#and of course cishet women doing romance shit but never like

[littleeyesofpallas]

Kanojo wa DELICATE![彼女はデリケート！]

[deardarlingdevil]

I'm happy that BG3 received the Best Community award in the Golden Joystick Awards! At the same time, from experience, while the corner I found in the fandom is a great community, there's still a lot of toxicity and issues in the fandom that I want more people to acknowledge. So once again I am bringing up the moralistic double standards I see in the fandom. I think I touched upon this in a separate analysis about romance options but I want to make a separate post for the fandom issues.

Astarion will be my prime example and his Ascended route in particular. With female characters such as Lae'Zel, Shadowheart, and Minthara, you don't see as much policing from the fandom when players make them take the darker routes to their story arcs. I never saw people shaming other players for encouraging Shadowheart to become a Dark Justiciar, so on and so forth.

Meanwhile, people, particularly cishet men, shit on women and queers simply for liking Astarion. The same unwashed assholes who talk about how SH is their edgy Sharran waifu or how Minthara is dommy mommy are the same folks who will deride Astarion girlies (gender neutral) and intentionally try to provoke them by saying things like "oh I killed him on sight hurr durr" or claiming that "females" have no "morals" because of their choice of videogame men.

Sadly, it's not the cishet men who do this too. I've seen unhinged opinions from folks who use the semblance of social justice to bully other fans for enjoying "problematic" content. I've seen queer folks say things like "women who enjoy Astarion's ascended route should be euthanized". I don't like the Ascended romance route either but that's a personal preference and I'll just simply live and let live + curate my space if such content manages to come across my social media feeds instead of making batshit takes. Like, chill, please.

And speaking of the Ascended route, people automatically assume that the player is romancing him while taking the Ascended route and assuming that the players are reducing him to a sexual object. It's almost as if players can choose not to romance him and still let him ascend for other reasons. What's worse is even one of the writers expressed a similar sentiment, which I admittedly agreed with until I read other players' thoughts about the Ascended route and how they do acknowledge that Astarion gaining such power does perpetrate a cycle of abuse for the character, but can be cathartic to the players who experienced something similar but cannot or will not act on in real life.

Of course, I have to bring up Raphael too. I've seen people thirsting for femme fiends like Mizora and fem!Haarlep and no one bats an eye. But with people thirsting for Raphael, there will always be that one cishet man who will take Haarlep's, a character who hates Raphael because he essentially uses him/her/them as a fleshlight, words at face value to point out his inadequacies and oddities in the bedroom, as if that will make the character less attractive to his fans. On the other side of the spectrum, there is sadly a small but vocal corner of the queer BG3 community who are biphobic and would shame women and other queers, especially femmes, because they exclusively want to ship Raphael with Haarlep's male form.

Once again, I'm not throwing my fellow sapphics under the bus, but the amount of vitriol femmes and queers receive for wanting to explore darker themes with male characters is disproportionate compared to fans who took the darker route with the female characters.

Yes, the BG3 community is a great community in general, but misogyny and biphobia is still alive and well in certain pockets of the fandom. Sigh.

[mywingsareonwheels]

I was thinking about the whole... what's more progressive debate out of m/m romance representation and actually close and tender (as opposed to buddyish) m&m friendships. And how utterly futile and insulting to the need for more of both a debate it is when we need infinitely more of both and a lot of other things.

Fundamentally, between the lingering after-effects of the Hays Code and the extremist end of Christianity (not that those two are unconnected) and the patriarchy (ditto) and militarism and capitalism... in mainstream Western story media we still struggle to get *any* genuine emotional intimacy that isn't:-

romance between a different-gender couple who are both cishet, and which if it's happy will lead to marriage (but hasn't yet).

marriage between ditto, but only if they haven't been together very long (after they have for a few years they're supposed to bicker all the time).

at an extreme pinch, fond closeness between blood relatives, especially if at least one of them is a woman.

Friendships between men and between women are okay so long as there's a... distancing of rivalry and teasing. If you can imagine one of them tucking the other in or stroking their hair (especially if they're both men) or being utterly and wholly in solidarity with each other (especially if they're both women)... hm, no.

