#and if someone is happily referring to themselves as queer so? like literally what is ur issue

[starlooove]

I need the whole queer discourse thing to progress past interpersonal usage. Whether someone personally refers to themselves as queer or not quite literally does not fucking matter, the only thing worth discussing atp is how widespread that usage may be (calling it the queer community, is it reclaimed enough for ppl outside the community to say it in that specific way, etc.)

[phynali]

more spn discussions, just skip this post y’all

 @queerbluebird​ thanks so much for engaging with my post/reply! i really enjoyed reading your response and i have a long reply here.

i’m responding to your post/reply here rather than reblogging it because honestly that thread is - so long. so very long. 

so first - 

i agree there is a difference between entitlement and what i would call, not promise, but instead “narrative follow-through”. A story that completely lacks narrative follow-through does end up feeling disappointing, or frustrating, or rage-inducing, depending on what’s happened. to me there’s a fundamental difference between critiquing a story based on follow-through and bad storytelling (which your post aims to do), versus say, creating hashtag campaigns about a character being silenced because and spreading conspiracy theories about a bad dub (among other things honestly).

and also - queerbaiting totally sucks, we definitely do agree on that.

where we disagree, i think are these two core points:

i do not see the narrative build-up that demands a follow-through. i do not see supernatural as having built up to the story that many destiel shippers seem to think was there, and no one has ever been able to point out to me any actual textual reasons that do craft that narrative build-up  

i fundamentally do not believe that destiel was ever a queerbait. queerbait involves active intent on the part of creators to tease a ship or queer representation in order to draw in $ from queer audiences without ever making it canon, so as not to alienate straight audiences. so, refering to point 1., i do not see the canon text as having laid the groundwork for a queerbait and those romantic tropes, at least not at any point in the past 7 years. and beyond the canon, the writers and producers and jensen ackles all indicated dean was straight, and that they were not writing a romance. if anyone queerbaited the fans, it was misha collins who kept teasing the possibility, and personally i would argue that was irresponsible of him. but that’s a different discussion altogether and tends to piss people off when it’s framed as such, because misha means a lot to them and it hurts to see the man who validated their feelings get criticized for the manner in which he validated them. so i’m gonna leave that aside.

beyond that, I want to engage with some of your specific quotes:

Supernatural loves to say “wait for it.” And I don’t think it’s entitled to feel betrayed if an author uses their story to say “wait for it” in order to convince you to stick with their story and then delivers the opposite after you do.

May i ask, where was the “wait for it” with destiel? this ties in directly to the queerbaiting. i indicated in my post/reply that while i see it from cas, there’s been little to no hint of any reciprocation of feelings from dean, and if anything the past 7 or so years have driven the point home that it isn’t happening. i personally am not able to see the “Wait for it” and that was the point of my question. without the “Wait for it”, i also can’t see the queerbait. 

I asked for specifics and while i totally get not having the spoons, you provided a few:

(off the top of my head for Dean though, the mixtape, his response to Cas’ death at the end of 12, subsequent grief arc, and reaction to Cas’ return in the front half of 13 rank highly. His reaction to Lucifer’s prank call in 15x19 might rate, but maybe just because it’s so recent.)

not trying to be unkind here, but i quite genuinely don’t see any of these examples as framing cas and dean in a romantic light, or as hinting at a “what if”. the mixtape is like.... okay, maybe. i had read that as being symbolic of something else, but i can see wanting to read it from a shipping lens. (i don’t however think i’d read it as baiting or “what if” - it was quite textually not framed that way. shipping, 100%, but canon build-up, not for me).

for the other examples -- grieving for someone you consider family? and being happy when they come back? that’s not shippy to me. i mean - contrast the grief he showed over cas’s death compared to his grief over, say, mary? or, less extreme, charlie? and nothing compared to how off the rails he goes when sam is dead or he thinks sam is. so i -- i just can’t see those as creating a narrative that demands a follow-through. and when your friend who is dead calls your phone? of course you hop to the door - i don’t know what is romantic about that. sam would’ve hopped just as quick if “cass” had called his phone instead.

and look - i see what is fun to ship about all that. if i shipped it, i’d be happily collecting these moments with a smile and grinning to myself about how cute they are and much they mean. but shipping it vs. it being romantically framed in the canon are two fundamentally different things. shipping doesn’t imply narrative buy-in or deliberation from the creator.

moving on, you also spoke at length about 15x18:

15x18 made the sort of statement that drew back even people who did exactly what OP said they should do, turning off the TV years ago. It wasn’t a quiet “if you’re still watching, keep waiting,” so much as a shouted “hey we’re gonna do this thing, watch this!”

i guess destiel fans vs. those of us who don’t ship it really see this as fundamentally different. because you discuss that moment as one which requires follow-through, and say that if this were heteronormative m/f love declaration, there would be that expectation of follow-through. not necessarily reciprocity, but more - more conversation, more acknowledgment, more something.

(i mean - if there was more, but that more was “hey i love you too but only platonically, sorry man” would that be better?)

but no - i actually just... disagree with your point on that front. i can see why you feel the way you do and i acknowledge that it can be read as the start of a conversation. to me though -- and clearly, now that the finale is out, how the writers saw it -- that was actually the end of a conversation. the end of, like you pointed out, 12 years. a 12-year conversation that ends in a gorgeous declaration of love, and specifically how love isn’t about being together, it’s simply about being - it’s about the fact that you love someone, and that feeling alone is the most beautiful thing in existence.

to me, that declaration can only be written and interpreted as an ending.  a sacrifice, a declaration, and a goodbye. so - while i kind of expected seeing more people in episode 20 and realize that didn’t happen largely due to covid - i’m not disappointed we didn’t see cas, because that culmination of his narrative (and then knowing he was with jack, after, rebuilding the heaven that he rebelled against and finally completing his narrative circle by fixing all the problems with it alongside the good god he sought to find all along) is kind of perfect. 

and i genuinely don’t think if cas was in a female vessel this entire time that that would change. maybe some audience members would feel differently, but i think many of us would see it for the end it was nonetheless. there’s plenty of stories with m/f ships that are one-sided and that character sacrifices themselves for the person they love, so i don’t see why this would be any different (except the bury your gays issue, but that’s a whole other and very real conversation about media tropes).

moving on to the series finale.

As many people have pointed out in praise of 15x20, Sam is the absolute most important thing in Dean’s life, his priority above anything and everything… And yet there, at the actual end of the world, Dean ignores Sam’s call and instead cries over the loss of Castiel. Dean’s loss of Castiel plays in tandem with the loss of literally the whole world. But we’re not to take that as a promise that Castiel means more to this story, or to Dean, than a couple seconds of wistfulness after the dust settles?

I... yeah. i don’t see what this even is arguing. that dean taking a minute to himself to grieve his best friend, who just died in part because dean decided to go hunt down billie (who was literally dying anyway). he’s hurting. there’s nothing about this that’s a promise - it’s an end. it’s grief. it’s the horror of losing someone you care about, and the silence that comes after. it’s fundamentally human in it’s pain. and we, the audience, are invited to grieve with dean.

so I mean - of course cas means more to this story. of course he’s meant more than a few seconds of grief, after 12 years. but just because that’s the last time we see him on screen doesn’t mean we don’t value his story, and celebrate how it too came full circle.

You mention cas as a sort of avatar for a different potential ending for the brothers, and highlight him representing:

An ending where higher powers stop yanking them around and they get to actually live in the life they’ve built for themselves.

So while i never considered cas an avatar for that, i do think we all wanted the brothers to have their freedom. “finally free.” so we can agree on wanting that end. but we disagree on whether it was delivered, i guess? because i feel it was.

you also talk about what you and many other fans conceivably wanted a happier ending to look like. can i -- i’m going to be totally honest. i have not seen a single person who’s critiquing the end saying “i just wanted sam and dean to grow old hunting together with their dog until they retire together and die of old age.”

would that be satisfying to those who are mad about the end? i personally don’t think so, but maybe my opinion is being coloured by the most vitriolic fans i’ve seen. if sam and dean got to have the life they wanted free of chuck, and dean didn’t die, and they kept going (or retired and opened a bar together!). maybe sam still had a kid, but again because romance wasn’t the point, the wife wasn’t important and they left her blurry still so we could interpret ourselves if she was a wife or a co-parent or a surrogate or what. maybe dean has a kid too, with a similar question-mark-wife. maybe we get a few images of them having a holiday with jodie and the girls. and then getting to heaven together in old age, greeting bobby with a beer, and going for a drive.

would that be an end that wouldn’t cause fandom uproar? i would enjoy it, soft an slightly discordant as it would be to me. i prefer the ending we got, bittersweet and heartbreaking though it was, but i wouldn’t be taking to social media to yell about it if we got a softer epilogue, so to speak.

on the other hand... would that still not be enough, at least not for so many of the angry fans? i’m genuinely unsure. it seems to me that so much of the ire is about destiel itself, even if people are pretending it’s about more and other things than that. not everyone, but like, a big portion of them. which leads me to believe that nothing short of dean and cas at least interpretable as together is what they wanted. if every other single thing about the existing finale was the same except that cas was the one to greet dean instead of bobby, and even with the same basic dialogue, without discussing the confession, but they have a lingering smile, and dean leaves to drive and wait for sam with the promise he’ll see cas later - 

if everything else stayed the same except who greeted dean, i genuinely don’t believe i’d be seeing almost any critique of the finale on my dash. maybe i’m cynical, but that’s where i’m at.

which is part of why i really struggle to believe that people are engaging in good faith when they critique the finale. because i feel like if it offered them either a) everything they’re purportedly asking for but still no cas and zero hint of destiel, vs. b) every other thing they claim to hate stays the same except there’s a wink and nod to destiel - i believe they would take the wink and nod. 

   On to some other things you raised:

But how can you know to walk away from a tragedy if the tragedy says “the end won’t be a tragedy, keep watching” right up until it ends in tragedy?

Oh i Get this. I hate thinking i’m consuming fun media only for it to rip my heart out at the end. i’ve literally - well, i’ve had a very unpleasant and distressing experience of this, actually. so i get it. also the opposite: i sometimes feel disappointed when i’m consuming media that is gripping and intense and painful, but then the end is too easy, too soft and happy?

BUT - supernatural never pretended it would have a happy end? the end was so. much. happier. than i ever expected. the Swan Song end was going to have Sam in hell being tortured by lucifer for eternity. according to something i read which i am fundamentally too lazy to link because who knows if it would have turned out this way but -- kripke was apparently going to have Dean jump in the cage with him at that end, if the series ended on S5? the ‘horror’ ending. completely devastating sacrifice for mankind (sam), and completely devastating sacrifice for his brother (dean). just -- oof. even if that wasn’t the plan and the series would’ve ended as the episode did - sam was still in the cage and cas was off waging war in heaven and dean was living every day knowing he was alive and his brother was being tortured.

i’m sorry if you thought you were watching a happier show. i know how much that hurts. that doesn’t mean the story was actually that happy though. sometimes, it’s on us as consumers to acknowledge we were misreading the media. i’ve had to do this. it’s hard, it hurts, but it helps you consume things healthier. i’ve had to do this growing recently, and i’m better off for it.

regarding the specific manner of dean’s death - that’s really not what my post was about and i’m not gonna address it here. i’ve talked about it elsewhere and so have others, and @lovetincture‘s original post spelled it out beautifully, in how human it was. i have feelings on how and why i loved dean’s death, and why it was the absolute opposite of what Chuck’s ending was and what he wanted (no blaze of glory), but i’ll leave those for another time.

They cast aside all the relationships they’ve built. [...] They lost/walked away from the life and home they built in the bunker. Dean got a season 1 death. Sam got a season 1 life.

I feel that there is a very huge difference between regression and progression when it comes to cyclical storytelling. And that difference seems to be missing from the ongoing discussions i’ve seen about this in fandom.

