#AND TOO the fact that it's feminine in a derogatory sense

[rayveneyed]

cw: smut / a/b/o dynamics / cisfem!reader

contrary to popular, old-fashioned belief, alphas and omegas can be friends.

long gone are those times of wilful ignorance, the use of nature as an excuse for shitty behaviour —well, i'm an alpha, see, so i really can't help trying to shove my hand up your skirt, so—

most people are chill nowadays, you like to think — like to being the key phrase. sure, you get the occasional tradomega trying to tell you that you need to dive into your divine feminine and serve your alpha as god intended — and you've definitely been on the receiving side of some ticking biological clock rhetoric, for sure, by snot-nosed alphas with not even a single yen to their name — but it is what it is.

all of this to say that: when sero hanta is guts deep in you, it's completely platonic. completely. cute. casual. nowadays, no hair-brained ideas of marriage or monogamy or commitment accompany your coupling — it’s animal instinct, dirty and intense and slick and hot, scratching a biological itch, and that’s it.

you really lucked out on your choice of partner, too. sero’s an alpha, yes, but not in the derogatory sense. he doesn't get pissed when he smells other alphas on you, like a territorial dog; doesn't tell you that you should be settled down, already, with a household of pups to manage at 25 years of age; doesn't push and prod when you work long hours and devote most of your time to your career. he's funny, and goofy, and tall, and lean, and — and, well, his hair is floppy and inky black, and when he's hunched over you, sweat dripping onto your collarbone from his pointed nose, his cheeks flush the cutest shade of pink…

ahem. anyways.

while there are many omegas that are no doubt stronger than you when it comes to heats, forgoing human contact in favour of 700-odd pounds of silicone, you're part of the large majority that would rather shack up with somebody real. you're not knocking it, of course! your sock drawer is testament to the fact that you love your silicone, really, but there's just something about a person. all heat and skin-to-skin, sticky and nasty in a way that leaves you more satisfied than anything else.

and sero — with his kind eyes and goofy smile (and skintight hero suit) — is not only more than willing to help you through your heats, but have you enjoy them. not an easy feat when your insides are tying themselves up in knots between orgasms, but by god does he do it. something about his hips... something about the way he bows his head to your shoulder, grinding long and slow into you, hips pressed flush to hips. his lips brushing against your skin when he groans, his fingers tangling in your hair to pull your head back. you're not sure if you should be jealous of his obvious sexual experience, or just grateful that you get to be on the receiving end of it.

there is, of course, the obvious romantic connotations of it all. you’re not stupid enough to completely ignore it; after all, heats are these romanticised, coming-of-age-esque happenings, the plot of most early 2000 rom-coms and bad pornos. cute omega roommate forgets her suppressants and goes into heat! real alpha-omega love-making guaranteed!

but its not like that, because hanta is hanta and you are you. you’re like sharkboy and lavagirl. or fireboy and watergirl. whichever pairing fits the dynamic better — you’ve always been the hothead between you two.

“that’s a really shitty idea,” a friend warns you. she’d caught you with your scarf undone, baring the hickies that hanta had left on you to the world — an embarrassing result of the occasional non-heat trysts you’d find yourself caught up in. you couldn’t even blame the heat hormones for the way you’d almost mauled him, but a girl simply has needs! “i’m telling you, casual heat sex never works. trust me.”

but it works for you and hanta, right? because no matter how much you fight, how much you disagree, how much you chastise him for putting himself directly in the line of fire — on live tv, no less! — it all melts away in a pile of blankets and pillows. no matter how deep his cock drives in you, no matter how his teeth scrape your scent glands and have your toes curling against his back, it all ends up the same — slumped in front of the tv, lazily lounging on your phone while he boots up his nintendo 64 to kick ganondorf’s ass for the billionth time.

(and it doesn’t matter that sero isn’t seeing anyone else — it doesn’t matter that he’s deleted his dating apps, or that you keep the pillow he sleeps on when he comes over so that you can scent it when he’s gone. it doesn’t matter that he reminds you to take your anxiety meds — you know, omegas are 44% more likely to have GAD than the average person? — or that he remembers how you take your tea, coffee, and pho. these are things you’d do with any friend, of course.)

it’s cute. casual. not at all romantic, so surely you shouldn’t think twice about leaving a toothbrush at his place. and what harm could a set of pyjamas do? and you could always do with an extra pair of socks, and your skincare, and perhaps an extra phone charger…?

[patricide1885]

Online (and to a lesser extent offline) FTM community traits I've noticed:

Extremely risk adverse and certainly aren't open to experimenting and risk taking. Anti-diy

Very concerned with victimhood and their place in the oppression Olympics. Perceived leverage through being oppressed is more important than actual power. They are very jealous of trans women for this reason. They don't like being seen as being less oppressed than trans women.

Neurotic/anxious

Low self esteem

Not competitive

Pessimistic

Tend to be connected to fandoms

Extremely reactive and can be very toxic online in my experience. Very defensive.

Very impractical. Unaware that the rest of the world isn't like their online communities. Very siloed and seem to almost lack a sense of self preservation. They've kept themselves so safe and siloed away in their communities that they real world is no longer real to them

Intolerant of negative feelings on any level

Liberal, radlib, or vaguely sjw nerdy moderate, not usually leftist in any real way

Very pomo, but not in a self aware way

Timid and introverted

Reflexively obedient to authority/they tend to conflate obedience with morality

Do not have faith in their ability to reason and think for themselves. Don't consider themselves competent or capable of becoming so

Very sensitive. Intolerant of criticism or even anything that's not perfectly positive.

They don't tell the truth or want to know the truth if it's anything but what they'd want it to be/how they think it "should" be. Ie. They think and say a lot of obviously false things just because they feel good and view anyone saying differently as morally bad. In fact they aren't concerned with reality or truth at all. The truth must not hurt their feelings.

Being self confident is considered morally bad. You are expected to undermine yourself when you speak to make other people feel comfortable. If you're too confident you are like a cis man (derogatory)

Think everything has to do with them and therefore get very upset when someone says something they don't relate to. Very easily offended.

Don't tend to joke around

Very "I am feel uncomfortable when we are not about me"

Require external validation

Many seem to mentally separate themselves from cis men. They don't want to be compared to cis men. Cis men are ontologically bad. Therefore they have a complex about this where they want to separate themselves from cis men socially as much as possible and they mindlessly consider anything that feminist women aren't into as toxic masculinity. Even things as innocuous as weightlifting, football, or fishing

They see cis men as above them, as more powerful than them. Gay relationships between them and cis men often end up mimicking straight dynamics because they feel incapable of stepping into their own power/they seem totally blind to that concept in the first place. They are often blind when dating cis men that see them as women

Unaware of how their positionality has shifted as they start passing as men in general

Continue to think of themselves as operating from a female position and don't latch onto healthy value shifts. Ie. They may continue to be obsessed with being skinny and having a small waist even though that isn't valued in males.

Immune and often blind to to a lot of male expectations and pressures - to be successful, to be strong, to be competent and courageous, to be able to take care of themselves. To not seem gay or feminine. This can be both positive and negative

Derive comfort from limiting expectations on themselves as much as possible - as they are very sensitive, they don't want to be held to masculine standards, even in the way cis men are. This is fine in a way, but also a little delusional/evidence that they don't see themselves as men

Don't tend to have cis male friends

Have a strong drive to seek comfort

Passive, don't seem to understand the concept of being an actor in the world. Not really into doing

Culty impulses - very group-think prone. Dislike people who are different from them

Don't think a lot in general - not a sharpened skill. Content to let other people think for them. Not a very intellectual group - Tend to react rather than think. They don't like it when other people think too much either - there's a sort of anti-intellectualism

Not good at respectfully disagreeing with others. They either submit to the other person's beliefs or they are furious that you are disagreeing with them and behave in a toxic immature way

Very concerned with being seen as good in an abstract obedient child way. Obsessed with being harmless. Can't even comprehend that there might be times where it is important for one to do harm on purpose. They present themselves as thoroughly defanged because they don't think a man can be good without being incapable of harm. Try to be golden retriever boys

That said, they will absolutely cause harm, but in a very immature reactive way. They don't want to cause harm because they don't want to feel bad, not because they have any sort of moral core. If bigotry results in more comfort than not being bigoted, they will be bigoted in a "I am the victim" way

Very childish in general, in both behavior and interests.

Very abstract but simplistic. Their idea of how the world should be overrides how the world actually is across the board.

Fetishize youth - don't have a concept that they can't transition to be a boy for the rest of their life and will one day necessarily be a man/at their age they are men. They don't have a plan for that and they don't like the word man.

Very into fantasy, stories, and drawings and characters.

Fantasize > analyze

L

[chroniclyst]

🐁 🚬 🪓 ⚖️ for paris and jax!

paris

🐁 how are this characters ethics?

she's very ends-justify-the-means if the ends are knowledge or learning something new. life doesn't mean that much to her (including her own life). part of that is the fact that she's not human and doesn't prioritize humans? she doesn't generally think murder is okay per se but would if necessary. she holds herself to a different standard than other people but doesn't judge others too harshly (generally).

🚬 smoking/drinking habits? signature brand or drink?

she's definitely into weed! and has tried some of the like. fairy drugs that are out of this fucking world. generally she'll try anything once to Know! this has led to some pretty bad trips. she doesn't really get the whole like. stigma around drugs and alcohol. she also drinks socially on the rare occasions she's social (particularly with jax) and likes fun and fruity beverages. doesn't really go in for cigarettes tho

🪓 would they make it to the end in a horror movie?

she could potentially make it, yeah. she's got the wherewithal to survive--she's very smart and aware of her surroundings, and doesn't really have moral qualms to hold back. plus she'd generally learn about whatever it was she was facing and be helped out by that.

HOWEVER! she might get herself killed due to the hubris. pride can easily be her downfall

⚖️ how do they seek justice?

she doesn't really have a strong sense of justice? which is part of her lack of ethics and also helps her get along with jax's own moral failings. she allows other people to seek their own justice because she doesn't see how it involves her, even if it's something that upsets her. if she were personally wronged, she just. wouldn't care that much? she's deffo not the type for any sort of vengeance quest. it's a waste of time and energy to her

jax

🐁 how are this characters ethics?

corrupt cop (derogatory); they have a strong sense of justice but a weak moral compass and bad ways of enforcing it. they are generally not concerned about hurting people with few exceptions. they just don't value most people, excepting the people they care about, where their morals are somewhat improved. they're pretty hypocritical that way.

🚬 smoking/drinking habits? signature brand or drink?

hidden flask type of guy! they're not super experimental but paris has convinced them to try new things on occasion. doesn't really care about weed but does smoke cigarettes now and then, particularly when anxious. socially drinks beer, the flask probably has whiskey. sees wine as too feminine for them. for the same reason, won't drink paris's fruity little concoctions

🪓 would they make it to the end in a horror movie?

no <3 too much pride, they'd get themself killed doing stupid shit trying to face off against the horror. they have the survival skills, they just would not use them. they see themself as untouchable and would be proved wrong.

⚖️ how do they seek justice?

with their own two hands. they pursue it very personally, and with a powerful drive. they don't defer to the justice system--they see themself as the law, not its enforcer. they could and would kill

[qbdream]

Hello! Happy June! It's Pride and I have another question (8/30)

HiHi, today we are again diving into the evolution of another word: queer!

The word queer entered the English language around the 16th century, and initially meant "strange", "odd" or "eccentric". (This is a slightly unrelated sidenote; as someone whose dialect of English is Hiberno-English, the word queer is still very commonly used to still mean this, and has also evolved to the word "quare" which can be used in place of "really" or "very" to provide adverbial emphasis <- like if someone is "quare tall" they're so tall that you're kinda in a little disbelief about it. Anyway just thought this was a fun side note because I really had not realised this word was controversial for people until I was on the internet)

Anyway, onto the late 19th century, the word queer began to have the connotation of "sexual deviance", before then starting to be used specifically about the "sexual deviance" of "feminine men".

The first, or at least one of the first, recorded time that the word queer was used as a pejorative for gay was in a letter written by John Sholto Douglas, 9th Marquis of Queensberry, about his son's relationship with Oscar Wilde. This letter was read out in Wilde's trial in April 1895 (in which he was being tried for "gross indecency" or "homosexuality"), and in it Douglas refers to Wilde and other gay men at the time as "Snob Queers". It is believed that American newspapers picked up this phrase and began using it themselves, thus spreading the pejorative to the US's vocabulary.

"The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang" (1937) defined the word queer as "Homosexual. Derogatory from the outside, not from within. US, 1914", which tells us both that by 1914 it was a common pejorative or insult for gay people, but also, that queer people were using the word to refer to themselves as well. Around this time, queer, fairy, trade and gay all signified distinct "categories" of homosexual men. Historian George Chauncey notes in his book ("Gay New York") that queer would've been the self-identifier of ""masculine"" gay men.

