#analyzing the queer

[maerhiya]

"why were you staring at them? you like them, don't you?" uhm no. i just thought they were aesthetically pleasing. don't you also stop and stare at someone in absolute awe of how beautiful they are, feeling blessed to be in the presence of such a stunning being?

[shamrockthenerd]

Being a Spideypool shipper is analyzing Peter in every fan art that pops up on your feed. Did the artist draw him like that because he’s a twink or because he’s a minor?

[sporesgalaxy]

fuck everything else ive ever said about making a video essay. Ive just had a divine epiphany. My first youtube video essay NEEDS to be "Why Is Roronoa Zoro Gay?"

[navysealt4t]

okayy sorry not sorry one more post about this movie. so many reviews and ppl are claiming that this movie isn’t necessarily queer at its core which is. so wrong??? like from a plot view point. [SPOILERS AHEAD MASSIVE SPOILERS!]

when maddy tells owen she likes girls and asks him if he does too, he says (to paraphrase) “i don’t know, i like tv shows. when i think about that stuff, it feels like someone’s ripped me open and tore out all my organs.” after he watches the finale of the pink opaque, he’s vomiting the blue luna juice and sobbing about how this isn’t real, which i relate to like feeling trapped in this unaccepting environment . he does this right after realizing he is isabel, but he still hides it and shoved it down and represses it. then there’s obviously the end, where he cuts himself open in the bathroom and sees the static inside of himself for what it is. it calls back to the line “it feels like someone’s ripped me open and tore out my organs.” which was a REPONSE to being asked about specifically sexuality and more broadly, queerness. there aren’t organs there. there’s the static. he was right and it’s a relief and it’s terrifying and it’s full of guilt and shame and regret and fear. it’s the experience of seeing yourself after years of hiding and repression and it’s directly a queer experience. like hello

[trebo]

the methods of promotional posters for rope 1948 and how its queer identity affects it

you know i see a lot of people in the rope 1948 community analyzing every aspect of the film and stage play and the entire thing in general, but i haven’t seen anyone yet touch on the film posters. which is what i’m gonna do right now, i have something to say about the posters.

(one of) the most prominent patterns found within old hollywood posters— and this doesn’t take a long time of studying to find— is that almost all of them always feature a man and woman, which happen to be the love interests of the said film in question. romance is SO common in nearly EVERY classic movie, regardless of how it is presented or depicted or alluded to. but this of course applies to your heterosexual relationship, heteronormative ideas of cinema at that time. so what happens when you make a movie about queer romance and queer characters? well, if you were a poster designer in 1948, you probably wouldn’t be bold enough to simply plaster two men onto that poster the same way you’d plaster a heterosexual relationship, embracing each other, looking each other in the eyes, etc etc etc… which is why, in the case of rope, it’s always jimmy stewart as the focal point, and him alone. phillip and brandon are in the background, despite them being the protagonists of the film. and in some cases, we get a glimpse of one of the female characters with brandon (as demonstrated below). but of course, we know that they aren’t love interests. but to a passerby who’s just been introduced to the film DURING that year, it wouldn’t be illogical to assume that some people could think that they are. i think this is just another way of hiding the queer theme of the movie through their promotional materials. more subtlety and cleverness rather than having your poster immediately scream “HEY!! HEY!!! THIS MOVIE’S CHARACTERS ARE GAY AND YOU SHOULD TOTALLY CHECK IT OUT!!! BRO!!!!!!!!” to newcomers.

one more thing is i want to analyze a part of this poster specifically, because there was something here that caught my eye. it’s the captions. “in one man’s hands, rope is a deadly weapon… in one man’s arms, love is a shameful thing!” i want to you ask yourself, what love are they referring too??? obviously not heterosexual romance. what other love is most apparent in the film? it’s the gays!!! i thought it was really interesting to say love is a shameful thing, because WE know that it’s probably talking about the relationship between brandon and phillip. but to your average movie-goer in 1948, they might’ve thought it was just referring to another man loving a woman.

but in today’s world, assuming that the only movies you’re gonna watch are about heterosexual couples might ALSO be just a little shameful too.

thanks for coming to my ted talk. what yall think?

[raavenb2619]

“Musical about a green magic girl who's totally alloaro, trust me, where are you going she's alloaro, I have a whole powerpoint presentation stop backing away from me I have proof she's alloaro just listen to me” - Things I tell my friends to try to get them to watch media I like

[oarfishing]

this?

this is terf shit.

idc if you're technically "including" trans people in your man-hating.

this is terf shit.

"men are completely evil due to their gender"? terf shit. "marginalized men telling me to step away from bioessentialism are evil?" terf shit. "women are the top most oppressed class?" terf shit. "transmascs act like victims?" terf shit. all that "sisterhood" "i hate men" "i love other women who hate men let's bond over how much we hate men"? that's terf shit. sure, it's not technically "trans exclusionary" since look, see, they love trans women! but if you examine what terfs and radfems like them actually believe - that is, the root behind all of their ideology - this sort of gender essentialism is exactly their platform.

a PSA to all the lovely people out there, especially trans people: if you see somebody like this, somebody talking like this, they are not your friend. prioritizing hate over love is not the trans ally take they think it is.

and if you are a woman and you think you get to speak over any and all sorts of marginalized men who go through so much shit not just in spite of but because of their gender, you are not an "intersectional feminist." you are not a trans ally. if you think trans people who fight for trans rights - which includes trans men, if you can believe it - are just "MRA"s, you are not! a! safe! person!

stay safe out there 💓 trans love forever

[alexkablob]

not to wade into discourse about shows online which I swore to stop doing but I think some of you need to recognize that not every piece of media is about you, and that focusing only on the themes that you personally identify with while erasing the ones you don't is Not Great

[carriesthewind]

Once again in people telling on themselves: the transphobic bigots screaming about "what is a woman" have proven what they really think the answer is. People who those with power and authority deem to be pretty enough and white enough.

