.
OMG, yes. By the way, biologics? Yeah, PROVEN NOT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH INCREASED CANCER RATES, THANKS.
You will take my biologics from my cold, dead hands. And my fibro treatments. Oh, and by the way? I’ve been on anti-depressants for years. Each one by itself. Kept me from killing myself. So yeah, THEY FUCKING WORK.
You:I think at some point in everyone's life though, after experimenting and maturing, they should look for monogamy.
You:Not necessarily marriage, but one person that can fulfull them both sexually and personally.
.... why? That's a lot to put on one person, and truthfully, it's nearly impossible. And some people aren't cut out for monogamy. If it's not hurting anyone else, why should society dictate how people live their lives?
You know, mulling over the numerous times I have been lectured over the last few days by pedantic people who assumed that I was ignorant or unaware of something when in fact I was very much aware and was approaching it from a different perspective, a place of different knowledge, including my own knowledge of myself…
I cannot help but note that there is something deeply interesting about the fact that many people seem to feel that what works for them works for everyone else, and that people who do things differently or raise objections obviously just need to have things explained and then they will reform their erroneous ways. This becomes especially problematic when it comes to lecturing women, in particular, because they have spent much of history being informed that they do not know what is good for them.
You know, ‘splainers, every time you take the time to painstakingly lecture someone (usually with a healthy dose of shaming and implications that the person you are lecturing is obviously totally ignorant and uninformed), it just makes you look like a pedantic asshole. Has it ever occurred to you, ‘splainers, to think before opening your mouth/putting your hands on the keyboard, to think about the fact that not everyone experiences the world in the same way, and that someone’s differing experience (of anything, whether it’s lightbulbs or street harassment) is not invalidated by the fact that you do not share that experience? That, perhaps, you might actually benefit from considering other perspectives?
No, I suppose it hasn’t, or you wouldn’t dedicate so much time to ‘splainin’ to complete strangers in the Internet who happen to say things with which you disagree, like “people should not be raped” and “Avatar is a racist shitpile.”
One where I could be paid to research interesting things, where deadlines existed but were flexible, and that I could do from home if I felt like crap that day. Or opt to take a day off if I need to. More than 10 sickdays a year, with an understanding boss and interesting co-workers who wouldn’t mind if I brought my kids in. :)
Who would win in a fight: pirates or ninjas?
As much as I hate to admit it, the ninjas, probably. Though it would be a close match; both parties were pretty thoroughly untrained and relied on luck and intimidation more than actual fighting skill.
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? :p
Hands down, end of discussion, no contest, the single shittiest phrase of the ’00s—even over “webinar.” “Hater” emerged in the ’90s, but it seeped its way into pop music’s bloodstream during this decade and shows no signs of going away. It’s the ultimate cop-out, equally applicable, and specious, whether you’re a megastar or a wannabe. Don’t want to own up to your own bullshit? Call everyone a hater! No one knows about your piddling little rap career yet? Bitch about all your haters! Selling millions of albums (despite the fact that “albums” are fast going the way of the dodo) and impressing critics all over the damn place? Goddamn world’s still full of haters! Somebody disagrees with you about—oh—anything, and you don’t have a cogent response? Haterhaterhater! Keep hiding behind your mediocrity by using this stupid term and you’ll deserve as many of them as you can get. (And no, “Stop hatin’!” or some variation thereof is not a clever response.)
— Michaelangelo Matos
Let’s also give a special mention to the boho version of this, Eggers-style “criticism comes from a bad place” preciousness.
