#I mean RESPECTFUL discussion

[pally-plate]

I am genderqueer but I am not non-binary.

I am a binary gender. That binary gender is male, and happens to also be genderqueer. Even if that “technically counts as being non-binary,” it doesn’t to me.

I am two genders at the same time, but I am not bi-gender.

I have two gender identities. They coexist at the same time and never change. I am always male and always genderqueer. However, I am not bi-gender. You might be scratching your head and wondering how that’s even possible. How can someone who’s two genders at once which never change not be bi-gender?

Because I’m not. The label just doesn’t fit me. I do not identity with the label bi-gender. I am not bi-gender, I am genderqueer. A genderqueer guy.

Although my gender fluctuates in intensity, I am not gender-flux.

My gender tends to be silly goofy and likes to fluctuate in how ‘intense’ it is. One day, I could be feeling 100% super manly man, boyly boy, and want only to be addressed using he/him/his, no matter what I look or dress like that day. Other days, I could feel a little more ‘disconnected’ from my manhood, and although I still love he/him pronouns, I might throw it/its into the mix too. (But never they/them.) You’re probably thinking that that sounds like the textbook definition of gender-flux. And it more or less is. But it’s not me. Even I don’t know why; I just don’t vibe with the label.

There are certain labels that, although they may “technically” describe someone, won’t fit them. In my opinion, gender should not be defined as what label “technically” fits. It should be defined as how the individual themself feels about it.

A binary trans person might identify as a label such non-binary, for instance, not because their gender itself is not binary, but maybe because they still like dressing in clothes traditionally associated with their birth sex, or because they don’t like being referred to as a woman or man and would rather just be called a person! Or even if they just like they way the label vibes with them and would rather use that instead or “trans man,” or “trans woman.”

Their gender could still be binary, but they are 100% allowed to refer to themselves as non-binary, for whatever reason they want.

If you want to use labels to describe your gender expression rather than identity itself, then that’s alright! You’re allowed, I promise. And if anyone tries to police your identity for no absolutely reason, just remember: it’s YOUR gender, it’s YOUR identity, and it’s NOT hurting anyone!

[arkangelo-7]

I think the scariest part about Batman is the loyalty he inspires. Like this motherfucker has an army of children who might at any given time hate his guts, but are still 100% willing to throw hands for him if Bruce needs them to. And then there’s the Justice League, who also at any given time might hate his guts or find him insanely irritating and/or weird, but will also fall in line and listen to his plans if the need arises. And that’s like the most intense form of power someone can wield—voluntary obedience from people physically more capable than them.

[descendant-of-truth]

I think the other reason I don't really get into ships as portrayed by fandom culture is that it seems like the mindset is more like. "I want these characters to be in a Romantic Relationship(TM)" instead of "I want these characters' relationship to be romantic"

What I mean here is that, so often I see pairings enacting romance tropes to the point of heavily altering or downright replacing their original dynamic - as if the people behind it only understand romance as a series of checklists to tick off. Couples like to kiss and sleep in the same bed and flirt with each other, so it doesn't matter who the characters are, if they're a couple then naturally they'll do those things, right??

And that's where the whole thing starts to lose me, because I would assume that the appeal of shipping characters is, y'know... the characters? Rather than just, the idea of a couple? If I'm thinking about how it'd be cool for them to be in love, my first thought is always "so how would they show it," because just like everything else about a person, the answer is going to be different on a case-by-case basis.

Maybe the characters involved aren't really into kissing, but they like arranging date activities. Maybe they aren't committed to the structure of dating at all, and just want to be around each other whenever they can. And even if they are the types to like doing traditionally romantic things, that doesn't suddenly erase whatever else they had going on before they started adding that on top of it.

I'm not saying that the more typical romance tropes and activities are bad, just that they're applied kind of excessively, regardless of whether or not they actually work for the characters involved. I want to see my favorite characters having relationships that are true to who they are, not what the stock depiction of a couple says they should be.

[lucabyte]

Different standards

[queen0fm0nsterz]

I really like how Little Nightmares explores masculinity and femininity.