[angy-grrr]

"ppl would actually like the fandom if it wasn't bc of those weird fans" and the weird fans in question are just. Ppl seeing togachako as queer subtext.

Is that really the weirdest take? Really?

[lilliesm]

to have the sensation of watching dead poets society for the first time again

[monotonous-minutia]

"But a conscious choice does not automatically mean that gender becomes a theme in operas with trouser roles. In Mozart's Le nozze di Figaro, for instance, one cannot say that with the character of the irascible adolescent Cherubino, sung by a mezzo-soprano, gender identity enters the opera. Cherubino is primarily a young man who develops along masculine lines. The fact that the role is sung by a woman falls under the heading of 'suspension of disbelief'."

the only one whose belief is suspended is yours chad. gender identity IS this opera.

Pride special: LGBTIQA+ in opera and ballet | Nationale Opera & Ballet (operaballet.nl)

[eddiediazismyhusband]

Eddie headcanon: label or no label for his sexuality? Do you think he feels the need to pick one? If yes, which one(s)?

okay so personally, i have always been a gay eddie truther, and so most of my eddie headcanons are in that context, but i also do think eddie is heavily demi-coded as well, and that is an equally as likely route for his character to be taken within canon. i love reading demi-eddie fics and all the nuances that take adds to his character even though it may not be my personal interpretation, but i would be equally as happy with that being the show’s interpretation of his character if they were to go that way! (also bi eddie is just as valid, but again I personally don’t view him as bisexual and i know most fans are pretty much split between gay eddie and demi eddie!)

i feel like eddie realistically probably wouldn’t get too hung-up on a label… i think he would realize he has a lot of internalized homophobia and comphet to work through, but i think the baseline is that he is definitely into men in some capacity.

regardless of what he identifies as, i think he might label himself initially- such as coming out to his family and explaining what exactly his feelings are- but i don’t think he would really feel compelled enough to fully label himself bc at the end of the day, he will be with buck and that’s all that matters to him at the end of the day.

[vaperarmand]

i think some people (especially on this web site) interpret succession the same way that people would interpret, like. glee. or bbc sherlock. or any media in the past decade-ish before queer characters and couples were more common in media. in the way that essentially boils down to “popular entertainment is so heteronormative, i need to hunt for clues that show the creators know gay people Exist beyond homophobic stereotypes” because that validates the queer person watching and any potential queer readings of the characters. and that period of time is still SO fresh, and queer representation in media is still not what it could or should be. 

but it’s just interesting and i think kind of unfruitful when people interpret the scenes of this show as clues or proof that greg is gay irl or something.

not only is that just patently Not The Point Of The Show, it’s also like. we don’t need to see a scene where greg comes out as gay. his dad who abandoned him was gay. logan calls every one of his family members a faggot if they do something he just slightly doesn’t like. tom asked greg the first day they met if greg would kiss him as a power play or plea for affection or a sign of his latent sexuality. etc etc etc. and all of these connect inextricably to the show’s actual themes and message. what exists in the show already is so much more meaningful and complex than any cumulative “proof” could be, and i think interpreting it as such undervalues the show’s thoughtful writing. 

[demadogs]

as a gay swiftie i need to say it i fucking hate gaylors so much. the news of the split of her 7 year relationship came out yesterday and gaylor is already trending on twitter. it doesnt matter how huge of a status a person has STOP READING INTO THE SEXUALITY OF REAL HUMAN BEINGS!!!!!!

[twynte]

The way Hikaru ga Shinda Natsu is a gay allegory with gay people!!!

Like,,, with Hikaru and his “otherness”, the body-horror, the strong desire to belong. It’s layered. Hikaru (and possibly Yoshiki?) are queer and yet that’s hardly on their radar, hardly something they’re trying to hide (possibly they haven’t even realized it themselves). What they’re really worried abt is people finding out about Hikaru’s.. situation. There’s naivety to it. They’re only focused on what’s in front of their faces.

Mokumoku uses Hikaru’s possession as a means to illustrate the uncomfortable situations and fears that most queer ppl experience at least once without having to directly tie the situations to the queer community. His queerness and his hauntings are separate, and yet they run parallel.

Where there is creeping dread there are two boys trying to hide an extreme monstrosity from their small town…

Some notable scenes in which i am referring to:

1. When Hikaru was overwhelmed with the fear of Asako asking him “Just what are you?��. The manga panel that follows where Hikaru’s features are covered by his obsessive thought “how does she know”. —Hikaru’s fear of being found out, called out

2. The notion of the hauntings spreading, the town “growing strange”.

3. Hikaru and Yoshiki visiting the summer festival, where Yoshiki can pass under the arch while Himaru cannot. —Having to hide yourself while surround by strangers. Trying to keep yourself safe.

4. Again at the festival when they’re sitting on the ground with shaved ice and Hikaru is pleased that Yoshiki doesn’t recognize him as Hikaru. “It’s because you know I’m not the real Hikaru”…

5. The dragonfly scene where Yoshiki is explaining the slight difference in dragonflies. “Natsuakane and Akiakane look pretty much the same, but they’re entirely different species”. —An obvious jab at Hikaru’s possession, and further, a homophobic sentiment.

6. After becoming more Familiar with Hikaru, Yoshiki transitions from calling him an ‘it’ to a ‘he’.

etcetera etcetera . . .