#also attracted to men in some way

[transmascpetewentz]

Thinking about how most of the examples of ways that trans men have been respected in recent history to "disprove" the idea that we're oppressed have been straight trans men. Thinking about how being attracted to women was a requirement to medically transition from female to male until very recently. Thinking about how the little respect trans men might possibly get from transphobes depends on us being attracted to women. Thinking about how people use examples of straight trans men being benefited by their attraction to women to blame gay trans men for every bad thing a trans man has ever done. Thinking about how straight trans men are the only ones who get taken seriously by non-leftists. Thinking about how the vast majority of trans men who claim that trans men aren't oppressed are straight or otherwise attracted to women.

[hua-liansimp]

Gravity Falls canon divergence AU where Bill does send someone to steal Ford's eyes and then possesses Fiddleford to approach blind Ford. Fiddleford/Bill nurses Ford back to health, and then pretends to be sorry for leaving Ford, he sticks around to help him adjust to losing his sight. Eventually, an extremely exhausted and broken Ford breaks down and confesses everything that truly happened during their partnership, and Fiddleford/Bill "comforts" him. He promises to never leave him, saying that he won't let that "monster" hurt Ford ever again.

Bill thinks it would be too risky to convince Ford to continue with the portal so soon, afraid of arousing his suspicion, so he just ends up moving in and caring for blind Ford, gaining his trust everyday a little more. What Bill doesn't expect is that he enjoys their current situation way more than he thought he would (Ford is dependent on him once again, he doesn't even know he's being tricked, the fool, but also Bill can be close to him again, they can play and banter and it's like nothing ever changed), and years pass without any work being done on the portal as they grow closer and closer.

It's only decades later that Bill slips up and leaves for some business in the middle of the night. Ford wakes up for a cup of water to find mind broken Fiddleford wandering around his kitchen muttering about a demon living in his head and keeping him trapped.

[talesandfluff]

lesbians will do this at a slumber party and then fucking obliterate Fathethriel when he dares to suggest his gaydar was a lil bit tipped off

[that-ineffable-devil]

I think the only thing about Edwin's first interaction with the Cat King that really breaks my heart is how he reacts to TCK's innuendo.

Despite TCK interpreting the reaction as offense/disapproval, what I see is fear.

Edwin doesn't react with disgust or even anger.

He starts backing away. His face drops. He looks scared.

((And then I went and had a full sad revelation in the notes but it's staying there.))

[anonymocha]

finally coming out as a dyke in 2023 is realizing i dont need to pretend to simp that Guy just because everyone else in my friend group does

[inqilabi]

One time on a first date with a guy, he had asked me why I was so specific about where and how I wanted to meet. I told him, I can always tell whether a man is interested in me from the very first look they give when they walk towards you. And it's important for me that I arrive early so that I can see the man walk towards me. Because they have 1 of 3 looks. 1) is they're just ambivalent and typically they're not attracted 2) the have this awestruck look of interest 3) they are leering almost up and down and it's too sexualized. And they lose interest quickly (and doesn't matter because I'm not interested in this type obviously).

And he asked me which type I found him to fall under. And I told him that he's ambivalent and not attracted. And he was like, nooo that's not the case. But I was like this has never failed me lol. Even though this whole time prior to meeting me, he had built up how attractive he thought I was. Really liked all my pics. And before meeting me and during the date itself, he said Pakistani women are beautiful (he was Bengali). End of the date, he walked me to my car and said let's do it again sometime.

And sure enough, he reached out but kinda mildly, boring - how was your weekend. To which I replied and equally boring response, and it died lol.

I have literally saved so much energy by making sure that I arrive first on a date. This puts me in a more comfortable spot and the guy in a more nervous spot. With you technically "receiving" him. As opposed to the traditional, him receiving you. And in that moment, with him walking towards you there is no pretense. And you can really see their very initial feelings towards you imho.

[gen-is-gone]

my for some reason unpopular opinion is that it's boring when Fitz remains unhinged levels of self-deluded and closeted actually. Why does he have to be doctor who's answer to dean winchester, huh? why would this man in his mid-thirties who has spent at least a decade traveling in time and space still have weird insane hangups about being attracted to dudes? why does that need to be the thing about the text that we all collectively think is worth taking at face value? it's boring and fucking depressing and honestly doesn't make sense when the future of humanity in doctor who is that bisexuality is the cultural default and completely unremarkable.

