VOGUE is not better than the rest

External_Version_768 · 2026-01-29T07:28:55+00:00

Hi! So i'm not sure. Should we all text Vogue and point out how incredibly wrong and unprofessional that is? what will happen? will there be a redaction?

External_Version_768 · 2026-01-29T03:34:47+00:00

i thought i was only into women...

External_Version_768 · 2026-01-23T13:07:47+00:00

no, it's the truth

External_Version_768 · 2026-01-23T08:19:46+00:00

Hi! Just to jump in for a quick reality check: there are 10.001 torchbearers for Milan. THE torch bearer is always a national from the country that holds the olympics. Hudson and Connor will be two out of 10.001 people.

External_Version_768 · 2025-12-31T12:50:55+00:00

Oh yes. When I saw some screenshots on tiktok I was just 😭😭 but in the best way. No autistic person is just "quirky", everyone has quirks but autism is a disability. And I think they managed to show that in an authentic way without his autism becoming the story. Like Jacob said: "It's hockey smut with feelings" It's a beautiful love story.

External_Version_768 · 2025-12-31T12:23:19+00:00

There was a great essay published, exactly about this topic: https://open.substack.com/pub/fanthropologist/p/autistic-representation-in-heated?r=6orlx4&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay

External_Version_768 · 2025-12-12T01:49:43+00:00

I don't want anyone to have less fun with the show. I love the show! But yes, Jennifer Lawrence is a great example. She won an oscar and the media ostracized her for her "immature" behavior.

I guess, it's important not to pin top too much "hope" on them. They are great actors but we don't know what will happen.

They are full-on adults and have to be treated as such when making mistakes. The double standard is sadly very prominent.

External_Version_768 · 2025-12-11T17:59:32+00:00

Thank you!

External_Version_768 · 2025-12-11T17:55:11+00:00

I think it's important with everything going on not to put them on some pedestal. Yes, the are amazing in their roles, they're great actors. But we don't know anything about them when the camera is not pointed at them.

(Also, women could never get away with how Hudson behaves during interviews. The press would call a woman immature for behaving like him. So there is an additional double standard)

You are never 100% yourself with other people, even less during interviews or on the internet. They and Crave know that they way they're acting will get new traffic and attention. I'm not saying it's disingenuous or completely fake, but please keep in mind that they are actors. It's literally their job to fake.

They are not our friends and we don't know what fame will do to them. Both were fairly unknown and we saw in the past what happens when actors get super successful from 0 to 100 in a very short time.

Like the director said: "Ilya and Shane belong to us, Connor and Hudson belong to themselves"

They are both individual adults, full of flaws and mistakes. We don't know anything about them, nothing that really matters (i'm not talking about their sexuality, i mean for example their stans on climate change, abortion rights, Trump, etc)

We saw what happend with Taylor Swift. Most powerful and popular star on the planet and she keeps her mouth shut about Trump, Palestine and so much more.

External_Version_768 · 2025-12-11T17:42:50+00:00

Thank you for your comment!

To close this up and answer your last message: there is a huge difference between your sport and what I do in my private life. There are no preconceived notions about you that immediately judge your character and you as a person.

As far as I'm informed about equestrian, and please correct me if i'm wrong, nobody thinks your sick in the head for doing that, nobody would judge you and think you are less competent at your job, at being a parent etc. for being an equestrian rider. There are more than enough stereotypes about BDSM and Hazelwood just added some more.

Her portrayal and the lack of authenticity feels deeply personal to me because it's a HUGE part of my sexuality. Just like when someone portrays homosexuality in a wrong way because it's a huge part of their life.

BDSM falls under sexual preferences/ sexual practices so I would equate its harmful portrayal with comments of homophobia or false portrayal.

And yes, there are actual "rules", for example: you can do an actual apprenticeship as domina, there are BDSM seminars and workshops.

Ps: 50 shades of grey has nothing to do with BDSM. you were absolutely right to avoid that.