We can also assume that this is what was happening in the U.K. as well, as a letter held in the National Archives shows us (you can look up the letter in full, search the full name of the person and "My Dear Billy"). This letter was written by a man named Cyril Coeur de Leon to ‘My Dear Billy’ in 1934. Billy was the owner of "The Caravan Club", a ""disorderly house"" of ""male prostitutes"", and in it he writes "Just a note to say that I am very disappointed about you. I honestly thought you were queer, but different from the others, and I liked you very much […] I have only been queer since I came to London about two years ago, before then I knew nothing about it." This use of queer is arguably ahead of it's time, given that at this point queer was exclusively about gay men, whereas de Leon mentions he "still likes girls occasionally".

Over the years though, queer has evolved from the narrow definition of "gay man" to "gay men and lesbians" to "anyone not heterosexual" to "not heterosexual and/or not cisgender". And despite the fact that for the majority of the time that it has meant "gay" it has been used by the community, some people are still of the opinion that the word is "too offensive" to be used, but thankfully, this argument isn't as common as it was in the 90s and 00s, though still annoying persistent.

And as for my question, today I want to know firstly, if you use the word queer yourself? and secondly, what is your favourite word/way to refer to the queer community? (for example, "friend of dorothy" is funny to drop into conversation, and today I spoke to some who said they were "looking forward to meeting other *limp hand movement* at [pub name] tonight!")

Happy Pride 🌈 🎉

i honestly will usually refer to myself as queer just in a general sense!! i dont have a good word that i like to describe my sexuality or gender so its a good coverall word. when i was growing up it was definitely used in a derogatory sense but i dont really hear that anymore with the exception of older folks

one of my old coworkers referred to the queer community as the "alphabet mafia" once and that was very funny to me although i'll generally just playfully refer to everyone as The Gays because i think its hilarious

[penguicorns-are-cool]

a lot of people will probably bring the fact that dick is commonly used in a derogative way too.

This ignores a lot of social context like how many other generally derogatory words are associated with women like

hysterical (derived from greek for uterus: hystera)

bitch

pussy (when used to mean coward)

cunt (ofc)

slut

whore (comes from words from multiple germanic languages meaning things like prostitute and adulterer and eventually came to mean filth before becoming what it is now. idk this one has a lot of history actually and idk how to summarize it well just look it up if you're interested)

and more. There are also words that refer to women that are recognized as being inherently derogatory like spinster and old-maid. The way women have in the past and in modern-day been portrayed as villains for simply existing in the wrong way such as: visibly aging, single or childless. The way our culture encourages victim-blaming women and labels anything feminine as either weak or wrong. These words carry a lot more weight when you consider the sexism that surround them.

Meanwhile, words like dick do not have anywhere near the same weight even when used in the most derogatory manner you can think of. "dick" is common terminology for penises, not just a curse word. dick is mild enough that it can be and is commonly used as a nickname and sometimes as a birth name. It's not taboo to talk about dicks, and to some extent masturbation, not in the way it is to talk about vaginas. The fact that it wouldn't make sense for me to use cunt in this context instead of vagina even when I can use dick instead of penis because of its connotation is proof of that. dick can even be used as a compliment.

If you have, or want, a vagina, it's taboo to talk about it. It's considered slutty and improper to talk about sex or masturbation once you mention or if it's implied in any way that you have a vagina. you can get away with it if you're masc-presenting, but only if you don't mention vaginas too much, and it becomes less taboo if you talk about dicks even if you're more femme-presenting.

social context matters, the social context of sexism matters a lot and adds so much more weight to these words.

that anon who hates the word cunt doesn't realise that it's really weird to refer to a woman that way in Britain, do they? that's an insult that's used for men.

i mean yeah but i really would like to get back to the point that using a word that refers to "female" anatomy as a way to berate someone is sexist and we should stop doing it. like it's probably not going to happen, especially in countries where it's so normalized, but we could at the very least acknowledge the sexist origins.

[nimblermortal]

Actually I already have Opinions about the way nouns are gendered in Old Norse.

I mean, it’s sexist, sure. That’s... largely I think of it as a helpful mnemonic. But the ways in which it is sexist say interesting things about the nature of the society. For example, rei∂i is anger, and it’s feminine, because expressing any emotion is not drengr*.

Most body parts are neuter, because everybody’s got a body, but arms are masculine (presumably, strength of arms), tongues are feminine (those women, always talking, amirite), and shoulders are also feminine (...?).

Weapons are neuter. It is utterly fascinating to me that weapons are neuter. Swords are neuter. Shields are neuter. Spears are neuter. Weapons are neuter. Anybody can wield a weapon?

Compliments tend to end in -ma∂r, which is masculine, but in a neuter sense, the way that ‘man’ is used to mean humankind. (Ma∂r also declines irregularly, becoming mann and manni and menn and etc.) So generally compliments and distinguished professions are technically masculine, but a lot of my flash cards use the word ‘person’ regardless of how likely I think it is that women were ever described as such. One day I will be fluent enough to read sagas and then maybe I’ll have an idea.

The moon is masculine. It is in German too - German is another gender mnemonic for me with ON - but here I know why, and it has to do with folkloric wolves. Well, we’ve all been subject to folkloric wolves forcibly rearranging our genders, it happens to the best of us.

Jörmungandr is an ongoing, fascinating puzzle for me - I think it was jór that was stallion, and masculine, but jǫr∂** is earth, and feminine. The dictionary I’ve got doesn’t have any additional breakdowns for mungr or mung or mun or gandr; Wikipedia says it means huge monster, but I want to know for myself. In the meantime, it’s a great mnemonic for all these other adjacent words to think of Jǫrmungandr as - a sibling of Sleipnir’s? Named relative to his position as world serpent?

It’s fun!

*drengr is the opposite of ergr. Ergr is pretty much equivalent to 2000s derogatory “gay”. Drengr is consequently... masculine virtue, in the way it’s understood in Saga Age Norse societies, or, since I’m reading Icelandic sagas, the way masculine virtue in the Saga Age is imagined by ~fourteenth century literate folks.

**ǫ is a constant challenge for me, I can’t figure out how to type it in any context, and I can’t substitute with ó, ø, œ, or ö because those are all in use in ON.

[baeddel]

Please. Please can you tell me what a baeddel is and why people (terfs?) used it in a derogatory manner on this website for a hot minute but now no one ever uses it at all

you asked for it, fucker

[2k words; philology and drama]

baeddel is an Old English word. i have no idea where it actually occurs in the Old English written corpus, but it occurs in a few placenames. its diminuitive form, baedling, is much better documented. it appears in the (untranslated) Canons of Theodore, a penitential handbook, a sort of guidebook for priests offering advice on what penances should be recommended for which sins. in a passage devoted to sexual transgressions it gives the penances suggested for a man who sleeps with a woman, a man who sleeps with another man, and then a man who sleeps with a baedling. so you have this construction of a baedling as something other than a man or a woman. and then it gives the penance for a baedling who sleeps with another baedling (a ludicrous one-year fast). then, by way of an explaination, Theodore delivers us one of the most enigmatic phrases in the Old English corpus: "for she is soft, like an adulturess."

the -ling suffix in baedling is masculine. but Theodore uses feminine pronouns and suffixes to describe baedlings. as we said, it's also used separately from male and female. but it's also used separately from their words for intersex and it never appears in this context. all of this means that you have this word that denotes a subject who is, as Christopher Monk put it, "of problematic gender." interested historians have typically interpreted it as referring to some category of homosexual male, such as Wayne R. Dines in his two-volume Encyclopedia of Homosexuality who discusses it in the context of an Old English glossary which works a bit like an Old English-Latin dictionary, giving Old English words and their Latin counterparts. the Latin words the Anglo-Saxon lexicographer chose to correspond with baedling were effeminatus and mollis, and Lang concludes that it refers to an "effeminate homosexual" (pg 60, Anglo Saxon). this same glossary gives as an Old English synonym the word waepenwifstere which literally means "woman with a penis," and which Dines gives the approximate translation (hold on tight) male wife.

R. D. Fulk, a philologist and medievalist, made a separate analysis of the term in his study on the Canons of Theodore 'Male Homoeroticism in the Old English Canons of Theodore', collected in Sex and Sexuality in Medieval England, 2004. he analysed it as a 'sexual category' (sexual as in sexuality), owing to the context of sexual transgressions in the Canons. he decides that it refers to a man who bottoms in sexual relationships with another man. i don't have the article on hand so i'm not sure what his reasoning was, but this seems obviously inadequate given what we know from the glossary described by Dines. Latin has a word for bottom, pathica, and the lexicographer did not use this in their translation, preferring words that emphasized the baedling's femininity like effeminatus, and doesn't address the sexual context at all. Dines, however, only reading this glossary, seems to decide that it refers to a type of male homosexual too hastily, considering the Canons explicitly treat them separately. both Dines and Fulk immediately reduce the baedling to a subcategory of homosexual when neither of the sources to hand actually do so themselves.

by now it should be obvious why, seven or so years ago, we interpreted it as an equivalent to trans woman. I mean come on - a woman with a penis! these days I tend to add a bit of a caution to this understanding, which is that trans woman is the translation of baedling which seems most adequate to us, just as baedling was the translation of effeminatus that seemed most adequate to our lexicographer. but the term cannot translate perfectly; its sense was derived from some minimal context; a legal context, a doctrinal context, and so forth... the way Anglo-Saxons understood sex/gender is complicated but it has been argued that they had a 'one sex model' and didn't regard men and women as biologically separate types, which is obviously quite different from the sexual model accepted today; in any case they didn't have access to the karyotype and so on. the basic categories they used to understand gender and sexuality were different from ours. in particular, Hirschfield et al. should be understood as a particularly revolutionary moment in the genealogy of transsexuality; the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft essentially invented the concept of the 'sex change', the 'transition', conceived as a biological passage from one sex to the other. even in other contexts where (forgive me) #girlslikeus changed their bodies in some way, like the castration of the priestesses of Cybele, or those belonging to the various historical societies which we believe used premarin for feminization [disputed; see this post], there is no record that they were ever considered men at any stage or had some kind of male biology that preceded their 'gender identity.' the concept of the trans woman requires the minimal context of the coercive assignment at birth and its subsequent (civil and bio-technological) rejection. i have never encountered evidence that this has ever been true in any previous society. nonetheless, these societies still had gendered relations, and essentially wherever we find these gendered relations we also find some subject which is omitted or for whom it has been necessary to note exceptions. what is of chief interest to us is not so much that there was such a subject here or there in history (and whatever propagandistic uses this fact might have), but understanding why these regularities exist.

a very parsimonious explanation is that gender is a biological reality, and there is some particular biological subject which a whole host of words have been conjured to denote. if this were the case then we would expect that, no matter what gender/sexual system we encounter in a given society, it will inevitably find some linguistic expression. if, like me, you find this idea revolting, then you should busy yourself trying to come up with an alternative explanation which is not just plausible, but more plausible. my best guesses are outside the scope of this answer...

anyway, all of this must be very interesting to the five or six people invested in the confluence of philology and gender studies. but why on earth did it become so widely used, in so many strange and unusual contexts, in the 2010s? we're very sorry, but yes, it's our fault. you see apart from all of this, there is also a little piece of information which goes along with the word baeddel, which is that it's the root of the Modern English word bad. by way of, no less, the word baedan, 'to defile'. how this defiled historical subject came to bear responsibility for everything bad to English-speakers doesn't seem to be known from linguistic evidence. however, it makes for a very pithy little remark on transmisogyny. my dear friend [REDACTED] made a playful little post making this point and, good Lord, had we only known...

it went like this. its such a funny little idea that we all start changing our urls to include the word baeddel. in those days it was common to make puns with your url (we always did halloween and christmas ones); i was baeddelaire, a play on the French poet Baudelaire. while we all still had these urls a series of events which everyone would like to forget happened, and we became Enemies of Everyone in the Whole World. because of the url thing people started to call us "the baeddels." then there was "a cult" called "the baeddels" and so forth. this cult had various infamies attatched to it and a constellation of indefensible political positions. ultimately we faced a metric fucking shit ton of harassment, including, for some of my friends, really serious and bad irl harassment that had long-term bad awful consequences relating to stable housing and physical safety and i basically never want to talk about that part of my life ever again. and i never have to, because i've come to realize that for most people, when they use the word baeddel, they don't know about that stuff. it doesn't mean that anymore.

so what does it mean? you'll see it in a few contexts. TERFs do use it, as you guessed. i am not quite sure what they really mean by it and how it differs from other TERF barbs. i think being a baeddel invovles being politically active or at least having a political consciousness, but in a way thats distinct from just any 'TRA' or trans activist. so perhaps 'militant' trans women, but perhaps also just any trans woman with any opinions at all. how this was transmitted from tumblr/west coast tranny drama to TERF vocabulary i have no idea. but you will also find - or, could have found a few years ago - i would say 'copycat' groups who didn't know us or what we believed but heard the rumours, and established their own (generously) organizations (usually facebook groups) dedicated to putting those principles into practice. they considered themselves trans lesbian separatists and did things like doxx and harass trans women who dated cafabs. if you don't know about this, yes, there really were such groups. they mostly collapsed and disappeared because they were evildoers who based their ideology on a caricature. i knew a black trans woman who was treated very badly by one of these groups, for predictable reasons. so long-time readers: if you see people talking about their bad experiences with 'baeddels', you can't necessarily relate it to the 2014 context and assume they're carrying around old baggage. there are other dreams in the nightmare.

the most common way you'll see it today, in my experience, is in this form: people will say that it was a "slur" for trans women. they might bring up that it's the root of the word bad, and they might even think that you shouldn't use the word bad because of it, or that you shouldn't use the word baeddel because it's a slur. all of this is a silly game of internet telephone and not worth addressing. except to say that it's by no means clear that baeddel, or baedling, were slurs, or even insulting at all. while Theodore doesn't provide us with a description of how we can have sex with a baedling without sinning, and it may be the case that any sexual relations with a baedling was considered sinful, sexuality-based transgressions were not taken all that seriously in those days. there was a period where homosexuality within the Church was almost sanctioned, and it wasn't until much later that homosexuality became so harshly proscribed, to the extent that it was thought to represent a threat to society, etc. and as i mentioned, there are places in England named after baedlings. there is a little parish near Kent which is called Badlesmere, Baeddel's Lake, which was recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Domesday Book (as having a lord, a handful of villagers and a few slaves; perhaps only one or two households). it's not unheard of, but i just don't know very many places called Faggot Town or some such. it's possible that baedlings had some role in Anglo-Saxon society which we are not aware of; it could even have been a prestigious one, as it was in other societies. there is just no evidence other than a couple of passing references in the literature and we'll probably never have a complete picture.