Coming full circle to season 1 does not at all mean that the development is ‘undone’ or that the story has regressed or that anything has been lost or destroyed. It can mean that, if the storyteller doesn’t know what the hell they’re doing, but in this case i don’t (personally) feel it’s a fair critique.

Dean’s death might parallel his s1 not-quite death from Faith, but the s15 result of that death is night and day. Dean is no longer alone. Dean does not go up to a lonely heaven filled with bittersweet memories, where even his canonical soulmate and him have wide gulfs between the memories they fill their shared heaven with. Dean dies a hunter, but he dies a hunter who literally saved earth and changed heaven and gets to spend eternity with his brother, side-by-side and together without all the pain and miscommunication, and he gets to see his family and loved ones too. he died having literally made the world so much better.

even without that though?

his story comes full circle, but dean’s character development isn’t about his death, it’s about the fact that in the first several seasons dean could hardly admit he cared without acting like his teeth were being pulled. he was too afraid of abandonment to ask for someone to be by his side. he was too afraid of rejection to let anyone in. and in the end? he asks sam to stay. he tells him that he loves him. he pours his heart out and says all the things that 15 years ago were stoppered in his throat, words trying and failing to claw their way free but his hurt and fears were too deep.

dean is free.

the point of dean’s story coming full circle to season 1 parallels was specifically to highlight this incredible development, not to undermine it. he is different. he is free. 

god it makes me tear up just thinking about how happy i am for him despite how gutted i was by that scene??

(i could write a similar analysis for sam, about how he left for stanford to escape his life and how his finale life montage bits were the opposite of that, but honestly this post is long enough already).

Destiel is loosely a part of that promise in the sense that Castiel is a part of that promise. The symbol of free will

You make a super interesting argument about Cas being a symbol of free will. I don’t have much to say about it, because I’m gonna mull it over, because I think it’s kinda cool and I’ve never thought about it.

That’s - all i’ve got. thanks again for engaging. i’m happy to continue the convo if you have questions or want to reblog/reply 

(though my followers might hate me omg, i’ve been spamming long spn meta posts for weeks now, it’s just been so confronting to see the ongoing fan reaction on twitter and how divided it is...)

[uaklauslovesdave]

Hi, thank you for sending me asks, I really appreciate it! :D Could you do 002 for klave, I always want to hear your thoughts about them <3

my buddy, my dude, it’s been roughly 17 years since you sent this ask, and i’m oh so sorry for taking this long to answer. it got to be one of those situations where i wanted to do it Properly, which of course brought the anxiety, which of course then brought the avoidance. But we’re here now! it’s a new era and i have a whole bunch of klave thoughts to dump on my unsuspecting followers. let us begin.

when i started shipping it:

Pretty much immediately! I remember first watching s1 and getting that slow confirmation that Klaus time traveled to the Vietnam War. We saw him on the bus with his fatigues and bloody hands and I was like ‘oh god oh no he went to Vietnam didn’t he.’ And then later we have Klaus experiencing flashbacks in the bathtub and there are echoes of the noises of war but also a strong and clear “Dave!” And in that moment my interest was piqued. Dave, he said? Who is this Dave? Is this someone he loved? Did he have a war-time romance with another soldier? And I was hopeful but I also didn’t want to get too ahead of myself because of Queer Baiting in Media reasons (like, I was in the marvel fandom, ok? I went through the whole stucky dance routine). But then, but then! We got more. We got roughly five minutes (or less?) of scenes of Klaus dropping down in front of a disoriented soldier, of this soldier introducing himself as Dave on a bus, of Klaus and Dave dancing in a bar, of Klaus and Dave sharing a kiss in a quiet corner, of Dave bleeding out and dying in the middle of combat as Klaus sobs above him. And it was quick and it was short but it was meaningful and it was tender and immediately I knew that I was gone for them. There was no turning back at this point. I was all in on the Klave Train.

my thoughts:

My thoughts? Where do I even start? I have many! Some are incoherent! Some are devastating! Some are sickeningly sweet! Some are raunchy! Stay tuned to find out!

what makes me happy about them/what makes me sad about them:

So I decided to combine these two questions because, well, I Do Not Know how to untie the happy and the sad when it comes to klave. I tried and I cannot do it. They’re two sides of the same coin with these two. Because their entire relationship is tinted by tragedy, you know? They only met each other because Klaus was tortured and then flung into a notoriously traumatizing war in the 1960s. And who knows what number tour Dave was on. Had he been there for just 2 months or was this second or third time around? I’m not sure which option is more painful, really. And it’s unclear, did Dave genuinely want to serve in the military? Did he truly subscribe to those values instilled by his family? I’d lean towards no, based on the conversation Klaus tries to have with the Younger Dave in the diner. But I think it took Dave some time to get there, as he grew older and came to better understand and accept himself and perhaps grew more and more disillusioned with the life he was pushed into. And then there’s Klaus, whose own experiences somewhat parallel Dave’s (they just happened on a different timeline). Klaus, who grew up under Reginald’s reign of terror, who was taught to be a soldier just like Dave was. But his own disillusionment was expedited and he was able to rebel and remove himself from that scene more easily than Dave could (but at the expense of losing shelter and security and stability). And we have some insights into what it was like for Klaus to grow up in that environment, constantly surrounded by death. When we first meet him he is a person who clearly does not do genuine attachment or sincerity, because that is far too vulnerable and far too dangerous in his experience. He looks out for himself and he does what he needs to do to get by, and he approaches things from a casual, crass (safe) distance. And then there’s Dave, who we learn a little bit about from his interactions with Klaus in 1963 Dallas. He appears earnest and kind, just a Really Good Kid. He seems somewhat confused by Klaus, but also intrigued. Pretty much every time we see Klaus interact with someone in the 1960’s who is not a member of Destiny’s Children they approach him with disdain (referring to him as “pretty boy,” kicking him out of the diner, etc.). But not Dave. Not until he is pressured into it by Uncle Homophobe. And after that Dave seeks him out and apologizes, says that’s not him. And he and Klaus talk, and we see that they really knew each other, they really had a relationship, but by the end of the conversation Dave has been pushed too far. He’s not quite ready to rebel yet, he’s not quite able to make that leap into living as his true self. Just like Klaus, Dave grew up trapped and restricted and surrounded by ghosts. Not literal ones, no, but the ghosts of dead war heroes who came before him, the ghosts of the Ideal Man and Good Son that he thought he had to be, that he thought he had to prove he could become. And it’s not quite clear how and when Dave finally got to that point where he could rebel, where he could finally push past the fear, knock down the walls of the box he had been shoved into. But by the time he and Klaus crossed paths in 1968 Vietnam he was ready. And Klaus was ready. And they brought that genuine, true, real love out in each other. Something both of them probably thought was never possible. Something both of them probably thought was just a myth. Just turning themselves inside out and sharing that with each other. Trusting the other to take care of it and hold and keep it safe. All in the middle of a deadly war. It’s beautiful and it’s painful and it’s why I love them.

things done in fanfic that annoy me:

Nothing really specific comes to mind. Generally if there’s something I don’t like in a fanfic I’ll stop reading and move on. There is, of course, the Fanon Klaus Problem that makes its way into klave fics, so I suppose that annoys me. Or stories where Dave is one-dimensional and seems to exist just to comfort and take care of Klaus. But really, I don’t wanna hate on anyone who writes fanfic in a particular way. You do you. If it appeals to me I’ll read it and if it doesn’t I’ll just pass it by. No big deal.

things i look for in fanfic:

It absolutely depends on the day and what I’m in the mood for in that particular moment. I’m a sucker for angst so I absolutely do not mind reading something terribly sad and tragic. I like hurt/comfort with an emphasis on the hurt. I’m a fan of the GhostDave Watches Over Klaus Through the Years genre. I like stories that explore their time together in Vietnam. I’m into AU’s that include AliveDave traveling back to 2019 with Klaus and they hang out in Klaus’ room in the academy and Dave meets the siblings and Diego gives him a shovel talk. Sometimes I just want that sweet, sweet smut. Mostly I look for something that is both lovely and sad, which is not hard to find because that is, essentially, their relationship. There’s lots of good stuff out there. All y’all writers are talented. I salute you.

my kinks:

Alright, I’m just gonna preface this by saying that I will try my best to be unapologetically open about this, but at my core I am both shy and repressed. My easy and safe answer to this is that my kink for klave is love, happiness, and tender intimacy. That’s what I really want for them. But also. But also! Let them be smutty! Let them find places to sneak away and fuck, Dave’s hand over Klaus’ mouth to stop him from making noise that will alert the other soldiers to their activities. Or maybe they’re sitting under a tarp in the pouring rain and Klaus sees how far he can take it, and Dave doesn’t back down, and it ends up with Klaus blowing Dave while some other guys are sitting just feet away, oblivious to what’s going on between Katz and Hargreeves just over there. And then there’s that time they get to take leave together, and they’re able to get a hotel room, just to themselves, with real walls and a door that locks and a bed and everything. And the digs aren’t great but it feels like a palace compared to what they’re used to, and they absolutely do not waste this opportunity. Dave fucks Klaus into the mattress, and Klaus gets to learn what it’s like to have someone take control because you actually want them to and you feel safe with them, and Dave gets to learn what it’s like to have someone trust you implicitly and be willing to be vulnerable with you. And it’s not perfect, of course, sometimes their histories and understandings of sex and intimacy bump heads, but they love each other, they really do, and they work through it. And they both cry during sex at some point. For Dave it’s the first time he’s done so, for Klaus it’s not (but this is nothing like those other times this is because he wants to be here this is because he’s overwhelmed with love this is a release this is being seen this is being cared for).

who i’d be comfortable with them ending up with if not each other:

Let me be real and say that I really, really, really want them to end up with each other, and I think that this is where the show is headed. But, if that is not the case, as long as they are happy I will be happy. Perhaps that is cliche, but oh well. Just let them experience love and support, whether that’s with each other, someone else, or just on their own.

my happily ever after for them:

I don’t know how and I don’t know when (like seriously, when in the timeline is a big question), but I want them to find a way to be together. Maybe it involves some time-traveling, maybe it involves some timeline-hopping, maybe it involves some Commission interference, maybe one or both of them will be dead, maybe (most likely) it involves something that has not even crossed my mind as a possibility. But, like I said, I think that somehow there WILL be a (perhaps nontraditional) happily ever after for them. It might take some time to get there and I don’t think it’s gonna be a smooth road, but I do think that’s the ultimate destination. And I’m looking forward to the whole process.

who is the big spoon/little spoon:

Good question! My first instinct was Klaus as little spoon. Because he is Klaus but also because of the Bar Kiss scene where Dave tenderly cradles his face and those Very Important blurry behind the scenes instagram photos of Klaus resting his head on Dave. But I also think it would be really nice for Dave to be the little spoon? Because Klaus gets to hold him and act as a Protector and maybe he can feel Dave’s heartbeat beneath his (hello) hand and he gets to wrap around him and hold on tight and he can let go when he wants to but he doesn’t want to, he wants to stay right here as long as Dave will have him. And Dave will have Klaus wrapped around him, holding on, as long as Klaus wants to stay. Dave gets to be held and cocooned in the arms of this beautiful person he loves. Dave doesn’t have to be strong right now, he doesn’t have to put on the face of the Good Soldier. All he has to do is fall into the space between them.

what is their favorite non-sexual activity:

I’m gonna say that they had a lot of time to sit together and talk while they were in Vietnam. Sure, they had their duties and sometimes they were in the shit but there was also a lot of down time, just sitting around and waiting for something to happen. And so they’d sit and they’d smoke and they would talk. About their interests, about where they come from, and eventually about the life they would build together after they got out of there. But here’s a specific image that I have: they’re sitting close together, maybe it’s dark, there’s no one nearby. Cigarette smoke lingers in the air, mingles with the fine mist. The conversation has turned to music, somehow. Conversations have a tendency to meander when Klaus is involved, and Dave follows him step for step, never tripping, never questioning how they got there. And Klaus asks Dave about his favorite song, and Dave hesitantly mentions “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence,” like he’s embarrassed, but he’s loved it for years and he wants to be honest with Klaus. And Klaus hums and says he doesn’t know it, hasn’t heard of it, and he leans against Dave, lays his head against his chest. And Dave says, that’s ok, it doesn’t matter, it’s just a stupid old song anway. But Klaus says, no, you should sing it for me, I want to hear it, I want to know it. And Dave scoffs and laughs, but Klaus looks up at him, and then Dave looks away, and his mouth lifts into a smile, something small and fragile. He turns back to Klaus, looks him the eye, and softly, so softly, starts singing, “When Liberty Valence rode to town, the womenfolk would hide…” And Klaus drops his head and shifts closer to Dave and hears the words slip from Dave’s mouth and feels the words vibrate in Dave’s chest. He closes his eyes. There’s a war going on. It’s 1968 and he’s in Vietnam and his clothes are damp but he’s right where he wants to be. The song is not romantic, but it’s the most beautiful thing he’s ever heard. He never forgets the words.