[recareels]

sobbing over the thought of mr reca calling you ‘my little starlet’ >.<

but he says it like my leetle starrrlet! ｡ﾟ(｡ﾉωヽ｡)ﾟ｡

[dichromaticdyke]

idk what woman or similarly gendered nonbinary person needs to hear this, but if you feel actual distress, frustration, discomfort, etc. at the thought of being attracted to men, or being with men in a sexual or romantic context--if you genuinely feel this way and you hide it behind "haha sucks that i like men lol" jokes--you honestly should consider lesbianism.

[yourgamemasterthewhiterabbit]

Of my 2% capacity to be attracted to anyone, my type is like 90% women, 5% pretty men and 5% men you would swear are super fucking manly, and never questioned being straight and cis, but are now suddenly *stressed* that they can't figure out why their attraction to me [fully socially interpreted as a woman and labelled that way up until relatively recently] feels incredibly fucking gay

[bisexualseraphim]

Alright fine I’m gonna speak my mind.

My cis followers, listen up:

Being attracted to trans people is not inherently a fetish. The way you speak about trans people CAN be fetishistic, but 99% of the time when I see cis people calling out trans fetishism it’s literally just. Someone being really horny for a trans person. That’s not inherently fetishistic.

Sorry but it actually hurts me a little when I see cis people claim that a content creator is being fetishistic for drawing a trans guy with tits and a pussy, or for writing smut where a trans guy really enjoys using his pussy for sex, or God forbid said trans guy is fem. Trans people like that exist, you know. I myself have a pussy and fuck yes do I want people I’m in a relationship with to be attracted to it. And the same goes for many transfemmes who keep their natal parts, especially butch transfemmes.

Trans people are not a monolith. We don’t all hate our bodies or experience dysphoria or express our genders the same way. I swear to God cis people are all “allies” until a trans man is fem or a trans woman is butch or an enby isn’t androgynous or we actually enjoy our bodies or we have a kink or sexual fetish you don’t like.

Cis people: I know your hearts are in the right place and I appreciate that, but spouting “oh this content is fetishistic and Bad because trans men NEVER like their vaginas and are NEVER feminine” (or something equal to other trans people) is seriously not the allyship you think it is.

There is absolutely a conversation to be had about fetishising trans people — chasers in particular — but it’s quite a bit less black and white than hating certain FICTIONAL portrayals of trans people because these types of trans people exist in real life and we can see what you say about us.

I love my dick and my pussy (because I have both — are you aware we can have both?) but I saw a post today by someone I really like that actually made me feel kind of shit about myself because it was a cis person essentially saying that smut that describes my genitals in any particularly horny light is fetishistic and that really kind of hurt me. It made me feel like people think I’m undesirable due to my body only it was said in some backwards attempt to be an ally which is almost worse than deliberate transphobia lol.

I guess my point is: not all trans people’s feelings and experiences are universal. Call out obvious transphobia when you see it, yes, but please stop speaking for us about complex situations you just can’t fully understand unless you’re trans. Trans identities and experiences can be so much more complicated than what mainstream celebrities and articles will tell you and I just really need cis people to stop behaving as though the issues we face are a quick and easy fix. It never is. Sometimes the best allyship is to listen to how WE feel and take it into consideration instead of saying whatever you think we want you to say — because a lot of the time, we don’t.

[artist-heart83]

Me at the exact moment when I saw SMG3 with a suit:

Alone with my thoughts again ahahha

​I’m trying to remember the exact moment when I said: “oh.. I love smg3” and I think about when I saw the wotfi 23 trailer and here we are JSJSJSJJSJS

[o-uncle-newt]

I read Possession by AS Byatt after people told me "if you liked Gaudy Night you'll like this" and WELL.

Warning- spoilers for both books abound below!

So it sounded great- as a lapsed academic (though not in the field of literature by any means) there's a part of me that loves reading about academia because it's full of such obsessive people, and this book seemed to be exactly that and so I was excited.

Then I read it, and on the one hand, my first thought was "all these people are dull as heck, the only sane modern-day one is Val, and at the end of the day the historical stuff is just two people having an affair, who cares." My second thought was "there's just enough stuff here that makes me think that maybe the author knows that all of this is stupid, like the fact that Val is obviously one of the few sane ones here." But the ending made me doubt even that. Essentially, and I say this even as that lapsed academic, the author could not convince me to care about the important things at stake here, and as a result couldn't get me to care about the people who only seemed to care about those things.

