#THE man and heterosexual relationship come with certain expectations

[epiphainie]

Did you realize how we never see Buck act like the goofball he is wirh his love interests? I think this is also something different with Tommy or at least could be

Hi anon,

I put this off a few days because I wanted to reply to this with the previous ask which touched on how Tommy saw the Buckiest parts of Buck first. I can't say Buck never acted like a goofball with his previous LIs because I simply don't remember every moment of the show but I can't remember off the top of my head him being sooo Buck at the beginning of these relationships. I don't remember him saying silly things or putting his foot in his mouth or being flustered or being so emotionally reactive because of his crush (rip Eddie's ankle) like this. And yeah, I really want him to keep this part of him with Tommy. I also would like to see him be a goofball on purpose, like in a cheeky jokey way rather than embarrassing-himself-without-meaning-to way, with Tommy.

[tomwambsgans]

the way that tom is literally a closeted gay man who is innately effeminate in many ways and due to this thrives among the metrosexual elite, but he can't actually earn that status without first struggling through the trials of a more traditional masculinity... but he's also compromising that masculinity specifically in order to be in a successful heterosexual relationship, which is part of the masculinity that he has to project. he's constantly having to ride the line between "masculine enough to survive the corporate environment" and "NOT so masculine that it makes him feel unsafe to shiv."

the rules of men and gender-hierarchy in the roys' socioeconomic bracket are further complicated: too much of a certain type of masculinity renders you lower class, which is sometimes worse than being a woman. and taking masculinity too seriously makes you look like you're overcompensating. (everyone can tell you're gay, which is worse than being a woman.) caring about being a man, or talking about it in frank terms, breaks the illusion for everyone and makes it clear you're an outsider. (you're lower class and masculinity doesn't come naturally to you, so, double whammy.)

there's no winning for an outsider, really, and that's why tom clearly feels the most masculine alongside greg in spite of how vulnerable he also feels around him - because greg expects nothing in particular from him. they're on equal footing. tom still postures but he has a whole, wide-open playing field rather than a tightrope to walk. he beats up on him not even to make greg out to be more feminine and himself more macho, but to put them both on that field. because greg can take it. in tom's moments with him, he gets to temporarily experience the masculinity of comradery. it's compounded with all sorts of other things, like the insecurity in his affection and desire (and it's notable that that makes tom feel both weak and villainous), but the comradery never leaves. it's always a haven - a place to be a man among men - while being threatened by both his job and his marriage.

it's that pressure from either end that ultimately pushes tom to the breaking point, to no longer try to achieve that impossible middle ground and instead conform exclusively to one: the side that promises him more success, yes, but also which only requires that he puff himself up rather than make himself smaller. it's also no coincidence that tom's success in the very end, as a ceo on the verge of divorce, is promising freedom from either obligation to perform. and that he gets to take greg with him.

[longing-for-rain]

Out of curiosity, what makes you feel drawn to Zutara as a lesbian. Is it still relatable to you?

It does feel relatable to me. Obviously it’s a heterosexual relationship, but given the lack of good and complete representation of lesbian relationships in the media, I still gravitate towards certain aspects of romances like this.

There are many reasons why, but before I get into it, I want to preface this by saying that the point of this is not to say that Zutara is “lesbian coded” or anything like that so please don’t construe it that way. It’s a heterosexual relationship, period. All I’m saying here is what I, personally, enjoy about it as a lesbian.

The biggest reason I like it is because it represents female desire to me. I know the BoyMom and Pick-Me brigade hates that I’ve described Zutara that way in the past—but it’s true and I stand by it. That is the reason why Zutara became so popular and why its fanon narrative is almost entirely driven by female fans. It directly reflects their desire in a romance and what Katara’s canon one was lacking.

I honestly didn’t have strong feelings about Zutara until I saw the backlash it received. The narrative and the fans both treat Katara as if getting with anyone besides Aang makes her selfish, or that she’s neglecting some kind of duty by doing so. Katara’s voice and desire is fundamentally unimportant to the writers, because they always focused on Aang’s feelings over hers, and even though fans try to pretend otherwise, the dominant narrative surrounding this relationship has always been about Aang. How he needs airbending children, how his heart would be broken if she left, how he needs her to rebuild, etc.

And from Katara’s side, even though she never shows that she shares Aang’s level of interest, fans insist on reading in signs that aren’t really there. They also focus on logical reasons why they’d work. Aang is nice, he’s fun, he’s a prodigy like Katara, both have suffered in the war, etc. At first glance, it seems like a good match…but we never actually see the writing demonstrate how they actually connect over any of these things.

Good in theory, but bland and passionless in reality.

That narrative resonated with me in a bad way, because it’s exactly how I’ve felt as a lesbian. It reflects the pressures I’ve felt to put aside my desire for love to date a man instead. I’ve been told to my face that it’s selfish for me to “choose” another woman—a person I actually desire—over a man.

“What about children?”

“This is going to make your life so much more difficult!”

“Think of your family!”

“Jakey is such a nice guy, can’t you just give him a chance?”

“You have so many interests in common with Jakey and he has a good job! Why won’t you go out with him? It makes so much sense!”

“You’re so shallow, being fixated on looks. What if your perfect match comes along, but he’s male? Would you really say no?”

“You only want that because you’re a pervert. You need to stop being so obsessed with sex and think about the person instead.”

It’s eerily familiar, that’s all I’m saying. A lot of these ideas are used to attack Zutara and its fans nearly verbatim.

Katara isn’t a lesbian, but like a lesbian, Katara in the context of Zutara commits the crime of marrying for love and desire over duty. Some people see that as an evil act of selfishness, but to me, it’s just love.

We can’t control who we love, and I like to see the narrative of a female character breaking free from the social expectations placed on her to pursue it. No; Zuko isn’t the “safe” option, their relationship would be heavily criticized, and it could even endanger them. But that relationship is one they both feel passion for, and together, they would draw power from one another and use it for good. Their love and connection is powerful, and they would have fought hard for it. Because love is worth fighting for.

That’s deeply admirable to me, and an empowering narrative when I think about how I’m inevitably going to have to fight hard for any love of mine. But it’s worth it to me—it’s always worth it.

[gatheringbones]

["In thinking specifically about sexual experiences, and what I have and haven’t experienced with men of the realm I know is possible with women, I run into a vocabulary problem. We barely have words for the most concrete, physical elements of our sexuality, let alone the mental, emotional, and spiritual elements of it.

   One experience I’ve had only with women is associated with fisting, in a context where it went both ways in the relationship. (Non-reciprocal fisting feels different for me, even with women.) At times, this has been much beyond a bodily experience, transcendent perhaps. From a “bottom” perspective, I have sometimes moved through the physical sensations, letting them go, and traveled to another plane of consciousness. From a “top” perspective I have moved through fucking a woman with very conscious care to a place where my body did it, without thought, but closely in tune with her and feeling what she felt. To a certain extent I was also in tune with her on the other dimension, not going with her so much as seeing where she went. Probably some form of transcendent sex is possible with men, but I haven’t experienced it, and I imagine it would be quite different.

   I think some lesbian-specific facets of sexuality are about making love with someone with a body like my own. This allows me to understand what she feels, and to be understood, in a much clearer, more immediate way than is possible in much of heterosexuality. This kind of knowing is particularly strong with women whose sexuality is like my own. There are other, more specific elements. The feelings of being very inside someone, of that kind of openness in a woman lover, and of being enclosed is something I like a lot and don’t have with men. I feel men open to me, but in a different way, and I never really feel enclosed by them.

   Another lesbian-specific feeling has to do with being a woman wanting a woman, and the amazement which stays with me, even when I know she wants me, that she wants me. Subconsciously I think I’m still affected by the social messages that women want men, and therefore, women don’t want me. In a sense it still surprises me when they do. It doesn’t surprise me that men want me. I’ve been conditioned all my life to expect it.

   These are things I feel are fundamentally different with men and women. There is also quite a bit that I think is not necessarily exclusive to one or the other gender, but in practical terms usually is.