And that's... it. We're still at a point in mainstream western media where anything that deviates from, especially to the extent of serious warmth and trust and confidence and understanding between the characters, that feels at least a little transgressive, especially in e.g. a blockbuster movie. We're still at a point where everything else is under-represented. Less and less so, thank everything, but still.

I'm thinking of some of my favourite relationships in fiction at the moment and how they fuck with those stereotypes and do better things (and always as part of awesome stories, because as always, good rep is important but it should never be treated as everything). :-) This is inevitably a v personal list, I'm not claiming that anything here is The Purest And Least Problematic Thing Ever, and this is very much just a, "this is what's enthusing me right now" thing. :D

yes they're a het couple and both cis, but: Mike and Alison Cooper in Ghosts. They have been married for a few years now, and they actually like each other. They're best friends as well as lovers, and I know that some critics have actually had a problem with this and regard it as unrealistic. [facepalm] I adore so much that they're not a stereotypical sitcom married couple, nothing like. In a quiet way they are utterly defiant and fuck completely with the genre.

Donna Noble & the Doctor in Doctor Who. I mean, do I need to say much more? :D Close, glorious platonic friendship between a woman and... the Doctor. Some of the most beautiful platonic love in any fiction ever and it's so tender and gorgeous and fun. Adore it. <3

Red, White, and Royal Blue is a silly film but omg I adore it and part of it is seeing all of those standard romance beats between two men. And with a lot more true closeness than a lot of het romcoms manage. We're getting more and more of this (we need more between women too, and indeed other queer romances of many and various kinds!!!). <3 <3 <3

yes, they're shit at expressing their love for each other most of the time, but I still stubbornly add: E Morse & Fred Thursday in Endeavour. The fact that they're inhabiting the 1960s-70s and there is no framework for their mutual affection and devotion is of course part of why things get so hard for them both. They don't know what to do with it or where to place each other in their priorities, but the loyalty and the tenderness is there, and some remarkable emotional intimacy at times considering who they both are. We watch and interpret it as father-son or as romantic or as fraternal or as an intense and wonderful (and complicated and difficult) friendship. But it defies easy definition and... and oh goodness well anyone who's been following me for any length of time knows how I can go on about them, apologies. ;-)

the entire Fellowship of the Ring, but especially Frodo and Sam. And whatever my mixed feelings on the PJ films of The Lord of the Rings, my Gods am I endlessly glad and grateful that they retained warmth and intensity and devotion and intimacy. I worry that it wouldn't have been if made now, with a more stereotypical masculinity so much in the ascendant in mainstream film-making (we really are in the midst of a patriarchal/homophobic/transphobic reaction :( ). As with Morse and Thursday, you can absolutely interpret some of the connections there as romantic (and we know that Tolkien was remarkably non-homophobic for a man of his generation and religion), or as platonic. Either way, what matters is that there's serious love there between male characters and that goes right back to the books. Tolkien could be problematic af, but I love him so much for how he writes masculinity and love between men. <3

Heartstopper, not just for Nick/Charlie and Tara/Darcy, but also because of Charlie's friendships with Elle, Isaac, and (especially, actually) Tau.

everything with Found Family, and especially everything with Found Family where there is no easy equivalence to a "nuclear" family to map the characters on to.

Honestly I could go on. Hooray for all of these! But also: we are still in a position where these all feel subversive and make a lot of the more bigoted critics spectacularly uncomfortable (even when there is no actual queer rep). We're still in a position where mainstream film series and some tv shows struggles with anything like this, and/or will sabotage a friendship between men and even an entire character arc because it's got too close and intimate and there's a desperate need to "no homo" everything (*coughs* Steve Rogers *coughs*). We're still in a position where romance between women and any romance involving trans people of any gender is dramatically under-everythinged (but that between cis men is also still not exactly even a fraction of where it should be). We're still in a position where honestly even the representation of romance between cishet characters is most often weirdly distant and lacks real closeness or mutual liking between them (often, let's face it, because the writers struggle to write women as people). I snarked a bit at first about the debate as to which is more important and under-represented between m/m romance and really open and loving m&m friendship, but honestly the main problem with that debate is that dividing up the exact same problem: we aren't going to get more open and loving representations of m&m friendship until the media get less afraid of the relationship being interpreted as romantic whether or not it is, by both fans and haters. (I.e. don't blame the shippers when a production company loses their nerve and trashes a friendship between men so that it's not seen as romantic! Blame homophobia. I mean, to put it on its simplest real-life terms, it's consistently my experience in the UK at least that het male allies are in general vastly more comfortable hugging each other than homophobes are.)

