Not many people know the stereotypical heart shape was meant to be two hearts fused together
Hey there. History nerd here… not many people know this “fact” because it’s not true. The universal heart shape we recognize today has nothing to do with the heart, actually. It has to do with early Roman birth control.
The Romans used a plant called silphium to prevent pregnancy. It was so effective that it became a critical part of Rome’s economy and daily life. It was literally so important to their culture that the image of it’s seed were even imprinted on currency.
It’s the exact shape of the heart we know today, and this is the first time it’s visage was ever recorded in history. It was so important to them, and so highly prized that they actually drove the plant into extinction by over harvesting it for use.
This shape was so ingrained in their society’s conscious as a symbol of sexual liberation that it became associated with all aspects of intimacy, eg. sex, unity, and love.
It’s not two hearts sewn together. It’s an ancient plant that Romans used to have gratuitous amounts of sex before condoms were around.
This is an aspect of the Bound & Determined AU that Helens78 and I have had from the start and yet, it’s never really surfaced in any of the stories. I’ve probably posted about it before but this reminded me of it so…
Bound & Determined is a BDSM-everywhere universe, with ‘dominant’ and ‘submissive’ being as important to people’s identities as gender (which means that for some people it’s not actually important at all. But in general, for many people it’s significant.)
In a lot of BDSM-everywhere verses, there’s gender equality but the discrimination that women face in our own world is instead taken on by submissives. We considered submission to be an added dimension in terms of intersectionality, not a replacement for any other, but we did want to account for Dommes having greater freedom and social standing in BD verse. So our answer there was that the ancient world discovered and/or bred a variant of silphium that grew like a weed, almost anywhere under practically any conditions, so the plant was widely available, allowing (many, though not all) dominant women some control over family planning, and diminishing the cultural association between sex and procreation for centuries before hormonal birth control was invented. (Meanwhile, submissive women’s access to birth control has always varied widely in different times, cultures and individual families.)
Thank you! :D
It also occurs to me that XMFC robs their conflict of power (in addition to the terrible mangling of Erik’s backstory, what is Shaw, even). I’m not super-familiar with comics, but as far as I know a huge thing on which they disagreed was that Charles advocated martyring themselves in the name of saving people while actively being persecuted by them. This is not what happens in XMFC, where they are out to save the world (by extension themselves) from a nuclear war, and the conflict seems to be… Well, hypothetical, really. The world doesn’t know mutants exists and Charles in no way advocates martyrdom, quite the opposite: the way he lays it out he seems to be aiming for “we saved your from radiation, you owe us, but in our benevolence we will consider us equals” (not a great plan, but has some merit).
Erik’s master plan, on the other hand, seems to be “right, we stopped the madman from detonating the bombs, so I will now detonate the bombs because it will be totally different and then we will fight against the people who outnumber us a million to one, and who don’t know we exist yet, WHO IS WITH ME?”
Charles never advocated martyrdom IMO. From the start, the X-Men were largely a publicity stunt, at heart: they were supposed to go out and visibly defend humanity from superpowered threats, including other “evil” mutants, so that humans would have a better opinion of mutants in general.
But the kids weren’t supposed to sacrifice themselves— Charles trained the hell out of them.
Is this a rundown of Magneto & Mystique’s actions from the first X-Men trilogy?
Essentially. I just wanted to figure out if the secret-poster meant we are not allowed to mention it, or are we allowed to mention it but positively, like “wow, you know, I had this annoying kid in class the other day, but after I stabbed him with a needle full of experimental gene therapy serum he got totes better, i.e. quiet and sweaty and spouting weird tentacles, isn’t bio-terrorism just awesome? I’m thinking of expanding, maybe poison a water supply - so many problems solved, all at once!”
Yeah. I haven’t wanted to get into it because I’m slammed IRL and the last thing I need right now is a bunch of wank over fictional characters. And whoever genuinely thinks Erik and Raven are in the right, they are entitled to that opinion, obviously, and it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Seriously, if this is something you get upset about, just scroll on by!
Happy New Year! :) ♥
Size difference notes:
McAvoy has broad shoulders for his frame, but Fassbender’s build is bigger and his shoulders are wider. (The Sharx pic especially makes that clear.)