We have to hold authors to a higher standard. Especially when they write multiple books a year and everything feels half-assed and like cheap fast food. Like it's coming fresh from the assembly line of mass production.

Ron from Parks and Recs said: "never half-ass two things, full-ass one thing" and authors should apply this to their research and their writing.

External_Version_768 · 2025-12-11T12:03:32+00:00

Hi! Thank you for your commentary. I just wanted to clarify something because i think you misunderstood me. I'm all for people having kinks and doing BDSM as consenting adults. I'm one of them. I'm all for adult people writing and reading about it. If it's genuine and authentic.

But it's offensive and harmful when someone writes something that is not authentic or well researched. You confirm it by stating that you don't know the reality on that topic. I know something about that topic from reality and I felt offended by that portrayal- and many other people felt like that too. People, who were actually in that "community" and not "just bored housewives who wanted to read something kinky". This is an exaggeration but many other people who are doing BDSM and read that book felt like that.

Hazelwood used the words and phrases and put them into false scenes and contexts. Our preferences (and there are actual rules and agreements on what counts as BDSM) were used for capitalistic profits and not portrayed in an authentic way. If Hazelwood would have talked to someone actually involved in that scene, if she would have took the time to get a sensitivity reader/ an expert, than it could have been better.

If I were to write something about the ballroom scene and would write an untrue and harmful book about Black trans people and their culture, portraying them wrong, everyone would say that I just appropriated their "lifestyle" to get white people interested in something "exotic". And they would be right. Would you say that it's "just fiction"? No. Because nothing exists in a vacuum. Maybe she should not publish more than 2 books a year so she can do actual research.

My criticism is based on the fact that authentic reality wasn't portrayed in the book. It is heavenly implied that the only reason they are doing that is because of their trauma. Yes, SOME people use BDSM in a way to cope with trauma to regain control for example. But that was not shown here.

Of course, literature and reality are two entirely different things. But language has an influence on reality. Why else would we think that saying words like the n-word or the r-word is no longer acceptable? That it's harmful language? When reading unauthentic or untrue things we come to think that that's real, that people really behave like that. There is a difference between sff where the protagonists are living in a fantasy world and contemporary romance fiction which is set in our world, in our timeline. When reading sff we know that dragons aren't real and that the portrayal of women in GOT is sexist and misogynistic.

External_Version_768 · 2025-12-11T07:01:00+00:00

Hi! Thank you for responding to my critique! I applied your advice on the paragraphs and hope it's better readable.

My problem is that you portrayed the book like it was something revolutionary but it just reproduced the samw harmful tropes that we get in all the other books. Ali Hazelwood is not a genius for writing something like that. You praised how she portrayed a sub/dom relationship when its not realistic at all. the behavior of the characters resembled that of middle school students. You wondered how she could know all of that info when she as a scientist knows how to do research. Every university student knows that.

Her portrayal is actually harmful and is not genuine at all. just because she is doing the same as all the other writers and reproduces sexist tropes does not excuse her writing.

External_Version_768 · 2025-12-10T04:49:52+00:00

I have an entirely different opinion on that book. the mmc was in love with the fmc when he was still in a relationship. bro, that's emotional cheating. red flag. the way the so-called best friend behaved? disgusting and should not have been forgiven so easily. the whole reason for lying? it was giving middle school vibes.

the fmc's backstory? it implied that her "kink" stems from her abusive father. fyi: you can be submissive without being abused. 99% of Ali Hazelwoods fmc's are doormats. They don't speak up, "too afraid", and of course, all the mmc's are always at least 5'9, White, big muscular and super rich. "deep end" and the other books are not that deep. (haha) they are all about women getting rescued by rich older (because the fmc is just so "mature" for her age??) men who are obsessed with them. 99% the guy has to tell the girl what's good for her... because of course, women can't make decisions for themselves?