   One dimension of sexuality I have explored with men, but not with women, is taking the position of “top” for my own pleasure. I have played with clearly defined sexual roles with women, but as “top” when I have taken a woman, it has always been with a focus on her pleasure, and my own has come secondarily through pleasing her. With men I have sometimes taken a position of absolute control for my own pleasure.

   The most extreme instance was my first sex with a man since I came out. It was an affair at a conference which I began very ambiguously, unsure of whether I could get what I wanted sexually from a man. Once I decided that I wanted him, I also decided that the responsibility for my pleasure was my own. I took him, and I had my pleasure with him. In later discussions with lesbian friends I was asked whether I didn’t think I had “used” him. I feel clearly that I did not. It was something that he wanted and enjoyed, and, though my focus was on my own pleasure, I wasn’t insensitive to him. He was responsive to me, and gave freely what I demanded. He had his pleasure through mine. I can’t really imagine having this kind of sex with a woman, though I’m sure it’s possible, and that women do it. I think it would be a delicate thing, psychologically, but with this man it was easy.

   My experience of role dynamics, in both explicit and unacknowledged forms, is very different, in sex with men and women. I would like to hear from gay men who have started being sexual with women in relation to this. I have also found it very different making love with “straight” women, or women who are accustomed to sex with straight men, and with “lesbians,” or women used to sex with women. And this is not only a question of knowledge or technique, but also of the perspective with which women come to sexuality.

   For the last year I have been sexual a lot, mainly with a man whose sexuality has been shaped by making love with straight women, while mine has been shaped by making love with lesbians. We’ve both changed. Some of these changes are good in our relationship, but some of them don’t work for me.

   Have you ever been with a person of one sex and wanted something impossible with that combination of bodies?]

Karen Klassen, talking about sex, gender, and desire, from bi any other name: bisexual people speak out, edited by Lorraine Hutchins and Lani Kaahumanu, 1991

[seahorsepencils]

Hi! Would it be ok to ask whats going on with ppl being biphobic about kate stewart?/gen

I legitimately dont know whats going on? I feel like the pizza guy walking into the burning appt from community meme. Idk if i ever put much hc or thought behind kates relationships tbh, other than maybe she was aroacespec or choosing not to be in a relationship bec of how dangerous UNIT is...

I don't remember anything in the show implying she was sapphic or into Ibrahim (or like another person said in the tags that she had a kid with someone too)

I genuinely dont know wtf is going on or why who fans are fighting about this

Hi anon,

Of course! Thanks for asking. Here’s my attempt at an explanation:

In 2016, during a panel Q&A at Long Island Doctor Who, Jemma Redgrave said that when she first started doing the show, she headcanoned Kate as being married to a woman. At some point in her answer, she alludes to the fact that this may or may not be the case anymore, as she often learns new details about Kate’s life from the showrunners whenever she films another episode. (Jemma's answer starts at 44:54 here.)

Regardless, her initial headcanon has caught on, either as a bit of wishful thinking or as a detail that some perceive to be almost canon in the absence of contradictory evidence on the show or in other materials (i.e. the UNIT audios). In the series 18 episode “Death in Heaven,” Kate described herself as a “mother of two” and “divorcee,” and a popular interpretation of this is that Kate may have been married to a man, and divorced him after (or before) realizing she was a lesbian.

The “almost canon” perspective also holds a lot of weight among some fans of the show because of Jemma Redgrave’s long history of playing queer and queer-coded characters. Even her most ostensibly straight characters tend to offer some sort of challenge to compulsory heterosexuality or patriarchal norms (i.e. they turn to violence after spending years in loveless heterosexual marriages). This has made it very easy to headcanon pretty much any character she’s played as queer. I think some fans tend to also think that Jemma has more influence over her characters than she does - for example, after seeing episodes of DW in which Kate has worn plaid or flannel, fans have suggested that Jemma probably provided her own wardrobe for the show and purposely selected those items to give off gay vibes. (A very niche issue that has contributed to this is Jemma’s habit of repeatedly purchasing her characters’ wardrobe items at half price and then wearing them in real life - in the past, some fans incorrectly assumed that this meant Jemma was bringing her own clothing to set and asking the costume designers if Kate could wear it.) Effectively, many fans have hoped that Jemma’s earlier headcanon for Kate effectively manifested into canon over time, or potentially inspired the showrunners to agree that Kate is queer.

In terms of the Ibrahim stuff, the first piece was a lot of fans noticing that the hand-holding between Kate and Ibrahim in this week’s finale lasted a few seconds longer than one might expect a platonic hand-hold to last. Similarly, some have thought that the moment when she comes back to life and he pulls her up has a certain closeness or intimacy to it. From what I’ve seen, people are split on the topic - some people consider it to be a platonic “happy to be alive” moment, or a show of feelings from Ibrahim that Kate might not reciprocate; others have theorized that Ibrahim and Kate have a very close platonic relationship for some reason, etc.

Shortly after the finale aired, a version of the episode with a cast and crew audio commentary was released on the BBC’s website. In this commentary, while the two aforementioned scenes are playing, the producer, Vicki Delow, makes some comments suggesting she thinks that Kate and Ibrahim are, or should be, a couple. RTD responds to her comments in what sounds like a teasing tone. Here’s my transcript of those moments:

Helping Kate up scene (36:50) Vicki: “I love this. This is my favorite thing in the whole world." RTD: "What, these two?" Vicki: "These two. I just love them.” RTD: “What do you mean, Vicki?” Vicki: “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” RTD: “What do you mean? You think they’re friends?” Vicki: “I think they’re more than friends.”

Hand-holding scene outside (37:43) Vicki: “Look, look, look. This is it. Look, look, look.” RTD: “What are you looking at, Vicki Delow?” Vicki: “I love them. I love them.” RTD: “I don’t know what you mean, Vicki. I don't know.” Vicki: “It’s the greatest romance.”

Some folks have interpreted this as Vicki Delow hinting that there’s going to be a future romance between the characters in series 2 - and that RTD is egging her on - i.e. the “I don’t know what you mean” is a wink nudge way of him refusing to directly confirm a future storyline. That’s definitely a possibility. I think it’s also possible that Vicki just really wants them to be a couple, and has gotten a reputation on the production team as a hopeful shipper who wants Kate and Ibrahim to wind up together. In that context, RTD’s teasing her might have a vibe more like “oh Vicki, here you go again, shipping Kate and Ibrahim.”

So basically, a number of fans who have taken Jemma’s past headcanon as canon-adjacent have interpreted Vicki Delow’s “it’s the greatest romance” comment as confirmation that Kate and Ibrahim will have a romantic storyline in the next series, and have posted on social media (mostly Twitter, but a bit on Tumblr) criticizing what they perceive to be the show taking an unexpected position on Kate’s sexual orientation.

The rest might be stuff you’ve already seen, but I’ll summarize just in case: Several of the posts on Twitter and Tumblr have used language that inflexibly imply a gay/straight binary - i.e. “how dare they make Kate straight, she’s a lesbian” - not allowing for the possibility that she’s a bisexual woman to enter into the equation at all. In my other post on this subject I referred to a pattern of bi erasure and biphobia in the Jemma Redgrave fandom. As someone who’s an active member of that fandom, it felt like a concrete instance of some things I’ve seen pretty regularly in the community - and although I’m not as familiar with the DW fandom more generally, it sounds like there may have been some similar past instances of bi erasure or microaggressions in that fandom.

While I’ve categorized the “how dare they make her straight” posts specifically as bi erasure (and I imagine one could make a case that they’re biphobic too), the clear instance of biphobia for me has been in the comments I’ve seen by viewers who said that they would rather pretend Kate died at the start of the episode than accept the presence of a scene where she held hands with a man. In my mind, even as a joke, that seems to imply “better dead than bi or straight.”

I don't know if I'm decided on what Vicki Delow meant, and the lingering in that hand-holding moment definitely did make me wonder. And as someone who loves Jemma's performances as queer characters and has read my share of Osgate fic, I think it would be awesome to see her character in a relationship with a woman. But at this point I feel like the conversation has been so saturated by others' moments of bi erasure that it's hard to even know how to get back into it.