[starlitshores]

This might end up being an unpopular opinion, but I’m actually okay with public figures - specifically white hockey players - showing up late to speak out against racism and in support of Black Lives Matter.

The statements that some players have made today sound more thoughtful and considered than I would have expected from them (the bar was low). That takes more work (and, we can hope, self-reflection) than smashing the share button on a corporate sponsor’s statement or an image that only lasts one day.

And yeah, we can choose to think positively and make the assumption that the younger guys who smashed that share button did so because their thoughts, feelings, and gut responses truly align with the messages that Black Lives Matter and bigotry is wrong and we need to do better.

But for some of these guys? Their statements sound like they had to actually take the time to open their eyes to the world outside of their privileged bubble and to actually listen. They had to take the time and sit with it and then figure out how to write a public response. And when they did, they were honest enough to admit that before this, they didn’t even notice. Not just that they have never experienced racism in any form themselves, duh, but that they were somehow walking through life willingly ignorant to reality.

And we can all sit here and go “You ASSHOLE. How did you NOT KNOW?” because I’m not trying to be funny how did you miss Michael Brown’s death and the Ferguson protests six years ago? How did your heart not break hearing about Tamir Rice over eight years ago? How have you not seen the long long lists of names of Black lives lost to police brutality? How did you not even hear about BLM holding up Pride parades IN YOUR SUMMER CITY to protest the presence and inclusion of cops? HOW?

However, everything we’ve all been sharing for the last week, we’ve been sharing in an echo chamber. We already care. So, fellow white people - and this may be obvious to many and is not intended to be repetive or condescending - we’re probably not really educating each other. But we do need to take the weight off our Black and other minority friends and educate other white people. That’s one of the big things we can and should do. And we need to accept that it’ll be uncomfortable and infuriating because the people who need educating are the ones who haven’t been paying attention, haven’t cared, and/or have actively been on the other side. (You know, the ones we don’t want to talk to at Thanksgiving or school or work. For REASONS.)

I’m biased as fuck about this because I teach racist white kids for a living. And I get one semester to shake those deeply ingrained prejudices loose enough that when I present new information or new opportunities to learn and expand their understanding of the world, something gets through. And whether it’s a 15 year old girl sobbing that she’s been a horrible person her whole life (we had a chat about white guilt and forgiving your child self in order to move forward as an ally) or a grown ass rich man finally not looking away and acknowledging his own privilege, I’ll take it. It’s a step.

What I took away from these statements, as lukewarm as some of them were, and as close-to-but-not-on-the-mark as others were, was a little ray of hope.

Based on NHL history - even though he’s answered questions about YCP and queer players and even used the word “paradigm” correctly in his response - I did not expect a player like Jonathan Toews to make any statement let alone one that I saw several white hockey fans in the comments respond to positively. And I definitely didn’t EVER think he’d also make a reference to the experience of North American First Nations in what I personally saw - ymmv - as a little dig at his team’s racist as fuck logo. (Please please please advocate for a change in the logo and branding, Jonny...)

Perhaps there are others who haven’t yet spoken up because they don’t feel ready. Either they’re not informed enough, or they don’t know how to say it, or they’re coming out of some murky dark hole of racist shit, or their white bubble just popped and the world is scarier than they realised. And there are for sure others who haven’t said anything because they’re quite happy in their white bubble and/or because they’re on the cops’ side and don’t want to bother with the PR. (Note: Eichel is an American captain, and Parise is from Minneapolis so their freedom and expectation to speak is, I’d argue, different.)

What I do know is that I’m okay with a late statement from someone who is doing the work and means it, and will happily hold them accountable for living up to it in future.

EDIT: I removed a section about Tyler Seguin. I’ve seen so much negativity about Tyler lately, especially regarding his stint in the Bahamas and that beer pong thing. And I think I allowed that and his past immature comments/behaviour to make me a bit more apologetic than I wanted to be regarding one of my favourite players. My literal gateway into hockey. I still want to acknowledge those past behaviours and my own worry when I saw that he posted because my bar for him IS higher than for other players based on what I’ve seen him do in his community and I was worried he might not meet it. He exceeded it. And since his original statement, he has STEPPED UP. He did a great interview with The Athletic, and the boy is now out there at a BLM protest in Dallas. That’s my baby and I’m proud. The end.

[ceciliadickson]

P2D2

Cecilia Dickson

Halbert Barton

SOC 3-001

27 February 2020

How One Musical is Changing the Future

“For one thing, it is—by cold critical standards—the worst of the lot, with a repetitive score, painfully forced rhymes, cartoonish acting and a general approach that mistakes decibel level (literally and metaphorically) for emotional intensity” is what New York Times critic Ben Brantley wrote about the cult musical Be More Chill after it’s opening on Broadway on March 10th, 2019. Be More Chill is a musical by Joe Iconis with a book by Joe Tracz, based on the young adult sci-fi novel of the same name by Ned Vizzini. It follows high school loser Jeremy Heere on his quest to become popular by taking a pill called a with a microcomputer inside of it called a SQUIP, which implants itself into Jeremy’s brain and helps him to be more chill. Many shenanigans follow. Sound weird? It is, but that is the point.

The bad reviews did not stop at the Times. Mashable called it “a disappointment” and The Hollywood Reporter stated it “contains serious problems.” So, does it come as any surprise that the show closed five months after opening?

From the outside looking in, no. A bad Times review is a bad Times review, and a bad Times review will close a production. But a step into the Lyceum Theatre’s doors while Be More Chill played on it’s stage would suggest an entirely different story.

Excited teenagers dressed in full cosplay, standing ovations after the show’s hit “Michael in the Bathroom” belted out by George Salazar (who plays Jeremy’s best friend, Michael), a screaming stagedoor crowd that caused passersby to stop and see what celebrities where coming out (they often left disappointed), fans crying as they got to meet their favorite actors—The two pictures put together do not make much sense. What made this musical connect with this young crowd in ways that theatre critics missed, causing the show to close despite its enthusiastic audience?

Fourteen-year-old Luna discusses the wide expanse of diversity the show contains. “I especially saw this in George Salazar's performance,” she says, “with someone who's half Filipino, like me, playing such a major role in the show!” Similarly, another fan, Jenn, describes how “as a fellow Filipino who is also part of the LGBTQIA+ community, it honestly made me feel so seen for the first time” to see Salazar, a gay half-Filipino, half-Ecuadorian man, perform on a Broadway stage in a lead role. “It made me tear-up.”

The representation does not stop at race. Another fan, Skylar, says that “the fact that a character actually says ‘Oh my God, I am totally bi’ literally makes me want to sob” in reference to a bisexual character, Rich Goranski. Salazar’s character wears a rainbow pride patch on his hoodie and has the famous line, “My mothers would be thrilled!” that caused fans in the audience to scream and cheer nightly.

Beyond representation, many people love the show because of it’s message. Twenty-five year old Erika states “It gives a voice to all the weirdos and people with anxiety/depression but in a way that's also comedic and colorful and fun and people really need that!” Similarly, twenty-eight year old Kayleigh describes her experience connecting to the show. “Then, when we got to [the song] “Upgrade” and [the lyric] ‘I'm tired of being the person that everyone thinks that I am’ was sung, and I immediately began to cry in my seat because, for the entirety of my life, I've worn a facade, quieting my interests and my desires in order to make other people happy . . . I felt seen as a person.”

If representation, from race to sexuality to mental illness, is what drew people to Be More Chill, the community is where people stayed, finding their home in it’s fandom. Through being mutual fans of the show, Luna met her girlfriend, Taylor, who happily explains “also because of [Be More Chill] I have a girlfriend! She is the greatest thing that has ever happened to me.” Kayleigh and Erika have found friendship in a Twitter group chat called the “Vintage Cassettes,” a play on a lyric in the show, while Luna and Taylor have true, close friends in their Twitter group chats, all formed because of their members’ mutual love for Be More Chill.

The community of Be More Chill fans—often called ‘stans’—is unlike your average fandom scene. Kayleigh describes how “being a stan of Be More Chill means being accepting of people's identities and being there for each other,” and Luna says, “in my experience, Be More Chill stans have been a lot more welcoming than stans I've interacted with in other fandoms.” Be More Chill stans are “loud and passionate” and unashamedly so.

Returning to the question at hand of what made this show connect to its audience, it was how the show was so open and welcoming, with it’s diverse cast of whacky, fun, weird characters, it allowed people to see themselves onstage. It shows people that there is a place where they belong. Luna remarks: “As someone who has stanned theatre for more than three years, it took my discovery of George and Be More Chill just over a year ago to get me to understand that I, a mixed race LGBT+ person, do have a place in this world and in this community.” Be More Chill gave so many people one thing that every person needs, a place to belong, and people to share that place with.

And while the show is not every person’s cup of tea, especially theatre critics, the stans know that. “The show isn't perfect and doesn't try to be,” Taylor says. “Be More Chill is one of the most loved and hated Broadway musicals, which makes the fandom very different. We are all very close and very protective of the show as a whole.” But, speaking on the show’s importance, Taylor states that “Be More Chill gives people a voice that they didn't know they had.” Jenn describes how “that kind of impact is something not to be undermined.”

And it is true. Influences such as Be More Chill are important in society. The fandom behind Be More Chill has given people a family, a found family. It has inspired young people of color, young LGBT+ people, like Luna and Jenn, showing them that they have a place in this world. The show’s message and how it handles topics such as mental illness has connected to millions across the globe. The societal influence of Be More Chill is far greater than any Times review or single opinion. It’s influence has inspired young people, connecting them to friends on the other side of the world, providing them with support they often do not find at home. It is showing young people that they do belong in this world, and in doing so, it is shaping the young people— the future—of this world.

-------

Glossary Terms:

Cosplay: The practice/art of dressing up as a fictional character

Stagedoor: Where actors enter and exit the theatre - often, this is where fans traditionally meet the actors. Stagedooring is the act of waiting at the stagedoor after a show to meet the actors and have their programs sign, a loved tradition by many theatregoers

LGBTQIA+: An acronym referring to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, etc., community

Stan: A shortened version of the term stalker-fan, which started out with negative connotations, but in recent years has come to be a positive term meaning super-fan. It can also be used as a verb to describe the act of becoming a stan. For example: “After hearing her new album, I totally stan Taylor Swift.”