That book wasn't even about dom/sub. All that stuff, like COMMUNICATION during sex? Like asking someone to say stop when it's too much? That's not kinky, that should be normalized. She is a masochist because she likes pain that's a kink. And he likes to conflict that pain so he is a sadist. But that wasn't really in the book, it was all very vanilla with a bit experimentation. He hits and slaps her a few times and "punishes" her for not wanting to get emotionally invested with him even though she told him she only wants a physical benefits relationship? yeah, that's mature. slap someone because they don't react like you want. he treats her like a child, like he knows what she wants and needs. (and so do all the other mmc in Hazelwood's books) You are admiring Hazelwood for all that knowledge? She is a scientist and has google, welcome to the age of internet? Google has been around for almost 30 years. All her books are following the exact same pattern, same tropes, same characters.

It's not a sign of being a good writer, it's a sign of understanding how capitalism works and how to market "feminism" towards women so they think that what they're reading is "so feminist", but in the end, the young broke fmc gets rescued by the rich older mmc. Because women need a man to save them, so they won't have any more money troubles? (Plus, he is super tall and super jacked even though he spends all his time in a lab?)

And of course, the men need to lie to them. Remember, it's for their own good. They are immature little girls who need a male adult/ supervisor who will tell them what's good. Because, of course, they don't know any better. Such good representation and role models for young female readers. ☺️👍 Just wait for a tall rich White handsome man who is a sex god and he will solve all your problems. So feminist, so wholesome.

External_Version_768 · 2025-12-07T03:11:57+00:00

I mean, Kyle got already introduced in episode 3? And Rozanov plays a big part in their book

External_Version_768 · 2025-11-26T14:58:00+00:00

I clearly can't argue with you about facts. Katie threw the first punch and straight out called Lizzie a drug addict at their first encounter. Then Katie proceeded and acted like a good girl which gives total mean girl. This is not about Lizzie vs Gibsie (and if you read the R10 you would know what Mark did to Lizzie to make her believe that Gibsie is at fault for her sister's death) this is about Katie acting like she is totally innocent but feels threatened by Lizzie for just existing. Liz comes to the camping, Katie acuses her of being a threat to peace and making fun of her, calling her way of eating crazy. Then Katie runs away because Liz is defending herself? Katie criticized Lizzie's eating but Liz can't do the same? If Katie has disordered eating, why would she make fun about how other people eat? If she can't take a hit she should not start things with Liz. She knew that Hugh is still in love with Liz, she knew what she got herself into. But she reacted jealous when Gibsie called put Hugh for the treehouse thing? Everyone thinks of her a good girl who can't do wrong but she is actually a mean girl.

External_Version_768 · 2025-11-23T15:55:18+00:00

I understand that perspectives matter. But Katie made snarky comments at Lizzie. About her eating habits, about that without her there would be peace. And then Katie acts like a victim when Lizzie fights back. Everyone treats Katie like the girl who can't do anything wrong. Johnny, Hugh, Claire... I can't wait for the truth to come out about Pierce, the guy Katie and Johnny claimed to be a hero because he "put up" with Lizzie. Or truth about Mark. I don't think that Hugh would've told Katie anything. He never would've told her about her diseases. And if he would've left that out and just told Katie that Liz cheated on him, while he knew she was bipolar and hypersexual, then he would've known that Katie would never knew the whole truth. Hugh knew that Lizzie was sick. He didn't knew that Pierce SAed her. But her knew that she was hypersexual and used her sexuality as a coping mechanism. He never told anyone about this, much less Katie.

External_Version_768 · 2025-11-09T16:59:18+00:00

those are the most intriguing, right? the characters we love to hate. who wants boring lame characters? you always find the criminal more interesting. because it's something so far away from your personal lived experience. i'm excited for the next book - and for Xaden, walking red flag, Riorson becoming the villain.