So, yeah. You're not wrong - even for someone who knows a lot of the pieces, it's been a very confusing couple of days. 😅

[vigilskeep]

wait when were zev and anders called slurs? :o i haven't played any mlm romance!

homophobia banter highlight reel i guess. shoutout to seb for making it on here because varric has something deeply wrong with him and is exclusively homophobic to the one of like two not openly bisexual people in his friend group

in general my point is that like. this was homophobic. if people didnt. uh. clock that oghren’s violent reactions and references to manskirt-wearing freaks were that. i’m using oghren as my main example because he’s the most overt. (generally orzammar’s dedication to lineage throughout the castes seems to give it more rigid gender and sexuality roles; there’s also significantly more overt sexism.) with zev and anders, it’s also compounded by fantasy racism and prejudice, in particular that male elves and male mages are both seen as effeminate in southern thedas. this isn’t just oghren. uh, for example, if a male hawke romances anders or fenris, gamlen, who iirc is as directly homophobic as it gets in da2, will make the comment “i guess i don’t have to ask which one of you’s the girl”. he’ll also make a fetishising comment about female hawke and isabela

otherwise. uh what might people not have clocked. zevran only flirts with a female warden in his introductory scene, due to his real, not unfounded concern that it will make a male warden more uncomfortable with him and, let’s not put too fine a point on it, thus more likely to kill him. zevran’s discussion of being bisexual himself is incredibly loaded and as i recall involves a fair bit of internalised something. from my delvings into the toolset, if you romance him as a man, you seem to have countless opportunities to break off the relationship specifically saying it’s because you’re both men and you can’t do this, including as late as the second time he offers you the earring. generally the male warden romancing zevran has a lot of internalised homophobia coded dialogue options when you ask him about his sexuality and when others ask you about the relationship—you can express dismay that zevran has told anyone, for example, while asking leliana not to say anything—and it’s fairly heavily implied that you’re likely to be more unfamiliar with such things

with anders, the most glaring example off the top of my head is that he doesn’t tell female hawkes about karl. a lot of the gendered differences in the anders romances are from homophobia/biphobia on a writing level as well, but considering that we’re not buying into “playersexual” nonsense i think it’s also fair to read this in-world as anders choosing not to bring that up to a woman who’s interested in him/someone he doesn’t know he has this in common with. the dialogue again treats anders as more experienced and gives male hawkes the opportunity to act surprised/uncertain even when they are the one to flirt first

this is basically just. if you didn’t clock that, that’s going on here! in general, heterosexuality is an assumed norm in thedas, and particularly characters coded as andrastian and fairly naive/inexperienced like alistair or bethany will express surprise or confusion about it and not pick up on implications. particularly noble characters will be expected to continue bloodlines and make political unions, for example, the inability of a female warden to marry anora or a male warden to marry alistair, even though it’s possible to do the m/f version of those political marriages without any kind of romance. that’s a pragmatic concern about the succession in a world that values bloodlines and thus comes with a certain heteronormativity. at the same time, there’s not so deep a stigma as you might expect if directly translating from our world, so to speak; it’s much more about the hope of continuing families and the importance of that in this world than there seeming to be any kind of explicit religious stigma? although it should be noted that the andrastian story focuses on andraste and the maker in what is treated as an m/f marriage and might be considered an ideal

for example, leandra will make an offhand, semi-teasing comment about finding hawke an opposite gender spouse, which i think is her hope of hawke managing to settle into kirkwall noble society and continue the family line when there is, in most worldstates, little to no hope of the other surviving hawke sibling having children. but at the same time, she’s casually accepting of hawke being in a queer relationship, will lightly mention it in dialogue, and makes no comment about anders or merrill moving in. i’d take that as kind of a baseline level of understanding for southern thedas, though it also varies from nation to nation, culture to culture, person to person, and class to class

i hope that makes it clearer ??

[chainsawcorazon]

I feel so bad for Bernard and Jay their only fault is getting their man and their getting shit from the majority of the fandom. Like sorry ur batsuper ship couldn't happen but chill out.

Will always be their defender.

lmao forreal. Getting back into comics just recently, was it surprising to see out characters who were, historically, meant to be seen as straight come out as queer? Sure! It’s always a surprise, considering how heterosexually inclined comicdom is. We get the barest of crumbs and tend to be grateful for that alone considering being openly queer in fiction is still a point of contention with certain audiences.

For Bernbear specifically, I hollered more than anything. I mean I remember him from when I was a kid, and kinda always guessed he was a lil fruity, but never did I expect that lil conspiracy theorist fruit to be the reason why Tim came out the closet 😂😂 Surprising? Yes! Is it welcome and a fresh change from the back and forth with Steph? Also yes! Here’s to hoping they can be fruity and happy together for another ten years before DC decides Tim NEEDS to have a toxic relationship with Dick’s aunt’s cousin’s mom’s niece.

As for Jay, for a character that is so morally ambiguous in nature and colored AND queer, I am not surprised people hate him so passionately. Comic book fandom hates anyone who isn’t following the 1935 moral code. They also hate anyone Bruce don’t like, making Jay my beloved nephew because of that alone 😂 inshallah he and jon will have many happy years together while DC fully dives into rainbow capitalism and makes us have to witness bruce’s toxic relationship with minh khoa. not jay’s fault that, that white man can’t keep down a lover for his life 🤣

[o0anapher0o]

Oh hell, I promised myself I wouldn’t get involved in the gender discourse because for one I know my knowledge in gender studies (and connected race theory) is severely lacking, but mostly because the vast majority of those takes are annoyingly reductive and just people trying to make a point rather than analysing what is actually there. But this is the nth time I’ve seen the argument ‘Louis is housewife coded because he cleans the house’ which pisses me off because IT HAS NO BASIS IN THE TEXT.

There is no indication at any point of the show that Louis ever does any chores in the house at all. None. Instead it is heavily implied they have servants for the first half of the show. Lestat mentions them in ep. 1 and when Claudia comes back she tells them ‘You need a housekeeper.’ Not ‘you’re living in a dump’. Not ‘you need to clean’. No, she specifically refers to a housekeeper because as someone who grew up with a certain wealth in the early 1900s she expects servants. And even after that we never see Louis do anything around the house. It’s Claudia who handles the clean up. Yes, Louis is injured but the point remains: Louis does not visibly do any chores.

More than that though, Louis being the one who cleans the house is completely contrary to his characterisation. You’re telling me rich boy Louis, ‘the big man in the big house’ full of servants that we see on screen, the guy who spends his entire human life projecting ‘I’m a powerful and manly man’ would even know how to use a broom? You want me to believe Louis with his fancy suits, expensive shoes, nice sweaters and chic little glasses spends his nights scraping his daughter’s half dried macaroons off the walls? Please. There are several scenes in ep. 2 that imply Louis needs to be taught to take the trash out, let alone that he would know how (or have the time) to clean in an era where that was a lot more difficult than just plug in the vacuum.

Obviously the reasons for this argument is 1) Claudia calling him a housewife, which is clearly an insult aimed at the power dynamic in their relationship and Lestat neatly filling the stereotype of cheating husband in that moment and is absolutely no indication of whether or not Louis is fulfilling any housewifely duties, and 2) the fact that the house falls into disrepair during the depression years.

The thing about that is that for most of that time they’re very clearly both depressed to a point were putting on clothes is too much effort, so neither Louis not Lestat cares about the mess enough to clean it up. But it’s also a correlation isn’t causation incident. Yes, the house became a mess when they got depressed and stopped caring, but they also went no contact with the outside world at the same time. Which means no more servants. When you’re trying to get the world to forget you exist you can’t have people going in and out of your house, gossiping about how no one knows where the masters go during the day but they’re never home, how some of the rooms feel smaller than they should be, the weird stains in the wineglasses or ‘I don’t know what they do with their clothes, Dorothy, but that suit which was perfectly fine last time I saw it, would have easily lasted another ten years, is suddenly gone, like they must have thrown it out and that’s the third suit this year. I mean, I know they’re rich, but such a waste…’ They are depressed so they don’t make an effort to clean up after themselves, but there is no reason to assume the mess gathers because it was Louis’ job to clean up before.