[troquantary]

Cutting Hair as Punishment in the Twilight Saga

Okay, I’ve been trying to organize my thoughts around this into a sort-of-essay format for a while, because I find it disturbingly mean-spirited: Meyer has a pattern of using hair-cutting as a form of punishment for characters, especially female characters, who fail to embrace Bella and the Cullens with open arms. I’m talking particularly about Leah and Lauren, both of whom, while not outright antagonists like Victoria or James, are situated along with Rosalie as “against” Bella throughout the series. The Quileute pack, meanwhile, is situated largely “against” the Cullens, meaning Jacob and the rest of the pack get the Haircut of Shame, too.

(Also, I’ve been creeping through @panlight ‘s blog because I thought she had a recent post relating to this -- I was probably thinking of this submission and her addendum, which does discuss Meyer’s “punishment” of certain characters, but that post was about characters suffering for not waiting for True Love, or daring to do the Devil’s Tango before marriage. Still, it’s on-theme and very much worth reading, like all her stuff!)

So here’s the general outline: first I’m gonna talk about the shapeshifters and how their overall lack of choice frames cutting their hair as something forced on them and therefore punitive. Then I’m going to discuss Meyer’s FAQ response where she reveals that Lauren was tricked into cutting off most of her hair over the summer before New Moon, and how this adds an extra fun misogynistic element to the hair-cutting theme with respect to Lauren and Leah. I also use way too many words to do it, sorry.

Punishment | The Shapeshifters Are Given No Other Option

I don’t have the background or knowledge to discuss the significance of long hair to indigenous culture and identity in detail, and my understanding is that different tribes ascribe different meanings to it. What I’ve read it about it suggests that, generally, long hair represents strength of one’s individual spirit and of the community. It’s a source of pride, and is only cut off voluntarily in extraordinary circumstances, often as an expression of grief, or to mark a significant life change.

This sort of works in the context of the shapeshifters all cutting their hair -- phasing into a giant wolf, discovering the existence of the supernatural, and assuming the role of protectors is a major life event for these characters. But the negative associations make it a troubling choice on Meyer’s part, and that’s without even getting into the problem of her imposing her own worldbuilding onto the legends and culture of a real tribe. Because of the lack of choice involved in becoming a shapeshifter, the whole situation feels like a scenario in which the Quileute characters have their hair forcibly cut -- a degrading and traumatic act that (depending on their particular tribal belief) might symbolically sever them from their sense of cultural identity and connection with the rest of their tribe.

It all kind of begs the question: why does Meyer even have shapeshifting work this way? What narrative utility is there in having the length of their hair in human form determine the length of their fur as wolves, thereby compelling the shapeshifters to cut it so it isn’t a physical impediment? It’s another sign of the changes in Jacob, sure, but he’s already being uncharacteristically cold and distant, plus suddenly has the physique of a fit twenty-five-year-old; Bella already knows something’s very wrong. His short hair is just another jarring thing for Bella to notice and mourn, like the loss of Jacob’s “baby face” and general sunniness.

It does work as a symbolic thing, representing another sacrifice Jacob has to make and the change in how he now has to perceive himself -- but he’s already got a literal giant wolf form to represent that change in identity/self-perception. Forcing him to cut his hair too just feels like piling on. My argument here, which I hope will be supported when I discuss Lauren and Leah further in, is that it’s not just piling on, but actively punitive -- because much like Leah and Lauren are “against” Bella, the pack at large is “against” the Cullens pretty much through the end of the series.

The Quileute pack is definitely not a Cullen fanclub. The entire purpose of their existence is to destroy vampires, and the truce they have with the Cullens isn’t friendly. They still don’t particularly like or trust the Cullens even after allying with them in Eclipse, and in Breaking Dawn Sam is fully prepared to go to war against them to enforce the treaty. Bella expresses frustration with Jacob and the pack for not appreciating the Cullens more, yet is curiously less willing to scold Alice, Edward, or Rosalie when they call the Quileutes dogs and complain about their smell. (I think she might reprimand Edward for it at some point, but I don’t remember the exact passage.) Bella even starts throwing around “dog” and “mutt” as an insult herself -- I think we know whose side ol’ “Switzerland” is on, here, and whose side Meyer is on as well. The Quileutes aren’t exactly enemies, and in fact are crucial to the Cullens’ survival in both the newborn and Volutri conflicts, but they’re punished nonetheless because they aren’t wholeheartedly Team Cullen from the get-go.

So to explain why I’m so convinced that there’s a link between hair-cutting and punishment in particular, let’s talk about Lauren. There’s a definite gendered element to it this time, too -- by being tricked into cutting her hair, Lauren isn’t just diminished/shamed, but rendered (*thunderclap*) unfeminine.

Lauren Was Rude To Bella Like Twice, Let’s Humiliate Her

I think Meyer’s answer to the question “What happened to Lauren’s hair?” on her FAQ page speaks for itself:

Ha ha. I had fun imagining this one—I only wished that it had fit into the book somewhere. Lauren fell victim to the “model discovered in the mall” scam. An alleged modeling agent approached Lauren in a mall in Victoria, B.C., and told her she was a natural model. Lauren ate it up. The agent told her that if she did something edgy with her hair, and took some high quality head shots, her future was assured. Lauren followed the instructions—dropping fifteen grand on the pictures taken by the agent’s partner—and waited for her career to begin. She’s still waiting. Snort.

It’s pretty obvious that this was done spitefully. Here’s the list of Lauren’s crimes against humanity Bella at this point in the series: 1) she was jealous of the attention Bella was getting as the new girl; 2) she talked behind Bella’s back once, saying Bella might as well just sit with the Cullens now (and she isn’t wrong); 3) she eyed Bella “scornfully” the day of the La Push beach trip; and perhaps most damningly, 4) she’s blonde.

Post-haircut, she has the gall not to be thrilled that Bella’s deigning to speak to the lowly non-Cullens again, then sides with Jessica after Bella uses Jessica to make a point to her dad, is shitty company, and then risks getting them both raped and murdered in Port Angeles so she could get off on her hallucination of Edward’s voice.

I think it’s pretty common knowledge that long hair is tied to patriarchal notions of femininity and attractiveness. Women with short hair are still derided for being ugly, or assumed to be lesbians in a derogatory sense, or simply considered less feminine and therefore less desirable/worthy (because a woman’s worth depends on her desirability, after all). For many women and girls, losing their long hair -- whether because of illness, or gum getting stuck in it, or whatever -- is very upsetting and a hard blow to their self-esteem. Just look at Alice as an example of Traumatic Short Hair; her hair was shorn like that because she received electroshock “treatments” in an asylum. (Although in Alice’s case, I don’t think her having short hair is punishment, but a facet of the traumatic backstory all female characters in Twilight have to have for some reason. Plus, she started the series with short hair, which distinguishes her from the pack and Lauren, who were tricked or compelled into cutting their long hair during the series.)

But Lauren’s so bitchy, so she deserves it, right? Ha ha, she was mean to Bella and cared about her appearance too much, so now she’s ~ugly!

Leah Has It the Worst and It Makes Me Want To Burn Everything

The misogynistic aspect of hair-cutting as punishment is taken up to like, twelve with Leah. Not only does she suffer for being ���against” the Cullens along with the rest of the pack (and Bella, too, so extra sinning), but she suffers uniquely for being the only female shapeshifter. A bunch of teenage boys regularly see her naked body against her will. Her previously devoted boyfriend imprints on her cousin/best friend, Sam dumps her and can’t even explain why, and the whole pack -- including her own brother -- resents her for being upset about it, even though she can’t help the lack of mental privacy. Because of that same lack of mental privacy, she has to hear every gripe the boys have about her, plus every enthralled thought Sam has about Emily while she’s still deeply wounded by their breakup.

She blames herself for her dad’s death, because she phased at the wrong time. We don’t get any indication that her fellow shapeshifters or the elders are trying to reassure her otherwise.

And of course, because she’s a shapeshifter, she has to cut her hair. In addition, because Leah’s a woman, this has the same misogynistic connotations as it did with Lauren. In Leah’s case, though, the de-feminization is compounded by her sudden infertility. It’s clear that Leah attaches her sense of womanhood to her fertility, rightly or wrongly -- she bitterly calls herself a “genetic dead end” in Breaking Dawn and thinks of herself as a freak. She feels like there must be something wrong with her, some un-womanly flaw, that made her one of the shapeshifters at all.

Then, just when Jacob starts to see her as a human being worthy of compassion, he imprints on Renesmee and doesn’t give a shit about anyone or anything else anymore. No more bonding with Leah, no blooming friendship to help her heal and come to terms with the new realities of her life. (This is one of those dropped threads that aggravate me to no end -- what was the point of having Leah opening up to Jacob, or starting Jacob on the path of realizing he was being a dick to her this whole time and that she’s a person with  value, if he was just going to spend the rest of the book as Renesmee’s love-zombie and never think about it again? Disgusting.)

Leah was a lot more forgiving of Jacob than he deserved at that point in the story, for all the good it did her -- I think she’s mentioned maybe once in Book 3 of Breaking Dawn. At least she got her god-tier moment of yelling at a deranged, pregnant Bella Swan.

Speaking of Bella...

I’m just going to note, for no particular reason, that in Breaking Dawn we get to hear explicitly that Bella’s got hair that falls “almost to her waist” and that she looks like “a freaking supermodel” because she’s so “beautiful and pale.” It just strikes me as a telling contrast at this point.

[jockpoetry]

supernatural sees women as a tool for development and strengthening of narratives/motivation and dean sees his body as a tool. is that anything?

When I saw this ask I really made the 🥴in real life. So, yeah anon, I do think there’s something to this.

Quick Disclaimer before I actually launch into my thoughts™: A lot of my read of Dean stems from my experience as both an oldest daughter and a transman. Being the oldest daughter was an experience I lived for many years, but I am also a man. I wasn’t raised as a man, I wasn’t socialized as a man, and even though once I came out upon reflection my masculinity was obviously there. Like I was a man™ before I knew I was a man. Even when I actively tied my identity to femininity for a long time! A lot of my prideful moments were based around statements like: “I was the only girl who (fill in the blank).” 

So I am just putting that out there before I launch into my spiel about Dean/Gender/Tool because they all interlock for me. 

I am also going to apologize in advance because I know this has fully gone off the rails and I’m not even done writing it yet. If this is incomprehensible ! Well, happens to the best of us.

First off, most importantly I guess before we discuss womanhood and Dean and the way both are utilized on the show I need to say that I personally don’t subscribe the whole Dean is female coded thing. 

It’s a read I can absolutely understand. But for me..he’s not. 

He’s a hypermasculine man to the point that when (and because he is written as a punchline, as the stupid™ brother, as the whore™, as the mother/father™, as daddy’s blunt instrument™, etc) Dean deviates from the pre-accepted definition of hypermasculine it’s Wrong. 

It’s Instantly Feminine. 

I think the internet has made the world very black and white, or blue and pink maybe. This point, I think, colors a lot of these discussions. Dean cooks, he cleans and so therefor he’s female coded. When that really just feeds back into the whole toxic masculinity loop. You can’t be masculine and cook and clean and cry. That’s for feminine people only. 

I get the argument! I do, I just think that Dean’s actions are not inherently feminine, it’s just in the vacuum of Female and in the Absence of Traditional Masculinity it makes sense to assign him female coded and move on.

IN FACT the way that Dean is the action hero of the show, the Masculine™ one on the show - but he cries, and he rages, and he cooks (Again and Again) and cleans (Again and Again). The fact he’s macho and confident but he has so little self esteem. Is frankly insane to me. You have this blaze of glory character who is so depressed that they have him kill himself. Twice. In explicitly “I hate myself, I hate hearing all the things I hate about myself, I want to destroy myself” ways. 