Fandom: an umbrella/unifying group term for people who are avid fans of a piece of work

Found family:  A group of people not related by blood who consider themselves to be a family in every other sense of the word

-------

Works Cited

Brantley, Ben. “Review: Anxious Teenagers Learn to 'Be More Chill' on a Big Stage.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 Mar. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/theater/review-be-more-chill-joe-iconis.html.

Scheck, Frank. “'Be More Chill': Theater Review.” The Hollywood Reporter, 11 Mar. 2019, www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/be-more-chill-theater-review-1193609.

Strecker, Erin. “'Be More Chill' Will Probably Be a Broadway Hit. Too Bad It's Also a Disappointment.” Mashable, Mashable, 10 Mar. 2019, mashable.com/article/be-more-chill-review-broadway/.

[mittensmorgul]

do you think it's open to interpretation whether dean and cas are in love with each other? Like is it just as valid an interpretation to say they're not? Whenever anyone calls destiel "one interpretation" or whatever, my hackles rise. And I know I'm overly sensitive about this stuff, being a gay and whatnot, but I mean, is it? Am I just insecure because my otp isn't canon, or is destiel really more valid than other readings or what? What do you think?

Hi there. :)

I’m gonna give you the diplomatic, academic answer, and then I’m gonna give you the grumpy-ass queer lady answer. Hold on to your horses. :)

Polite answer:

All media is open to interpretation. Of course, this doesn’t mean that all interpretations are equally valid, or equally supported by canon, especially when taken in context of the entire body of the work in question.

For example, I replied to a post the other day about 13.17, and that scene where Dean and Sam are-- on first glance-- rather disrespectful of the extremely rare and valuable books in the bunker... but in context of the rest of the episode and the rest of the season, that montage wasn’t about disrespecting those books at all. It had less than nothing to do with the books themselves as objects or as sources of knowledge that should be properly cared for and respected. But out of context it kinda looks that way. So, based on that one short gif set, it might seem like a perfectly legitimate interpretation to suggest that Sam and Dean were careless with the immense knowledge and invaluable books they’ve found themselves in possession of. But in the larger context of their entire history, of all their interactions with the bunker and the untold store of knowledge it holds,  and with the context of the specific reasons for their frustration in that particular scene, it seems obvious that there’s a lot more to the story, you know?

You could technically argue just about any weird headcanon can be supported by canon. I wrote this weird little post right after 12.11 aired, and it sat in my drafts for a good long time before I finally posted it. But there’s nothing in canon that legit quashes the possibility that endgame fish!Cas is where the story’s been headed all along. He’s positively swimming in fish metaphors. (sorry, I couldn’t resist) Does that abundance of fish, fishing imagery, and water imagery that have surrounded Cas for years lend itself to a literal interpretation? I mean, it’s definitely AN interpretation that is there if you want to see it, and if in your heart of hearts you believe it’s legitimately what the storytelling is attempting to convey here. But does that make it a valid interpretation that deserves serious consideration? Does it truly make sense when taking the larger story around Cas as a whole? Or is it obviously a literary theme that we’re supposed to consider through the themes traditionally associated with fish and fishing as used in countless other fictional works of the past? I suppose that sort of interpretation has been left open for us to take or leave as we see fit. It invites us to examine those references more closely, to help us understand Cas as a character and the journey his personal character arc is taking him through. It gives his experiences and growth a depth of context that is there to explore if we so choose.

(for more on Cas vs Fish, please see my tags regarding “The Fisher King.” I like to think there’s a more well-reasoned and logical line of thinking for pinning so much fish to Cas than my cracky example of fish!Cas would suggest.)

Now, looking at destiel specifically, if you take any single moment out of context, it’s absolutely possible to make an interpretation that their relationship is clearly more “brotherly,” or clearly more “familial,” or clearly one of “very close friends.” But it requires the same removal from the larger context to explain away what taken with the entirety of their history begins to look entirely undeniable.

I suppose, since Supernatural is an open canon and the story hasn’t been fully told yet, that it’s possible the writers could change course with the storytelling. It’s possible that something might prevent them from taking Dean and Cas and their story to the conclusion they’ve been building to for the last ten years. They could decide to leave this particular “interpretation” open-ended and unresolved.

Since that is always a possibility, and because I’m not psychic, nor do I have any top secret inside information from the writers and showrunners, I can’t say that my particular interpretation is more valid or correct or likely than anyone else’s. But I have yet to come up against a credible, coherent explanation for the entire body of extant canon that invalidates my particular interpretation, either.

The vast majority of arguments against boil down to logical fallacies-- cherry-picking scenes out of context as “proof,” straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks. Because of this, I’m content to wait for canon to play out. I’ll happily watch the rest of the story unfold, and happily continue to interpret what I’m witnessing as a whole instead of attempting to dissect it out and explain away what I see as an entirely logical progression of storytelling.

As an aside here, I find it entirely fascinating that one of the most common complaints I read from people who deny Dean and Cas are in love is that the writing has become progressively more terrible, that the story of Supernatural as a whole makes less and less sense, and that the characters are behaving in increasingly “out of character” ways. And as someone in possession of rational capabilities, I wonder if their disconnect from the storytelling is simply their refusal to see and accept that perhaps their “interpretation” of the story is just... not correct.

When we attempt to deny or rationalize away certain interpretations of characterization, or certain progressions of events and how they relate to one another, the larger narrative just falls apart, you know? Of course it doesn’t make sense if you exclude large portions of it because you don’t want to see it or believe it’s happening, or important to the story.

Meanwhile, I’m over here loving every minute of it (okay... most minutes of it). So even if my interpretation isn’t absolutely 100% “correct” (and really, with any media, there’s always different ways to interpret everything, from what the color of the curtains might imply to who’s gonna get to fire Chekhov’s Gun in the third act), I’m content to continue to interpret it in a way that not only makes me personally happiest, but in a way that makes the story itself seem both logical and entertaining, as well.

Okay, that’s the end of the rational portion of this essay. Now on to the angry queer lady portion:

There’s more canon evidence for Dean and Cas being in love, or at the very least caring for one another to ridiculous, rather mind-numbing degrees, than there is for practically every canon heterosexual couple on television in the last fifty years. Think of any slow burn, will they-won’t they hetero couple, and do the point-by-point checklist of all the tropes they burned through before they got to the love declarations and the kissing and the happily ever afters (or worse, the dramatic breaking up and getting back together, or even worse, the tragically breaking up forever). I challenge anyone to name one hetero-presenting couple who required as many love tropes for audiences to recognize and acknowledge they were in love. Yeah, I’m thinking of that whole “they shared a pencil” post.

So yeah, there is likely a measure of heteronormativity to it, and a lot of the arguments against also devolve into rather gross denouncements that there’s no way Dean’s not straight, because he said so that one time... Mr. “I lie professionally” who also never actually said he was straight... gah... I’m not gonna dig up every ancient meta post on the subject. If anyone is legitimately interested in understanding why making those same tired arguments just doesn’t have any legitimacy in a reasoned discussion, they can damn well do their own digging. It’s not like any of the evidence is difficult to uncover, and it’s not my job to spoon feed it to every naysayer myself.

I feel like I’m standing on a Mt. Everest size pile of rational, reasonable, well-argued analysis supporting the claim that Dean and Cas are in love. *stands back and points at my whole entire blog again* If anyone would like to come back at me with something even remotely worth my time and attention to persuade me to alter my interpretation, I suggest they get busy. I’ll just be up here on top of my mountain enjoying the clean, destiel-scented air up here.

And finally, who says it’s not canon? Ah, right. Moving goalposts. At this point, I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that Dean and Cas don’t love one another. And profoundly, at that. I mean, you don’t give up an army for one guy if you don’t at least like him a lil bit. You don’t shout down God begging him to bring back that dude you’re kinda buddies with, or sink into a suicidal funk that reverses completely within minutes of finding out said buddy’s alive again. You don’t offer to march to your death with your chum because he’s such a nice guy and all. I mean... honestly. How far in denial does someone have to be to suggest they don’t love each other? At this point, when comparing Sam and Dean’s reactions far into s13 to Cas’s death in 12.23, either you accept that Dean has much stronger and far different feelings about the loss of someone that Sam does love and considers a brother, or else you kinda have to assume that Sam’s just kind of a dick for not being as broken up about Cas’s death as Dean is. So... which interpretation do you think is the one they’re trying to convey?

Bleh, whatever. I await the inevitable inbox full of nastiness that I will cheerfully delete while judging every anon who sends it as someone who really should find a better hobby than antagonizing strangers on the internet over a work of fiction.

Anon, basically, don’t let the bastards grind you down, okay?

Now for some reason I feel like listening to Achtung Baby. Imma go do that and feel the love.

[babygirlgalitzine]

sorry but i’m annoyed and i need to rant. as a bisexual, who literally NEVER heard that word growing up (and if i did it would’ve saved me a lot of self inflicted hurt and pain) i really don’t understand how people can actually just sit there and make a gifset actually TWISTING robert’s coming out scene. that scene, which aired in october 2016 (WHEN I WAS SIXTEEN YEARS OLD, ALMOST SEVENTEEN) was the first time i ever heard anyone refer to themselves as a bisexual, and so it helped me a lot- and i know it helped so many other people.

it’s sickening, and quite frightening really, that someone can happily just post something like that and think it’s acceptable. that’s like me making a gifset of aaron beating up everyone he’s ever punched and going “there, THATS an abuser.”

how stupid can someone be to post that? it’s utterly damaging. honest to god, people need to realise the difference between what the canon is and what the fanon is. because yes, the first couple was abusive, don’t get me wrong. but to say another couple is (that you previously loved), and then go one step further by including a coming out scene where he says he was literally abused by his own father for being queer, and how he doesn’t want to be like that- well it’s disgusting and that’s all there is too it.

[elizabethrobertajones]

You know, I desperately want Destiel to be end game as much as anybody, but somedays I think I would just be content if the show just textually acknowledged that Dean's bi. Something as simple as a dude at a bar asking Dean to come home w/ him while they're on a case and Dean saying something like "any other day I'd take you up on that but I can't tonight." IDK the subtext that Dean is bi is strong enough that I can't say the GA would be shocked by it and it would just be a nice textual nugget.

Hey, sorry it took so long to answer this, I’ve not been at my best for ages… Been thinking about this all week though :P 

I think it feels to me like the general audience can discard or mentally discredit an AWFUL lot of implication and direct hints - there have been comments and moments in many bits of media which imply directly or with heavy innuendo that a character may be interested in a non-hetero way to someone - especially things like teasy moments… 

Thinking of things like in HIMYM there’s an ongoing joke about Lily having a crush on Robin, but since she’s with Marshall the entire show, it doesn’t really go anywhere, and when they do kiss the dynamic swaps and Robin is left with kind of a crush on her and Lily’s over it and it’s all a joke, and even though they kissed it was a lol girls kissing is hot joke for the whole show, and it never turned into a discussion of sexuality, even if they would both happily stay married in their heterosexual marriages. (And… Uh. Robin stays married okay, I’m pretty sure that was the alternate ending in the DVD unless I hallucinated it out of sheer frustration >.>) Anyway to me it seems pretty natural to read both of them a little queer to full on bi, and if it had gone even a little bit differently Lily especially could be good representation for a bi woman in a relationship with a man who just happens to have ended up falling in love with him and that’s normal and doesn’t invalidate her sexuality? But yeah. No such nuance, so this whole thing barely registers for people and in general people would think it’s all a joke. 

I mean, even Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, which is where that Getting Bi song comes from, has an episode where the main character has a huge rival-crush on the girlfriend of the guy she’s into, and gets so into her she even kisses her, but there’s no exploration of what that means to her and when her boss comes out as bi with that number, no exploration of if she might be as well, even if all these characters eventually might feel more comfortable defining themselves as straight it’s just weird to me there’s all these jokes about it which can go as far as kisses, use overly romantic language or a long-running joke of Lily heavily coming onto Robin or something, and yet unless you’re like a magpie collecting all this stuff it’s all still just noise. 