Yes, there are definitely moments in the show when they clearly have the dynamic of a heterosexual couple with Louis occupying the role of the wife to Lestat’s husband. But the opposite is equally true for other parts of the story (you cannot tell me that if those were both white men Lestat during the honeymoon years wouldn’t be 100% read as playing the trophy wife to Louis the businessman). And at no point is any of this because either of them is housewife coded.

[sailorblossoms-snowbaz]

Unrelated reasons have me thinking about “it was fine, it was sex” again, a line that packs a lot both in context... and even outside of it. 

When we talk about things that (ideally) should be good, just “fine” will be perceived as lukewarm at best, if not just a negatively. Just “fine” is a dismissal. Indifference. It’s indicative of disappointment, even. (I mean, picture cooking dinner for someone and then asking “how was it?” and they go “it was fine, it was food.” You probably wouldn’t want to cook for them again, because it’ll give you the impression that they didn’t really like the damn food. It might even make you wonder what’s wrong with the food, your cooking, or the person who ate it.) We usually regard sex as something that should be “mindblowingly good,” especially in the kind of stories shaping Simon’s perception of how dating and romance ought to be. So good that if someone doesn’t want it, then “something is wrong” with them (Simon’s thoughts in awtwb indicate more than once that he doesn’t get the point of sex for the sake of it).

In context, Simon is one to downplay or to be used to discomfort. He’ll go “it’s fine, whatever, I’ll live” and the dude can’t even move his wings from the pain. But even outside of that, sex is something that can be very vulnerable and complicated. It’s something that, in certain circumstances, can absolutely just feel uncomfortable and weird, even when all parties involved are trying to make it work. Sex is thought of as synonymous with pleasure, but it doesn’t always work like that... Negative or bad orgasms are a thing, associated with going though the motions sex, meaning even an orgasm can feel unpleasurable, uncomfortable, and even hurt (I remember reading a study where someone reported having experienced those with so much frequency they started to feel repulsed by sex). But it doesn’t have to go to that extreme. There’s the notion that men always come fast, but they can absolutely struggle with even keeping an erection and not being able to get off no matter how much they try. 

Arousal non concordance is a thing, meaning that genitals can respond to touch even when you’re not into it at all. The body and the mind aren’t connected here. (Picture absolutely hating the sensation of people tickling you, but you can’t help laughing anyway because you’re ticklish). This is crucial to understand that a body responding to stimulation doesn’t mean someone secretly “wants it,” and perfectly explains how someone like Simon can look back and say “yes, I did it, but I don’t think it proves I was attracted” and then fight the insistence that he was.   

Someone could get wet or get an erection while watching paint dry simply because they’re being touched. Going through the motions sex can have negative consequences on people mentally and emotionally, it can kill relationships, and even make things harder for following ones. All things we normally don’t talk about in the kind of stories – where heterosexual romance is framed as an endgame and synonymous with happiness and success – that Simon would be used to seeing. Add to that traditional expectations that make men active and women passive (it’s “up to the man to perform” while the woman “just has to be pretty” – if we don’t get into the whole “women have to serve” bs) (that men have to always want it and want it early and often) and you get another level of fucked up when Simon finds himself not wanting it and adding it to the list of “I did what I thought she wanted but got it wrong” (his reaction to “does Wellbelove?” [appreciate a job well done] says a lot)

When hearing “sex,” one automatically assumes that desire, pleasure and (positive) orgasm are involved, even we get signs to think otherwise – I mean, I’ve seen people make the very assumptions these book challenge about these characters (some then even giving the author shit over it haha ah). But Simon having had sex doesn’t mean he had to be attracted in some way in order to “be able to do it.” That sex took place doesn’t mean the participants experienced pleasured or that it ended because anyone had any release (going through the motions!). Not wanting it doesn’t always look like being unable to get the mechanics of it done, or “genitals not reacting at all” (again, arousal non concordance is a thing) (this applies to Agatha as well, but I focus on Simon because he’s the one who more often falls victim to assumptions because he’s the boy, and “boys always want it” etc etc).  

Part of it is that it can be something that one wouldn’t (or wouldn’t want to) describe as “bad”  if it doesn’t reach extreme levels of distress or something like that. Even if it’s low-key traumatic and/or experiencing it awakens feelings that makes one not wanting to think or deal with it at all. Embarrassment, shame, confusion, discomfort, etc. It’s complicated. If it happened in a situation where is acceptable or there is even pressure to want it (in a relationship) one might even hesitate more to say or consider it as bad, and be more confused when they’re not into it (especially when one doesn’t want to admit the relationship isn’t working). 

Before being with Baz, Simon lives his adolescence trying to conform to traditional roles and expectations, pushing through while avoiding being alone in his head, reframing and hiding away everything that would tell him “I don’t want this,” “I don’t like this,” “this does absolutely nothing for me.” (”I’m unhappy” and/or maybe even “I’m bored”). He’s absolutely the kind of person who would struggle with even arriving at the questions “what does it mean that I did this thing even though I wasn’t attracted? Or didn't really want it? what does it say about me?”) (”it was just going through the motions” say so much about lack of pleasure/not liking it, even more if you add in how food is the only way Simon can seem to understand pleasure before he’s with Baz, and would contribute to how hard it is to suddenly deal with so much desire when his past experience dealt with no desire at all)

In this vein, I think it’s important that Baz and Simon actually talk and reassure each other about liking it after having sex for the first time, because orgasming by itself doesn’t necessarily mean someone felt good or had a good time. 

[In terms of pressure on Agatha and Simon: to be clear, I think expectations made them pressure themselves. (See Agatha going “I’ll be by his side if that’s where he wants me” but then you pass the mic to Simon and he goes “I was just doing what I thought she wanted.”) It’s “what they’re supposed to do” and so they did it. Maybe not wanting to let the other down, but getting it “all wrong” all the same, because the person they’re with is wrong for them, wrong for the experience, etc]

[thelostgirl21]

One of my favorite parts of the Radskier romance?

The emotional maturity and healthy relationship expectations of Prince King Radovid when it comes to Jaskier.

Romantic infatuation needs to be nurtured to be given a chance to grow to turn into actual romantic love.

And when someone has developed an emotionally intimate (and potentially queerplatonic) relationship with another person for over 20 years; and built themselves a family also involving that closest friend's romantic partner (Yennefer) and his Child of Suprise (Ciri), you should expect that romantic interest of yours to make that family their #1 priority.

You should find their ability to deeply commit to the ones they already love, and not suddenly lose interest in them as soon as they find someone shiny and new, as a very good sign.

Because it's extremely likely that - should the romantic infatuation you now experience evolve into genuine love - they won't grow tired of you, and/or lose interest in your relationship easily.

You'll become a part of their found family, too.

Sincerely, when I met the man I've now been with for 17 years, if he'd dropped his weekly D&D game nights with the friends he'd had since he was a kid to freaking date me, I'm pretty sure I would have broken things up with him right on the spot!

Actually, one of the first things we did, when we started dating, was meet each other's closest friends, to see if we'd be a good fit in each other's lives.

You often learn so much more about a romantic interest by watching how caring and devoted they are to those they've already emotionally bonded with, than by interacting with them all on your own.

Yes, you also need to take the time to build some intimacy; but your life together as a couple, if you ever reach that stage, is going to be filled with people sharing both your hearts and your time!

There's a difference between that romantic crush of yours making the effort to integrate you into their own lives, and making time for you so you can get to truly know each other and build a connection; and them suddenly neglecting their platonic and/or alterous relationships and no longer making them a priority in their lives because "Hey, look! I've got a romantic interest now!"

If they are neglecting the people they love because you suddenly showed up, I'd consider it deeply, deeply worrying.

17 years later, my partner still plays D&D once a week (and the boys are awesome friends to us both), I have my own personal tribe (my dance troupe) that I'm deeply close to, and one of the girls came to live with us for 2 weeks Sunday night, because she broke up with her boyfriend recently, needs a place to stay, I freaking love her to death, and we're family.

