tencrush: (ianto pie)
tencrush ([personal profile] tencrush) wrote2008-04-03 05:42 pm

Alright, so I lied about shutting up...TORCHWOOD RANDOMNESS

Been reading through some links in my flist, and instead of getting involved in any debates, I'll just post some random stuff here.

  • First off, quite a few people have friended me over the past few weeks, I haven't got round to friending everyone back, as I need to set up some filters and I'm just not in the mood at the moment. I'm not ignoring or dissing any of you, I promise, I just need to start organising my friendslist a bit before I get overwhelmed.


  • SEXYTHINGS 1: [livejournal.com profile] solitary_summer wrote something here about Fragments: Ianto is pushy throughout all three meetings, he can't even diplomatically agree with Jack's pterodactyl catching plan, touches Jack all the time, and even though Jack didn't know why he wanted to work for him so badly, he could hardly have failed to notice that there was a lot of planning and determination involved. Jack can never have seen the formal, coffee-serving, coat-handing, Yes, Sir, perfect butler act as anything but an act, maybe even a bit of a joke between them.
    I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. I think the butler thing is where they first got into a spot of roleplaying.

  • SEXYTHINGS 2: [livejournal.com profile] etharei posted a theory in [livejournal.com profile] torch_wood that the reason Jack was so fervently calling for Ianto in Adrift when Ianto was on the phone to Gwen, was that Ianto had cuffed Jack to something. Again, that was also my impression, yes. BAD, NAUGHTY IANTO, though, remember your bondage crash course: NEVER LEAVE THE ROOM, no matter how innocuous the predicament, especially not in the Hub, surely. One of Owen's alien plant experiments could have come to life and be eating Jack's cock by now and you'd still be down there making the perfect cappuccino.

  • I said I wouldn't touch this debate with a shitty stick, and I'm not going to throw myself into the one posted at [livejournal.com profile] torch_wood for that precise reason, but seriously, guys: DEFININING SOMEONES SEXUALITY AS BI(OMNI)SEXUAL HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THAT PERSON'S CAPACITY OR DESIRE FOR MONOGAMY WITHIN A RELATIONSHIP. NONE. That's all I'm going to say on the subject. Jesus H. Christ on a bike.


Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting