#Just because someone’s asexual or aromantic DOESNT MEAN that they can’t or wouldn’t be in a relationship???

[spiritshaydra]

Hot take, Megasound is an ace (possibly aroace) power couple situation and in this essay I will-

[15fishes]

guy questioning if he is aromantic and devolving into madness under cut❤️

guys wtf how does anyone in the world know the difference between romantic and sexual and platonic attraction like dude. I would love to have one person who loves me more than a friend who like lives with me and we do like marriage people stuff but like I dont get “feelings” for people but is “feelings” a romantic thing because people SAY it is but can it fall under sexual if like its a physical thing happening to you (blushing I guess) or is it not a physical thing because it just means you’re nervous and like them a lot (because youre attracted to them…? I DONT GET IT) or is romance like you just love them but then like why can’t you just love your friends in that way ..? also how does anyone get romantic if its not a physical thing feelings for someone they dont know like you dont know him girl what else is there to like besides hes a piece of ass like he seems cool????? is that it?why dont you jusy become friends? is it the combo of want to become friend and want to fuck? is that romance bc thats not a good definition either?????? GUYS I DONT GET IT . like If I want a partner to like idk live with and like love and stuff and like idk go to a halloween party together would that be romance because I wouldnt have “feelings” for them like somehow people do I just feel like we would be special friends and yk I like that idea but is that just boyfriend girlfriend or is that SMTH ELSE how does everyone even understand this shit . like stereotypical definition of romance: flower petal on bed candles etc - THAT GIVES ME NO INFORMATION especially since uh idk?? that stuff seems sexual?? ykw I think alloallos just don’t know the difference either but the problem is if youre pretty sure youre asexual but dont know if youre aro too YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING like Ive never really ever had a crush on someone bc one what the fuck does that even mean what do you mean you want to be with that person you have never met how is that a romantic thing dont ask me bc theres obviously no clear definition I mean like if I want to date someone I can think in my head of what its going to be like and I think wow thats awkward bc this is a total stranger or if its my friend I think wow thats awkward bc were literally friends NOT TO MENTION friends literally do romantic stuff but its platonic I went out to dinner with my friend once, SHES A LESBIAN AND IM A GUY so obviously it was platonic but what makes it so special that we wouldnt be attracted to each other ?? we still ate food and chatted like hello??? all of this platonic romantic sexual stuff is all MIXED UP im just calling myself bi forever and but buying the aroace stuff if they look cuter than the bi stuff when im buying pride stuff WHY IS THIS SO CONFUSING me personally I want a partner but I cant get one because I have to do this whole feeling romantic attraction thing when nobody ever made it clear what the fuck that is and everyone else whose aro doesnt want one so im like hey maybe im a little not aro except maybe I am and just like the idea of a partner except I wouldn’t know because I dont know which feeling is romantic and WHICH ONE IS PLATONIC

[itsonlystrange]

So, after reading @hawkinsschoolcounselor latest post, I went into the comments and, boy- they were, well. They were not great. I mean I guess I laid this onto myself but, anyways, I’m going to be answering this comment right here:

This is ALL for fun! It’s all a bunch of light hearted love, but this comment REALLY ticked me the wrong way.

For starters: There’s always been this trope in media of “one is enough.” Or “we have enough representation!” And it’s VERY prevelant in tv shows. The theory that “oh! There’s already one gay character, that’s enough for you, right?” Is sh!tty. It’s horrible.

Think of it this way: if there are 200 white sheep in a room, and then the shepherd brings in one black sheep, do you think that would suffice the other black sheep from the other herds? Do you think that would ‘hold them over’? I mean imagine being a black sheep in a crowd of 200 other white sheep, you’d feel alone. Okay, so now pretend there is a tv show, and this black sheep is watching that tv show, and of course, all the actors in the tv show are WHITE SHEEP. So then, in season 3 of Sheeper Things, they FINALLY introduce a black sheep, and of course the black sheep is happy, but still, they can’t help but realize that all of the white sheep are still there and overcome that small black sheep by a LOT!

I’m assuming that comment was made by someone straight, as they clearly don’t grip representation. Also, I’m assuming that person is slightly homophobic, just by the way they phrased it. It seems odd, I mean, what’s the issue with having one more gay character?

Well apparently, in their minds, Will being able to overcome his childhood is much more effective then Will being gay- so.

Let me lay it out for you:

Surprise! You can be gay AND want to hold onto your childhood! And, there are already so many other characters that could have a lovely arc of learning to accept themselves and learning to be their true selves away from societies norms *cough* mike *cough* Lucas *cough* but of course, they want to make WILL the one who gets this arc because if Will was gay that means he has a better chance of getting with Mike! (This was under a Mileven video btw) so they want him to be canonically straight so there is no chance Mike and Will can be endgame!