When I asked my partner if he was fine with her staying over and sharing our home, there was no hesitation on his part in saying "Yes".

We care for and support our family, regardless of who our friends are the closest to.

Because, obviously, there is no need for a romantic partner to grow as emotionally close and intimate to some of your best friends as you are. Ex: They don't need to know all of their secrets, listen to them for hours, and hold them in their arms to provide emotional support when they are going through a hard time the same way you would.

But there needs to be respect and support of those relationships. They need to allow you space and time for you to listen to them for hours, and hold them in your arms to provide emotional support when they are going through a tough time.

And vice versa.

When you are helping someone you love through a tough time, the last thing you need is to be worried about your romantic partner being jealous and resentful over the time you are giving others.

And sometimes, you find yourself connecting more strongly with some of their own friends on certain matters, and suddenly becoming their confidante, too. For example, my romantic partner is a monoamorous heteroromantic heterosexual, and I'm an ambiamorous panromantic demisexual pansexual.

When one of his best friends started questioning if he might be polyamorous, and needed someone to talk with to help him figure out his feelings and how best to approach the subject with his romantic partner, my partner immediately went "It's not that I don't want to support you or listen to you, it's just that I've a feeling you should be talking to my girlfriend about this. She'll be more likely to have some intimate understanding of what you're going through, and she's been professionally trained in counseling."

He's got great respect and acceptance of queer identities (wouldn't be in a romantic relationship with me if he didn't), but he gets utterly lost in them and all the definitions and concepts.

I, however, love discussing and exploring them. So, that best friend and I got to learn a lot about each other during our talks, discovered a lot of shared interests, and grew very close.

Actually, we realized that we were extremely alike in many ways, and that Frédérick (my partner) just might have a "type" of person he's more likely to build an emotional connection with, platonically or otherwise.

I'm also aunt and godmother to wonderful children I've got absolutely no blood relations to.

Found families matter at the very least as much, if not sometimes even more, than romantic partners.

And I believe that the way Jaskier is speaking about the people he loves, the lengths and the risks he is willing to go to in order to protect them, is deeply appealing to Radovid.

In Radovid's world, relationships are commodities to be used to gain influence or power.

You "love" what serves you and makes you more politically relevant and influential, and you can potentially drop them as soon as you find something (i.e. someone) that can bring you more influence or be more useful.

He's been forced to live in a toxic, dangerous, and downright deadly environment, filled with relationships based on lies and deceit, where he had no purpose, and was deeply unhappy.

And I think that he wants to have a chance to build a family of his own based on genuine emotional connections, and/or would be delighted to be given a chance to become part of Jaskier's own found family.

He asked "does the Witcher know how lucky he is to have you?" with a sense of wonder for what it must be like to have someone love you the way Jaskier loves, and to be free to love that person back.

Besides his affection for his brother, perhaps, there was nothing holding Radovid back from leaving the castle and the only life he'd ever known behind.

And truth is, I can't even say how healthy his relationship with his brother truly was.

Most of the time, Radovid was pretty much cheering Vizimir from the sidelines and feeding into his narcissism... But, at least, his brother being King gave him an illusion of safety, I think, until the "Hedwig incident" drove home that no one - not even the freaking Queen herself - was safe with Dijkstra and Philippa around.

In terms of his own emotional, psychological, and even physical well-being, Radovid had everything to gain by getting out of there and following Jaskier.

He could thus afford to "leave everything behind" to follow someone he'd met like 5 times in total in his life. In this context, Radovid truly was choosing himself as much as he was choosing Jaskier.

But Jaskier? He's got a family having made a permanent home in his heart, people that he loves, people that rely on him, and emotional connections that he'd give everything to protect.

And so, Radovid chose to help Jaskier keep his own heart safe, by offering to go help him find and protect his family. He wants to be there with and for him.

Radovid very much seems to understand that Jaskier's family means everything to him. He gets it. That's likely one of the reasons why he finds him so special and attractive in the first place.

Jaskier having a family to go to, and having built bonds of love and loyalty, is what makes it worth it for Radovid to leave everything behind for a potential partner that is healthy enough not to.

Jaskier's a freaking keeper, and that prince is smart enough to know one when he finds one!

And, by showing his full respect and support of Jaskier's other close relationships, Radovid is demonstrating that he'd likely be a good romantic partner to him as well.

Someone that would love all of him, including the parts of Jaskier that Radovid would have to share with others.

Perhaps that's why if it weren't for the writers themselves being a potential threat to their relationship, I could definitely see it work.

Of all the people in his life, Jaskier approached that relationship essentially telling Radovid: "This is who I am an what matters to me... The idea of fully settling down at court gives me urticaria; but I'd be willing to do it, at least for a time, if that kept my little niece and her adoptive parents - the people I love more than anything in the word - safe from threats. I'm not always in the mood for songs, or especially "entertaining" to have around. I've been broken hearted and hurt before, and have developed certain trust issues when it comes to relationships... I'm deeply loyal and devoted to those that have gained my trust and have grown very emotionally intimate with... I might lash out to protect my heart, but reassess in light of new evidence that the other person was hurting, too, and trying to keep their own head above water (or downright on their shoulders). I can forgive mistakes and still love regardless... Oh, and from that whole scene you witnessed with Vespula when we first met, I'm assuming that you've already deduced I sort of have a strong, adventurous approach to my sexuality, and am not exactly the monoamorous kind. Should we ever form a romantic couple, I can't guarantee I won't also have other sexual encounters with some of my dearest friends, but also potentially strangers."

And Radovid's like "Yup! That's the man for me, and I'd love to follow you out there in the world if you'll have me!"

So, it's hard for me not to feel at least a bit optimistic.

And, while Radovid obviously can no longer do that (follow him into the world, that is... At least, for now...), I think he might have a realistic enough approach to life and relationships that, should Jaskier try to offer him creative solutions to make it work as best they can in a world filled with uncertainties, he might be able to listen to his ideas, offer solutions of his own, and adapt.

They're two brilliantly empathetic queer boys in love... They've got it!

If they aim for anything conventional or traditional, they're screwed (and not in the fun way)!

If they make their own rules, and design the relationship to fit the way they love rather than how others would want them to love (i.e. pay no heed to what others say to sing, by going with their own needs instead) there's a world of possibilities for them to explore together.

They could have enough together, and be enough for each other.

And, from the way Radovid's been listening to everything Jaskier's been saying (and singing) since they met, and showing a concern for his own safety, well-being and happiness, given the opportunity, he just might be the one to surprise Jaskier and show some very creative thinking of his own.

Because when Radovid decided that what suited him in life was to help Jaskier protect his family, he immediately went into problem solving mode, was very effective, and showed resourcefulness (forget about baths! I need you to take my cloak and everything I have with fur to turn them into money that might help us on our journey).

He's like Jaskier's own Jaskier, in a sense.

"Look, I'm growing very attached to that guy, and if keeping his family safe is such a huge part of who he is, then I'm going with him to look after him!"

Can you imagine if Radovid had successfully gotten out of that castle, though?

You have Geralt ready to declare war on anyone that stands between him and his daughter.

Jaskier coming along to help rescue Ciri and look after Geralt.

And Radovid coming along to help rescue Ciri and look after Jaskier.

Geralt: This is Jaskier, my emotional support bard... and Radovid, my emotional support bard's emotional support Prince.

This is like Darcy Lewis, Jane Foster's intern, having her own intern.

Next thing you know...

Seriously though, each part of the season had such different vibes...

Season 3, part 1: Finally! Jaskier's been adopted into a forever home, and he's got people looking after him and openly appreciating him now! Was about time!

Season 3, part 2: JFC! Not again! *Heavy sigh* Can someone please, please adopt that ridiculous puppy of a Prince?! He needs a forever home and people to look after him, too!

So really, when it comes to how Radovid appears to be handling relationships, that freaking sense of entitlement and self-importance that would have him become a villain absolutely isn't there.

Book Radovid was a 13-year-old boy that was deeply upset that no one noticed him and his mother, and showed them the respect he believed they were owed!

He couldn't wait to show the world what he could do!