On just a regular ol’ network show that is just ungodly bad at times. They let their Male Hero cry - all the time (if I linked every example of this the essay would be...longer than it already is, but just take my word for it). Dean tears up and grieves and shows more than just Angry Horny Violent™ (he shows plenty of that, don’t get me wrong) but he’s Emotional (Again and Again and Again). In many different ways!

I mean, beyond even just tearing up, they make their Male Hero™ face sexual violence in pretty, uniquely horrifying - and queer! - ways.

Let’s make it clear, they did a lot of this unintentionally. 

Or they do it as a joke. 

Off of dean for a moment to say women are plot devices in this show. I could probably count on one hand female characters who have sincere depth to them that have roles outside of progressing plot, filling a filler episode, and who are still alive. Like even characters such as Charlie who are wholly developed, and interesting, are only remembered/mentioned/utilized to progress plots or fill an episode out - and then she dies. For pain™ for plot™ for no other reason than to traumatize a character. 

Which let’s also make it clear Dean’s trauma is also only used as a plot device (as is Sam’s but in a different way, and Cas’ trauma is a whole other barrel of fish we’re not gonna dive into right now). Like wholesale full stop they don’t actually care about what happened to him. Unless it’s relevant in an episode. 

Oh that boys home he was left at when he was 16 for months? Sure we’ll sprinkle that in in the back half of the series. Oh he was covered in bruises and said it was from a hunt (when it’s clear contextually they were from his father but saying the fantastical but true is easier than saying the uncomfortable but true). As Dean says though the story became the story, he was sixteen. He just went along with what John said.

We only see Dean ever truly rage at John, by the way, when either Dean is dead (when he’s between life and death and he rages at John, right before John “apologizes” for traumatizing him, for putting too much on Dean’s shoulders, and fucking dying) or John is dead (the Djinn episode where Dean is straight™ and John is dead™ and he goes to his grave and just yells and rages like he should have to his father in the real world).

Dean’s trauma from being both tortured and torturer in hell? Yeah, we don’t talk about that after it’s Relevant™. Even though it’s clear - especially in the demon!dean, mark of cain era, all those years later - Alastair still has his hooks inside of Dean. I stopped watching originally after s8 ended. I was fed up with the show, and with this whole renaissance I’ve been doing a rewatch and I’m into season twelve now and it really has never come up again. 

Even when he had the mark of cain and he was tasked with questioning and accused of torturing it was “the mark has changed you” and not “you were victim and victimizer in hell for forty years, which is longer than you’ve been alive on earth” (and, was about as long as he wound up living. Which is desperately sad.

Because we talk about Sam’s desire for a “normal” life but, Dean wanted out too. He was tired in the first few seasons of this show, he never had a chance to taste freedom (we don’t count the boys home, because that was a different kind of regimented life, and it was a false freedom) the way that Sam did in Flagstaff with Bones or at Stanford with Jessica. Love for Dean is sacrificing, it’s putting himself/his happiness/his well-being last.

Because Dean only knows love in the context of violence (like all of these fun examples, for starters) is a phrase that I’ve said a lot both in private chats and on here, and I absolutely think it goes to him being a tool (a blunt instrument, a plot device, so both textually and metatextually) instead of a person. Which Cas sees Dean’s shame/guilt and sees that side of Dean because he touched his soul, and saw more than just the Righteous™ man, more than just the tool, he saw A good man, not a machine. 

On the other side though you have how “bad guys” view Dean: Desperate, Sloppy, Needy, Dean’s hole (Again), which is again so wildly counterintuitive to the story of a Macho Man Hero™. You’re using vocabulary that is both queering him and feminizing (and I know this a meme format, but sincerely it is done in a derogatory way it is feminizing. It’s breaking him down to bare parts, to a sloppy hole). 

My whole rewatch I have been absolutely fascinated by how identity and free will is utilized/conceptualized on this show. Castiel has been my main focus, but Dean and how he is framed by himself and others is...fascinating - and frustrating. The writers inconsistency lends itself not only to this unintentionally queer character, but also one that again is incredibly easily read as a non-traditionally masculine character.

As a feminine character.

This show has so few female characters that of course it had to foist the roles/behaviors/plots that a female character might have onto a male character. Which I think is part of why reading Dean as trans (either transmasc, or transfemme) is so easily done like.   

Half of these are shit posts, but you can find trans allegories/textual evidence in this show again, again, again, again, and again. And this is unintentional, they don’t want you to look at Dean and see woman, former future or present. Like a lot of these I’m sure are punchlines for them, because women/queer folk are punchlines to them. 

Sometimes the only women in an episode are random witnesses who get two sentences of dialogue, and then the main guest character is a man. Who flirts with Dean, and Dean is receptive to it. 

They paint themselves into a corner, there are female Rabbi. So easily could Aaron have been a woman instead of a man, but they made the choice to play up the HaHa Dean & Men card. 

Because, again, Dean has filled the slot of Woman™ of Female Lead™ and the flirting would’ve been straight if Dean was a woman. It’s a plot device, they needed to have the guest character be disarming, be cute, make the main character flustered. 

It’s just the main character is a man, because they’re allergic to women. But they still need those female plots, tools of femininity, to move their show forward. I mean I am a big subscriber to transmasc Jo (no idea if anyone else is with me on this one, but let me explain). Jo is in love with Dean (concept) not Dean (actuality). Which, we’ve all had our eggs cracked by someone like that. We were in love with them until we realized we just wanted to be them.

He loved her like a little sister, she loved him like a lost idol. He’s a golden calf and she dies for him, because she believed in him, she was the original character dashed at the altar of the Winchesters. 

I fully believe if she had lived and if this show had a crumb of actual good writing Jo could have been a deeply compelling transmasc character. But I also think she’s a fascinating inversion of Dean. Dean is a Masculine Character who subverts Toxic Masculinity, Jo is a Tomboy™ she’s not your (if you take it straight, literally and metaphorically) average female love interest. She’s angry, she’s not soft at all, all edges and corners and thorns. She isn’t helpless, she’s stubborn but not in a “you’re going to get punished for this” way. She’s right when she’s stubborn. She’s helpful, she’s a martyr. 

I could do a whole other essay just on Jo (and Ellen, and Ash, what a fucking trio!) but needless to say Jo was one of the first...plot device feminine tools sacrificed to this show. She was a regular, she was unique, she was an engaging character, and she still died (to progress the plot? no. for man pain? yeah, for like three episodes maybe, and then it’s forgotten just like the rest of Dean’s trauma, as we mentioned above). 

Dean and Women and Love is a very interesting tool used too because. Boy they sure try to make Dean love women and it fails in small ways, and in big, meaningless, failed het domesticity (again) ways. Not to mention whatever Lust (in the form of a woman) having no effect upon him, when they could have used that moment to assert his Masculinity and Heterosexuality. He behaved normally? And...also...whatever the fuck the Adios thing was!

Like they have these opportunities to make him Traditionally (toxically) Masculine, but make the choice to...not? To soften him. Because it’s a tool. He’s their female lead, textually he had to take on the role of mother(/father) to Sam, but...I mean this is a million miles long already. I know, but we absolutely can’t not talk about his Paternal/Maternal behaviors. (Which appear again and again again and again, outside of his relationship with Sam even/especially). He’s the mother hen, sage, safety net, beacon, home to so many side characters they meet.

I mean in many ways Jody is also a Dean comparison. Lost her family. Found a new family. She is non-traditionally feminine, but easily flustered and Silly™ (let’s just drop the entire sex talk over family dinner scene with Alex and the boys and looking to them for help, even though she was already a mother, and she’s a cop, and a hunter and this confident no nonsense individual.... She’s not). We are meant to see her as this hard ass, but she makes extra food for the boys to take back to the bunker. She’s deadly in a fight, but also still easily overwhelmed and put into damsel mode, and she cares so much even in the face of adversity.

It’s also fun to see how Jo | Jody are reflections of Dean at different points of his life. Younger, cocky | Older, settled.

Even when the text tries to tell us that he’s not.

When it reminds us that he’s violent. That he is his father, even if he says that Sam is more like John (which was reflexive, which was angry because of Adam and how Sam was behaving like Dean in that episode, and yes there are parallels to be drawn between Sam and John, the show barely dives into them). Instead we’re told that Dean is John (Again and  Again and Again and Again). 

So intensely that a fanfictionalized version of the Winchester Gospels makes it an entire fucking musical number. 

And yet, despite the texts insistence to make Dean Macho Man Father Reborn™ We get this Dean who is silly (and directly compared/contrasted to the female character in this scene), soft, in heels, nagging, and... Sully (you know Sam’s imaginary friend who has the same Haircut Dean has, who is a softer, shorter, friendlier, campier, version of Dean who was a replacement For Dean until the real one let Sam back in? That? Sully?) it’s hard to take them seriously. 

Hell, even when he was A DEMON? What did they do? They had him sing off-key drunken karaoke, they had him doing this ! Like that’s your hero, unhinged, free to be as bad as he could be, and you put him in a cowboy hat in a romance with the king of hell. 

The Female Lead, everyone. Who’s biggest betrayal(s) comes at the hands of his love interest (again, a man even though it was an angel who could’ve taken any vessel! who could’ve been recast, who canonically dies admitting his love to Dean - that one), who he tries so hard to be loyal to. 

The contradictions of his character are laughable. He is so emotional, but if he is engaged about his emotions? He shuts down, or he’s exasperated about being asked about them. It really is Female Lead/Only Here For The Plot disease, because everything is more important than him. How’s he doing? Doesn’t matter outside of the context of how x character is doing or that y character is dead. Or his emotions only matter if they’re done in penance. 

They also really do frame him as Pretty Boy™ in a violent way, or in a derogatory manner. They’ll give us homoerotic shots like this or these and never really acknowledge how these are gay shots. Sorry the gun scene is a a straight up sex scene, the beer sip spilling out over his mouth is oral, the scene where Cas fills up Dean’s glass with whisky is also a sex scene, they do this shit on purpose but accidentally queer it up. If Dean was a woman these scenes wouldn’t even matter. They’d be passing moments, but because he is not just a man but A Man™ they’re insane to see.

Not to mention all of these scenes and all the ones I haven’t linked where Dean dresses up. He performs masculinity, but he performs femininity too. He’s a plot device that is slotted in to whatever role they need. He’s Super Straight Butch Man™ but coaches the lesbian on how to successfully flirt with a man. He’s Action Hero™ who sits through a montage with the same lesbian and yays and nays her outfits, and enjoys himself.

Fuck he loves dressing up, he feels better in these costumes because performing a character is easier than being himself. Because who is Dean? He’s a tool, both textually and metatextually. It is exactly how the women and because of the women on the show that Dean is the way that he is. If there was a more steady female presence Dean would not be half as much of a plot device or half as camp/gay/feminine/non-traditionally masculine/queer coded as he is. 

In conclusion....

[lesvegas]

The Rat Pack Lexicon, or Frankenspeak

In the 1960's the Rat Pack created their own language. It was a mixture of slang and cool terms that helped make them undisputably the ‘kings of cool’ in their heyday in Las Vegas.

Decided to paste the whole glossary from here just so we can have it on tumblr. Under a readmore because it’s long as hell. Original post (some definitions were cut off).

18 Karat All the way, full-out: "An 18 karat idiot."

Baby Used as an exclamation as well as a term of endearment.

Bag A person's particular interest; as in "singing's my bag"  

Barn Burner A very stylish, classy woman  

Beard A male friend who acts as a "cover"; usually for extramarital affairs  

Beetle A girl who dresses in flashy clothes  

Big-Leaguer A resourceful man who can handle any situation

  Big Casino Death  

Bird The male or female genitalia; standard greeting: "How's your bird"?

  Bombsville Any kind of failure in life; see ville

Broad Affectionate term for a girl or woman with sex appeal

Bum A person who is despised, most frequently linked to people in the media

Bunter A man who fails in almost everything he does; the opposite of gasser

Cash Out Leave, as in "Cash me out of this party" = "I'm leaving."

Charley What the rat-packers called one another  

Charlies Admiring word for a woman's breasts

Chick A young and invariably pretty girl

Clam-Bake A party or get-together.

Clyde A word used to cover a multitude of personal observations; e.g., "I don't like her clyde" means "I don't like her voice", etc.  

Coo-Coo! See crazy  

Cool A term of admiration for a person or place. An alternative word meaning the same thing is crazy.

Crazy A term of admiration for a personal, place, or thing; similar to cool.

Creep A man who is disliked for any reason

Croaker A derogatory term for a doctor.

Crumb A person it is impossible to respect

Dame A generally derogatory term for a probably unattractive woman

Dig A term of appreciation; e.g., "I dig that broad."

Dimmer Eyes (as in "I gotta see the croaker about my bad dimmers.")

"Drop it, charley" Change the conversation; see "good night, all”

Duke Tip  

  Dying An exaggerated term to mean slightly upset; e.g. "I'm dying"

End A word to signify that someone or something is the very best; "the living end"

Endsville Total failure; similar to bombsville; see ville

Fink A person who cannot be relied upon or trusted, especially someone in the media; a crumb  

First Base The start of something, usually applied in terms of failure when someone has failed to reach it.