I didn't care about Ash and LaMotte- they came across as two people high on their own supply who had a tawdry affair. (And each of them is the less interesting person, as a person, than their official partner!) As a result of not caring about them, I couldn't POSSIBLY care about Roland, Maud, and the rest of their crew, because their only functions were to be possessed by, and weirdly possessive of, these two entirely unworthy individuals, whose in-universe historical and literary significance Byatt couldn't convince me of, and to use that possession as a mirror for their own very lame romance. Beyond that they're utterly uninteresting, and there isn't even meant to BE much beyond that so it's not that surprising.

Anyway, I didn't like this book much, but it still made me think a lot. And there's a way in which a certain kind of person might say "well if it made you think then that's surely a sign of some positive quality" and... maybe? I don't know. I didn't hate all of it, and some parts were interesting, and I do have a whole separate list of things about the book that bug me including a breakdown of some of the book's (perceived by me) themes that I particularly disliked lol. Perhaps I'll post it another time. So I guess you can say it spurred me to thought, but loads of things that I don't like do that, and the only positive thing that that draws from me is that they're not downright dull.

The thing is, after finishing the book I was immediately struck by that "if you like Gaudy Night..." element, because it has a situation that felt weirdly similar (if for totally different reasons)- a young scholar stealing a letter from a library/archive. The circumstances are different- in Gaudy Night, the scholar does it to hide its existence so as not to contradict his thesis, and in Possession, the scholar does it so as to explore the document further, though still secretly- but there are still some interesting parallels vis a vis class. Possession goes into the class thing more than Gaudy Night does, but neither book goes much into it- the scholar is lower-class and someone who has scraped their way to their position, and is encumbered by a female partner of lower social and academic standing, and in the end they are juxtaposed against scholars who come from an elevated class and who have more money and opportunity. In Gaudy Night, Arthur Robinson is judged by the likes of Lord Peter Wimsey and a college full of women who don't have to do anything but think, teach, write, and grade papers; in Possession, Roland has to convince a bunch of academics of standing and resources to take a chance on him (and while this is more about money than class, he's the main one who's like "maybe it's good if Lady Bailey gets her wheelchair"). Byatt elides over this at the end by having him magically become in demand and on his way to achieving his academic goals, but I think in both books, the class element really could have taken on more significance in the text.

(I'd add as well that Byatt pits the upper-class and moneyed Maud, who of course is doing things for "the right reasons," vs the evil American businessman who clearly... doesn't care about Ash enough? Despite how much he clearly and obviously cares about Ash? The book was way more interesting when he seemed like a valid rival to the British team, who only thought that they deserved the letters more because of their obsession, rather than how it turned out at the end where the American dude is an actual cartoon villain. What made him genuinely less worthy besides having money without class, and of course having the bad taste to be American? What makes one scholar's possession more justified? Sayers was never this unsubtle.)

So that made me think more about Possession vs Gaudy Night, and the thing is, there are actual living people in Gaudy Night! Say what you will about the unworldliness of the academics at Shrewsbury, but you get a very keen view of their personalities by the end, even as they are (by necessity given the rules of their world) subsumed by academia, or subsume themselves in it. And the people who do fall in love are REALLY in love, and you understand why...

And somehow a book from 1935 feels far more interrogative of the possession (or lack thereof) found in love and romance, and just about the place of women in academia and relationships overall, than one from the late 80s. In Gaudy Night, Harriet accepts Peter once she has determined that despite their power differential (brought on by class, money, history, and to a degree gender) he will not threaten her personhood, because he has proven himself to her. In Possession, Maud accepts Roland because she has the power (money, class, position, even height) and so Roland actually cannot threaten her- and yet still that final scene is about her being taken by him, basically to prove some kind of a point. In contrast, in Busman's Honeymoon, the euphemistic sex scenes are about Peter trying to please Harriet.

When I say it's to prove a point, I'm paraphrasing Byatt, incidentally- who said: "And in the case of Maud I had made it very inhibiting. She was a woman inhibited both by beauty (which actually isn't very good for very beautiful women because they feel it isn't really them people love) and she was also inhibited by Feminism, because she had all sorts of theories that perhaps she would be a more noble kind of woman if she was a lesbian. And so she was a bit stuck. And Roland was timid because I am naturally good at timid men. It's the kind of men I happen to like. He's a timid thinking man, so of course it took him the whole book." I mean... yikes, but also that explains a lot. Maud can only bring herself to be with a man who is weak/effeminate (?) enough to justify whatever weird psyche Byatt has imagined up for her, but still she needs to get over her inhibitions and under him because... reasons. I don't know.