He was portrayed as an immature entitled brat to begin with!

This version of Radovid is the exact opposite.

He's like "Look, I'm just useless to the crown and terrible at politics, spying and being a prince... I just want to follow my heart and get out of here!"

He doesn't want the world to see or notice him, he's constantly hiding himself in window alcoves, corners, and trying to make himself as small as he can, for frak's sake!

He even introduced himself to Jaskier going "Ah, Radovid... Comma Prince", putting his Royal identity last.

At first, I thought it was done for humorous purposes, but it's quite telling, actually.

Being "Prince" is like some ball and chain he's been dragging behind him, weighting him down, rather than a source of pride and personal worth.

Having him magically turning into a villain would make absolutely no sense...

I'm not saying they won't do it. But the character's psychological foundations are miles away from the infamous "dark triad".

Will he allow Philippa and Dijkstra to do terrible things in his name? Perhaps. Stockholm syndrome might kick in, and he might find himself emotionally bonding with them to survive and make sense of a world that would otherwise drive him mad.

As someone that's been trauma bonded to a malignant narcissistic mother for almost 3 decades, I know how powerful Stockholm syndrome can be as a psychological protective mechanism.

But I can't fathom Radovid being inherently cruel or tyrannical.

Convincing himself that Dijkstra and Philippa really "like him" and are looking out for him and the Kingdom's best interests because of being unable to face how hopelessly fucked he is? Sure!

Now that he's been violently thrown into the spotlight and deprived of his usual safety mechanisms, Dijkstra and Philippa might capitalize on this by brainwashing him into perceiving them as "misunderstood", and the only people that have ever truly cared about him and/or respected him.

Survival instincts can be a bitch to fight at times and totally cloud your mind. The absence of cruelty becomes read as "kindness", and your ability to comply with their expectations becomes perceived as a way to "control" what happens to you. And thus, you wind up feeling like you have power over the actions of your abusers (the real threat) through your ability to constantly pacify them.

So yeah, if you want to use Stockholm syndrome to make him go against his very nature, and fall prey to the mind controlling skills of two very dangerous people, with very high sociopathic tendencies?

Yeah, that could realistically happen. And Jaskier would become the most dangerous adversary they would ever be facing in the whole freaking Continent.

Every platonic, alterous, or romantic friend or love interest of mine, that my mother didn't approve of and couldn't fully seduce and control, too, she would make sure to drive away.

My mother only ever tolerated the friends and lovers that fed her own ego and reinforced the level of influence she had on my environment and myself.

And it usually worked. I would be adopting her P.O.V. on my relationships, and breaking up with significant others to avoid risking to lose her approval.

Until I met someone that made me feel so unconditionally loved, respected, and emotionally safe - someone that was capable of loving me the way I was, resolve conflicts without seeking to dominate or control me, and always strove for "win-win" scenarios and balance between my needs and his - that her attempts to play the victim and "expose him as the true threat" to my happiness and well-being utterly failed.

Stockholm syndrome / trauma bonding can be broken by someone showing you that you'll have people that love you, support you, will believe you, and will be there to fight by your side should you be brave enough to oppose your aggressor(s) and attempt to break free from their control.

Your mind will start noticing their violence, and let you realise you've never been safe with them when you stop subconsciously believing that you have no way of ever truly escaping their influence, and the situation is hopeless.

So yeah, if Radovid believes everyone in the castle is under Dijkstra and Philippa's control, and there's no one he can trust to follow any order that would go against their will, he might comply, do what they want, and instinctively create a narrative in his mind that would give them the role of allies and protectors.

But Jaskier's one of the most influencial voices of the Continent. "Blood Origin" (that I absolutely loved, by the way... Don't know what so many people seemed to have against it...), was all about showing the power of stories, and the way they could be used to bring Empires down.

Jaskier could likely break their hold on Radovid, and put the power back in his hands, if it ever came down to it.

So, having Radovid become "dangerous" to others, by adopting Dijkstra and Philippa's P. O. V. without being psychologically able to fight their influence on his own until someone makes him snap out of it, and offers him better alternatives?

It's believable.

But him inherently being a genocidal maniac at his core? That would make zero sense. He's way too empathetic and caring about the emotional well-being of others for that.

Jaskier: "I need to find my family."

Radovid: "Here, let me give up my claim to the throne, sell my valuables, and come help you rescue those you love because you need my help, and I want to be there with you."

Yes... That's... That's what sociopaths do... And they weep over their dead guards' bodies while hiding in corners, especially when they're alone and have no one to put a show for.

That's how people start burning witches at the stake. Makes sense...

[arkadiaasks]

Which YGO series is the most queer?

I think you can make decent arguments for three of them? Maybe 4.

Yu-Gi-Oh! GX

It deals a lot with non-normative identities dealing with a patriarchial power structure (the Academy). Judai heavily flaunts the system's expectations, ends up rejecting most of his female love interests, and his deepest connections are to Johan (another man) and Yubel (a genderfluid entity of unknown sex).

Asuka's whole story arc deals with her unwillingness to confirm to the vapid trophy wife who picks up Dueling as a marriage resume item, and is more interested in the actual athletics of the sport and later essentially being a researcher and professor. And just her general unwillingness to conform to the expectations of a (rich) woman in 200X Japan.

Manjome regularly deals with the difficulty of articulating his masculinity, and while he presents himself as masculine, he always has the Ojamas, who denote a certain non-normative sexuality and identity, as well as him having dealt with being outside of his precious power structures earlier and the friction of doing things his own way while depending on his brothers.

And Yubel, whose villainy isn't due to their identity, but rather the complicating factors of their life, and a toxic understanding of love, which isn't caused by them being a demon or genderfluid, but tragedy heaped on tragedy.

Rei, despite her lack of any focus, while being an incredibly cis het woman, at the same time flaunts and discards a lot of normative behavior.

Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's

Yusei's most important interests and relationships are with Jack, Crow and Bruno/Antinomy. He shows little interest in Aki as anything other than a friend.

Z-One and Aporia's relationship is treated basically as kindred souls, who would rather not be fighting but Z-One is so jaded he can't listen to the man he's spent most of his life with.

Even Aki gets brief flickers of something with Sherry.

And Jack eschews the women in his life for a focus on his passion as a Duelist.

There's also a decent amount of heteronormativity but Yusei at the same time doesn't do much to establish he's straight.

Yu-Gi-Oh! VRAINS

It eagerly avoids any sort of romantic subtext between Aoi and Yusaku.

Friends of mine have noted while Aoi is presented as a Cis Het Woman, a lot of her story is easily comparable to a Trans Woman's behavior. She's an estranged relationship with her family who doesn't know her, her digital counterpart is well. Infini-Tiddy, and fits the experience of a tween or teen getting online for the first time and being "wait, I can do that???"

Yusaku's closest relationships are with Ai and Takeru/Soulburner and Ryoken/Revolver, other men/male-presenting characters. But he can easily be articulated as an asexual character.

Ai literally proposes to Yusaku at the end of the series.

There are heterosexual pairings with Emma and Akira and Takeru and his girl back home, but at the same time. It also deals with the disconnect between identities that a lot of queer folk engage in.

Yu-Gi-Oh! Go Rush!!

Yudias and Zuwijo's Duel at the end of Season 1 is literally in a field of flowers that fits many a shojo series.

Chupataro's inability to get Yudias Meg-chan out of his head (even though he's not thrilled with the feelings)

We have plenty of girl-girl tensions with Yuna and Asaka.

The relationship with the Phaser Brothers.

Yuna's literal arc is 'do I want to be a lesbian' or 'do I want to be straight' and her inability to pick a choice, leading to her being a problematic fave bisexual that I wish they focused on her and Rovian instead. But her arc literally lasts at least 3+ years of her life.

= = = = =

The main caveat is that these are all kid's shows and can only show a half hearted queerness at best, where you find the queerness in the corners, unlike Witch of Mercury, where the queerness is main text.

Overall though, a lot of Yu-Gi-Oh! has an innate queerness and outsider perspective that comes from it being a shonen series dealing with delinquency where shonen due to its constraints and decisions leads to a strong sense of homoeroticism, and the women often feel like unintended beards.