I bet a ton of people would not even have considered the characters were not-straight, even when directly pointing their eyes at this moment, consider it all as a joke or that it’s just something straight people do sometimes because of the cultural massive repression of bisexuality and the indications in more liberal times and places that when polled people will be majority queer to straight with at least some bi leanings… There’s all these headlines about gen Z being the gayest generation yet, but it’s not something in the water, it’s that previous generations have never dared be as open or consider that they’re non-straight, especially if they are easily attracted to people heterosexually… 

I think the Aaron scene was 90% of the way to what you are describing, minus Dean giving him a raincheck overtly, and Aaron admits it was a ruse before any further tension can follow. I think, having snooped a lot of blog archives in my time, that really was a turning point that got a lot of people convinced of the textual possibilities, especially with the director/writer commentary basically confirming it. And obviously it didn’t work to make EVERYONE see it, although fandom swelled that season and it was a very dramatic moment in the history of bi!Dean and Destiel within fandom. 

To give another example from outside the show, I’ve been watching Black Sails with my friend, who is very straight in mindset, and - major spoilers for that show ahead - the main character is confirmed to be overtly queer in the  middle of the second season. I think I know exactly the point I would have picked up this was a queer narrative in the first season, and what would have made me suspicious about the mysteriously un-revealed backstory. The build up to the reveal was amazing in the second season and I think if you didn’t get it you really need to do a rewatch, because my friend was utterly blindsided by the revelation, only catching on a scene before it happened (she does like guessing and is smart at TV if she knows all the cues to start with). But she’s - sorry - at sea with the character’s motivations and reasons, and understands his earlier actions almost completely backwards to me as she took him on face value for far too long without suspecting there was more than treasure and restoring his name on order, and not understanding his motives to be so political or to want to burn the entire system down or his utter alienation from the system; even after the reveal she didn’t understand the degree to which things were on the line or the forces pressuring him one way or the other. 

(I find it really interesting and I’m not really disagreeing with her, I’m curious how the surface layer all reads tbh :P) 

In any case, I don’t really have much confidence in a wider general audience taking throwaway moments to be full canon, and generally would need declarations and inescapable discussion or plot arcs for it. I think in some ways the trail is being blazed now - when Rosa came out as bi in b99 it had a sort of special episode educating you on it as much as being very sympathetic for bi people to watch and see literally a bulletpoint list of their issues and weird things people say about it acted out on screen. The subplot is basically the masterclass in addressing it. 

(So is the Getting Bi song :P although it covers less of the issues overall, it does make it fun and normalises the idea into a dance routine and deals with someone discovering the label for themselves and being thrilled it makes their life make sense.) 

I don’t think spn should do anything quite so specific or hilarious, but I love @bluestar86‘s concept of an episode which uses flashbacks to reveal Dean’s bisexuality - basically like with Robin in 9x07, but I think even just showing it was a childhood crush and he never figured it all out at the time but meeting the guy later in life makes things make a lot of sense or something… And we already have a template for that without going all the way into it with his reaction to meeting Gunnar Lawless, a childhood celebrity crush. So there’s paths to take which could do it.

But ultimately I think the issue is so messed up and tangled into the main arc that it would be next to impossible to confirm Dean is bi without having an utter drama about why not Destiel, as the two concepts are not, at this point, really separate or that you could have one without the other, though it would be easier to not address Dean’s sexuality in any way of assigning labels or having more than the immediately necessary self-reflection to deal with feelings for Cas without exploring deeper… (Not that I like that idea, it’s just, they could, you know? Not even in a “i don’t like labels” way but just something like Dean going “huh” and then getting together with Cas and literally no one ever makes a fuss or starts up a dialogue about why they’re now holding hands :P) 

But it’s been such a ridiculous, epic, drawn out relationship on screen that making Dean bi independent of Cas would seem bizarre and off-balance without addressing his relationship to Cas. Just because they have such an intense relationship, and within the text of the show are many many references to their relationship on many different levels, from snide comments to enormous declarations. None of this happens in isolation to other storylines or character depth. With the momentum and depth it has in the story, making Dean bi would be seen as a precursor to Destiel, and at this point cruel and strange not to address it and would beg the question of why they ever confirmed him bi in the first place, if not to leave the ship unresolved to the end but to be open for us to imagine it might happen one day when the story is over - or not, if we don’t ship it, and it’s the way to thread a needle to try and keep everyone happy. Which I’m not sure would work except for the people who very specifically would advocate for bi Dean but don’t think a ship is necessary. I mean, I know that’s a chunk of the Dean fandom, and it’s a valid way to read the text, and of course a lot of Destiel shippers are fully aware Dean is bi without any special interference from Cas about that :P 

And, I mean, in the same way, Cas’s story isn’t ALL about Dean and he has a lot of personal growth that doesn’t have to do with him or happens in spite of him in some cases. But it’s still inextricable from Cas’s character how much he loves Dean and how much Dean has meant to him, and they crossed the line of Cas loving Dean, unrequited or not, a long time ago, and Cas has been existing in a subtextual agony of being in love with Dean but seemingly unrequited for a very long time now, as that line was crossed before several season renewals made it  a painful wait for him. This doesn’t exist in a void to Dean’s sexuality either. 

So, I mean, I don’t know. I disagree with you about the general audience thing entirely, and I think this exchange you imagine could easily be absorbed by the GA to not really credit it as a full part of Dean’s character, laugh it off as a joke from him no matter how seriously he delivers it, and generally not remember him as a bisexual character. Because to straight viewers, they aren’t seeking out sexuality hints and confirmations, and such things don’t really affect their view of a character unless it becomes a textual romance. It has all the meaning sucked from it by their lack of interest and inability to sympathetically mould the character’s inner life based on their own experiences that match. If they’re not making a study of the character, these things can be dismissed as white noise, and in a few years time, a Buzzfeed article of “10 Pop Culture Characters You Never Knew Were Gay!” or something.

And it’s like, yes. We knew. We knew all along. We knew before it happened. But that doesn’t affect how people think of it.

So it feels to me like the only way if they wanted to make a real point of Dean being bi is to have the frank discussion, and devote a proper subplot amount of time to Dean’s sexuality, enough that it is clear and inescapably affecting him, or to confirm it via a relationship which would in this case conveniently by answered by the angel he’s been subtextually pining for for years, and who has his own arc of being pretty overtly in love with Dean to answer… should the show decide to go with addressing Dean’s sexuality, they have put a LOT of work into having this relationship ready and waiting, I’m just saying :P And if they only had an Aaron but x10 scene, it would STILL not really affect anything except layers below GA  - there’ll be more queer viewers who see it for the first time, and within these four walls it will obviously never be forgotten and will be a huge part of how Dean is celebrated by fandom, but I just can’t see it making an impact unless it’s more than a passing moment, because those get swallowed by a heteronormative void…

[horanmyhome]

Movie producers need to include more LGBTQ+ representation

When I was a young child, I was obsessed with the movie Snow White. I wanted to be just like her, to wear a beautiful dress of my own, sing and dance and then, in the end of my movie, get saved by a beautiful prince and live happily ever after with him. How was I, who lived with one mum and one dad and had only seen Snow White get saved by a prince, supposed to know that a prince is not the only option?

Up until 15 October, 1973, homosexuality was declared as an illness all over the world. Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatry Federal Council was the first ones to change this, and shortly after, American Psychiatric Association followed the same example, and removed it from the list over mental disorders. The years after this was followed by legalizations, and several politicians got involved and supported the matter. It was also during this time that more and more homosexual characters could be seen upon the movie screen. Before the memorable landmark, 1970, gay characters almost never made it to the final cut of the movie, and if they were lucky enough to do so, they would often fall victims for a “well-deserved” death. But even though the representation improved after 1970, it was far from perfect. Producers in Hollywood still considered homosexuality to be a joke and portrayed homosexuals in a very negative light, which they didn’t do with other minority groups. But to leave the 1970’s behind and instead return to 2017, I would like to talk about LGBTQ representation in modern movies. When I asked my mum the other day to mention at least three movies with a homosexual protagonist, she couldn’t do it. And that is exactly the problem with today’s movie productions. It’s so rare to see homosexual or transgender characters, and when we do see it, everybody makes a big fuss about it. What I think is really needed in today’s society, is a normalization of homosexual protagonists, and instead of making a big deal about it, see it as something normal.

Another important aspect that I feel like I need to discuss is the trend in modern TV-shows, where producers refuse to let go of the tradition that begun in 1970, where the producers have a tendency to kill the lesbian characters. This is often referred to as the “Lesbian death trope” and I have multiple examples supporting this, such as the 100, the walking dead, the vampire diaries and supernatural. This is only four examples out of hundreds, and I do mean that literally since there’s several lists on the internet over hundreds of dead lesbians in somewhat modern tv-shows. All of the mentioned examples have in one way or another ended a lesbian characters life, and it’s almost never for a specific reason, other than to just get rid of the character in the show. This can be seen as most degrading, conservative and ancient. So, please, stop killing the gay characters without reason. That is so 1970’s.

If we would close our eyes to the Lesbian death trope and instead focus on the positive, it has become more accepted to show a gay or trans character on the screen. Or, at least it has become more accepted to show these characters to adults. With children, it is not that common. I can only speak for myself when I say that introducing a princess to Snow White instead of a prince, would have helped me immensely to come to terms with my own sexuality and studies have also shown that introducing minority groups in a young age will decrease the prejudice later in life. These arguments can be seen more frequently on the internet when someone mentions the Disney movie Frozen. The princess, Elsa, never gets a prince in the end of the movie and that is a part of the message; she’s a damsel who can deal with her own distress. But when the producers started talking about a sequel to the movie, many couldn’t stop themselves from wishing that Disney would introduce a girlfriend to Elsa. This, however, would of course mean that the children entertainment companies would fail at their job to keep their work as non-controversial as possible. But isn’t that double standards? They decide not to show something on screen in fear of it upsetting people, when that is the problem! That is exactly what they should do, they should upset and shock and surprise until it’s no taboo anymore, until people won’t gasp and widen their eyes and say: “A gay protagonist?” Because how will it otherwise turn into something non-controversial, when no one mentions it or shows it? I say it’s time to introduce LGBTQ characters to children, and I don’t have a doubt that it will improve many lives, not only the children's lives but also the people surrounding them, who will be met with nothing but love and understanding. The children will have become used to homosexuality and it wouldn’t come as a big shock, as it does for many today. I was surprised when I first heard of it, because no one had ever mentioned it in my younger years. I was lucky to be introduced to this new world by my accepting parents, but not all of us have that advantage, although movies with gay characters meant for children to see, would be a big step in the right direction.

The beginning of my passion for LGBTQ in movies and tv-shows started a while back and something I’ve heard over the course of many years, is grown up people telling me to just imagine the gay couple’s happy ending. They have asked me why I need to see them kiss explicitly on the screen, why I need them to become canon. Maybe it seems ridiculous that it matters so much to me, maybe it seems ridiculous that I pray and pray for two characters of the same gender in a movie to end up together, but to me, it isn’t. Because to me, it’s very important. I need representation, both for my own benefits but also for many more. I’ve seen so many people suffer because of the way movie producers behave and display gay characters, to the extent where they are afraid to be who they really are because of how society tells them to be and act and feel.