[autumn-oceanopromises]

Writing Like A Woman

I bought a book and I'm waiting for it to be delivered: "To Write Like A Woman: Essays in Feminism and Science Fiction", by Joanna Russ. I've never read her work before, seminal and powerful as it seems to be in relation to queer, intersectional, and feminist perspectives, and her work seems to be mostly out of print, as she was active (and alive) in the 60s to 90s.

I'll be quite honest - up until probably my mid-twenties, the title of that book alone would have put me off it completely. (There's a whole story and essay to be had there, the growing-up ways that a POC immigrant boy - man - seeks the media perception of white (=good, =great) masculinity and pretends to be the most masculine and milquetoast, which includes rejecting femininity in everything, in order to reject perceptions of weakness, which are mostly to do with how other boys see boys, within the masculine subculture. How virtue signaling is constant, even in the most private of spaces and to absolutely nobody but myself.)

But that's not the topic of this entry. This one's about writing like a woman: the female-expectation-derived plot points and structures that are rarely examined and re-combined by amateur male writers, why writing and exploring those structures are especially important in the low-agency world we are entering into or are already living in now, and how I want to but don't quite know where to start.

*Trigger warnings and disclaimers: I come at this from the perspective of someone whose publicly posted body of amateur writing is 50% poetry, 40% erotica/pornography, including some extremely dark content (though none of it is, of course, hosted on this blog), so appropriate trigger warnings apply when I discuss this, and 10% other things, including NANO novels, short stories, slash and romance fanfic, game design, worldbuilding lore, marketing copy, etc. I read predominantly amateur fantasy and science fiction, often fanfiction, and not professionally published literary fiction, horror, or romance, and am unaware of the trends within them. I am a cishet POC man living in a predominantly white country, and as such, may mention and perpetuate problematic perspectives. This is my personal opinion, written in 2023.* I've approached the work of Joanna Russ circuitously. I would like her guidance in the literary analysis of feminist fiction. I discovered her first by finding out about her essays and novels from r/menwritingwomen, a subreddit about pinpointing the ways that men write women - as a lampoon, as a satire, as a horror. I've looked at critical, if fond, examinations of her work, which is often the only things available for free on the Internet any longer - respected authors, mostly women, who point to her work as something that inspired and provoked them. I very, very much look forward to finding out what her work reads like. I very much look forward, if dread, examining and being deeply, viscerally horrified, at my thinking, my plot structures, and my internalized bigotry. I look forward to deliberately playing some really horrible shit straight, but with an undercurrent of horror. I look forward to writing things which are less horrifying. I very much look forward to writing like a woman, especially in science fiction and fantasy.

Writing like a woman without acerbic wit and superb guidance (at least according to all the critics), it turns out, in 2023 amateur writing spaces, even and especially under the current flood of "strong female characters", is incredibly fucking hard. Writing, plot and structure, is still mostly treated with the implication and context of masculine-derived plot and structures. The Hero's Journey is about men, after all, and it inseminates most things in modern media. In amateur genre fiction, which holds a lot of eyeballs, including isekai and litRPGs, there's very few non-male viewpoints; fantasy and science fiction as a setting abounds just about everywhere, but the rise and fall of the plot remains action, adventure, base-building, and shounen: everything stems from what society expects and pressures boys and men to do and desire: to conquer, to save, to explore, to investigate, to fight, to build and create, to happen to - to take, to seize, to plunder.