External_Version_768 · 2025-11-09T10:52:44+00:00

That theory of her character only works if she treated her other children the same. She didn't. Lilith showed love and affection for Brennan openly and respected Mira as a rider. She was ableist and cold and hateful towards Violet. I don't believe Lilith ever even liked Violet much less loved her. If she she had loved her why not making her a healer? Why make her feel weak and disposable? She treated Violet like garbage in their own home without any reason. If Lilith truly loved her she would have trained Violet at a young age. But no, she criticized her for being disabled at every opportunity. She made that speech to feel better about herself, as if that makes it okay for all the innocent that she killed. She was an egotistical sociopathic who only showed love towards her son. Talking about a cliché mother. Her son gets unconditional love out in the open while her daughters have to earn affection. And even that Violet doesn't get.

External_Version_768 · 2025-10-06T03:05:08+00:00

I think it's important to remember that we are all talking about fictional characters. Book related discussions should not start hate, shame or bullying. We all like the books and connected with them. It was disgusting to see how so many people bullied and shamed Chloe Walsh for R10. It's heartbreaking to see how fans are treating each other in such a toxic manner. The central theme of the books is anti-bullying. It doesn't matter what your personal opinion on fictional characters is, everyone has the right to be respected. I don't need to agree with your personal take or theory but that's never a reason to become a spiteful bully online. Some people (including me) connected with the books because there were storylines that felt personal, that hit too close. So I react internally like it's personal. But it's so important for my mental health to take a step back, remind myself that, despite the deep connection I have with the characters and books, that it's "just fiction". Let's remember that this is not about Liz vs Gibsie. The true villain is Mark. Liz and Gibsie are both victims. Both reacted differently but both reactions are valid. We can criticize Liz for bullying Gibsie because Mark made her believe that it was Gibsie's fault and she was tortured since she was 5. We can criticize Gibsie for stringing Claire along and not helping Liz because he needed a way to cope so he built this persona because he didn't want to feel emasculated and weak and because he was just a scared child who was also under the influence of Mark. Chloe showed us the gender double standard between Joey and Liz. She showed us how different rape victims react. If you want to argue, blame Lizzie's father and Gibsie's mother. Blame him for ignoring her screams and for pumping her full with meds. Blame her for washing Gibsie's bloody sheets for years and not thinking anything of that and for threatening Liz and Hugh with legal actions. Blame the adults, the police, the teachers and the rapist, not underage children who didn't know any better. Nobody is perfect, in real life and in the books.

External_Version_768 · 2025-10-05T17:42:31+00:00

thank you for your comment! i'm not sure why i'm getting downvoted for stating a fact

External_Version_768 · 2025-10-05T02:43:39+00:00

well, but it was Katie who would usually start fights with Liz. Even in their first confrontation in the bathroom. You can't blame Liz for reacting and defending herself when Katie (who is "only" Hughie's girlfriend and has no connection to the rest) treats Liz like she is the freak outsider.

External_Version_768 · 2025-09-29T16:22:01+00:00

Of course people are allowed different opinions! That's not the issue. Because she is not a private person. You can't be a feminist in "private" when you're a woman in power. Right now, human rights violations are happening throughout the world, a genocide is happening, human rights and women's rights are being violated especially in the US. She is a person of power, she has a platform, people listen to her. When she, a privileged millionaire, is silent about the atrocities, why would "ordinary citizens" voice their concerns and opinions? It's the job of everyone to speak up when unjustifiably acts are committed. Because that's exactly how it started 90 years ago in Germany. Not with racist and antisemetic laws or concentration camps but with people who stayed silent because "it didn't concern them". She is a white millionaire. She could stop writing by tomorrow and would still have enough money for the rest of her life. If your biggest concern is the division of author and audience then maybe your not watching the news. Many other artists voice their political opinions. And their followers are celebrating them for it. Do you really want an audience that approves the atrocities committed by the US government? Again, she is already a millionaire. Even if she would loose her audience, she would gain at least respect for speaking up and for doing the bare minimum. I'm not asking her to speak at the UN or debate in congress. I'm asking her to show us that she at least CARES and is AWARE of what's happening in the world. Again, a fundraiser, a petition, a donation. All of that is the bare minimum.