The experience of a female presenting LN protagonist (and even character, if you want to extend to the antagonists, notably the Pretender) is generally one of survival induced solitude, where companionship can be sought but ultimately denied due to circumstance - especially among each other. Six, Noone, Alone and Raincoat Girl all display different degrees of longing for someone to understand them - Six being an extreme on the side of isolation with the occasional source of comfort (the Nomes), Alone being a comfortable middle where she is indipendent and curious while also having a companion, and Raincoat Girl being the other end, an helpful force who seems to desire companionship. In Little Nightmares 1 especially femininity is displayed as the painful experience it can be. It's raw, visceral, and worst of all it's isolating both when you conform to it until it destroys you, like the Lady does, and when you reject the standard of what is expected of someone like you, like Six.

The pain you feel, physical and emotional, doesn't seem to be as important no matter how deep it cuts you. Noone's tumor being hidden and neglected, her headaches being dismissed... and of course Six's hunger, unforgettable in how much it hinders her, but I could also point to her monster form and the physical and mental toll the entire ordeal in the Tower has left on her.

The conflict between Six and the Lady becomes especially poignant under the lens of this argument because it is a confrontation of the two opposing sides of the spectrum, metaphorically. It's a little girl who has yet to experience the devastation of conformity performed as a means of survival facing a woman who lived all her life so set on following these rules that anything outside of them is perceived as a threat.

(One can't ignore the more obvious point of the class difference with Six being at the very bottom of the chain and the Lady being at the top, which certainly influences the dynamic, but I digress.)

Femininity is hyperindependance in the Little Nightmares world. It's the desire to be left alone while also longing for understanding. It's ambition and curiosity, but it's also the loss of identity both in the pursuit of it and in defiance of it. You end up being alienated either way; you can't really win.

On the other hand, I find that generally, masculine Little Nights protagonists tend to be driven by sentimentalisms and emotion. They are often defined by what community surrounds them, be it a single friend, family member or group; the most lampant example of this are, of course, Mono and the Thin Man, but the same argument can be made for the Runaway, whose story ends up leading him into finding a genuine community with the Nomes, something that no female protagonist experiences. You could argue it was clever foreshadowing, and it was! But does it make the observation any less valid? Personally I don't think so. Low also seems to be pretty set on keeping Alone by his side, although it might be too early to tell; however we do know he's a dreamer who dreams of a future where he and Alone can escape the Nowhere. You could call him a romantic.

Masculinity in this world can be care and fortitude, but it's also singlemindedness. It's the ability to find companionship and meaning while also letting one's own hubris destroy it.

Otto himself is an incredibly interesting example of this because we can hear how his desires, his emotions, are eventually what ends up driving Noone into the arms of the Ferryman. It's a prime example of how masculinity and femininity clash with one another -how his emotional wounds and eventual loss of clarity caused a little girl to fall prey to that hyperindependance where she refuses to be helped by him even when he does mean it.

(Along with his vaguely misogynistic remarks, but again, I digress...)

This singleminded focus on one's own emotions is what I think makes the Thin Man and Mono as relatable to many as they are. His is an endless cycle of violence caused by his own hand; by his own inability to process his emotions in a way that can allow him to progress and move forward. It's not a justification of Six, whose eventual exhaustion was what caused her to react the way she did, but rather it is an observation through again metaphorical lens.

The Thin Man is stuck in a dark room that gets progressively smaller because his inability to understand his wrongs causes it to shrink. He's locked in a bubble that is not entirely of his own making, but it is his responsibility to burst. But how can you burst it when you have no conscience of the fact that the room has been getting smaller to begin with? How can you care, when all you can think about is the emotional hurt that brings out the worst of you, the part that you don't even realize is the worst of you?

Masculinity can be just as isolating as femininity not because it's visceral but because it's fragile. It's unaware of itself while also being incredibly concentrated on the self. It's based entirely on how one is perceived and treated and thus easily destroyed once one is left alone to their own devices, which is why it requires community. Once that community is taken from you, it shatters, and leaves one without the tools to rebuild it.

I suppose the true difference here is that, at their worst, while one is self aware to the point it is actively damaging to the self and everyone around you, the other is so out of touch with itself that it can cause unintentional hurt to the self and others which can't be processed properly.

At their worst, they're monsters that help make each other, you could say. At their best, they're companions who help each other.

(This is in no way an attempt to diminish one or the other, by the way, nor does this reading apply to every single character. Both social constructs have their good sides and bad sides. The main quartet of Six, Lady, Thin Man and Mono are very strong cases, but I was simply making a general observation.)