A term that I, unfortunately, see more and more often is “Queerbaiting”, which means: “When an author or director gives hints, and clever twists to paint a character as possibly being queer, to satisfy queer audiences, but never outright says they are so they can keep their heterosexual audience.” I’m very familiar with the concept, since I have a certain aptitude for finding gay couples to root for. An example is BBC's adaptation of Sherlock, where the producers, Gatiss and Moffat, advertised the show by having promotional photos like the photo above this paragraph, making it look like Sherlock and John are getting married, which is not the case. They have also published similar photos, used explicit sentences in the show, made the same gay jokes over and over and have also posted very obvious posts on one of the characters blog, which all point toward one thing, and one thing only: Sherlock and John are in love. Rumours had it that all it ever was, was queerbaiting, but many used the fact that the writer, Mark Gatiss, is gay himself as a defense and said he wouldn’t do that to the viewers. But the doubts turned out to be right all along; John and Sherlock were never in love and they never ended up together. Since the four series ended, I’ve seen many people who felt let down, delusional, ashamed of their sexuality and foolish for believing that the world is really changing at all.

Queerbaiting might also work in the opposite direction which J.K Rowling is an example of. In the seventh, and last Harry Potter book, she writes about Hogwarts headmaster, Dumbledore's youth and his, as Rowling describes it, close friendship with his friend Grindelwald. Now, in the books she never writes precisely that they are in a romantic relationship, not anything close to it to be exact, but having being asked about it later, she says that they were both gay and together. Many fans were upset about this; not about the fact that they are gay, but because Rowling just swoops in ten years later and gets all the credit for making her characters diverse and having LGBTQ representation, when she really doesn’t.

To summarize this, I would just like to say that LGBTQ does matter, and it matters to more people than just to me. It’s a very important subject that I feel like people need to consider more often and not just sweep under the carpet, because the world will improve if we think about it, speak up about it and do something about it. I, for one, dream of becoming an author, and I won’t hesitate for a second to involve and represent diverse characters that will help lots of children, teenagers and adults. I would never even consider to kill of the gay female characters in a disrespectful way, queerbait my story or take credit for diversity in them when they clearly lack of it. Because I know how much it can hurt, and how much it actually affects, and I could never do that to someone. I could never live with myself for making someone feel like a waste of space, because LGBTQ does matter.

[that-curly-haired-lesbian]

Hey, I recently enter this whole Taylor Swift is secretly gay thing (which I totally believe now) and then the other day I was listening to "Better than revenge" and I just read your wonderful "Love story" analysis, so I was wondering if you could maybe do the same with BTR?

Yet another day haspassed without me actually sitting down to type this up, sorry about that, butbeing back at school has been sort of a whirlwind. Anyway enough about mecomplaining…Hello dearest anon and sorry for the wait! I’m so glad you’ve foundyour way to the Gaylor Swift community and I hope you feel welcome. Isn’t itfun when all of Taylor’s lyrics sorta start to make sense the second you applysome queer context to them? Thanks for enjoying my Love Story analysis too 😊

So today’s song is Better Than Revenge as you can see fromthe ask and I was originally gonna spin this completely in a beardingdirection, but then a very observant anon pointed out that the song could alsobe about a boy stealing Tay’s girlfriend. So I’m going to discuss bothperspectives here.

Regardless of whichperspectives I apply to the song though they’re all just my interpretations andI’m not necessarily right in any way, it’s all just speculation.

Before we startthough I also just want to say that I am in no way shaming bi girls here or girlswhose same-sex attraction in fact happens to be a phase. Nor am I insinuatingthat bi girls “aren’t really gay and will leave you for a boy” I obviously donot want to enforce such ridiculous stereotypes or give them any type of merit,bi girls and your attraction to girls are 1000% valid and I love you! 💙💙💗💗 

Lyrics cred toAZLyrics as usual.

–  

“Now go stand in the corner and think about whatyou did.”

–

Something we’re gonna see mostly in the chorus of thissong are references to children/things associated with children/childishbehavior and this is the first of such references. As you may or may not knowit’s common for Taylor to refer to the bearding practice as a game and to thebeards themselves as toys in her songs. This is what inclines me to think thissong may be more about being snubbed of a beard than a girlfriend being unfaithful,but more on that later, back to the line itself.

These s spoken words at the beginning of the song isseemingly shaming one of the subjects (unclear if it’s the boy or girlactually, but more likely the girl if we’re keeping in tune with the rest ofthe lyrics) of Taylor’s anger to stand in a corner and think about all the badthings they’ve done. Much like a child being sent to timeout.

–

The story starts when it was hot and it was summerand…

I had it all; I had him right there where I wanted him

She came along, got him alone and let’s hear theapplause

She took him faster than you could say“sabotage”

–

An interesting thing to consider is that this song ison the Speak Now album, you know theone Taylor wrote all herself and that famously has a bit of a fairy-tale/storytheme both in its lyrics and in the sets and costumes made for the tour. Well,this isn’t the first or last time on this album that Taylor refers to an eventfrom her love life as a “story”. 

According to her this specific story starts inthe summer at which point she was happily involved with a boy, until some girlcame along and stole his heart, leaving Taylor alone and scorned with asabotaged relationship. At least that’s the hetero narrative and if we’re toconsider the stolen-girlfriend-narrative not much changes except for perhapsthe pronoun of the person that came along to steal Taylor’s partner. If we’reto assume her girlfriend wasn’t stolen by another gay girl it’d be a boymeaning the pronoun in the above lines should switch places, making it:

“I had it all, I had HER rightthere where I wanted HER

HE came along, got HER alone andlet’s hear the applause

HE took HER faster than you couldsay “sabotage” “

 Instead of the original het lyrics, easy (and gay) enough,right?

If we’re to consider the breading possibility though,the lines become a little more interesting to me, you see the language usedhere doesn’t seem like it’d be used to describe a happy relationship to me, letme explain…

It’s summer, Taylor has the perfect beard (Joe Jonas?)and then some other gay girl just comes right along and steals him from underher nose, leaving Taylor beard-less and annoyed.

Now, onto the language thing I mentioned. Taylor saysshe had the “boyfriend” “right there where she wanted him,” doesn’t soundparticularly loving to me. Actually it sounds more like she’s holding himhostage (like perhaps under a contract?) Then some other girl (and her team) comesalong, gets Taylor’s beard alone (to discuss the terms of a BETTER contract,perhaps?) and sabotages Taylor’s plan and “relationship” by winning the beardover.

–

I never saw it coming, wouldn’t have suspected it

I underestimated just who I was dealing with

She had to know the pain was beating on me like a drum

She underestimated just who she was stealing from

–

So my anon suggested that maybe Taylor was dating abi-curious girl who left her for a boy? These lyrics certainly make it looklike that could make sense.

Anon rightfully pointed out that there’s no focus onthe boy who supposedly cheated and broke Taylor’s heart, there’s only focus onthe girl he cheated with, making it seem like Taylor is more emotionallyattached to the girl and hurt by her actions while she (Taylor) couldn’t careless about the boy involved.

Taylor “never saw it coming and wouldn’t havesuspected it” Suspected what exactly, that the girl she was seeing would end upleaving her for a boy? She didn’t know she was dealing with a bi-curious girl,said girl had no consideration for Taylor’s feelings upon being used like this,to satisfy a curiosity. Even though she must’ve understood it’d hurt Taylor shestill went ahead and left with the boy. As a lesbian who has had the misfortuneof dating and falling for several of these “mostly straight” girls who ended upleaving me for boys this makes sense to me (and also hurts, I feel poor Tay’spain!)

What about the last line though? “She underestimatedjust who she was stealing from” well, this could be a simple case of switchingpronoun in order to #NoHomo-proof again, as in it should really be “HE underestimated just who HE was stealing from”as in, the boy who stole Tay’s girl better watch his back.

Or the pronoun could be right and it’s meant to saythat Taylor’s ex didn’t know whose heart she was stealing and underestimatedthe emotional impact her leaving would have on Taylor, both of those certainlywork for the-stolen-gf narrative.  

How about bearding though? Well while thestolen-gf-thing might work best for making sense of the lines above ashe-stole-my-beard perspective can certainly also be applied. My thought hereis that Taylor never saw it coming that this random girl would show up andmange to win over Taylor’s beard causing him to break the contact they’darranged. Perhaps Taylor underestimated the girl in the sense that sheunderestimated the team, as in she didn’t think the other girl’s managementwould be able to work out a contract that’d interest the beard more than TeamTaylor’s contract did, but she was wrong and caught by surprise.  Then Taylor reflects on how as a fellow gaygirl her rival should understand the pain of being snubbed of a beard and whatan uncomfortable position that put Taylor in, but she clearly didn’t care andthus underestimated just whose beard she was stealing and how Team Taylor mightreact to someone who just waltzes in and steals a perfect bearding arrangement. Basically,“My team is coming for your team and I have lawyers, fuck you!”

–

She’s not a saint

And she’s not what you think

She’s an actress

She’s better known

For the things that she does on the mattress

–

This could either be Taylor trash-talking her ex for“acting gay” and not being who Taylor thought she was, making these linespretty self-explanatory. Or it could be Taylor trash-talking the beard-thiefgiving us a little more to unpack here.  

The first few lines could be referring to how the girlin question isn’t as “perfect” (or saint-like) as the general public thinks sheis, just like Taylor she might have a few “sins” she’s hiding from her fans(just like we’ve established most celebrities do) like homosexuality for example,thus she’s not what her fans think, aka not straight. The actress-line could besaying the girl is literally an actress as to give us a very not-so-tellingclue for who she is (there are many actresses that may be bearding after all)or it might be saying she’s the same type of actress as Taylor (“I’ll be theactress starring in your bad dreams”) and acting straight by bearding.

Mattress-line is interesting, first of all it’sclearly Taylor’s discreet way of calling someone a slut (ew Tay, slut-shamingisn’t cool even if you’re hurt!) It could either mean the girl is known forusing girls for sex, but dating boys (to go with the ex-idea.)

Or it could mean the girl who stole Tay’s beard isknown in the industry for sleeping with/dating girls and fake-dating boys tocover it up, (just like Taylor, this girl’s homosexuality is an open secretamong celebs.)

Although to me it’d be weird to call someone else outfor the exact same things you yourself are doing and basically calling themfake for it since that’d also imply that youare fake; but I digress.

Could mean that she’s known for stealing people’sbeards though, maybe she’d done that before she did it to Tay? Pure speculationthough, obviously; but it would make more sense than Taylor simply calling herout for bearding since that’s something Taylor does too and thus has no rightto be shaming anyone else for, ya feel?

–

Soon she’s gonna find

Stealing other people’s toys

On the playground won’t make you many friends

She should keep in mind

She should keep in mind

There is nothing I do better than revenge

–

Remember that I said we’d be seeing references to toysin the chorus? Well, here we are. I’ve pointed out before that just like Taylorlikes referring to PR and bearding as “a game” she likes talking about the menshe beards with as toys (“toying withthem older guys, just playthings for me to use” to point out one example ofthis metaphor in other songs.) If we’re to go with the het-narrative here somegirl has stolen Taylor’s beloved boyfriend and she’s heartbroken, right? So whyon earth would she be referring to this boy as a toy? To me that sounds likeshe’s using him (or playing with his feelings if you will) and theirrelationship didn’t mean much to her in the first place, almost as if oh Idon’t know, he was a beard used for her PR-games.If we look at PR as a game referring to the PR-people in Taylor’s life as“toys” makes sense, what do you use when you play? That’s right, toys. Here Taylor is telling her rivalthat it’s not nice to steal other people’s beards and that this practice won’tgive her any friends, or a nice reputation in the industry.  

The last few lines look like a threat to me, eitherdirected at the boy who had the never to steal her girl, or at the girl who hadthe nerve to steal her beard.

It looks like the person who stole from Taylor Swiftbetter watch their back as Taylor is letting them know that she might retaliateby 1) writing a song where she bad-mouths the boy for stealing her gf(ex-theory) or retaliate with legal action, alternatively by simply making thisgirl’s life hard in the industry and perhaps even making it a challenge her forher to get beards in the future. (“Won’tmake you any friends”) There’s no telling what Revenge: Taylor Editionmight mean in a bearding situation.