Like Anzu exists but most of the original YGO deals with the tension and relationship of Yugi with both Kaiba and Jounouchi, which might not be inherently romantic, it deals heavily in a 'I can't not have you in my life' tensions.

But I feel like GX is probably one of the best at portraying it dealing with the friction of the patriarchal system versus characters with non-normative identities.

[daubigny-stan]

The reason I'm so scared of marriage is because patriarchy starts in the household. Many of the biggest injustices happen in the courtroom, the workplace, and many other public spaces - but it stems from and is everlasting in your family. Your mom might be a high powered career woman in a lofty position, but she is still expected to prepare food, coddle her husband, and take care of the children. And if she doesn't, then she is viewed as having failed to fulfill that correct role in her family. This is a patriarchy not codified in books by men smoking pipes in prestigious university offices, but one accutely felt by women on the daily.

Sexism in the household is that and so much more. It's when you men scream gender equality in university activism meetings but whine and moan when your mom asks you to do the dishes. It's when you develop gender empowerment programs at work but then expect your wife sacrifice her career to take care of the kids. It's when your parents coddle your brother but you are treated so much lesser despite handling so many responsibilities.

If marriage was a neutral phenomenon with the sole purpose of uniting two parties, it would be hunky-dory. But time and time again - when I look at my mothers, my aunts, my grandmother, and so on - it isn't. It feels as though its main purpose is to reaffirm these power dynamics between genders through the institution of the nuclear family. To hand down the strict role that comes with being in the position of the wife and mother to the daughter. Some of the most vile misogyny doesn't come from men - it comes from your own mother.

Don't get me started on being a daughter that doesn't fit into that role. If you are deemed not feminine enough to fit the role of the traditional wife/mother, it is almost certain that your mom will drill your biggest insecurities into you. If you are fat, your mom will berate you into not fitting the beauty standard. If you do not conform to your assigned femininity, your mom will critique your lack of feminine traits. Doesn't have to even be you being tomboyish - you don't wear makeup? You don't shave your legs? You're a bit sloppy? I bet you the family is where you got those insecurities. You're queer? Your mom's main concern is that you won't inherit the same role that she has, not that you're happy.

I am so scared that when I get married, that inequality will occur to me. I will end up in a relationship where I am saddled with all of the domestic responsibilities, where I am forced to prioritized my husband in an inequal relationship. I am so scared of constantly being berated for not doing my role of wife correctly, by other female members of my own family. I am petrified by the idea that if I have a daughter one day, I will inevitably inherit all of this on to her.

Hopefully it is forgiven and understood that a lot of gendered terms were used in this essay. The patriarchy as reinforced by marriage is only present when it is heterosexual, between a man and a woman. LGBTQ unions and marriages don't do this and I think that's a big reason to why they're not viewed as legitimate marriages. That being said, queer people are definitely not exempt from this experience - trans men and lesbians will have definitely felt what it's like being a daughter and thus subjected to all the standards that come with it; especially since they have failed to conform to it.Trans women who transitioned later in life have their feminity invalidated by TERFs because they didn't. Femininity is perceived as inexplicably tied to that submissive role in the heteronormative nuclear family as wife or daughter. As was stated earlier - the most vile (trans) misogyny comes from other women.

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

-Continuation-

So I recently made a post about why I don't like the new definition of gay and I want to dive into why I specifically mean that.

Society's typically collapse and crumble without the ability to communicate. And while some words and phrases do effectively change meaning over the years it is important that with certain terms we do not change the meaning because doing so causes a collapse of understanding. Because there are many things generally speaking where words and phrases exist where the meanings don't ever actually change at all, they just get slang versions down the line.

With terms like Man, Woman, Male, Female, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, etc. it's important that we don't change what they mean. And it's important why. Putting aside that men and women are functionally different in a number of ways and physically different on top of which we have no ability to communicate at all if we use the modern activist versions of those words. And here are some pictures to demonstrate why.

People will see this and go, "OMG you're in such a cute STRAIT relationship" expect straight is supposed to mean heterosexual. The people in these pictures world be homosexual respectively. Which looks the exact same. Except we look at it honestly through the lense of WHAT WORDS MEAN.

Because I've been asked before *more than once* if I'm gay because I found a person attractive. Except the person was a female. And I hate saying it like that because it sounds condescending. Because I'm NOT gay. I'm just attracted to women. I'm heterosexual. Like so

But if I were to this woman attractive but they identified as trans it'd look like this and I'd be considered bisexual or gay.

Do you see why this is confusing and stupid? You are effectively saying that words don't mean things.

Gay: Term representing homosexual males.

Lesbian: Term representing homosexual females.

Bisexual: Term representing a person that finds both sexes attractive.

Straight: Term representing a person that is heterosexual.

Note the term "sex" in all of these. As in sexual attraction. As in biological sex. And look it might offend your sensibilities to hear me say that but you need to get over yourself. 90% or more of the world uses those terms in that way. And I realize that if you are trans you want to be viewed a certain way. That's fine but words mean things. And biologically you are not your preferred sex. And you need to come to terms with the fact you never will be.

Words NEED to mean things, lest we lose the ability to communicate at all. Because here's the thing. You're being a bigot by changing what those words mean. Because effectively, what you are saying is that they have a choice in who they are attracted to. Meanwhile from the 70s, until the 2010s gay people have pretty much been heavily expressing the fact that they don't control who they are attracted to. Which is to say they are attracted to the same sex.

Because there are a lot of people who wish they were not homosexual. That is just a fact. And you in changing the definition of that word are effectively telling them they are not in fact homosexual. Because gay and lesbian are both representative of being homosexual but respective towards male or female. And it is extremely bigoted and entitled that you think because you want things to go your way you should be able to change the definition of words that do not have anything to do with you. And while that may insult you, you still do not have a right to change those words. Because in essence what you are saying is that a lesbian woman is not a woman who likes women it is a woman who likes people who identify as women. Which unbeknownst to you is exactly the type of crap that a****** men have done in the past to try to get women who are lesbians to sleep with them.

, This modern trend of changing those definitions has made it exceptionally easy for people who are not LGBT to identify as such for no real reason. And the truth of the matter is, it's because it's trendy and it's popular. And the reason that it is so prominent now to identify as something that you're not it's because people are shame for being straight CIS or otherwise. And the only time that I hear people go oh well you know heterosexual relationships are actually okay is when they are using the new definition of heterosexual which is this weird amalgamation of a person who identifies as a man and a person who identifies as a woman dating one another. As shown in the above photos.

And I get it. Want to be able to identify with a particular sex. You want to be able to be that sex. But here's the problem, reality sucks a lot and is not fair. The clitoris is not a penis. And every time I hear somebody say that it is a tiny penis I want to hang myself. Because they are functionally different appendages. A penis is an appendage specifically attached to males of which they use transport urine and semen. The clitoris does no such thing. It is a sensory organ at the end of the day. Reality is harsh and you need to come to grips with it. That is not me telling you that you can't be or are not trans. That is me telling you that no matter how you identify you need to realize you cannot force other people take on that identity.

No, this is effectively become a long post and more or less a rant of which was not my intention. However, I have made my point. Which is to say people need to get their head out of their anus and realize reality does not care how you feel about things.