— Tom Ewing
I just want to mention: I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the mainstream adoption of the “hater” idea took place during a decade that also saw a massive explosion in people’s access to one another’s lives and opinions. Because I don’t think we as a culture have yet come up with any particularly great coping mechanisms for that explosion.
y’all, you need to follow agrammar, he is like out-there smart. look:
I mention this because the best coping strategy we’ve devised — to be a thick-skinned adult; to understand that other people’s opinions are not personal attacks; to understand that someone, inevitably, will not care for what you do, and that’s a valid response on their part, and apart from the few cases where you can learn from it, all it really means is that What You Do is Not for Them, which is fine — well, a lot of this just sounds like a more mature version of “haters gonna hate,” doesn’t it? Except for one key difference: it dignifies the other person. As in, like, it deigns to enter into a real relationship, one in which the other person is real and has an opinion that is valid to them, for their reasons, good or bad, all of which is independent of how you feel about it.
isn’t this just like the most mature thing you’ve ever heard? read the whole thing!
“It’s clear from the get-go that Neytiri, who’s a pretty feisty woman, a wickedly good hunter and bright to boot, is promised to a man of her tribe, and that they will, together, replace her parents as the leading couple. She has no option in this. But don’t worry! John Smith – I mean, Jake Sully – will save Pocohontas – I mean, Neytiri, from the patriarchy she suffers under, and liberate her to… his own special version of patriarchy. Yay! World saved!”—WildlyParenthetical, commenting at Hoyden About Town (via amandaw) about Avatar (which I have no desire to see, thank you).
“Many years ago, I was with a group of people when someone made what they thought was a funny remark about a person with a disability. Many people laughed. Then one woman spoke up and said, “I don’t find that funny.” Everyone stopped laughing, and people looked at each other, embarrassed and uncomfortable. It was an awkward moment, but everyone knew who was responsible for their discomfort—the person who had made the offensive remark.”—
Can I move to the country where this happens? Because in my experience, it’s “Wow, Anna, why do you have to take everything so seriously”, and the person blamed for making everyone uncomfortable is the person who said “I don’t find that funny.”
“Mulan originally began as a short, straight-to-video film titled ‘China Doll’ about an oppressed and miserable Chinese girl who is whisked away by a British Prince Charming to happiness in the West.”—
“Shaming and victim blaming are, of course, practically American pastimes, and they play right into each other in a tangled morass of “morals” which are wrapped around women’s bodies and minds from a very early age.”—myself, in a post I am drafting. I just liked this line so felt like sharing it with the world NOW, rather than LATER, when this post will go up. (via meloukhia)
“New TSA regs for all international flights entering the USA, via Air Canada:
Only one carry-on bag per person. PERIOD. Computer? Clothing? Books? All in one small bag, son.
No leaving your seat in the last hour of your flight. Passengers cannot get up to stretch their legs, go to the restroom or to assist children/elderly/the disabled in the last hour of flying.
Passengers may not carry anything in their hands or in their laps in the last hour of flights. Passengers reading books, listening to an ipod, using a laptop or doing any other activity in the last hour of flight will face criminal action if they don’t cease and desist. That’s not a joke.”—
See these new regulations? These have nothing to do with making people more secure. They have two functions. One is to create the appearance that something is being done. The other is simply to get people used to giving up even more of their freedom. Here’s how I know:
All indications are that the device used in this most recent incident was small enough to fit inside a single carry-on bag with room to spare. Allowing a personal item or not allowing one has no bearing on the possibility of an attack being carried out in such a manner.
Restricting movement during the last hour of a flight simply means that anyone wanting to carry out an attack will go to the bathroom to make their preparations an hour and fifteen minutes ahead of time.
Having a readily identifiable personal item like a book in your lap clearly poses no security threat.
This is so fucking ridiculous. Instead of taking measures against weapons that can still get on planes regardless of metal detectors (oh yes, they certainly exist) or making new guidelines that actually address the problem, people have to deal with cramped legs and crankier kids. Way to go, America.
Here. Take my cat. She’d be more effective at coming up with rules.
“I have mixed feelings about this. One thing this bill does is transfer resources, on net, from high income people to lower income people. And additional net transfers of resources from high income people to people in the 150%-300% percent of FPL range strikes me as desirable. But I can’t think of any obvious reason why those resources should specifically take the form of non-preventive, non-catastrophic health insurance coverage as opposed to more generous Pell Grants or lower payroll taxes or whatever.”—
Yglesias (Apart from the debate on this healthcare package, and rather on the subject of health care in this country.)