Now second: 90% of the comments under this video are people saying they think he’s asexual.

1. You can be gay AND asexual

2. Asexuality is the feeling of not being sexually attracted to anyone. YOU CAN BE ROMANTICALLY ATTRACTED TO PEOPLE IF YOURE ASEXUAL.

3. Will is fourteen! And if we’re using the logic of “oh he hasn’t wanted to kiss anyone so he’s asexual!” Then shouldn’t Dustin be asexual too?-

4. WILL IS FOURTEEN! Just because he doesn’t want to get down and dirty at that (very young age!) DOESNT mean that he doesn’t like sexual attraction at all. It’s kind of insane how people are seriously making these assumptions over a 14 year old child, some people like to wait, and that’s fine!

5. If the people in the comments meant aromantic, there really isn’t anything in the show that proves that he doesn’t like anyone, period. I think partially it’s heteronormativity and people not wanting to see the fact that Will clearly has a crush on mike, or had one in the past. The script even went as far as saying “But his eyes aren’t on the cute girl, they’re on - - Mike.”

Why do you think the script would put that in if there wasn’t something there, unrequited or not? Personally, I think that a lot of people don’t want to accept the fact that Will could have a crush on Mike as that would destruct their heteronormative bubble. They don’t want the main boy in the show to be gay because it disrupts the balance in their life. And it makes the chances of mike and Will ending up together being strong.

6. Saying “you have one gay character, that’s enough representation!” Is BULL. SH!T. There will NEVER be enough representation in the media for the lgbtq+ community. Ever. Even when we keep trying, there will always be something. Whether the show being cancelled or the one gay character dying, representation in the media for minorities are slim, but ESPECIALLY for the lgbtq+ community.

We are all VERY proud of Maya and Robin. We love Robin, but that doesn’t mean the Duffers just get to sit back and be like “oh, we already have one gay character, we don’t need more.” Like, what? That’s not how this works. Representation doesn’t just get to stop after the heterosexuals deem us to have “enough gay characters” or “if you add too many gay characters it’d get unrealistic” no. We’ve (me being a bisexual) have went through YEARS AND YEARS of ZERO representation. ZERO. While the hets always got their happily ever after love story, we WAITED.

We love Robin, but that doesn’t mean they can just halt Will’s arc since season one because you deem the representation to be enough.

This isn’t apples and oranges. Will can be gay AND not want to grow up. It isn’t always just black and white.

Maybe it’s the people who refuse to see the way Will looks at Mike, and just takes that as “2 bros looking at bros”, but there is very clearly something under the surface there.

since season ONE they have built Will up to be gay. Since the first episode.

Put it this way. Joyce used the term “f*g” in episode one. Why do you think they would use a slur like that If it weren’t going to go somewhere. What was the point of using a slur to describe Will in season one, or to Troy and James literally tormenting the Party for Will being gay almost all of season one. What was the point of that if that wasn’t going to go anywhere?

I can GUARANTEE that If Mike promised El that he’d go crazy together with HER instead of Will, the milevens would eat that up and call it “romantic!” However, because it’s just two boys, it’s totally platonic, right? It’s totally just two bros being bros.

If Mike held el’s hand like that and said “we won’t let him.” To el instead of Will, milevens would EAT THAT UP. They’d say that was the most romantic sh!t in the show.

If Mike told El that meeting her was the best thing he’d ever done, MILEVENS WOULD EAT THAT UP. They’d call it the most romantic thing of the century. It’d be on ever fan accounts Instagram pages. It’d be in all of the bios. But of course, because it’s two boys, it HAS to be platonic.

A lot of times milevens excuses for things are “well mike said he loved her so it’s end game”

Stancy, anyone?

Or Mike said “you’re the most important thing in the world to me.”

In the most DRY way possible. If Mike said that to Will in that way, EVEN I WOULDNT BELIEVE HE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH.

I mean the way Mike said that line clearly shows that el isn’t the most important thing in the world to him. There’s something underlying there. Like I said, that line was DRY. There was no emotion behind it. He was just saying that to get El to shut up, to get El to forgive him, so they could move on.

If Mike had said “you’re the most important thing in the world to me” to WILL like that instead of El, I wouldn’t have believed it either. And I bet that If that was the case the milevens would say “Mike doesn’t really love Will! That line was so dry!” But because it’s El and Mike, they say that’s the cutest thing since sliced bread.