Some of the most popular tropes in this field are: overpowered protagonists, crushing and laying waste to things before them; time travel, cheat items and powers, systems to manipulate and game. The number of these stories are increasing, rapidly, and are a thriving ecosystem - the number of popular complete fucking jackasses maybe one or two morality pets is through the fucking roof.

I consume an absolute shit-ton of these. It was originally a guilty pleasure, but it's rapidly become less guilty, and more of blatant escapism and a solid portion of my day. I'm one of the target audience: I hate my job, but am reasonably good at it in some bits. I hate going to work, I hate being at work, and I hate the feeling of general helplessness and corporate bullshit, in myself, my team, and my customers, even while being very aware that I have probably some of the least corporate bullshit and helplessness that a person working in retail and in general is trading time for money, has. I have very much a lot of agency and I know I'm using it very poorly.

There is very little stopping me, in terms of amount of bureaucratic rules, except for the fact that the company is seriously overcharging people for a health-related product, mainly because the company is part of the fashion-industrial complex and a monolithic monopoly in the heart of unchecked capitalism. As a symptom of the general shittiness though, and unrelated to the corporate bullshit side of things, I especially hate entitled customers, who treat my team and me like shit for less and less amounts of money. Sure, you paid a "lot" of money for "the worst customer service in your whole life". We went out of our way to give you special treatment, including at least three free products and processes worth nearly 1.5 grand, something like four hours in consultation, and you in total spent $200 in a store where $800 is the average price, where you knew the average price walking in. I wish you genuinely shitty customer service for the rest of your miserable fucking life. That said, it's true that people in general just are making less money than the prices of living goods, and belts are squeezing tighter everywhere. If you can afford belts.

As people get less and less able to afford important shit, become less and less able to enact their own personal individualism and individual thoughts, and more and more ruled by whatever the higher-level narrative is - the news, the fashion companies, the social media trends, all of that shit - the more escapism rises, but also the more I believe that writing like a woman, like the challenges women faced in in the '60s to '90s is important. I would like to write "like a woman": I want to explore plot structures where the action happens in carving out agency under an unbearable and generally unbeatable social pressure - focusing more on the bureaucratic rather than the supernatural as in horror genre fiction, rather than the protagonist happening to the world. Figuring out the mystery where everyone and everything wants to kill or suppress you, girl (or boy, or other) meets house, and more structures that I just don't know yet, with and about things happening to the protagonist, the manic pixie dream boy archetypes, all that shebang and shemoves. I realize as I say this that it sounds incredibly stupid. The whole first half of the hero's journey is shit happening to the protagonist, the protagonist breaking out and developing agency, and arguably, a protagonist - especially in film - is almost always entirely reactionary.

But that focus on it? Where the pressure is right there, if unacknowledged or right out of the eyeline? Where specifically, the focus is the variation on and about carving out what little agency you can have in a world that specifically is trying to keep you down and quiet and in your little box and if you go too far they'll slap you down into place with horrific impersonal consequences, so walking the line and making peace with walking the line, is really, really important? Joanna Russ wrote a lot of this in science fiction, and many, many feminist writers have explored this in fantasy (in historical and epic), in mystery, in romance, in horror, in literary fiction, in erotica made by and for women. It exists in trans narratives, in queer narratives, in POC narratives, in narratives about poverty.

I don't know anyone who's cross-applied the same structures to the boxes for cishet middle-class men, even though we're rapidly entering a world where those boxes are getting more and more obvious and more and more crushing, because the middle-class is shrinking rapidly and high-level narratives, spin, trends, all that shit, are turning people on people. Radicalising via arousing extreme states of anger and fear, lust and gluttony and envy and greed. And, okay, there's a lot of fiction out there for cishet men already. It's just, that fiction for cishet men always runs with the same narratives that, frankly, causes this shit to happen IRL for everyone else.

I'll be honest: this whole entry is probably nothing new to people already reading and agreeing with the points of feminist literature. And cishet man discovers one of the good points of feminist literature, news at 11. But it matters to me.