Uhm. I rather think all of the above would be nice, but I could give you a few reasons I’d put “non-preventive, non-catastrophic” health insurance at #1 on that list of things to fund. You could start with the probability of you (yes, you, personally!) acquiring a chronic health condition or disability in your lifetime. Note that I did not use the word “possibility.” And no, preventive medicine is not going to get rid of all, or even most, of those conditions.
Eating an apple a day for most of my childhood didn’t save me from missing over a month of school in seventh grade being ported around to different doctors to diagnose a neurological pain condition.
And that apple isn’t going to do much in the place of meaningful access to meaningful treatment for that condition.
This. So much this. Preventive care wouldn’t have done anything to change me developing RA or fibro or EDS. And when it happens to you, then what? Pell Grants aren’t going to help if you can’t go back to school because you’re in too much pain (that the doctors can’t adequately treat for fear of creating an addict, never mind the facts about that). Lower payroll taxes won’t do a bit of good if you can’t work because you can’t afford your medications, or because you couldn’t get treated early enough because you didn’t have insurance and couldn’t afford to go to the doctor, the specialist, the physical therapy, and now you have damage that can’t be fixed. The human body is incredibly easy to throw out of balance, and I learned the hard way that you better have a plan for when luck fails you and your body goes haywire, or you’re screwed. Disability takes two years and three appeals ON AVERAGE to get. Do you really think that when you can’t work anymore you’ll be on the sunny side of that average? Especially if it’s something that’s not immediately visible? Not hardly, folks. Healthcare isn’t something that’s nice to have if you catch the flu; it’s essential to have when you get hit with a chronic condition, and believe me, those can hit anyone without warning. Again, do you think you’ll be on the sunny side of the averages forever?
‘…disdain for such sweetly conventional trappings of sex appeal’ is not at all new. Women have been rejecting ‘feminine’ looks as style recreates itself for, uhm, centuries. ‘The look, streamlined and armored for tough times, reflects a distrust of trends and a skepticism toward traditional gender roles’ could just as easily refer to the 1920s flapper as to the ‘modern’ woman.
These styles that you are covering as though they are oh-so-new and exciting and revolutionary are, in fact, quite old, which you would bother to know if you took 30 seconds to look through your own style archives. Acting like ‘modern’ women are the first generation to turn away from what was viewed as ‘feminine’ by the previous generation does a grave disservice to generations of clotheshorses.
‘…the look is slightly rough-hewn but has the advantage of spotlighting some overlooked erogenous zones: shapely backs and forearms and fragile collarbones, to name a few. It also reflects a willful gender mash-up being propagated by the young or young at heart.’ Again. Not. New. There are centuries of fashion design behind the idea of highlighting ‘overlooked’ areas of the body which span numerous cultures.
meloukhia is so much more patient with the new york times than i am. my memos to them usually go something like, “oh my god shut the FUCK UP, TIMES, THIS IS BULLSHIT I CANNOT BELIEVE PEOPLE GOT PAID TO WRITE THIS AGHHHHHHH BRB DRINKING SORROWS AWAY.” but, her way works better i think.
I like peonies. When I was growing up, we always had peony bushes, and it fascinated me how they lived in symbiosis with the ants. (Ants eat the sticky covering of their buds; without ants, they can’t flower.)
Another interesting peony fact is that their color depends on the acidity of their soil; transplanting a white peony bush to the spot where a pink one was just makes it flower pink instead, and vice versa.
Also, they’re pretty and they don’t have a strong scent. Yay allergies!
In love. I’d rather take the chance and have the experience, even if it hurts, than be afraid. (Note, this is NOT in sex… that’s ALWAYS better to be safe than sorry!) Really, in any big adventure, like traveling, I’d still rather have the experience. That may be my privilege talking, too, though; I’ve had opportunities that I know not everyone has, and they’ve generally turned out ok.