Fracture To make laugh; as in "that fractures me"

Gas A great situation; as in "that set was a gas"

Gasoline Alcohol

Gasser A highly admired person; the end!

Gofer Someone who performs menial jobs and tasks; "go for drinks"

Good Night All A term of invective used to change the subject of conversation

Groove A term of admiration or approval; as in "in the groove"

Harvey A person who acts in a stupid or naive fashion; sometimes shortened to "Harv"

Hacked Angry; as in "he's hacked off"

Hello! A cry of surprise to no one in particular when a beautiful woman is seen

Hey-Hey Indulging in anything of a sexual nature with a woman.

Hunker A jack-of-all-trades; see gopher

Jokes An actor's lines in a screenplay

Let's Lose Charley A term used among intimates who want to get rid of a bore in their company  

Little Hey-Hey Romance; a little action with a broad

Locked-up As in "all locked-up," a term for a forthcoming date or engagement, private or public  

Loser Anyone who has made a mess of their life, drinks too much, makes the wrong enemies, etc.

Mish-Mash Similar to loser, but refers specifically to a woman who is messed up

Mothery Terrific; wild and wicked

Mouse Usually a small, very feminine girl who invites being cuddled

Nowhere A term of failure as in "he's nowhere."

  Odds Used in connection with important decisions, as in "the odds aren't right," meaning it's a no go

Original Loser A person without talent; sometimes more fully expressed as "He is the original Major Bowes Amateur Hour loser  

Pallie Dean's nickname for everyone, whether a lifelong friend or a bellhop  

Platinum Having a big heart, generous. "You're platinum, pussycat!"

Player A man who is a gambler by nature, makes friends easily, and never gives up trying

Punks Any undesirables, in particular criminals, gangsters, or mobsters

Quin Derisive term for a woman who is an easy pick-up

  Rain As in "I think it's going to rain" indicating that it is time to leave a dull gathering or party  

Ring-a-Ding A term of approval, as in "What a ring-a-ding broad!"

Sam Used in the same way as Charley for a person whose name has been forgotten, most often applied to females

Scam To cheat at gambling, as in "Hey, what's the scam?"

Scramsville To run off

Sharp A person who dresses well and with style

Smashed A word used to describe someone who is drunk. On occasions it has been replaced with "pissed."

Solid Definite, reliable. (Note: this was also used by Linc in "The Mod Squad.")

Square A person of limited character, not unlike a harvey.

Swing v. To hang out and drink, smoke, sing, generally get real loose.

Ta-Ta Goodbye

Tomato As in "a ripe tomato" a woman ready for seduction or even marriage.

Twirl A girl who loves dancing

Ville A suffix used to indicate changes in any given situation; see endsville, splitsville, etc

Witchdoctor Member of the clergy.

Wow-ee Wow Wow Figured importantly in the Rat Pack lexicon for a while in the late 50s and early 60s. It was an expression of glee, joyful anticipation and a euphemism for lubricious fun.

The following examples are a fictitious sample of Frank in conversation using his infamous lexicon:

The English version

The bartender gives me another drink. The gathering is dull, with a surfeit of ugly women and men unworthy of respect and an insufficient number of attractive ladies and easy-going fellows. I spot an untrustworthy-looking man over by the jukebox making overtures to a woman. He fancies himself an impressive fellow, flirting with this woman who is more than just another sweet thing to cuddle with. In fact, she is extraordinary. I am awestruck by her beauty.

Now the would-be Romeo is leaning closer, pressing his romantic attack. So I cast my gaze in her direction. She gazes back: A confident connection is made. She crosses the room, stands beside me, orders a drink, tells a joke that I find quite amusing, then says she found her previous companion uninteresting. I like her and believe the reverse is also true. I sense the party is on its last legs and say so. We leave.

The Frank version

The barkeep fills me up with gas. The joint ain't hopping; it's no clambake, brother - too many dames and crumbs, not enough broads and players. I spot a fink over by the jukebox making the moves. He thinks he's a big-leaguer, scamming on a chick who - hello! - is more than a mouse. An 18-karat barn-burner, boy- the end. Ring a ding!

Now the big-leaguer's leaning closer, feeding her a line, but she's not biting. It's bombsville. He's nowhere; he knows it, and so do I. So I shoot the broad a come-hither look, and she shoots back: Solid. She crosses the room, sidles up next to me, gasses up, tells a joke that fractures me and says the big-leaguer was a Harve. I dig her, and she digs me. "I think it's going to rain," I say. And just like that, we're scramsville.

[adamsvanrhijn]

i was wondering, what "slurs" (or other insults) were commonly in use during the edwardian etc era? whenever i see someone using "gay" or "f*g" in a fanfic i just click the x cuz it completely throws me off, but were there any actual homosexual-specific slurs? other than the vague ones like "unnatural" and "invert", i mean

god I wrote a whole fucking response to this but Tumblr ate it so I'll try to. just. hit the key points again.

Yes there were

Obligatory disclaimer that most terms to refer to gay men were/can be primarily derogatory when used by people other than gay men

"F****t", "f***t", and "f*g" are actually period appropriate slang pejoratives for gay men, albeit primarily in North American English, where they can be dated in writing to the 1910s. May also be true of WWI usage. The former two were originally derogatory terms for women (not an uncommon origin in anti-gay language for obvious reasons) that came to be applied to men seen as effeminate and then more specifically to gay men. There actually were similar connotations in UK English. In his dictionary of slang, Jonathon Green references a claim that "f*g" to refer to cigarettes in UK English actually came from that connotation, as cigarette smoking was seen as less masculine than pipe or cigar smoking. I don't have any trouble believing that given there were Victorian and Edwardian texts that linked cigarette smoking to pathologized homosexuality, but I haven't read the original source for the claim yet. (Been meaning to get my hands on it.)

"Gay", noun, likewise started to mean "a homosexual man" in the 1910s/1920s. This was both a positive intra-community term and a pejorative. AmE and BrE. Adjective in the modern sense comes around the same time.

"Queer", noun, same meaning as gay, is dated as a pejorative in writing to the 1910s. As far as I can tell it remained primarily derogatory for a while. Again, AmE and BrE. Both this and "gay" were also applied to lesbian women fairly soon.

The line between "derogatory for effeminate man" and "derogatory for gay men" is blurry but the list is about what you would expect. These are all nouns that can be dated in writing to the 1910s and/or 1920s and even earlier: fruit (AmE and BrE, despite Tumblr users saying otherwise), fairy (AmE and BrE), lily (AmE and BrE), nancy or nance (AmE and BrE), bitch (AmE and BrE), poof and basically every variation on it imaginable (AmE and BrE), queen/quean and ditto (BrE and AmE). Some of these are originally AmE but made it across the pond fairly quickly, I probably should have said origin instead of usage but I cba to go fix it I've already written this post too many times thanks Tumblr

Using feminine pronouns (as in she/her) or titles/forms of address (e.g. Miss) to refer to gay men is another thing that existed intra-community but was also used pejoratively.

Vague adjectives such as "abnormal" abound. "Invert", noun, was definitely no longer vague by the 1910s.

Noun forms of [performers of] sexual acts are also standard.

ETA: before anyone comes at me, some of #6 are ~~~~technically~~ words for cross-dressing gay men specifically. Fun fact, homophobes don't typically care to determine if gay men habitually crossdress before calling them crossdressers!

[jfkstan69]

JFK Headcanons

A/N: head empty except for JFK. Most of these are romantic.

---

*He is a closeted pan guy... I mean, look at the way he treated Joan when she was in disguise. He didn't question her feminine traits at all and treated her like one of the dudes the entire episode. He is defo attracted to femme features and is also willing to date a guy that has them, what a chad! Definitely pan, but too scared to explore himself.

*He never really expresses it, but he's always liked feminine clothes. In the pillow fight scene he switches outfits with Joan and Cleo, and he just... Accepts it. This is probably because it was a gag, but still. I think he's always wanted to wear dresses and stuff without being labeled as something derogatory, and without ruining his image.

*He yearns for a long-time partner. Sure, he sleeps around a lot but deep down he's always wanted a #1, someone that would make him stop searching for once. It's canon that he is capable of love, considering the fact that he was upset every time he broke up with Cleo and the little exchange that him and Joan have at the last episode.

*He definitely has a thing for the goths. It's pretty obvious, based on how much he likes Joan. He also has a thing for people who don't just blindly bow down to him or give him what he wants when he firsts asks for it. He likes pining and working for it, and he likes betties that aren’t , er--uh, basic (despite the fact that he hooks up with them constantly).

*His hypermasculinity stems from how often he got made fun of for having gay parents as a kid. He felt ostracized, and he felt he needed to make a point that he was nothing like his parents (despite the fact that he loved them). He wanted desperately to fit in and be cool, so he acted super masculine, became a huge douche, and made the ladies swoon til' the cows came home.

*He is a sucker for gentle, genuine signs of affection. Give him soft kisses on his face, hold his hand and swing it back and forth while you walk, nuzzle into his chest when you hug... He starts buffering immediately and probably blue-screens mentally because he's never had such tenderness directed at him.

*Despite his perviness he respects people's boundaries. If you tell him no, he will understand that it means no... But that will not stop him from asking again later.

*If he knows you aren't as stuck up as Cleo, and he really loves you, he'll try and hand-make a Valentine's gift. That won't stop him from going big, but odds are whatever he made for you is on the brink of falling apart and won't last long. Still, it means he really digs you.

*If he's drunk and emotionally vulnerable he'll start talking about Ponce again, his ramblings are mostly incomprehensible due to the slurring and sobbing but please hold him.

*He's a very loud and heavy sleeper, but once you cuddle with him don't expect to get out of the bed anytime soon. He chose to cuddle you instead of his stuffed animal, so he's gonna hold you close and pull you back closer if you try and move.

*He can't cook. This man has no sense of flavor, he thinks piss punch tastes good for Jesus's sake. Pray he doesn't try and surprise you with a breakfast in bed anytime soon, unless your kitchen is idiot proof.

[miraculouscontent]

(non-ml asks)

Anonymous said:

So the Pokémon anniversary a couple of weeks back showed two very different takes in the future of Pokémon. What are your thoughts on the Sinnoh remakes and Legends Arceus?

I really hate the Sinnoh remakes. It’s not that I hate the chibi style (I mean, Pokemon started that way), but like--remake the game but just make it “the 2D game but 3D”???? Why? And it feels disrespectful because every other remake has used the style of the other games they were in (so FRLG looked like RSE, HGSS looked like DPPt, ORAS looked like XY, and most of the time, the remakes looked outright better than the style they were based on). It’s a shame because I really wanted to see an improvement from Sword and Shield, which didn’t engage/interest me and... I don’t know if this will make total sense, but instead of an upgrade from Sun & Moon, it feels like an upgrade of XY? Like, XY’s problems but with better proportions.

I’m cautiously optimistic for Legends Arceus, if only because, “YES, AN ACTUALLY SINGLE GAME INSTEAD OF THE DUAL STUFF THEY KEEP PULLING” (which was absolutely unacceptable when they got to console stuff). I actually didn’t notice the framedrop issues because I’m used to running games on a laptop that clearly isn’t made for them, so I’m sort of immune to it. I haven’t decided if I’ll get it for sure but the premise intrigues me and I really like Arceus.

Anonymous said:

How is Moroha the Marinette of Inuyasha?

- needlessly tormented by the narrative

- things that other people do to her don’t get addressed

- people closest to her are usually awful

- awesomely overpowered yet narrative will constantly have her screw up and put her down/make her feel worthless

- gets sidelined/ignored in favor of other characters

Anonymous said:

In one of your Askplosions(don't remember which one, sorry), you said that you can't stand the Tomboy Lesbian stereotype, which, to be honest, I kind of agree with. But what about Tomboy Bisexual? I guess it's not as bad if a female character's tomboyishness/girlishness isn't used as a clue as to her sexuality(like "you know she's a lesbian because she's BUTCH!!!"), but there aren't really stereotypes associated with being bi that are based in masculinity or femininity(due to bi erasure sadly.).

kfdngjdfgd I like how you had to had that bis don’t easily get stereotypes as much due to bi erasure because you’re absolutely right.

“Tombis” are fine, I have no problem with them. Any stereotype to avoid then are just the general bi stereotypes.

Anonymous said:

I was just reading TV Tropes' page for "Gratuitous Princess" and holy shit the sexism on display here is really nauseating. It's exactly like "Improbably Female Cast"(there are too many female characters here and it's uncalled for, despite it being okay for characters to predominantly be men), in that it's basically insulting any story that has anything to do with princesses at all by saying it "isn't needed". TV Tropes has always had a way of including underhanded sexism when talking about female-dominated/aimed works or tropes having to do with female characters or anything designed to appeal to female audiences; the more feminine, the more ridiculed it is by TV Tropes, despite claiming to believe otherwise.