[somegrumpynerd]

Actually it turns out I had more thoughts about that post that I forgot about lol

Would Nightmare actually give up his boys? Yes and no

If it was just a black and white situation of they're miserable, they don't wanna be here, they have somewhere better to be, then yes. He would leave them out to wherever they needed to be despite his own feelings and very quickly realise afterwards just how much he'd gotten used to the noise and company. I think he would get a little clingy with Dream about it, which I'm sure Dream would find very weird after everything but not unwelcome, he did miss his brother after all.

(If he couldn't attach himself to Dream's side for whatever reason, I think he might just sit in his castle and go insane. Or maybe he'd just spend all day at Ccino's trying really hard to project that he just likes the atmosphere and isn't lonely as hell)

But the thing is, most of them don't have somewhere better to be. Horror has his au, and Nightmare would keep up the supply of food even if Horror said he wanted to quit at this point, so he would understandably let him return home. Killer, Dust and Cross effectively don't have aus anymore though, and they tend to get into self-destructive habits when they're left to their own devices. (Obviously bringing Color and Epic into the mix to make sure Killer and Cross are taken care of eases matters, but Dust doesn't really have any friends outside their group he could go stay with - that Nightmare knows about at least).

The flipside of this is that his boys may not necessarily want to be given up. I think if Nightmare got really in his head about this he could easily end up convinced this is the right thing to do without ever asking them if it's what they want, with potentially terrible results. He's established such a pattern of always returning to find Killer when they get seperated, that if he never showed up Killer might just keep sitting there and waiting for him greyfriar's bobby style, refusing to leave because he's certain his boss is coming back.

[impmansloot]

i desperately want kcd fandom to be one of those Radioactive Cockroach fandoms that exist for years and still have people discussing miniscule lore details, but if it were anything like them people would still be discussing my girl johanka. have you guys even heard about johanka? anyway this post is about johanka of skalitz-

[aroaceleovaldez]

Something something Jason feeling like he doesn't quite fit as "Greek" or "Roman" as a metaphor for bisexuality, particularly the semi-canonical bi-coding in his half of experiences during the Cupid scene and how Favonius and Cupid speak to him in parallel to the scenes confirming Nico is gay.

Something something the camps as metaphors for traditionally acceptable forms of relationships and Nico living as a rogue outside of them, rejecting expectation (ergo in himself representing a metaphor of queer identity and living outside of boxes and defined/usually hetero-allonormative/binary ideas of what love/relationships should look like) versus Jason struggling with the expectation to conform to a label and even discussing with Nico both of them remaining at CHB together.

Something something the inverse of Jason shifting away from the camps after he breaks up with Piper, feeling lost and unable to find a place between the camps as he begins to explore his queer identity properly for the first time versus Nico only remaining at CHB because he has entered a relationship. In this essay I will-

[wackywatchdotcom]

this image is taking forever. heres smth quick i sketched cus ive been listening to metal while i work on this and had an epiphany

plain text:

ive beeen thinking. that man idk who on the cast would listen to metal if any… and i still am not sure. but i think…………. gangle might. and thats awesome

i dont think itd be the main thing she listens to but thinking on it? she would. sometimes

i think shed loooove when its women vocalists. bc shes gay

[foursaints]

bbg i’m sure you’re already aware, but i don’t think it’s okay to ship siblings especially TWINS

not having discourse with you guys until you read "Gothic incest: Gender, sexuality and transgression" by Jenny DiPlacidi (jstor) and come prepared to critically examine how the merging of erotic/familial love in gothic literature has historically been used to disrupt the gendered boundaries that define the genre....

we're being so scholarly about this one. match my freak.

[deliriousblue]

to me asking if buddie is queerbait is like asking if destiel or queliot was queerbait, which is to say: depends on your definition but ultimately it’s rather beside the point.

the interesting questions to me here are. how does a show approach its queer (or potentially queer) characters? how aligned is the marketing of the show with the relationships and storylines that are given prominence in the narrative? is the possibility of canonizing the relationship teased while simultaneously reiterating that one or more of the characters in question is straight to dismiss viewers as reading something into the show that isn't there? are queer characters afforded well-developed relationships with other main characters, or are their partners relegated to side roles?

idk! i think we may need a more complex theory of queerness in television and how it's marketed and contextualized to answer this one.