(Height is also interesting here as a point of contrast- Byatt makes Maud taller than Roland to make a point about how on the one hand she retains the power but on the other hand there is now even more of her that has to surrender. Peter and Harriet are the same medium height and wear the same size gown.)

I think the thing that most stuns me is how regressive Possession feels when it comes to gender politics on relationships than Gaudy Night does. I'd need a whole other post to talk about this, but the theme of Possession seems to me to be "relationships that produce things (whether art or children) are worth more than ones that don't." Roland is better with Maud than with Val because Val is a second rate scholar who drags him down (while supporting him financially) and Ash is better with LaMotte than with Ellen because LaMotte didn't only inspire his writing (Ellen's contributions are described only in the negative "didn't impede"), she gave him the child that Ellen refused to. Incidentally, in both cases it's the man pursuing a relationship that will give HIM something... But, to paraphrase Peter in Busman's Honeymoon, one wouldn't want to regard relationships in that agricultural light. Gaudy Night is about how two people can produce great things without each other but choose to be with each other for their own, and each other's, happiness. They aren't each less apart, and as I noted in a prior post, they don't need to solve cases together or conjoin their work in order for their relationship to be worth something. It is worth it for them to be together because it encourages some kind of inner balance within them and between them, as people. They enjoy collaborating but that is by no means the basis of their love (and, incidentally, I think that a lot of, if not most, detective series romances fail this basic test of "would they have fallen in love if they were accountants who met on a dating app." Peter and Harriet definitely would have- would, say, Albert Campion and Amanda Fitton have? I do NOT think so).

And here's the thing- another reason why Byatt's quote above is so off-putting is that it makes it clear that not only in the text but on a meta level, the purpose of the relationships is to prove a Point. I found Roland and Maud to have zero chemistry, and honestly I was expecting them to get together 3/4 of the way through and split up at the end when it turned out they had nothing in common- it seemed like that kind of book. I was kind of stunned when they only got together at the end in an "it's meant to be" way because nothing about it seemed meant to be. They were stuck together by that one thing and they each apparently needed the relationship for some kind of self-actualization or historical rhyming or other. (Whatever I say about Ash and LaMotte... at least they seemed to like each other!)

Peter and Harriet... they get together because they love each other. Do they change over the course of Gaudy Night, and over the course of the other books they share together? Of course they do. But if it makes sense, I'll put it this way- Harriet doesn't accept Peter's proposal as proof that she got over her hangups, Harriet gets over her hangups so that she can accept Peter's proposal. Her hangups only matter because they were keeping her from this particular kind of happiness- she was a fully actualized person even with them. She is a person who does things for human reasons so that she can build a mutually happy life with the person she loves, not a little plot mannequin being moved around in order to tell the author's desired Message. People can say what they want about Gaudy Night and its flaws, but despite the intricacies of its construction, nobody can call the characters' actions and motivations anything but brutally human.

Whether within their universes or on a meta level, the books have SUCH different things to say about the value and nature of love, the place of and purpose of sex, the place of art and intellectual accomplishment in relationships, all of the above in the context of femininity… and I can't help but feel that each time, Gaudy Night wins the contest. It's possible I'm missing something major about Possession, and maybe sometime I'll post the rest of my notes about the things I disliked and people can tell me what I'm wrong about- but if nothing else it made me appreciate Gaudy Night even more, so for that I'm grateful.

[mossy-covered-bones]

Idk if im aroallo but i agree with their beliefs

[faithfromanewperspective]

not a very cisgender thing to do but was out of it enough that I realised I was attracted to a man and then was like ‘does that mean I’m gay? I feel like I should’ve realised this way sooner if so’ and I love that 1) I clearly thought I was a man ever so briefly and 2) I possibly also forgot which direction was straight and which was gay which is fine of course, both of these things are fine, but also. what

[moonmoonthecrabking]

"i love women i tolerate men bc i'm attracted to them" "i'm attracted to men, unfortunately (/neg)", "ew why be attracted to men when you can just date women instead" i am maiming everyone who supports this rhetoric and everyone who caused it to become so widespread by invalidating women's attraction to people who aren't men.