Similar to how I complained about their "Improbably Female Cast" trope, Gratuitous Princess claims that stories with "more princesses than is plausible for the setting" are this trope because any abundance of princesses is somehow bad or doesn't make sense, even if it would make sense for there to be that many princesses/all the characters to be princesses.

For example, they claim that an entire school of princesses is implausible and "gratuitous", but if the school is intentionally meant to be a "royal" school for girls to learn to be princesses(whether or not they were actually born into royalty), then it's not actually gratuitous and makes sense within the setting! If the story follows a monarchy, it makes sense to have lots of princesses, especially if it's aimed at young girls.

If the main characters are a group of normal girls who wish they were princesses and the story follows "fantastical" versions of their imaginary princess selves, then that also makes sense, especially if the story has "every girl can be a princess" as their moral or something. There's nothing wrong with stories like that, but TV Tropes claims they're unnecessary because anything involving princesses(stuff little girls like) are automatically shoehorned in.

Just look at the examples, which are all written in an unnecessarily derogatory way, with statements such as "for some reason, she's called a princess", or "the rulers should be queens, and yet they're princesses"(when it COULD just be a principality; do your research, TV Tropes), or "how this has anything to do with princessing is never explained", as if the mere fact that she's a princess is something bad or worthy of scorn.

They even claim Sailor Moon is this trope when Naoko Takeuchi simply wanted the story to revolve around a group of girls who just so happened to be reincarnated princesses who ruled over their respective planet. It's supposed to be a girl power wish fulfillment fantasy that appeals teenage girls by showing all the girly things they like as implements of power!

And yet TV Tropes disses it for just that, because anything that's made to appeal to girls can't ever make sense. Now, if they were complaining about how, in aggregate, shows about princesses or in which every female character is a princess can reinforce the notion that the only way for a female character to be noteworthy in any way is if she's a princess, then that would be different, but that's not what's happening. They're dissing princess stories just for existing. No matter what, TV Tropes always finds something bad to say about female-driven storylines.

Always. Just look at their page for "Most Fanfic Writers Are Girls", "Pony Tale", and "Frills of Justice". There's always a mean-spirited undertone, as if they hate the very idea of these stories and narrative devices existing just because they're designed to appeal to little girls. I'm not saying you're never allowed to critique those stories the way you would any other, it's just the WAY TV Tropes does it. They're not critiquing, they're sarcastically mocking. They're going about it all wrong! And it's especially obvious when they never do it to boys' shows, even though those shows often do have messages that can actually be harmful and even ignore or objectify women. But I guess the latter is why they don't care. Boys will be boys, am I right?

Oh joy, internalized/intentional misogyny!

Ugh, I’ve been lucky enough to stay away from those articles on TV Tropes. I hate it when opinions clearly start seeping into the article.

For example, “Kiss Your Hand” (I think that’s the name) sums up the whole “hand kissing” thing and goes into detail about how nowadays it’s considered more uncomfortable/creepy, which isn’t necessarily an opinion but just detailing how the times have changed.

AND JUST LET US FEMALES HAVE GIRL SHOWS WITHOUT MAKING BACKHANDED COMMENTS.

It’s the same thing with stuff like “chick flicks,” y’know? Maybe it’s just been having to hang out with my father and hearing him make dumb blond jokes and talks about how chick flicks are boring/bad but UGH, I’m sick of it.

Anonymous said:

Hi, so I was thinking about what you said about how there aren't words for guys who act either masculine or feminine, and I agree, it's totally unfair, but technically feminine boys are called janegirls(or femboys, I don't know if that's specifically an LGBTQ+ term or not, so excuse me if it is, but I've heard it used this way before), or tomgirls(even though last time I checked, the term "tomgirl" referred to either a girly tomboy or a tomboyish girly girl, but I digress).

As for masculine guys, I'm not so sure there's a term for it, I guess since deviation from masculinity is less acceptable for men than deviation from femininity is for women(because, you know, femininity=lesser. ;(), although there IS the term "macho"...but that tends to be used in a derogatory sense nowadays. I've also heard "boys' boy", "manly man", etc. TV Tropes has a trope called "Sensitive Guy and Manly Man" as the male counterpart to Tomboy and Girly Girl. So I guess there are terms.

I also just wanted to add that the term "tomboy" technically was originally a male phrase to describe a young boy who was boisterous, loud, mischievous, and out-of-control; in other words, a misbehaved, trouble kid. I don't know how or when it got attributed to girls, I think there was the term tomgirl at one point(though now it's just used for an in-between type of girl), but even that is barely used anymore. Not sure where or when the term "girly girl" came about, though, sorry to say. ;(

Yeah, that’s true. I’ve honestly never heard the term “janegirls” before, but I’d prefer if a “““masculine”““ girl was just called “tomgirl” instead. It feels less like “girl acting like a boy” and--yeah, calling a girl one thing or another just makes it look like they’re “““different”““ from “““normal girls”““ and I just roll my eyes.

Anonymous said:

Hi, I know the post you're talking about(in your fourth non-ml Askplosion) about a boy who related more to female characters! It was on BoredPanda and it was by Damian Alexander(it can also be found on his official Tumblr), and it was called "Guy Illustrates How Boys Develop Sexism From Seemingly Small Interactions With Adults" and it was all about how he loved female characters like Matilda, Alice, Mulan, Dorothy, Anne of Green Gables, and The Powerpuff Girls, and was routinely made fun of and discouraged from liking them, even from the teacher, who assigned everybody a paper(I mean not really they were probably in pre/elementary school but whatevs) about a fictional character they looked up to, but wouldn't let Damian write about Matilda, even though she let girls write about Spiderman, Harry Potter, and Peter Pan. And he basically talked about how this kind of societal attitude conditions boys to see girls as inferior and not worthy of being looked up to. It's really interesting.

Thank you! Now people can maybe go read it~

Anonymous said:

So you talked about how shows for women are considered lame and overdramatic, while shows for men are allowed to sexualize women and still be seen as good because they're MANLY, and it just reminded me of how TV Tropes has a page called "So You Want To Write A Shonen Series" and one of their points was literally that since teenage boys are horny, they'll relate to a male lead that pervs on girls and peeps on them dressing, but that you shouldn't have the girl be aware or actually hit the boy, because that has Unfortunate Implications. What were those Unfortunate Implications according to TV Tropes, you ask? Double Standard Abuse: Female-on-Male. Wow. So basically they're saying it's perfectly okay for a boy to sexually harass a girl and show absolutely no respect for her privacy because it's what "all" teenage boys want to see/do, but the second a girl actually defends her agency it's a bad thing, and they have the NERVE to say it's sexist against BOYS on top of that. Ugh. I just...

S...sexist against boys...

I can’t--I just--

Also, cue the girl punching/hitting and then the girl is immediately considering “aggressive” for defending herself from being perved on, and even if people say that the girl didn’t deserve to be perved on, they’ll be like, “bUT SHE DIDN’T HAVE TO GO tHaT fAr.”

Anonymous said:

I just realized something: the term "uncanny valley" literally comes from the Japanese words "bukimi no tani", meaning we LITERALLY wouldn't have the English term without the Japanese one. So, yeah, tropers can shut the fuck up now about tropes having Japanese names because "no one will know what it means!". -_-

These people DO know that words in the English language are compromised/inspired by a bunch of other languages, right???

eggchjf said:

someone probably pointed this out but ALSO not only does Marinette have Homura's VA, but Alya is voiced by Mami's VA (Carrie Keranen)

why did you have to ruin everything for me

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh

Anonymous said:

Hi, I'm the Madoka salt anon. And I just wanted to say that I'm really sorry for bombarding you with all those asks. I didn't mean to be a "monster", I guess I just got carried away because, let's face it: there aren't a lot of people who dislike this show. Almost everyone glorifies this show as feminist empowerment while dismissing other Magical Girl shows as lesser than or somehow less feminist despite being written by women for women. These people won't give female authors the time of day and so when a man shows up suddenly they jump on the Magical Girl Fan bandwagon and praise it for doing what the genre has already done.

And when you do hear a different opinion, that person gets told off, insulted, blocked, downvoted, whatever because how dare you hate this show written by men for men rather than the stuff written by women for women? I once saw someone on Quora ask why Madoka was so popular when all it did was use the cliche "time loops" concept in so many other plots, and the response was literally "You didn’t know what you were looking at, so mistook your opinion for relevant commentary."

Let that sink in. If you don't agree with people who like Madoka Magica, it's because you're simply too dumb to understand how deep and complex it is, and your opinion doesn't matter. I've also heard the similar "You have no idea what you just watched" or "You're not smart enough to understand it" or "It's too complicated for you" nonsense and I hate it. Because most of what Madoka does isn't even that twisted or hard to understand; it's relatively simple when you look at it. The show just makes it dark. Monsters stealing energy from teenage girls? Sailor Moon did that and did it better(and didn't just go after teenage girls/women, so it wasn't based off sexism and "teenage girls are hysterical"). Hardships of being a magical girl? Girls uniting against evil? Female friendships/romance? So many other Magical Girl shows did that, too.

Come to think of it, Madoka Magica didn't even have the girls fight back against the system because only Madoka found a way out and purified the girls souls? Girl realizes she's been going about being a hero the wrong way and is confronted with her own selfishness? Look at Utena, which mastered this much more skillfully. Magical girl gets in a love triangle with another girl, vies for the affection of a fragile white-haired boy, and loses? Princess Tutu, except that the other girl was also a Magical Girl, they became friends and actually rebelled against the system together, and Ahiru(aka Princess Tutu) didn't fall into the pit of despair because girls should be punished for their sexualities and compete against each other for men and if a guy doesn't like you, you're worthless.

Even the whole "these girls are liches" thing wasn't very complex and well-handled as a lot of people like to think: the gems are called Soul Gems because your soul is in a gem. Wow. So clever. And they're Grief Seeds because they're seeds released from grievous witches. Also(not) clever. Even the fact that the acronyms are reversed(SG, GS) because Magical Girls turn into witches just made me go "yawn, I get it".

The whole show is just very lazily done and designed and tries too hard to be scary and deep and complex and "not like those other Magical Girl shows" while also trying too hard to make the girls super cute but also super badass so that we both are led to think it's a traditional Magical Girl show AND feel bad when these girls die because whoops they weren't so strong and badass after all!

Not to mention the whole "Magical Girls become witches just like how girls become women" thing really pisses me off because it shits on the whole coming-of-age aspect of Magical Girl as well(strong girls embracing their agency as they prepare to enter womanhood) by instead demonizing the very concept so that "becoming a woman" is a bad, vile, horrible thing(because being a woman makes you "more powerful", so the more powerful a woman is, the more mentally unstable she is) and then topping it off by having Madoka save the girls from becoming witches, aka women, making sure they never achieve a more mature state and maintain a level of childlike naivete.

It has so many misogynistic themes and concepts(girls are emotional, girls are weak-willed, girls are impressionable, girls shouldn't be selfish, girls shouldn't try to be heroes, girls should be pit against each other especially over a guy, girls shouldn't achieve power or become women, and more, and more, and more), that are stated matter-of-factly within the story and always proven right by the narrative, and yet people gobble it up and anytime somebody points it out, they are met with utter hostility.

Some people even defend it by saying those things are true! People only like Madoka because it's written by a man and depicts women suffering, in a genre written by women and meant to empower girls, which they don't like. And also because anything a man writes is automatically deeper and more valid than anything a woman writes.

So that's why when I found out that you didn't like Madoka either I was more than happy to discuss it with you, but I realize now that I was going overboard. I was just so happy that there was someone who agreed with me and actually understood what I was trying to say and found it problematic, and the fact that you say you're not that well-versed in Magical Girl proves my point even more because you don't even have to watch much Magical Girl to know that this is fucked up.

If you want me to stop sending Madoka salt asks, then fine. I'll stop. I didn't mean to bother you with these asks, I just wanted to see your point of view on Madoka Magica when everybody else is singing its praises left and right and never stopping once to actually think about it(while also claiming that people who don't like it are the ones "not thinking".). Hearing someone who's actually critical of this nonsense show is refreshing.

Firstly thank you for the ask! It’s honestly not your fault, I’ve just been struggling a bit lately with ask overloads.

That doesn’t necessarily mean I want you to stop, but I’d rather discuss it over Tumblr DMs so things are more balanced. Walls of text can be a little overwhelming for me (that’s why sometimes I try to balance my own walls of text with screenshots).

Anonymous said:

I've been thinking of how much I hate the misogyny in Puella Magi Madoka Magica, so I decided that instead of just salting about it(even though I still do from time to time because they're legitimate critiques and boy is it fun), I'm going to start talking about what I would do to improve it. Now doing this may mean it won't be the "dark" anime many people have wanted it to be, but I've been thinking of it for a while and it's my personal opinion, so let's get to it:

First, I would still have the Incubators, though they would probably have a different name because the name "Incubator" is pretty skeevy and part of a lot of the misogyny in the show. They would still recruit magical girls(who are called "Puellae Magi" in-universe, at least in the English dub and possibly some other dubs as well), only they do it for a different reason: Incubators go after teenage girls who are leading rough, difficult lives, and the magical girl contracts help them to improve their lives and give them a reason to live. They still make wishes, but the wishes don't screw them over because of their secret "selfishness".