Likewise, Fassbender has that unreal waist, tiny for his size, but since McAvoy is smaller overall, it looks like his waistband size would probably be nearly the same. (Side note: McAvoy’s natural waist is quite high, most obvious in the infamous shirtless Wanted image— notably higher than the waistband of his trousers.)
It’s not obvious in these images, but when they’re back to back, it’s clear that even though Fassbender has a larger, wider frame from the front, he’s a bit skinnier from the side than McAvoy. Though McAvoy’s arm is in the way and the belt on the uniform is thick, so it’s hard to judge the difference; it’s probably not much.
Fassbender’s legs aren’t much longer than McAvoy’s, the height difference is almost entirely due to Fassbender’s long, long torso.
McAvoy’s neck is considerably smaller than Fassbender’s, and Fassbender has long hands. Erik could probably get one hand more than halfway around Charles’s neck. Ahem.
Depending on McAvoy’s shoes, he’s about eye-level with Fassbender’s mouth. Fassbender’s eye-level with the top of McAvoy’s head. Erik couldn’t easily tuck Charles under his chin and look over his head; he’d have to stretch and/or Charles would have to duck his head or bend a bit.
So basically, what you’re trying to say is, they should make out. Right?
That is always what I’m trying to say. Always.
Though I do feel foolish saying, “Well, X-Men franchise, I let you use 12 million+ real murders for your superhero story, but one more is just too much!”
But mentioning by name and doing it as what feels like some kind of media event is pretty tacky. It’s not even JFK specifically, just the whole idea. And the timing makes it worse.
But the Magnetosphere is certainly on fire tonight!
don’t think you were saying that at all. To me, at least, Magneto was more used to tell a story about the Holocaust, than was the Holocaust used to pad his story. The Shoah isn’t just some one-off part of Magneto’s story, it consumes him, it explains his whole philosophy, it permeates him down to the colors he wears, the way he treats his children, his friends, his comrades, his lovers, his enemies, everyone he interacts with. So by using real life events they were really giving agency and power to those real victims, but in the converse of writing a story where he assumes the role of another, real life murderer, he not only deprives the real murderer of guilt and obscures the events, but blame is placed onto a dead man for crimes that man did not commit.
And especially when that dead man has surviving relatives, it’s beyond crass.
While I think Magneto is a great, compelling character and while I do agree with you for the most part, I’ve never been 100% totally able to sign off on that. It’s not that I’d want to rewrite his history, because I think that would be insulting too, as well as really nerfing him as a character. But I just imagine explaining to someone who had never heard of the X-Men, “Oh, he survived Auschwitz and now he’s a cape-wearing supervillain who does stuff like reverse the polarity of the Earth and use the Statue of Liberty to turn people into jellyfish.”
I’ve had similar thoughts, and it’s why one of the things I really like about First Class is the addition of Sebastian Shaw to Erik’s backstory. Instead Erik surviving Auschwitz and becoming a mutant supremacist supervillain, which problematically associates surviving atrocity with becoming a dangerous person, First Class adds mentor/tormenor Shaw, another influence in Erik’s life that helps account for why he turns to violence.
In the comics, I feel the writers tried to do something similar to make Erik’s relationship to his past more nuanced, but unfortunately they did that by giving him a family who were mostly fridged in horrible ways. First Class still fridges Erik’s mother and that’s still a problem. (The flashbacks Erik has on the boat show Schmidt/Shaw torturing Erik to evoke his powers. Why can Erik only hate Shaw for killing his mother, why can’t he want revenge for his own sake because Shaw tortured him?) But I do see his First Class backstory as a step up from the comics continuity, which gave Erik a daughter only to have her burned alive while he helplessly looked on, and a wife who bore Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver and was then written out through almost literal fridging— she froze to death.
It’s another complicating factor in grappling with Magneto’s backstory that the X-Men and Magneto were created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, aka Stanley Lieber and Jack Kurtzberg, both Jewish… while on the other hand, Magneto’s backstory as a Holocaust survivor wasn’t revealed until 1981, when Claremont (who’s not Jewish afaik) was writing X-Men…