–

She looks at life like it’s a party and she’s on thelist

She looks at me like I’m a trend and she’s so over it

I think her ever-present frown is a little troubling

She thinks I’m psycho ‘cause I like to rhyme her namewith things

–

Ex-theory:

This might mean that the girl Taylor was seeing is oneof those typical straight girls who makes out with other girls at partiesbecause it’s a hip thing to do to get attention, kinda like being on the listfor a cool party. She looks at Taylor (and other gay girls) like it’s somethingtrendy or cool to sleep with or kiss them, but then quickly move on from.(She’s “so over” over her “bi-ness” after trying it…) The frown thing, might bethe girl putting up her nose at Taylor or acting all high and mighty when thegay girl actually says she thought what they had was real. What’s troubling forTaylor is how the girl just brushes off their chemistry and bond like it meantnothing 😞 and then proceeding to think Taylor’s overreacting or acting stalkerish and crazy when she can’t let the girl go and writes a song about theexperience (or “acts psycho” by “rhyming the girl’s name with things” akawriting an emotional song about being pissed off.)

Bearding-theory:

As I see it it’s insinuating that this girl thinksshe’s hot shit and doesn’t think Taylor is anyone important and thus not worththe courtesy of, you know, um, NOT gettingher beard stolen... She essentiallythinks she’s more important than Taylor and she needs the beard more, sinceTaylor isn’t as famous and wouldn’t suffer as much if her secret came out.

The trend-part might mean the girl thinks Taylor willbe irrelevant soon enough and won’t need to beard.  

What about the frown-part? Could it mean that Taylordoesn’t think the girl acts “straight enough” as in she isn’t looking happywhen around the boy she’s supposedly dating (because she might have that commonlesbian thing where she’s repulsed by men/uncomfortable pretending to be inlove with them, I second that personally!) And Taylor thinks she herself does abetter job of convincing people she’s actually straight (or is a better“actress”) basically she’s better at bearding, meaning she should’ve gotten tokeep the beard since the other girl isn’t convincing anyone she (or the beard)is straight anyway, making it “troubling” for their images.

Last line is saying the girl thinks Taylor’s weird andmaybe even unstable/scary for making such a big deal out of the bearding theftand writing a song about it (or “rhyming the girl’s name with things”)

–

But sophistication isn’t what you wear or who you know

Or pushing people down to get you where you wanna go

They wouldn’t teach you that in prep school so it’s upto me

But no amount of vintage dresses gives you dignity

–

I personally honestly have trouble seeing these linesfrom the ex-gf-was-stolen perspective and can really only come up with abearding explanation for this, but if you can think of a way it fits with theother thing feel free to point that out on this post or to send me asks aboutit…

Anyway, Taylor’s saying that sophistication isn’t whatyou wear or who you know. To me this indicates that she’s saying that whilethis girl might think she’s more famous and important than Taylor and thus moredeserving of a beard, the level of fame isn’t dictated by “what you wear or whoyou know”

While the het explanation for this is that Taylorthinks the girl who stole her boyfriend is stuck up for wearing fancy designerclothes and being chummy with other celebrities, I think the line isinteresting from a bearding perspective.

This is because while we now use the term “beard” or“bearding” for both men and women in the olden days of Hollywood the term for alesbian using a guy as a “date” in order to seem straight used to be merkin while the corresponding gay guyterm was, you guessed it, beard. (x)

Why is this interesting you ask? Well, both a merkin(and a beard, if it’s a fake one, but a merkin to a greater extent) is a thingyou wear to cover up the truth of what you look like (or in the non-literalsense what you are, aka not straight) so sophistication or fame isn’t dictatedby “what you wear” aka who your beard/merkin is, or who you know. The “who youknow” thing makes it sound like the girl pulled some favors with important industrypeople she knows in order to get to Taylor’s beard and steal him away, veryunsophisticated behavior if you ask me.

Taylor is also saying the girl is pushing people downto get where she wants to go, she’s stealing a famous “boyfriend” from Taylorin order to get more famous by her association with him (aka get to where shewants to go, fame-wise) and in the process she’s pushing Taylor down and makingher less relevant by ending her association with said famous boy.

In the het narrative the “prep school”-line is anotherattempt at making sure we know Taylor’s romantic rival is a huge snob who wentto a fancy school, but in bearding terms it might mean the girl’s team “forgot”to teach (or prep) her about the importance of not playing dirty on thebearding-playground and stealing other’s beards when they were teaching her allabout how the PR-game works.

“vintage dresses” a nice way to say merkin? After alla merkin was often used by prostitutes in the olden days (making it vintage)and in a way it could be called a “dress” or at least a dressage. It could alsojust be acknowledging that bearding is an old (vintage) practice in Hollywood andthat it will never give you dignity, or straightness. Thus calling out bothherself and the other girl for using such a temporary solution, the boy will disappearwhen the contract is up anyway and that the girl shouldn’t go through suchtrouble to steal someone’s “disguise”

(Chorus)

–

I’m just another thing for you to roll your eyes at,honey

You might have him but haven’t you heard

I’m just another thing for you to roll your eyes at,honey

You might have him but I always get the last word

–

From both the cheated-on and the bearding perspectiveTaylor is threatening the thief and saying that while they might view her as aminor annoyance or complication (“roll their eyes at her”) they should be watchingtheir backs because she’ll win this fight.

–

(Chorus)

–

Do you still feel like you know what you’re doing?

'Cause I don’t think you do.

Do you still feel like you know what you’re doing?

I don’t think you do

I don’t think you do

–

While the rival might have thought it was a good ideato steal Taylor’s lover and/or beard at the time when they did it, she’ssuggesting they rethink it now. It wasn’t such a smart move after all andTaylor is saying she’s noticing the person start to realize that perhaps they shouldn’tmess with The Taylor Swift™

–

Let’s hear the applause

Come on show me how much better you are

(so much better, yeah?)

So you deserve some applause 'cause you’re so muchbetter

–

The girl who broke Tay’s heart is suggesting it’s somuch better to date boys and she’s doing so much better while doing that, huh?Well congratulations, here are some applause for being straight!

So earlier I said the beard that was stolen may havebeen Joe Jonas, why? Well he has a song called So Much Better (x) supposedly written about the girl he “dated”after Taylor and how she was a better girlfriend (more like, a better beard) thanTaylor and that is what she’s referring to here. “Oh you gave him a better bearding offer/contract than me? Well, fuckyou here are some fucking applause for the smooth way in which you stole mybeard, real classy!”)

She took him faster than you could say“sabotage”

–

(S)he/ stole the beard/girlfriend and sabotaged Taylor’sbearding plan/relationship faster than you can say the word “sabotage” and itsucked…

–

Thanks for reading asusual, this is a little longer than the other ones on account of being writtenfrom two possible perspectives, but I hope you enjoyed this approach.

Never hesitate tosend me requests for analysis or Gaylor questions 😊

Tomorrow’s song (I’llactually post it within the deadline this time I promise!) is Treacherous 🌈🌈🌈

[spinnerprincess]

happy ace awareness week

i think you’re all probably aware that i’m ace by now, i mention it from time to time, but in case you’re not... heyyyyyy

you can find a lot of ace resources around, teaching you about asexuality, what it means, etc. i’ve been personally appreciating the hell out of lyd’s comics on the subject, the most recent of which is here.

this post isn’t for that. this post is for being aware of where i’m at regarding being ace. i would appreciate it if you read it.

hashtag lgbt/ace discourse ahead.

it’s been a weird year for me. a lot of good things have happened, and so have a lot of bad things. dealing with my asexuality has fallen into both categories. 

when i first encountered the term asexuality and adopted it for myself it was a very different time. i had made a friend who was ace. without going into detail, they were a little older than me, and were dealing with the aftereffects of a bad relationship where they felt harrassed and later assaulted by a partner. so i came into it with the full awareness that being ace could be rough and cause discrimination, etc. 

but honestly, in some ways, it was an easier time. back in 2011 asexuality felt less visible, but where it was visible, it was accepted pretty freely. some conversations around terms like “allosexual” began cropping up around them. i think i navigated them fairly well, and i learned a lot, and with everything i learned i grew surer that being ace was both a term that made me feel validated and comfortable, and the word that best defined my gender/sexuality experience. 

the worst thing i had to deal with was people who hated “aces prefer cake” jokes and the occasional “stop calling yourselves aces you’re not playing cards” which, meh, it’s just a cute shortening. i love it. didn’t stop then, won’t stop now. you couldn’t pay me to go back to a time when i thought sherlock was worth any attention (i at least didn’t fuckin ascribe to a lot of the shit like “oh he’s ace/aro and it excuses his bullshit” haha fuck off.). but. boy. sometimes i miss it.

this past year or two, it’s been shitty. first we had the tail end of the “queer” discourse. i understood some viewpoints coming out of that, but ultimately settled on feeling like it the people arguing to remove it from the lexicon were wrong. i think there’s some valid points to be made, but mostly found the whole argument tiresome. Let people call themselves what they want, and don’t use it for people you don’t know like it, or for the whole community. Done. 

and if I’m a little more hesitant to use it for myself, if i once described myself as queer freely and happily, and now do so nervously, backspacing it out of the text once or twice, that’s... something i hope to overcome.

but boy oh boy did that discourse just dovetail right into my personal hell. the kind of people who don’t want to see the community expanded, who want to stay on top and exclude people who aren’t being their kind of gay, immediately dug their claws into that argument about “queer” and didn’t stop.

i’ve endured months and months of ace discourse now and it’s... it’s been exhausting. i’m not even directly involved in it, but it’s still there. it’s constant. it’s insidious. 

what started as a counter argument of “queer is a great as a blanket word for people with complex identities, such as ace people” dove directly into “well, are ace people lgbt?” and didn’t stop. suddenly it was the topic of the season. early definitions said “yes” or “if they think they are.” more arguments. “well, heteroromantic aces aren’t lgbt,” became popular. i can see why. that kind of invisible distinction could play well into pretending you’re straight, after all - right? so went the discourse. ugh.

as that argument caught on, people with anti-ace agendas pushed it further. “so being ace alone doesn’t make you lgbt.” “kids can’t identify as ace, that’s sexualization.” “cishet aces just want to steal our resources.” 

i don’t want to go into all of these but. boy. some of them were presented logically, kindly. others devolved quickly into “aces are the worst and can die,” “ace people don’t belong full stop,” and even “lol look at me i’m a tumblrina i’m 13 years old asexual fictkin special snowflake” as the punchline of jokes that spread outside of this site. 

some ace people are assholes and of course stirred the pot more by being overtly bitter/turning things into oppression olympics type bickering over how aces have the worst, or whatever. some blogs people cited for examples of “terrible ace people co-opting lesbian stuff” or whatever else were literally from sockpuppet blogs making fun of ace people.

for a time, i even bought into some of it. i thought some of the early arguments, that heteroromantic aces shouldn’t be considered lgbt, might have valid points. but you know what? that’s bullshit. if you believe you belong, you should be welcomed with open arms. hetero aces experience some of the same shit i do. they probably also experience other shit. just because i don’t know what it is, or it’s different from mine, doesn’t mean it isn’t an alienating, and perhaps even queer, experience. their sexuality, as nuanced as it is, still sets them apart and they deserve support. we all do. 

it sucks to think that this shitty shitty discourse had me believing in a position that invalidated my own experience of aceness being the source of much of my queer experiences, for a while.

all this to say nothing of the invisible hate seeping towards aromantic people as well, lolololol. it’s not a big part of me the way being ace is but i’m probably somewhere on the aro spectrum and. great. thanks. i’m still so tired of split attraction model arguments. if it works for you, use it. if it works for other people, let them use it. is it so hard to believe that some people might experience things differently to you? or differently to how you would imagine? god.