Again, I have zero issues with Milevens, it’s only the toxic ones like the comment above that get to me.

Will has been set up to be gay from DAY ONE. The duffers have studied film for YEARS. Do you seriously think they’d let these all be coincidences? Do you seriously think that after writing season two NOBODY said, “hey, that’s a little gay.”

One scene is fine. If we only had gotten crazy together, yeah, I don’t think I would have thought it to be canon. But it’s the fact that they wrote in OVER 10 QUEER CODED ROMANTIC SCENES BETWEEN MIKE IN WILL, JUST IN SEASON TWO.

You can’t make that up! That cannot be an accident!

They’ve said over and over that everything they do, every song they play, every outfit the characters wear, is intentional. It’s all there for a reason.

Finn and Noah had to read these scripts, rehearse them, and then spent hours filming them. Do you seriously think it wouldn’t have cross their minds that “Hey! That’s a little weird Mr Duffer.”

That’s mostly because Finn and Noah probably already know where the show is headed.

If your only source of Mileven evidence is that Millie has said that they should get married and that they kissed in the end, then, I have some news to break.

Obviously, if anything were to happen in season 4 with Mileven not being end game, Millie couldn’t just say that. Finn couldn’t just say that. It’s their jobs to keep the fans intrigued and on their toes.

David knew he wasn’t really dead but he still had to pretend in interview after interview that Hopper was indeed dead. And he played it off pretty well.

Millie knew El wasn’t really dead after the season one finale yet she still had to play it off like El was.

So obviously, they can’t just outright say “Mileven isn’t end game!”

I mean,,, I’m sure they’d get fired for it.

So, we really shouldn’t pay attention to what the cast says in interviews, and we shouldn’t take that as canon, either. Their job is to subvert our expectations for the show, and they’re doing it well.

TL;DR:

Will can be gay and also have an arc where he doesn’t want to grow up and where he can learn to be his authentic self. The interviews the ST cast do should not be taken as canon as their jobs as actors are to keep us on our toes and subvert our expectations. Byler has a lot of proof and has a large chance of being canon, and most milevens don’t want to believe Will is gay because that means Will would have a larger chance of getting with Mike. The lgbtq+ community still need representation regardless of Robin and just because we got one lesbian does not mean the duffers can sit back and go back to their only heterosexual couples and ideas.

Byler is end game :)

@kaypeace21 @strangertheory @stranger-analysis @willthecleric (opinions?)

[communistsans]

Bi/pan lesbian is not a term you should use.

Let me be clear, I think the experience you're describing is real, but the term is offensive to bi, pan, and lesbian people. Bi, pan, and lesbian are separate sexualities. They cannot be put together because they are directly contradictory. And before you say "what about x sexuality and ace," that is different, because the terms bi, straight, pan, lesbian, and gay all define the romantic and sexual parts of attraction. Ace only describes a lack of sexual attraction, leaving the question of who they are romantically attracted to. So if someone says they are ace and bi, it works because from that you know that they are attracted to women/men, but only romantically. You wouldn't say, "I'm aromantic, asexual, and bi," because all those things overlap. You can't be attracted to no one romantically or sexually AND be attracted to men/women. Lesbian describes a sexuality that means women/fem aligned people who are EXCLUSIVELY attracted (romantically and/or sexually) to women/fem aligned people. Bisexual describes a sexuality that means someone attracted (romantically and/or sexually) to 2 or more genders. Pansexual describes a sexuality that means someone attracted to others (romantically and/or sexually) regardless of their sex/gender.

So that's why the term is nonsensical, but why is it offensive to lesbians and bisexuals/pansexuals? I'm bi woman, so take my lesbian commetary with a grain of salt.

I believe every sexuality has a bit of wiggle room, and also that that doesn't mean that a person can't use the term gay/lesbian. I don't think a straight man being attracted to one guy makes him gay/bi, I don't think being a lesbian and being attracted to one guy makes her bi/straight. I'm bisexual and people often ask me if they are bi because they are attracted to x obviously attracitve celebrity, and the answer is usually no. It takes more than being attracted to a couple of people of the opposite sex to be bi/pansexual. What makes you bi/pan is being able to be genuinely attracted to, date, fall in love with, and be intimate with people of the same and different sexes/genders. I think straight and gay people alike can have genuine attractions that do not align with their sexuality and still be that sexuality. However the key here is that those are exceptions. When 99% of your experiences are exclusive to one gender then yes, you are gay/lesbian. I don't think that genuinely liking your high school boyfriend because he was a sweet guy and you hadn't figured yourself out yet makes you not a lesbian. And I think to say that it does is also lesbophobic. Just to get the whole "sexuality is fluid" out of the way.