[stackslip]

im having some makima gender thoughts. idk how much of it is purposeful from fujimoto but..... i have Thoughts on how makima performs gender and especially like. Womanhood as Seduction/as Safety/as a Non Threat, but... only in the context of her manipulations as the control devil, especially towards denji and to an extent, aki. vs how shes portrayed in any other interaction or situation. in her moments of vulnerability and when shes terrifying and when she is NOT interacting with denji or aki or like, people shes specifically trying to manipulate. its not just the framing or lack of fanservice, but she feels and acts in a way thats so much more androgynous.

like, look at these! not just how shes dressed or even how she walks, but how fujimoto frames her in the first page vs the second! if she really were just his femdom fetish, page 2 should present her in a Oooh Femme Fatale way. in page 1 shes playing in the role of feminity that denji expects from her, the role of dainty and non threatening and caring, beautiful girlfriend/mother. and then in page 2 she doesnt have to do that. or even attempt to look threatening. she is herself in page 2, plans going perfectly, beyond harm or understanding.

and like, i really dont think this is fujimoto going "ooooh women fake and manipulative" bc again these moments of danger and of vulnerability.... are so different. because we know makima was raised to be Control, to pull puppet strings while being perceived as saintly and motherly and a damsel in distress and somebody who owns the situation but isnt a threat. because the other female characters are completely different, bar say reze who herself was raised to be the same kind of weapon that makima is. but power, quanxi, kobeni, himeno–not at all the same!

and like, since chainsaw man is about cycles of abuse, about imposed roles and failing to run from them, about the chains that keep you nice and obedient and subservient to the will and beliefs of those who hold your leash... makima is absolutely referenced as this. shes a direct foil to denji. part of her attraction towards pochita is how she perceives his utter lack of chains, how unpredictable he is, how he is not leashed nor holding any leashes. makima drops her gendered mannerisms and role once shes finished breaking denji and pochita comes out. the only other moment where shes framed as such afterwards is when she brings out the weapon hybrids who are devoted to her. after this, she fights with her fists, she is much more open with her emotions, she is nowhere as sexual or gendered even in how fujimoto draws her.

basically what im saying is that just as makima was taught to see every living creature as a dog for her to leash, and herself as beyond relationships or attachments, she was also *taught* to perform gender in certain ways, not just to "seduce" but.... to let people project onto her, to make them trust her and love her and fear her like good dogs. shes holds a mirror to their expectations in order to hide her web of puppet strings, and said expectations are, inevitably, gendered, tied to heterosexuality and ideas of womanhood as inherently feminine, caring, non threatening. but she herself–idk how she views herself in terms of gender. personally, i think shes thinking of how dog owners use body language and treats and orders in order to direct their dogs attention or correct them. and so often abused dogs do not trust human men.

[the-sappho-of-lesbos]

I don’t know if I’m making any sense with this. And honestly I could be way off or just misunderstanding things. And I don’t think it’s a single sexuality that does it. From what I’ve seen and read it seems pretty equally common among bisexual women and lesbians

And I’m not meaning in really a judging way either. Plus I’m sure things like sexism and homophobia etc have a massive impact on why this happens

I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned it before but it seems to me that so many lesbians and bisexual women use sexual and or romantic relationships with women as a passageway of dealing with their trauma from relationships with men. Be it just in greater society or like past friendships or romantic relationships. And like I get it in a way. There is a unique type of relationship you can have a with another woman and a level of understanding on certain topics that might make you feel more at peace or find naturally healing.

But the way some women approach them in general just seems really unhealthy to me. (I know rich coming from me lolol). But the amount of pressure and rules and expectations some women place on their gay relationships just seems like a recipe for disaster. It’s like they are using it as a coping mechanism or a retaliation to society. That’s not say there attraction is genuine and innate. That’s not what I’m saying. Just that the framework in their minds about how or why to approach them often seems so heavily guided on fixing the trauma they have from men , in whatever regard that maybe.

And I don’t think this is a new thing either. Just from reading non fiction books by gay/bi men and gay/bi women they talk about their approach to their sexuality and their partners in such different ways. It elicits different responses from them.

By nature of being in a gay relationship it has a sense of political nature about it simply because we live in a world that is so homophobic and heteronormative, so I understand why it’ll simply just be there in the way people talk about their sexuality. But it seems a lot of women treat it VERY politically in a way I don’t see as much with gay and bisexual men. Is it because of the sexism, I mean probably.

But I just find it funny a lot of the time when I’ve read about gay and bi men talking about their experiences with love and their sexuality it’s so often fully just focused on other men. Women have little to no relevance to the conversation other then the typical discussions around feeling socially pressured to be with them.

But when I see women and bisexual talk about it there is always such a strong discussion on the trauma men have brought into their lives and how that shapes the relationships they seek with women or even what they feel with other women.

And I’m not criticising. Like I get it. But I just truly think that foundation of shaping so much of the female gay experience around men is unhealthy. Because it tends to put two pretty unrelated things onto each other.

I sometimes wonder if that’s part of the reason there is a stereotype of lesbian relationships moving so quickly. Because so many of us are using our relationships with women as a bandaid response to trauma with men and less solely on just what it is: attraction to women, that it warps our expectations. Puts too much pressure on certain people in the relationship.

I’ve seen a lot of lesbians talk about not being treated as a woman in their relationship and being like a fill in for a man or having heterosexual rules placed on them and I can’t help but wonder if maybe that is a byproduct of all this.

I don’t know I’m probably making no sense whatsoever lol. Also this definitely isn’t me being accusatory or angry or trying to imply men someone have shape on women’s innate sexuality. I just think socialisation is a wild thing and there are things I’ve noticed that confuse me sometimes

But this is just me rambling into the void lol. I’m not even making sense to myself lolol. Everything is just falling out

[myprofessormadememakethis]

The Power in Sex

Sexuality, exposed in its most blunt forms, leaves a strange feeling in modern American minds, for culture has been curated around avoiding the topic altogether. Sexual education classes rarely occur, and if they do, they never surpass the typical hour-long lecture on teen pregnancy and the importance of chastity. Even the word "sex" sends a storm of uncomfortable giggles through a room full of adults who likely perform it daily. Sex is a fundamental part of the human experience, yet its presence is akin to an elephant in a small room that everyone is expected to pretend doesn't exist. The shame, the embarrassment, and every negative emotion surrounding this incredibly human act is nothing if not a scramble to cover up an individual's most naked and vulnerable parts, and this unnatural phenomenon springs from the plenteous garden called cisheteropatriarchy. Thus, sexuality is not regulated in the same way for every person. Cisgender heterosexual men have complete and utter ownership over attraction--a contract that they violently enforce through rape or the police. Strict regulation of sexuality, as Audre Lorde wrote in The Uses of the Erotic, allows men to create a gender hierarchy and abuse women's inferior position to sustain themselves, "much the same way ants maintain colonies of aphids to provide a life-giving substance for their masters" (Lorde 88). Lorde explores sexual expression as a reclamation of power, explaining that, ultimately, this repression is about denying self or self-rejection. She lauds the erotic as a creative force that motivates change, similar to early American author Walt Whitman in his poem I Sing the Body Electric.

Whitman's expression of sexuality at certain points in the poem takes on an exploitative nature next to Lorde's empowering essay. In comparison to men, whose muscles and body shapes he avidly admires, women embody a motherly role, often connected to typical female jobs that he twists into a sexual vision, one that grows increasingly predatory at a slave auction block where he describes the body of a Black woman as "the teeming mother of mothers" (Whitman 8). The imagery evokes the chilling scene in Clotel; Or the President's Daughter where a white crowd views and dissects enslaved Black bodies to their heart's content, bidding on a young Black girl's chastity and her other features. On the slave block in Whitman's poem, reproductive ability determines the value of the slave to her potential owners. This was not uncommon, for Black women's sexuality was such an essential component of plantocracy that the law took away their agency in choosing their sexual partners. Clotel explores this at a different site of sale as a slave trader walks down a line of slaves with a slew of questions on his tongue. He remarks to a crying enslaved woman that she will not have to miss her man on his plantation where he has enslaved many young Black men. This is the inherent nature of the slave block, a place where white people steal all sense of self-authority. With this in mind, Whitman merely reiterates a beauty funneled through a white supremacist lens, and his poem, meant to exalt all bodies and to raise the marginalized into personhood, changes into a work that reinforces the relationship between the oppressed and the oppressor.

This is the power of sex. The act is not simply a pleasurable dance between two individuals, but a performance of self-identity--a concept that slaveholders denied their victims. Through sex, identity can be shared, or it can be subjugated. Most people are unaware of this dynamic because of cultural shame around the topic of sex, and thus, there is no examination of the power plays affecting the most intimate parts of their lives. Indeed, empowerment comes from embracing sexual desire without shame.

-Ysabella Porche