What's the point of a revolution without general copulation?

that nothing ever became of the fact that Dawn is actually an ancient ball of energy with immense power.

Did the comics ever do anything with that?

Interesting Times, a J2 AU based on BBC Sherlock.

Bite You, kind of a perfect Darla/Lindsay vid; astartexx makes the footage look stunning.

Superheroes in Court at Yale Show

The case of “The People vs. Superman” is not found in the hornbooks that are scoured by the nation’s law students. But if they had been youngsters in 1967, when Action Comics No. 359 first came out, they might have been amazed to see the Man of Steel in an unusual situation. Instead of zooming through the sky or confronting talkative archvillains, he is in a courtroom, sitting in the witness chair. A little girl is standing in front of the Man of Steel, pointing at him.

“That’s him!” she shouts. “He’s the man who killed my Daddy!”

If you missed that scene — or the one of the Hulk smashing up a courtroom just before sentencing in “The Incredible Hulk vs. Everybody” from 1972 — you can see them at Yale University, in the Lillian Goldman Law Library’s rare book exhibition gallery.

The show, “Superheroes in Court! Lawyers, Law and Comic Books,” provides images of superheroes in the dock, comic books about lawyers and examples of legal disputes and Congressional inquiries involving caped crusaders.

That's cool enough - but, what's this?

The exhibition also includes “Wolff & Byrd: Counselors of the Macabre.” The strip first appeared in The Brooklyn Paper in the late ’70s and later appeared in The National Law Journal. It chronicles the adventures of two lawyers in Brooklyn who deal with supernatural clients, including vampires who want legal protection against a certain teenage slayer, and issues like the property damage claims after a Hulk-like superhero goes berserk.

Seriously?

Edit: Oh, I see - the Vampire Slayer issue was written more recently as a Buffy parody. Still, I'm amused that a supernatural law firm with the name "Wolff" was envisioned in the 70s.

Pursuit of Happiness. The Wire. Never seen The Wire, but no matter - this was a heartbreaking character study.

Things Have Changed. Angel. Wesley's story. Oh, how I miss Dark!Wesley - probably my favorite Angel!verse character, and this is a wonderful tribute to him.

CITIHALL*. Futurama. I've barely seen Futurama and but that's irrelevant - this is some amazing storytellng, amazing blend of song and source.

Day 16 - A vid that told you something new about a show/movie you already loved

Cuckoo, by obsessive24. Lindsey-eye view of Angel.

Ruiner, by danegen. Angel to Spike, Angel to Connor.

( Rest of Days )

I am so going to regret posting, I can feel it in my bones.

There's this raging debate in vidder-dom about warnings on vids and Vividcon. And I probably should stick to my silence because although I'm a vidder and I have had vids play at VVC, I've never premiered there and I've never attended, and I've never attended any fan con, so I really don't know what I'm talking about.

But me and yhlee will probably take some lessons from this for the next round of festivids, and the outcome of all of this probably will inform how I post vids in the future, so...

I can't help but feel that some of the conversation on warnings is being obscured by the phrase "warnings for sexual assault, self-harm, etc." Which opens up to all kinds of issues about what to warn for, and will this create a stigma, and aren't all vids violent (answer: yes - tishaturk posted a while back asking for recs of vids that had no violence, and basically could find maybe one or two. Which is a whole interesting and different conversation).

We aren't a community of combat veterans. We aren't a community of alcholics or former drug users. I have no doubt that there are, in fact, combat veterans and alcoholics and former drug users in our community, but this community generally, and VVC in particular, is unified in that we are majority-women who like vids and like action and science fiction television and usually like to write and read porn about them.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but my perception is that for this community, it's about sexual assault. And possibly self-harm. I have no doubt that people in the community have other specific triggers - I saw someone post about one in particular - but the common triggers here, the ones that (a) don't come up with such frequency that a warning would be functionally useless because it would touch 90% of the vids; and (b) are likely to be relatively common within this community, seem to be sexual assault, and possibly self-harm.

And I wonder if the positions would be far apart if we framed the question in these specific terms: Ticky boxes for sexual assault, and possibly graphic self-harm. That's all.

If I ruled the world and I controlled VVC, I'd probably have ticky boxes for sexual assault, graphic self-harm, and maybe something like "strobe lights or white flashes in a substantial portion of the vid and/or as a persistent visual theme" (in order to distinguish unusually migraine-triggery vids from the ones that have that shot of Buffy and Faith dancing in the Bronze that time).

And there would of course be a choose not to warn option (I don't think the con can fairly be characterized as currently all choose-not-to-warn; I've been submitting vids for a few years now and have never experienced myself as choosing not to warn - also, if you submit to a show, there is no box or space or anything to include even a summary of your vid, much less a warning). And there'd be a box where you could type in additional warnings as an option, so that vidders who wished to do so would be able to provide a more nuanced explanation of the contents of their vids. And the warnings text box would be a separate box from the "summary" box and it would be available for all uploaded vids. And the warnings would be available on a separate sheet of paper so that those who don't need them and don't want to be spoiled can avoid them.

But that wasn't bad.

I do have some things to say - but not about that thing. About the other things.

( Spoilers think that every exit is an entrance somewhere else. )

- this is not about fanvids.

And second of all ... I do not think "Angel/Spike" means what you think it means.

So as I continued, for reasons beyond understanding, to immerse myself in the horror show that is the "debate" over the SGU rape episode, I started to think about other bodyswap TV episodes and how they dealt with sex.

At which point, I remembered Buffy's Who Are You/This Year's Girl, and how Faith slept with Riley.

And the reason I like how that played out is that there was a real demonstration of how painful this was for Buffy - instead of a reset-button kind of thing which is what usually happens when women are mind-controlled/bodyswapped/drugged into sex in TV shows, so that there's no real sense of any harm done (I'm looking at you, SGA and Supernatural).

Now, this was a slightly different situation - it was a rape of Buffy, she hadn't consented, but Riley of course was ignorant of it, so the only rapist was Faith. And because Riley was Buffy's boyfriend, and someone she slept with willingly anyway, Joss could easily have brushed past the rapey-ness (thanks so much, rivkat, for introducing me to that word) and focused solely on Buffy's jealousy, etc, after the fact.

But he didn't. He went out of his way to demonstrate that this was a sexual violation. How? Because he had Faith the Rapist intentionally propose rough, kinky sex to Riley, and it was very clearly an aggressive act against Buffy. Faith could force Buffy to do anything Faith wanted, particularly sexual acts that Buffy would ordinarily find distasteful, and that was Faith's motivation for seducing Riley in the first place.

So, anyway, my point is, that was an episode that did not shy away from demonstrating the horror of the sexual violation to the person being violated - unlike just about every other show that uses this trope.