my favorite part is when allo people started saying “allo is a slur!!!” when, get this: allosexual was pushed for and partially created by allo people who (rightly) didn’t want to be called “sexual,” like poc, and rape survivors. ace people adopted it into their language for their benefit, not for ours, lololololol

so. that’s the year i’ve been dealing with. i’ve had to unfollow a number of people i thought were otherwise cool over this. i haven’t gone a single month without finding someone i think is amazing, reading through their blog, and discovering with a sense of nausea that they would hate me. genuinely hate me. there’s no love there. someone who says “u shouldn’t follow me if you think ace people are lgbt lol” isn’t interested in hearing and believing my stories, my experiences, my life which is hard and queer and as deserving of support as anyone’s. they aren’t interested in treating me like a person. that’s... i mean, i think that counts as hate. yeah.

i still hesitate on the word aphobia, or, similarly, biphobia. i don’t know if it’s the right way to describe it, when the hatred you refer to comes from within a similar group of people with oppressed sexualities. i wouldn’t hesitate to say post from an allosexual person in favor of in corrective rape w/r/t ace people are aphobic. i wouldn’t hesitate to say a straight person who thinks bi people are disgusting is a biphobe.

but is that reality talking, or is it just me being unable to acknowledge that oppression is oppression, fear and hate are fear and hate, and discrimination towards aces, which i’ve spent the last two years being told isn’t real, despite experiencing it on a regular basis both in and out of community?

what’s the line between discrimination and oppression? if people’s everyday biases make it harder for ace people to live their lives, is there a point in determining that line?

i fuckin dunno. i’m so tired. i’ve spent a long year feeling like i’ve shrunk myself. i feel more comfortable lately talking about fictional ladies and my attraction to them, which isn’t sexual, and isn’t exactly romantic, but it’s... it’s something that exist. just recently i became comfortable feeling like i can use the term “wlw” for myself, which i fought myself for a long time on. being ace, being quietly non-binary were both things that felt like obstacles.

and the wlw community is just full of toxicity still. terfs have grown and drawn others to their ideologies, some of them using anti-ace tactics to do so, others using tried and true biphobic messaging and of course, who could forget the constant hammering of “trans women aren’t women” bullshit they like to pull. 

so that’s one triumph of the year. i’m nb, i’m wlw, i’m ace. i can say those three things and feel pretty comfortable in it. 

i just wish it didn’t also come at costs. i find it harder to express my ace life. i find it harder to feel positively about it. i don’t have the energy to deeply deal with ace headcanons lately. it feels like the online world is hyperaware of us now, if anything. everybody has an opinion. moreover, people feel entitled to an opinion, in a way they weren’t before. people feel like it can be their opinion that my ace experiences aren’t lgbt, or that my sexuality doesn’t exist or even harms theirs, or... i don’t know. what will be the next big reason asexuality is terrible/invalid/not lgbt?

if you bothered to read or hell just skimmed this long post... thank you.

thank you. 

i know i’ve been quiet about a lot of this. not all the time, but a lot of the time. i feel bad about that, a little? i want people to know what this looks like. knowing asexuality exists is so, so good. but knowing that ace people are facing right now, the movement of hatred that has swept across pockets of lgbt people in recent years, and having the awareness to try and combat it...

it would mean a lot to me, if it felt like more of that could exist.

[words-that-form-a-rainbow]

Pantomime, and the problem with (Hollywood) diversity

Title of book: Pantomime (Micah Grey, #1)

Author: Lam, Laura

Would I recommend: Yes

Synopsis (From goodreads.com): Gene's life resembles a debutante's dream. Yet she hides a secret that would see her shunned by the nobility. Gene is both male and female. Then she displays unwanted magical abilities - last seen in mysterious beings from an almost-forgotten age. Matters escalate further when her parents plan a devastating betrayal, so she flees home, dressed as a boy. The city beyond contains glowing glass relics from a lost civilization. They call to her, but she wants freedom not mysteries. So, reinvented as 'Micah Grey', Gene joins the circus. As an aerialist, she discovers the joy of flight - but the circus has a dark side. She's also plagued by visions foretelling danger. A storm is howling in from the past, but will she heed its roar? 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As if it wasn’t clear from the first two book reviews I’ve written on this site (Which you should totally go read and share, by the way), I tend to read books that include a lot of representation of all sorts, both LGBT+ and otherwise. And though I like to be optimistic the majority of the time, I am, as everyone should be, critical of them, because if the mainstream catches on to all this, would you rather them see some beautifully crafted, incredibly written prose about our struggles and lives, or that one gay sonic fanfiction you wrote when you were twelve? Yeah, me too.

But even if you are a lot more casual in your enjoyment of media (Which I wish I could be, at this point), it isn’t hard to notice to different levels of diversity certain minorities get over others. Now, I’m not trying to start any kind of war, because even the most represented groups are horribly outweighed by the straight whites of the West, but come on. There’s nothing wrong with effeminate gay men, or (Usually dead) lesbians, or sassy black women who say “Aw hell naw” like it’s the only thing keeping society as we know it afloat (Which isn’t wholly from the truth, actually), it can get a little tiring after a while, especially when you see another series or book written by someone who either a) has never actually met a gay person in their life, and/or b), is horribly fetishistic to a certain group and completely excludes literally anyone else, like those women who think gay men are their taboo sinners, yet find Sapphic women and trans folk predatory (They’re so gross).

And to be honest, I’m tired of it. And I know a lot of other people are, too.

And that is why I was (Very happily) surprised when I read Pantomime, the first of the Micah Grey trilogy, by Laura Lam. And do you know what it has? A queer main character who is neither gay nor perfectly attractive, and whose identity isn’t the only facet of their character! Oh boy, I felt like a kid in a sweet shop. And then I felt a kind of sadness, that we, as a community, were celebrating the fact that a character was, y’know, an actual character and not just a walking stereotype. This is the bar we’re setting for ourselves. This is the bar the mainstream has made us set.

And hell, I’ll shout from the rooftops with praise for any kind of media that raises it. Even if it’s by just a little.

So a big part of what I liked about Pantomime was the main character, Micah Grey (Also called Gene in some parts of the book, but as they almost exclusively choose to use Micah to refer to themselves, I’ll use that), who is, one of if not the first intersex character in a novel, or at least is certainly the only one I know about. Now a lot of you may be going, “Oh, gee, Scotty, I know all about them Ells and Gees and Bees, but what the hell is an intersex?” And that, is precisely the problem.

If I were to answer the question scientifically, an intersex person is one who is not born entirely male or female, biologically. They make up around one percent of the population, (Which is around 80 million people, and about twenty percent more people than the entire population of the UK, so don’t even dare try to tell me that it’s too small of a number to care about), are not the same as trans people (Which is all about gender identity), and yes, exist, either as having both sets of genitalia (Like Micah does), or any other mix, for example being born with XYX chromosomes, wrong amounts of hormones, etc…

But you don’t care about that, right? You wanted a book review, not a biology lesson. Fair enough. But my point is, this is the representation we need. An actual character, with unique identities and struggles and strengths that many people go through and can relate to. Because fuck political correctness, diversity within media just straight up makes it more interesting, as well as eliminates the feeling of many, many people feeling excluded from the little penthouse party Hollywood have got going on for any kind of shithead, as long as you’re cishet and white and can make a lot of money. Just fuck the rest of them, right?

Sorry, I just… the Harvery Weinstein thing happened this week, and though I’m not a huge film guy generally, I knew this guy was at the top of the food chain. And the fact that it happened for years… let’s just throw the whole Hollywood out, to be honest.

Anyway, I’m getting off topic. Back to Micah.

What I liked about the way Lam portrayed them is that she struck a nice balance between the aforementioned, “Let’s make their identity the only part of their personality/development,” and the even less accurate idea of them having no struggles with other people and, just as importantly, themselves. Throughout the book, they find themselves torn between their given identity of wholly female, and the identity they chose as male at the circus, which is where most of the story takes place. And although the main reason for them running away from the circus is to avoid corrective genital surgery (Which, yes, is a real thing, and also yes, is done on a lot of people without their consent, usually when they’re much younger than Micah), and even after their intersex identity is found out by some of the other characters, they still use the same name, they never directly state if they strictly identify as one or the other, (Bearing in mind this is only the first book of three, I’ve only just started reading the second), which is also why I choose to use they/them pronouns throughout this review.

It’s done well, really. Generally speaking, the more conflict and challenges the character faces at the beginning, the more satisfying the overcoming is at the end, and their feelings never felt out of place, or rushed. Good job, Lam.

The bisexuality of Micah is also an interesting talking point, particularly how it develops not only their sexuality but also their gender identity. Their first real love interest, Aenea, not only makes them realise their bisexuality, but also questions the masculinity within them, highlighting an interesting talking point about a subconscious idea in society that, even within the LGBT community and/or people who completely negate labels of gender altogether, we still conform to the traditional, heteronormative ideals we try to break away from. There’s always the question asked of who’s the man and woman in the relationship. There’s always the assumption that trans people are straight. One of the girls always has to wear a suit and a dress at the wedding. It’s stale, you know?

And while some people might criticise this arc for perpetuating that idea, I would argue more that it shows the way a lot of LGBT people do still think, subconsciously, including me, even though I, like many others, know the whole idea is stupid and archaic. It shows how ingrained heterosexuality and heteronormativity is in us, no matter who we are.

It also shows change in Micah - that their identity in every sense is constantly changing and evolving to fit new people and situations, that gender is a fluid sort of concept to them that isn’t really one hundred percent labelled by them, which can be and is what many people choose to be. And to be honest, that’s just plain nice to see in a queer character, since most stories begin at the point when the character has finished that kind of emotional journey, or play it off like they’ve known precisely who they were all along (Which is another ridiculous stereotype, by the way. Stop expecting kids to be able to figure that out by themselves, or even care about it. There are more important things to them, like getting hyper off of ridiculously sugary drinks and making sure they catch that Pikachu.)

I like it a lot, can you tell?

One criticism I have (Which isn’t really one, but more of a concerned prediction), is that it’s a particularly concise story, meaning, generally, it doesn’t leave a lot open. Yes, Micah is on the run from the police with a character called Drystan, (Who is a gay man who conveniently explains what being gay means, but he’s somehow made clowns seem a lot less scary to me so I’ll allow it), which is an intriguing enough continuation, but apart from that, there’s not a whole lot to go on. We haven’t had much development of any of the other places, every character we got to know is either dead, (Sorry Aenea, I did like you), vaguely left at some point in the novel, or is too minor to really give any kind of mention. I’m scared that Lam will either waste her time for a few hundred pages by treading water in the shallow end of the pool, or try to set up a whole new roster of characters while completely abandoning the old ones, essentially destroying the relationships and need for a lot of the interactions in the first book, (Which, if we’re going with the swimming pool analogy, would be like getting out of the water and jumping out of the nearest window into the Mariana’s Trench with bricks tied to her legs).

But we’ll just have to wait until I read it, won’t we. Hopefully not long, eh? (No, not long, is the correct answer. You can at least try to humour me, you know. You’ve read the whole review so you must like me a tiny bit. Tiny tiny bit? Maybe?

Hm… I hope she does do the second one, to be honest… or surprises me with some kind of magical third option, but I’ve learnt that you get brownie points on the internet if you’re constantly cynical. Not that it matters. The inevitable passage of time will consume and leave us all behind, eventually, letting us to fester wondering, was it all worth it? Were my shitty book reviews a valuable contribution to human society, in comparison? And what even was the point of this system in the first place? Why do we even bother to try to be more than savages, or even calculate that yes, we are living, when it will do nothing but further realise the emptiness and complete loneliness of the vacuum of space? Or what if-

Sorry. It’s been a rough week. See you next time.)