However, if a potential magical girl is unclear or unsure of what she truly wishes for, this may lead things to go haywire. Basically, the whole magical girl thing is more heartwarming and the Incubators truly want to help the ladies in need, not just leech off of them. There's also no Soul Gems, or at least, their souls aren't actually in the Gems. They're called such because the Gems are powered by their Souls, and rather than the girls losing consciousness and "dying" when their Gems are too far apart from them, they simply lose their ability to perform magic and their magic becomes weaker. They still have stronger bodies though, much stronger than average humans, because becoming a magical girl gives them super strength/speed/stamina and all that, just WITHOUT making them liches.

Their Gems are non-interchangeable, so you can only use your own, not another girl's. As for the witches, they still exist, but witches weren't the intention of the Incubators; they're due to a botched experiment and it's up to magical girls to not only fight and defeat them, but return them to their original selves, thus showing that hope always does triumph over despair. I would also have the magical girls fight not only witches, but ordinary criminals as well, because having them fight only witches gets a little boring and predictable.

And finally, while there would still be only teenage girls who are chosen to become magical girls, it wouldn't be because they're "the most emotional" or some Hysterical Woman shit like that. It would be something more empowering, like, maybe only teenage girls are chosen because they're the most capable of magic and are simply more powerful magically than everyone else. They would still have their powers as adult women, but you have to be a teenage girl(well, one with a difficult/horrible life) to be recruited in the first place, if that makes sense.

And maybe older magical girls(well, women) would be able to mentor and assist younger ones(which is very much in-line with the coming of age themes present in magical girl, women supporting and uplifting younger girls as they advance into womanhood). This would make the claim that women such as Anne Frank, Joan of Arc, Cleopatra, and Queen Himiko were magical girls less...iffy, but I still wouldn't make it so that ALL influential women were magical girls, nor that humanity would be in caves without the Incubators. There'd also be transformation/detrasformation phrases of course.

In short, the magical girl system exists more so as a form of wish fulfillment, both in and out of universe, since it's for teenage girls with rough lives who are "empowered" by becoming magical girls and getting to live out a fantasy of fighting crime while looking pretty, as an exchange for getting a wish fulfilled that will help them improve their lives. Only teenage girls have this ability because they're the strongest magic users, not because of "female hysteria". In other words, the magical girl system exists to support and benefit the girls, rather than exploit them.

Now, since I mainly went over the magical girl system itself, I'll talk about the characters. Kyoko still loves to eat, is still relatively selfish, and still has discord with Sayaka, but they overcome it and become friends MUCH sooner and in a much more natural way. Mami and Kyoko's relationship will actually be stated in-universe, not just in some side material. Sayaka still has a crush on her male friend, but confesses to him before Hitomi does. At this point, he either says yes and they hit it off but eventually don't work out and decide they'd be better as friends, or he says no and she's sad but perfectly fine with that, and encourages Hitomi to go after Kyousuke. Hitomi may do it if Kyousuke turns down Sayaka, or she may feel bad about going after him after her best friend just got turned down, especially if she's worried about getting turned down herself, since Sayaka has known him far longer so she has even less of a chance, right? If Hitomi does confess, Kyousuke WILL say yes, but because his arm was healed due to Sayaka's wish, he's more concerned about playing the violin than spending time with his alleged girlfriend and they eventually fall out. This is keeping in line with Gen's claim that Kyousuke isn't a good match for either of the two girls. Though they may get together in the future.

As for Sayaka...well, she gets with Kyoko and it's actually made CANONICAL in-universe. I don't know about Madoka and Homura though, if she's less possessive of Madoka than she was in canon then perhaps she has a shot. Either way, I would really love if the ships were actually canon and not just queerbaiting. Regardless, Sayaka and Hitomi stay friends. Also, on a meta level, I would really love it if there were more female writers on Madoka Magica, and that the show was targeted towards a female viewing audience, which would mean toning down the fanservice(if not removing it entirely), as well as the troublesome aspects, as I've talked about earlier. And no "torturing young innocent girls and restricting their agency" since that's not what the magical girl genre is about and it never has been. This probably means more episodes though. Anyway, there's probably more stuff I'm forgetting, but to sum it up, this is how I would fix Madoka Magica. What do you think?

I think it’s a really good idea!!! Refreshing~ You know I’m all about fix-its.

Plus, all I heard was “Madoka Magica without being edgy” and I’m like, “yes please, I’m here for it.”

Anonymous said:

About Improbably Female Cast, it has come to my attention that Madoka Magica has been removed from the list. Someone in the discussion section of the trope removed it saying that since it's a magical GIRL show, it having a majority female cast isn't "improbable". The Touhou example is still there, though, because there's apparently something wrong with stories that have less men than women or have next to no men in them. Because a prominent male character is a requirement to tell a good story.

They also removed Strawberry Panic! because it takes place in an all girls' school, and Y: The Last Man, because it takes place in a futuristic world where almost all the men died. But still, the fact that those examples were there at all speaks volumes about the double standard there at TV Tropes. Even if the story has a realistic and plausible reason for the setting to be mostly female, as the examples above are, TV Tropes still considered them improbable. It's as if TV Tropes doesn't just dislike/question stories about a mostly female cast when it doesn't "have" to be, they dislike/question majority female casts in GENERAL! And the closest they have to a Spear Counterpart is Cast Full of Pretty Boys, which is a totally different trope: a cast in which most of the characters are "bishounen" aka pretty boys, because it appeals to a female demographic.

So it's "justified" but female casts aren't. And the playing with section reeks of "Stay in The Kitchen" sexism, with statements can be okay or even exist is if it's a harem or exists to titillate men who crave girl-on-girl interaction(and in fact, the main page lists this as their FIRST reason such a cast would exist, appealing to little girls and/or queer women is secondary/tertiary in their eyes), and the situations they propose in which the trope could be played with almost all involve the few boys attempting to hook up with as many women as possible or manipulating the women to fall in love with them, with the so-called justification that "the viewers just like their lesbians". And almost all their quotes(same on the Playing With page) are about people whining and complaining that the cast has too many girls in it. The Image Links section even has a link to a picture of two boys griping and bleating about the lack of boys in whatever show they're watching("They don't appeal to our demographic!" "Why are there no boys in our story?"), which TV Tropes has the nerve to call a "witty observation".

But what pisses me off even more is the fact that a predominantly female cast even NEEDS a justification in the first place. They only pulled specific examples of shows that supposedly dictated that the cast MUST be mainly female: Magical Girl shows, all-girls school settings, stories in which the entirety of men were killed off...only in extreme circumstances can you "resort" to using female characters but if the situation was reversed, the male equivalent wouldn't be considered improbable to BEGIN WITH. And this is despite the fact that the discussion page is FULL of people saying the trope should be renamed because of sexism, detailing many things I'm detailing right now, to the point where it's even gone off TV Tropes and is right here on Tumblr itself(one troper called it "PC whining", just ugh)! I just wish TV Tropes would realize the inherent sexism in calling such a cast improbable, since it makes it look like they're unhappy with the representation. Then again, they might be.

I’VE NOTICED THAT TOO, YEAH.

show: *has predominately female cast*

people: oKaY I guess that makes sense bUT ONlY BECAUSE--

And because misogyny isn’t as widely discouraged as... example, people would be absolutely crucified for complaining about a show having “too many POCs”... it means that those comments usually get ignored.

Anonymous said:

The Improbably Female Cast talk, especially the part about men complaining when stories have mostly female characters/seeing spaces that are 1/3 female as "majority female", reminded me of how I saw a study somewhere talking about the differences between how men and women dream, and it was saying that men's dreams tend to have more men than women in them, while women's dreams tend to have an equal amount of members from both sexes. Yikes. Even in their sleep men want women out of the picture.

And just in case you're curious, I found the study itself! It's called "Gender Similarities and Differences in Dreams", though if you look up "differences in how men and women dream" it should be the second thing under the link that also includes a snippet of the article. To quote the study itself: "there is a gender difference in how often men and women include male and female characters in their dreams: men dream twice as often about other men as they do about women(67% vs. 33%), and women dream equally about both sexes (48% men, 52% women). This is the largest difference between American men and women." Ouch. Granted, it's specifically talking about Americans, but I don't even want to imagine how even more skewed it probably is in men's favors for men in other countries(not gonna name drop any ACTUAL countries obviously.)! Internalized misogyny runs deep, to the point where men can't even conceive of women having a more significant role than them in anything, even in dreams.

And it runs deeper than that, too. I saw a post on Micechat called "The Smurfette Principle" by JMora. You probably already know what that is, but just in case you don't(or anyone else reading this doesn't), it's a trope describing the tendency for works to have a disproportionate amount of male characters with only one female in the group, if not the whole cast(named after Smurfette, the only female Smurf). The entire article is really well written and it discusses the gender disparity in fiction quite nicely, but what I'd really like to call your attention to is near the end, where they talked about how this effects kids, especially boys.

Movies that make most of their characters male while shoehorning females in female-specific roles are treating maleness as the default while femaleness is a special case, and this leads to films about men being seen as "unisex" while films about women are seen as "for girls" only. As a result, this leads to little girls being willing to watch movies about boys AND girls, while little boys watch movies only about other boys.

This also extends to the stories they write. Girls write stories with male and female protagonists equally, while boys almost exclusively write stories with male protagonists. Girls' stories tend to have a mixture of boys and girls, whereas boys' stories have all boys in them. It relates to what I was saying earlier about how men's dreams have mostly male characters while women's dreams are equal: how our society conditions boys to think that girls just aren't important and don't matter much. To quote the article, "Girls already know they can be the main pirates; it's the boys who aren't getting the message". Thankfully my little(male) cousin likes shows about girls and shows about boys just as much: he likes Pirates of the Caribbean, and he also likes Enchanted. But the majority of boys still dismiss shows for girls as "girly" as if girly is a bad thing but boyish isn't, and when they don't it's weird.

The best part is that this led someone else to realize their own mistakes regarding overrepresentation of men vs underrepresentation of women. A guy named Mouse Macabre realized that the comic he was working on had 8 main characters, 6 male, 2 female, and had to go back and work so that there was an equal amount. All he had to do was make two of his male characters female, and there you have it! Four male main characters, 4 female! Then why is it so hard for the majority of men these days?

Ugh, I don’t know. Like, as soon as people hear “we’re adding more characters for equality/to give women more attention,” it suddenly becomes “““forced.”““

Alright then I guess we’ll just have a bunch of white male shows then because adding diversity is forced and uNnaTuRaL.

We had POCs and more female characters and suddenly certain white males feel ignored and disenfranchised. :|

Poor things, not like there are ten millions other things they could be watching instead.

Also, inevitable response to the dream thing: men agreeing to dream more about woman... but they’re sexualized.

[uncloseted]

tw: transphobia😭 hi I'm a radfem cisgirl (I hate using "cis" and "trans" words but here I need to for the sake of the story) I've got a friend from ny highschool (we're in college now) who's also a radfem and is always sharing great feminist stuff. Yesterday, she shared the comment of a girl saying "this fight for abortion (it is illegal in my country) is for men/people with vaginas too!" and mocked it. I preferred not to make up any opinions about her because of one single post. But today, she shared a picture of Miss Spain 2019 (a trans girl) who talked about her experience with sexism, and mocked her too. This time, it was obvious to me she was just being transphobic trash. She received lots of backlash and deleted the post, but instead made a new post complaining about people caring about transphobia but not about sexism (a very stupid post, if you ask me). This time, along with some comments from other girls respectfully telling her to stop being cruel and mocking towards trans women, she received a lot of support from other TERFS (although these TERFS said they hate being called TERFS just for being honest and brave lmmfao). They said that transwomen don't belong in radfem because they just suffer from discrimination, not oppression, and listed some reasons why: according to them, trans girls don't suffer: obstetrician violence, forced pregnancy, feminicide, child marriage, genital femenine ablation, glass ceiling barriers, being implanted "maternal sense" while kids, getting their ears perfored while babies, among other stuff, and that differentiate ciswomen biological reality from trans women biological reality isn't transphobia. Other girls said they knew transwomen who were mean to them, using derogatory terms to refer to ciswomen and they were mean and cruel, using this argument to generalize about all transwomen smh.

I'm just so stoned that people could be so cruel to transwomen and set them aside from the feminist fight when they suffer from already being excluded from so many things. It sickens me that some people don't belive trans people exist and treat them that bad, specially trans girls. I wish I could debunk the info this TERFS are spreading because it's so dangerous and enables transphobics to keep harming transpeople and I find that unbearable, but I am not as informed as I should be to debute all their lies at once. Could you help me?

So starting with the question of transwomen in radfem spaces, I don’t think many (if any) transwomen would say that they experience the exact same type of discrimination that cis women do.  There’s often this idea that “trans people don’t believe in biology”, but that’s a bad faith argument.  Trans people understand biology very well, often more than their cis counterparts do, because it’s such a big part of their identity.