[laciefuyu]

you know, if you think about it, zr 4th anniv card is actually both closer to an arc and also opener for new arc (musing in the tag)

help i hit the tag limit but yeah man, i have so much thought in general and tried to be as non spoilery as possible LOL

[captainclickycat]

There's something about the intersection of knowing you don't want children and also being in a position where you could never feasibly be a parent even if you wanted to and also hating it when people just rope you, a person who doesn't want children, in with anyone who can't afford children whether they want them or not as a talking point about our shambolic economy without bothering to acknowledge the differences and the way that ties in with the fact that ultimately you still hate not having the agency to make that decision for yourself even though you know what decision you'd make and you're still in the same position anyway. I'm not sure how to articulate it right now but there's definitely something about it.

[mathewton-cl]

As An IzuOcha Shipper…

…them not ending up together isn’t the problem.

Horikoshi taking the “leave it up to interpretation” approach and then proceeding to COMPLETELY AVOID ADDRESSING their relationship status is the problem.

Horikoshi failing to tie up that one last loose end for Uraraka’s character arc (not closing off her feelings) is the problem.

Again, I ship IzuOcha. Still do, because I’m stubborn. Would I have liked for them to end up together, even if it was only a somewhat blatant implication that could be handwaved? Obviously. But you know what? Maybe I would be upset if the story went out of its way to explicitly de-confirm any chance of Midoriya and Uraraka being a romantic pairing, but I’d at least respect it and understand it a lot more if the story let Midoriya and Uraraka actually talk about this, or at the very least SHOWED US them talking about this. I’d understand if Uraraka completed her character arc by having a heart to heart with Midoriya and telling him that her feelings have changed, her priorities have changed, and Midoriya understands and they remain good friends. Let’s be real, romance isn’t Horikoshi’s strong suit, despite his many attempts to leave romantic implications throughout the series. I’d completely understand if he just had Midoriya and Uraraka talk and they didn’t end up together, because at least then it still provides both of their characters with closure.

But no, that’s too simple. Let’s just “leave it up to interpretation,” because it clearly wasn’t that important, right?

Well, as many people on the internet have already brought up, if it wasn’t so important, why did you spend so much time putting emphasis on it? Why did you have Uraraka, up until the FINAL WAR, have her crush on Midoriya be a crucial part of her character (it wasn’t her only character trait, mind you, but it was still important)? Why did the penultimate chapter have the class come to comfort Uraraka and tell her that they can talk to her… and then come the next chapter, Uraraka apparently hasn’t done anything regarding her supposed crush on Midoriya? For literal YEARS!?

…see, this isn’t even a shipping problem anymore. This is a character problem.

Horikoshi, for whatever reason, chose not to include a romance for the main character and his supposed love interest. And again, that’s fine, not every story needs to be a romance. Two problems with it here though (well, one problem and an observation):

1) Choosing to not at least address the romantic subplot with a “I think we’re better off as friends” encounter, thus actually concluding the subplot and providing a sense of closure, not only leaves the result feeling underwhelming and frustrating, but also actively damages Uraraka’s character arc. We can have her address the problem that caused people like Toga to exist, but heaven forbid she talks about romance with Midoriya.

2) Despite his supposed aversion to romance, Horikoshi still went out of his way to give Gentle and La Brava wedding rings… he’s willing to establish a side romantic pairing without bringing too much attention to it, but he can’t be bothered to do something similar for the arguable MAIN pairing? It’s the “Togata has special clothes so he doesn’t end up buck naked, but Hagakure’s still gotta go commando” debacle again…

I’ma go ahead and wrap this up ‘cause I don’t wanna keep y’all much longer, but like… being optimistic, this ending was… functional. I’ve got my problems with it, obviously, I don’t think it was BAD bad… but it certainly wasn’t good. It works. Barely. And it’s ‘cause of stuff like this.

Midoriya and Uraraka didn’t need to end up together, truly. All Horikoshi had to do was put the smallest amount of effort and give us something of substance, something with closure. Instead, we got what we got.

I get that he was exhausted and wanted the manga to be over… but that excuse only holds up for so long.

[historyartthings]

It’s the daily mail so i don’t know why I’m surprised but, what is wrong with you? you’re an actual freak

[thewhizzyhead]

one day I wish I could actually like understand songwriting especially for theatre so that I can I dunno actually put to use the random tunes I have in my head that just spontaneously appear while I'm doing the most mundane of shit. anyways patron has the concept of an opening number now