Relationships between women are so often devalued, and lesbians often suffer from people erasing their sexualities, or people assuming that somehow they must be attracted to men in some way. This is a fucked up and lesbophobic way of thinking, and it's stupid that they have to deal with that. Lesbians shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of personal experiences for fear of having their sexuality questioned/invalidated. Politically speaking, it is critical for lesbians to ensure the term lesbian means a sexuality of women exclusively being attracted to women, please do not interfere with this term. It is important to their communities that it stays that way. However I know what is politically convenient isn't always what is personally true. On a personal note, I think the distinction should be this: if you HAVE BEEN attracted to a couple of men in your life but could never see yourself being with a man and being happy, and can easily say that 95% or more of your attraction has been exclusively to women, you are a lesbian. If you ARE attracted to men and could see yourself being happy in a relationship with a man, you are bisexual or pansexual. As a bisexual person, I don't experience or see my attraction to either men or women as exceptions, they are both natural and part of my sexuality. I also want to note that it is unfair and lesbophobic to assume that because someone has liked one guy in their life it somehow discredits the rest of their experiences, especially when we dont hold gay men to the same standard. In fact, its usually the opposite! If a straight man has one experience with another guy everyone assumes he must be gay/bi, even though he has only ever been attracted to women. Ultimately, if someone says they are a lesbian, they like women and just women. End of story. Yes there could be different personal anecdotes, but lesbians are attracted to women alone. To say otherwise is lesbophobic. If you are attracted to men, you aren't a lesbian.

Implying that lesbians are attracted to men is lesbophobic, so why is the term "bi lesbian" also biphobic? Well because in addition to erasing the meaning of lesbian, it also erases the meaning of bi. Bisexuals are often believed to secretly be straight or gay. We are not gay or straight, we're bi. I get the term is trying to say that you have a strong preference for women; many bisexuals have a preference, however you are still bi. If this "preference" is that strong to the point where you basically are near exclusively attracted to women, then you are probably a lesbian. You are either a bi person with a preference for women, or you are a lesbian. You cannot be both bi and a lesbian. Substitute bi for pan here and the commentary is the same.

I've also seen people who say they call themselves bi/pan lesbians because they are attracted to women and also to nonbinary people. And okay, I see where you're coming from here, but that doesnt mean the term isn't offensive. Gender non-conforming and nonbinary lesbians are a thing and I'm not about to police nb lesbians; they have always existed and been important parts of the lesbian community. But if the only nb people you find yourself being attracted to are nb lesbians and other fem aligned people, you're still a lesbian. If you aren't comfortable with that because it erases some peoples identity, then use bi/pan, because those are the terms to describe attraction to 2 or more genders. Or use queer! I knew a couple in college who were a lesbian couple until one of them came out as trans masc. To not invalidate them, their partner said they were queer instead of lesbian.

Another person I have seen using this term is women who are basically bi/pan or even straight who for whatever reason have stopped dating men permanently, despite being attracted to them, and this actually has some historical precedent. During 2nd wave feminism these women called themselves "political lesbians," giving up dating men in order to free themselves from misogyny. If this is your experience, do what you want, but again, the term bi/pan lesbian is harmful to lesbians and bi/pansexuals and please call yourself something else. I think it's fine to call yourself a lesbian or gay for convenience sake if you really do never plan on dating men again. Please just understand that the lesbian/bi/pan communities need to have the integrity of these terms for political reasons. Lesbian is not an umbrella term the way gay or queer is. On a personal level, yes there is wiggle room, but on political level these terms need to have definitions.

Ultimately if you identify as a bi/pan lesbian, please stop using that term. It's problematic for lesbian, bi, and pan communities and frankly makes no sense. If you want a fluid term, you can always just say "queer" or "queer with a preference for women." Normally I don't care about what people identify as and I against gatekeeping, because in the end it doesn't hurt anyone. But this isn't about gatekeeping. The term bi lesbian is harmful, which is why I'm asking anyone defending that term to please reconsider. If you identify with this term, I'm not sending hate your way and I'm not trying to invalidate you. I'm just saying this term is harmful and there are plenty of other non problematic ways to describe your sexuality, like wlw, nblw, sapphic, or queer.

If I got something wrong here please tell me! I just think there is a lot of really hateful debate going on here and it's extremely unnecessary. But my final stance is that the term bi lesbian/pan lesbian is offensive, biphobic, and especially lesbophobic, and we should do better by the lesbian community, who are constantly being erased.