Yes, transwomen don’t suffer obstetrician violence, forced pregnancy, child marriage, genital feminine ablation, etc. (I can’t even find any articles on the ear thing).  They do experience femicide, at way higher rates that cis women do. Transwomen are women, and they’re discriminated against in their own way; sometimes that’s because they’re women, and sometimes that’s because they’re trans.  Transwomen are largely supportive of fighting with cis women to rid the world of discrimination for all women, cis and trans alike.  

By contrast, TERFs seem to think that because transwomen sometimes suffer a different type of discrimination than cis women, they can’t be “real women”.  But that argument makes no sense to me.  The vast majority of affluent, white, straight, cis women will never suffer the violence that is apparently so central to the cis female experience.  They’re extremely unlikely to experience femicide, child marriage, genital mutilation... and yet they can acknowledge that those issues are feminist issues, even though they’re not universal to all women.  Why shouldn’t the discrimination that transwomen face also fall under that umbrella?  And if they can accept that women who have had hysterectomies, or women who have chromosomal differences, or women who are intersex, or women who present butch are all women, why shouldn’t transwomen also fall under the umbrella of womanhood?

Further, is that really all that womanhood is to TERFs?  Experiencing the trauma and discrimination that so often accompanies being a cis women?  I don’t think inclusion to a group should be predicated on the amount that one has suffered or how many “oppression points” they’ve amassed. And I don’t think being a woman should be predicated solely on biology, especially given that we never really know what kind of biology a person has just by looking at them.  What “being a woman” is is a metaphysical question that derails the discussion of trans feminism, and it’s a question that I don’t think a lot of TERFs actually have a good answer to.  It’s just an easy way to put the burden of proof on trans people and trans allies and waste our time (but if you’re interested, I do have an opinion on this. I just think it’s best saved for a different time).

In terms of trans people being oppressed, there’s all sorts of data to suggest that trans oppression is very real.  In the US, trans people were banned from serving in the military under the Trump administration, a decision that was only overturned a few days ago, and the Trump administration also reversed the Obama- era Title VII policy that protected trans employees from discrimination.  Trans people are overwhelmingly lacking legal protections- there are no federal non-discrimination laws that include gender identity, and in some states, debates over limiting the rights of trans people to use public bathrooms are ongoing.  

About 57% of trans people faced some type of rejection from their family upon coming out.  Around 29% of trans people live in poverty (compared to 11% in the general population and about 22% in the lesbian and gay populations), and that number is higher for trans people who are Black (39%), Latinx (48%), or Indigenous (35%).  27% of trans people have been fired, not hired, or denied a promotion due to their trans identity.  90% of trans people report facing discrimination in their own jobs.  Trans people face double the rate of unemployment that cis people do (about 14%) and about 44% are underemployed. This is despite the fact that a reported 71% of trans people have some level of post-secondary education- actually higher than the general population, which is about 61%.  It’s often cited that women earn 77 cents on the dollar compared to men, but that statistic doesn’t even exist for trans women.

54% of trans people have experienced intimate partner violence (compared to about 24.3% of cis women), 47% of trans people have been sexually assaulted (compared to about 18% of cis women), and about 10% are physically assaulted in a given year. 

About 22% of trans people and 32% of trans people of color in the US have no health insurance (compared to about 11% of cis women), and 55% of trans people who do have insurance report being denied coverage for at least one gender affirming surgery.  29% of trans adults have been refused healthcare by a doctor or provider because of their gender identity.  In one study, 50% of trans people said that they had to teach their medical providers about trans care.  Trans people are four times as likely than the average population to be infected by HIV.  41% have attempted suicide at one point in their lives, compared to 1.6% of the general population.  

20% of trans people have been evicted or denied housing due to their gender identity, and trans people are four times more likely than cis people to be homeless.  Only 1/5 of trans people report that they have been able to update all of their identification documents, and 41% have a driver’s license that does not match their gender identity.  22% of trans people report that they have been denied equal treatment by a government agency or official, 29% reported police harassment, and 12% reported having been denied equal treatment or harassed by judges or court officials.

75% of transgender students feel unsafe at school because of their gender expression, 60% are forced to use a bathroom or locker room that does not match their gender, 50% were unable to use the name and pronouns that match their gender, and 70% of trans students say that they’ve avoided bathrooms because they feel unsafe.  78% of trans students report being harassed or assaulted at school.

And these are all statistics that focus on trans people at large.  The discrimination is worse for transwomen and especially transwomen of color.  All of that certainly sounds like systemic oppression to me.

Every person who chooses to be a TERF perpetuates this discrimination.  It’s just bigotry towards trans people, plain and simple.  And for what?  A reactionary fear that all transwomen are secretly sexual predators and all transmen are confused girls who don’t know better?  Unfortunately, men can be sexual predators just fine without having to jump through the convoluted hoops trans people go through to be recognized as their true gender identity, and transwomen are way more likely to be sexually assaulted than they are to be sexual predators.  There are no reported cases at all that transwomen are dressing up as men to assault women in bathrooms.  There aren’t even statistics on how frequently trans people are sexual predators. And transmen are just as capable of making informed, thoughtful decisions as cis women.  

TERFs shouldn’t be pitting themselves against trans people.  There’s just nothing to be gained from doing that.  They should be working alongside trans people to fight the patriarchy and the discrimination that cis and trans women both face, regardless of what that discrimination entails.

Last thought.  Not to be a stan or anything but if you’re interested in learning more about these issues, Contrapoints has a number of really good videos on the topic of TERFs (including one that just released today!). They delve a bit deeper into the actual questions that TERFs often bring up and provide some nuanced answers.

[theonetruetrash]

How to make a closeted gay boy uncomfortable

( TW: Mention of slurs )

Approach them and for some reason feel instantly comfortable enough to tell then the very intimate and sexual details of your life that make as to make them very uncomfortable, because you’re both guys and all guys should be comfortable with guys talking about “guy stuff” or some such. ( Customers still do this to me at work )

Encourage them to flirt with women or ask them out, or ask them why they didn’t even when they’ve made it explicitly made it clear that they’re not interested in that particular person(s).

Always always always talk to them about how sexy them sexy women sexy folk are and how much you love dat booteh and badonkadonks because you can never become too creepy or excessive doing that constantly every goddamn minute of every day. Bonus points if you act like it’s weird or even bad that they don’t agree.

Use the words “gay” and “fag” in a derogatory sense all the time. Not even to insult gay people necessarily, just whenever the opportunity arises, and then complain when people criticize you for it, because everybody knows that related vernacular has absolutely no influence or relation to cultural attitudes towards minorities and other demographics, and making any concerted attempt to stop using blatant slurs is just such difficult task. Bonus douchebag points if your justification for using “fag” is because “iT’s NoT a SlUr It’S a CiGaReTtE” even though a grand total of absolutely nobody uses it to mean that anymore and you know exactly what you’re doing.

Be grossed out and offended by any mention of anything gay, or even subtle implications that you’re gay. Somebody jokes about you being attracted to another guy? How dare! You would never do something that disgusting!

Hate anything remotely feminine. Be all like “Lol, that shits fuckin’ girly. I can’t believe that you, a guy, would do something that a girl would do! Lol! Emasculating people and invalidating their identity and/or interests is so much fun!” Bonus points if you make those cringey af Facebook posts like “If ur boyfriend doesn’t [ insert something really stupid or possibly dangerous/harmful here ] they’re a WOMANNNNNN HAHAHAHAHAHAH I’M SO FUNNY AND ORIGINAL LIKE PLZ”.

Always always always assume that all of your guy friends are straight and can relate to the experience of being attracted to women.

When/If they actually come out to you, be all freaked out and be all “WELL DON’T YOU DARE FLIRT W/ ME”, “OMG UR GAY SO UR IN LOVE W/ MEEEEEE????????”, and “YOU JUST HAVEN’T FOUND THE RIGHT GRILL YETTTTTT”. Bonus points if you constantly make jokes about them sucking dick or being a bottom after the fact.

[lolitain]

Be What You Want With Lolita Costumes

Before coming to the multiple facets of Lolita, here is a short introduction to Lolita for those who are already acquainted with this kind of fashion and those who are not. The Lolita is a Victorian styled women’s outfit that originated in Japan in the 70s and came to popularity in the 80s and 90s owing to Anime and Manga characters. The Lolita tries to create an extremely sweet, subtle and girly look with its feminine colors and designs, flared sleeves, gown like skirts and use of ornamental laces. You can see that it is highly inspired by the Victorian Age style of fashion for women and is just another modern version of the same for girls.

However, that’s certainly not all about Lolita. If things had been so simple, it would not have been a problem but there is a worldwide misconception amongst people who think Lolita to be just limited to cosplay or maid costumes. Lolita is everything but just cosplay or a costume to be frank and precise. Lolita has been popular for decades on the streets of Japan and has a long going connection with the Anime subculture. It is a fashionable outfit for women on its own terms and is one of the most sophisticated and multifaceted pieces of clothing ever made for women. Labeling it simply as a costume or associating it with cosplay is quite derogatory. It just shows that many people are unaware of the different aspects of Lolita and thus misconstrue it to be just a costume. In fact, cosplay refers to costume play where people dress up in costumes to mimic the role of any character. But Lolita is not a character; it is a fashion statement that has been used to style characters in Anime or Manga series. So, let’s put an end to this misconception once and for all.

Here we can see how Lolita can be sweet and girly, sophisticated and subtle and absolutely domineering too.

Sweet Lolita

These dresses are made in soft feminine colors like white, pink and powder blue shades. The fabric too is kept as light and soft yarn to convey a charming, girly appearance. They are decorated with lace and ribbons to create the typical romantically sweet look of a young girl. By wearing these sweet Lolitas, young women can look absolutely dolled up in the cutest and the most elegant way. The abundance of ornamental bows, frills and ruffles help to create the doll-like look every young girl dreams to achieve at times.

https://www.lolitain.com/strawberry-hug-series-bowknot-sweet-lolita-sling-dress-p-7711.html

This white and wine strawberry print Lolita speaks volumes about itself. Firstly, nothing can get cuter than this for any young lady. This is the tailor-made Lolita to make you look ravishingly cute. In fact, it pries out your inner sweetness with its simplicity. The flared sleeves and black frills near the hem lend an old-world charm to this irresistibly sweet Lolita.

https://www.lolitain.com/cute-retro-pink-lace-bowknot-sweet-lolita-short-sleeves-dress-p-6715.html

Do you want to style yourself in a fairy tale kind of way to revive your childhood fascination with Cinderella and Snow White? This baby pink Lolita with white frills at the hem and cute ornamental bows designing the dress is one such outfit to take you back to your days of fairy tales. Such fascinations never get old and you are never too old to let your youthful sweetness see the light of day again.

Classical Lolita

These dresses are styled as per the Victorian age dress code for women. The skirts are made longer to give them the appearance of European gowns. The colors are usually limited to graceful, light pastel shades and here too, laces and frills are abundantly used to emulate the classical Victorian and Rococo styles.

https://www.lolitain.com/alices-christmas-series-jsk-classic-lolita-wine-red-sling-dress-p-7633.html

This is how classy a classical Lolita looks. Now, do you understand why it is almost sinful to label Lolita as simply cosplay? These elegant gown style Lolita may be a little old fashioned for today’s women but as you know, retro is in and the evergreen Victorian age styles never really get outdated. Try wearing a classic Lolita instead of a gown and flaunt your feminine charm like never before.

https://www.lolitain.com/flowers-embroidery-little-high-waist-classic-lolita-long-dress-p-6940.html

Can anything get classier than this for a woman? We don’t think so. These classic Lolitas pay tribute to the age-old image of the elegant lady immortalized in poetry and paintings. Classic Lolitas are thus made in pastel hues and given the high waisted long-skirted look and subtle lacework to heighten the elements of classiness and grace. Any woman can look as pretty as a picture in a light classic Lolita on any spring or summer day.

https://www.lolitain.com/earl-tea-retro-college-style-woolen-brown-vest-lolita-skirt-set-p-6160.html

And here’s another truly classic Lolita styled up in the retro tea party fashion. These can never age and are meant to make you the center of attraction for all the right reasons.

Gothic Lolita

As the name suggests, Gothic Lolita conveys the element of mystery and darkness associated with the term ‘Gothic’. Just as in Gothic films or novels, the dress too stays true to its genre and the styles are based on dark themes. The color for these Gothic Lolitas is usually black and they make wonderful fashion choices for women.

https://www.lolitain.com/unknown-poem-series-gothic-lolita-black-long-sleeve-dress-p-6904.html

A classy black and white Lolita can make every day special. The nun style look has a mysterious gothic charm to it which makes it even more eye-catching than any regular black gown. It stays absolutely committed to its genre even while being at its prettiest best. It conveys an undeniable sense of the attitude of a strong and no-nonsense woman.

https://www.lolitain.com/black-lace-jacquard-cotton-cotton-material-waisted-doll-dress-p-5817.html

Don’t you feel that gothic spunk just by looking at this black lacy Lolita? This cannot just be a costume but a fascinating party wears too.

So, there are multiple facets of this outfit which will leave you stunned. Perhaps, awareness about the versatility of Lolita will help to break the misconceptions around it and make more and more people accept it with open arms as high street fashion.