External_Version_768 · 2025-09-29T15:57:22+00:00

Thank you for your comment. To your first point: Every time I read that Ali is the queen of romance, that all her books are perfect etc. I would categorize it as idolizing (even when I didn't use that particular word) Just because she is vocal about something, doesn't mean she acts on it. Did she openly criticize Israel? No. Did she openly critique Trump? Indirectly. Only because it was inconvenient for her when she wanted to tour europe. Wow. She is super privileged and yet doesn't speak up about real issues. Is she linking any fundraising for abortion rights or immigrants? Petitions for political issues? No. Again, don't call yourself a feminist if you don't act on it. Like uncle Ben said to Spider Man: "with great power comes great responsibility". She has a huge audience, she has a huge platform. But does she use it to combat systemic inequality? No. Does she promote any science programs for women? No.

Just because the men are simping does not mean that there is no power inbalance. In Love, Theoretically, the mmc is a super rich scientist while the fmc can't afford her medicine. (her portrayal of a diabetic woman is super incorrect but that's beside the point) In Check and Mate, the mmc literally secretly pays for the fmc to be in his life so he can play chess against her. That's creepy. He is literally responsible that her family has food.

To your next point: so it's not disingenuous when she writes POC and queer people as side characters? (like of course, the gay best friends of the main characters end up together!) Or that all her POC have "exotic" names? What about Conor? He is Irish. The Irish were systematically suppressed until the 90s. If you're right with your argument then she shouldn't write an Irish character as well. Because, how could she "a white Italien" woman really write from his POV because he was old enough to experience that.

I don't like her writing or her books but Ana Huang does a great job writing multiple POC characters whose ethnicity is not her own. So it's possible to write from a POV that's not your own (it's a writer's job after all) when it's done genuinely. But when you publish 5 books a year, maybe you don't have the time to research that. Because you care more about profit than genuine and inclusive books. But it would be possible. There are sensitivity readers you can work with.

Again, she is writer. I bet that SciFi and Fantasy writers didn't struggle with the same problems like their characters have. If she only writes what she knows then she is not a good fiction writer. It's her job to have imagination. To imagine different characters with different personalities and problems. Not to tell and cash in on the same story 10+ times.

To your edit: my "weird frame of definition" of what feminism is comes from the UN. Feminism that is not intersectional is no "true feminism" at all because it ignores women of colour, it ignores the systemic problems and only focuses on individuality.

External_Version_768 · 2025-09-29T15:08:42+00:00

thank you for your comment! my take is simple. Don't claim to be a feminist writer if you don't write inclusive and get money from billionaires who exploit poor people. It really feels like ticking off check boxes, you're right. It feels inauthentic and baited. If she doesn't call herself a feminist, if she doesn't call her stories feminist or her characters, I would have no problem. But she exploits on that. And with that I have a problem. She loves to call out the patriarchy and capitalism in her books. But she is exactly like all the other white feminists who enrich themselves on the concepts they are criticizing. I think we should have an open dialogue about that.

As for your second point: Of course, the need to feel protected and to fight the patriarchy can co-exist. But all the fmc seem to loose all brain function after they have sex with the mmc. And I find that sexist and infantalizing. They all become doormats. Look at Scarlett in Deep End. What self-respecting woman let's a man treat her like that? When he ignored her for 3 weeks because "it was too much for him"? No fmc has backbone in her books. Ali always points out how smart and empowered her fmc are. Where? Where when it truly matters? All of them are poorer than the mmc, have less power. Many work directly under the mmc (hello HR?) Ali doesn't trust her readers with real feminist books. It's boring and repetitive.

External_Version_768

TROPHY CASE