#Not an invitation to start fighting in my inbox hahahaha

[castlebyersafterdark]

https://www.tumblr.com/will80sbyers/761602875308834816/link-for-whos-interested?source=share

i really want to know what you think of this. i still don't think i have a preference either way, because i want to wait to see what the show says. i think it's great that this user (and you!) arent defensive about whats correct but still have a strong opinion.

i noticed in this slideshow that whats possible for bi people (attraction to the same sex etc) could also be viewed for gay people similarly. for example, it's possible for homosexual people to have opposite sex attractions and relationships. so saying mike has had these does not show that he either is or isn't gay or bi... does it?

i think things must be inferred through how emotion is played in the show, subjective feeling (as so much emotion of all kinds is). this isnt really quantifiable so i always lean towards it not mattering what sexuality mike is until the writers decide it matters - i.e. reveal it in s5, either subtextually or explicitly. if they dont reveal it, it never mattered to the story or character to be specified.

i also think it's interesting that this user thinks its love, not sexual attraction, that is the differentiator between what makes someone heterosexual or queer. would you agree?

I have to be honest and when I saw 300+ slides in that presentation - not reading all that for an interpretation I don't and won't subscribe to hahahaha. Kinda very briefly skimmed it. It's fine. It's a huge fandom with very diverse mindsets. I love a lot of theories and analysis and I dislike a lot of them and others it's just... meh. I feel nothing. I appreciate the dedication and passion over that presentation, but I feel nothing 😌

I really do say, to each their own and we can interpret characters however we want and if Mike is bi at the end of the show, so be it. I'll be disappointed over my read and interpretation being incorrect. It's not a dislike or disappointment over bisexuality itself, it's just that acknowledgement of having been wrong and having your analysis cracked open. I can admit that. This is how I view this character. It's not being defensive, per se - just that why can't we just enjoy our interpretations and let it be? I don't really want to argue and outline my reasons like that slideshow hahaha because it just... it's what I think and want to think! One person's thought does not negate another's thought. Neither party here is writing the show. We have no influence! Nothing we can do in our heads or on our blogs will change the show so I never see why people fight too much - we don't need to convince people about the opposing read of a character. I don't care that there are militant Mlvns still insistent out there. What do I care if people still ship it and will still ship it regardless of the outcome of the show? The show is the show. Our blogs and brains are independent of that. We can do/think what we want. No influence, no control.

Unrelated, but it's like people getting upset over the existence of spicy/explicit content. No amount of getting mad and vocal about your dislike of it is going to stop others from thinking about it and liking the content. They nuke tumblr and twitter and ao3 and there's no outlet to talk and share our smutty works? You the repressed fandom cop is happy there's no longer smut of your favorite show online? Hate to break it to you, but they're still fucking nasty in my head. A lot. You can't take away an idea. I'm really rambling hahaha.

If Mike is not gay at the end of the show - I'm still labeling him that way in my Byler works. Because what does it matter then as you say? Transformative exploration of fanfiction. Invested too much mental capacity to the idea. So, it's important to know what you're getting on my blog.

for example, it's possible for homosexual people to have opposite sex attractions and relationships. so saying mike has had these does not show that he either is or isn't gay or bi… does it?

Totally!! To a point. Plays into how you interpret the show. I think a point was made "Mike doesn't have internalized homophobia" but, well we don't know that yet? He probably does. We're interpreting that and will see in the show. But there's nothing to say he doesn't? I mean, he's young, he's a teenager, if he's gay and exclusively wanting to be with guys deep down - well, that part of him might be something he doesn't want to acknowledge even if he really cares for a girl. Confusion on platonic vs romantic is a big element. He thinks he should be with a girl. Society. Other influences. That's part of the point, arguments for both sexualities. This is personal and I won't get into toooo many details, but before I met him, my man was with a woman for many years before he eventually came out as gay. That's reality for a lot of people. Sexuality is COMPLICATED!!!!!

I've talked about it before, but I knew I was gay and yet, I dated girls in high school. To shield, to have somebody. The youthful difficulty of navigating friendship/romance. Me dating a girl in HS: "Sure! This benefits me for multiple reasons." Was it a great mindset and behavior? No, but give grace to teenagers who are confused and scared. That can also be Mike. His situation is just very, very dramatic with outside forces beyond the norm. His situation has at times been life or death.

Fiction is a great way to explore things!!

i also think it's interesting that this user thinks its love, not sexual attraction, that is the differentiator between what makes someone heterosexual or queer. would you agree?

Hmmmmm - no?? Maybe I'm confused. Why would that be a differentiator? Because every sexuality can feel love and/or sexual attraction to their preferred type of person. And then can feel love for anyone regardless of orientation. Love =/= sex. But attraction and desire makes up sexual orientation. I'm not gay only because I love men - I'm gay because I want to have sex with men. There are women and men I love and I don't feel attraction to them. There are men I'm attracted to and don't love. Love =/= falling in love or being in love and that's the difference that gets jumbled and/or need to be worked out sometimes. And falling in love/being in love isn't completely to do with sex - but that's the catch, right? That's what lies on the human to figure out themselves. Not easy to sit here and define it with rigid peramiters and labels.

Otherwise, maybe I'm missing something from that statement...