And I don't know any mainstream literature or media, where specifically, the direction to make this situation and setup is about empowerment. Bioshock, maybe. But even that has caveats. Because a lot of works in these structures are tragic, specifically are about arousing extreme fear and anxiety and tension. Sometimes sexually arousing, sometimes sublimating it into an orgy of "justified" violence. Can I make this setup empowering and joyful and ecstatic and awe-inspiring and wonderful, with happy endings that don't result in breaking out of the physical box entirely or withdrawing into personal self-isolation, through whatever means? Because the pressure is overwhelming and there's a lot of it. And you can't change the world around you, you can't control it, but you can control yourself and your reaction to it - that's one of the most common therapy adages. And this is, very much, the same thing. I think it's really important, because the direction, very much, in high-level narratives and spin, especially in Western countries, is "give up when you're faced with this pressure". It's give in and join the complex. It's "escape into a fantasy world where shit is easy". It's escape into apathy. Apathy is the highest it's ever been, political or otherwise. Lack of social connection, lack of intimacy, lack of knowing and understanding and empathizing. It's rabble-rousing with undirected anger and fear directed against other people who are also angry and fearful.

And I think it's really worth disguising as a different take, so that some of the audience that's consuming media and fiction that would cause it IRL, instead starts looking at and exploring and varying takes on dealing with it instead. I don't know if there is much like this, in published fiction. though maybe there's a heap of it and I just have never found it. Therapy-heavy fiction and takes exist, but they come off really proselytizing.

Specifically though, on a personal level, I'm wondering, yet again, about the courtesan universe that I'm writing. All the fixed points in the timeline, everything I've written so far about it, I now realize is variations on this theme. But, having come at it from a male perspective, having written and consumed only ever male perspectives or male-reflected expectations and perspectives, it's always come off incredibly flat, somehow, with caricatures of characters. I've put in conflicts and things which are irrelevant and sometimes contradictory to the underlying message and exploration of theme for that universe, and it reads badly. My whole life, as well, has been about "breaking out of the box", while being incredibly aware that I keep putting myself back inside, or breaking out of the box and realizing I'm just in a bigger box; carving out agency while staying in the same box still feels like a failure to me.

I really want to explore this, though. I want to carve out my own agency, and be okay with it, living in the box that society dictates. I would like to explore, in writing, and hopefully share with other people, and inspire them to explore the same thing, their own takes on it. This is still, quintessentially, a very male perspective on a female-based structure, and I'm aware of that, so I would appreciate guidance. I really want to tell these stories, and explore these themes, writing like a woman.

[yung-goos]

irt the last post I rb'd, this topic has always intrigued me, as someone who has struggled with this sort of thing. I'll preface this by saying, I agree with everything op is saying. I think. for starters, this whole "male epdi-" blah blah hooplah shit is a bullshit. and of course it is, we know this. a "loneliness epidemic" however could hold some merit, cuz quite frankly every fucking body is lonely. but I digress. to the c e r t a i n men this speaks to, its a poignant message that needs to be said, heard and felt, and I think at some point in my life this might've hit more close to home. I can't speak for all mascs/men, and I know a lot tend to be loud and wrong about all of this. that being said.... I do think it genuinely goes both ways. and the only reason I didn't realize this sooner was the many ways in which I was socialized around sex. how we're socialized around sex. and I think thats what largely plays into this whole argument. I can go on and on about the toxic aspects around this socialization and how that plays into the way men interact with women, but I'll let yall have that. a part of me tho can't help but deeply sympathize where this might be coming from. I'ma put the rest of this under a cut for more context on where I'm hopefully coming from, cuz it's just gunna get long af, deeply personal and tbh I wanna get some shit out this section kinda summarizes what I feel for the most part. but anyways

tw. SA

*by men and women I mean masc and femmes respectively to be more clear. I aint writing both every damn time tho*

as a non-binary ass nigga let me start off this section by saying I'm under the firm belief many men are trying their best to be their best, but ultimately many are beyond saving, this message will fall on many deaf ears, and quite frankly under patriarchy and cishet norms there will always be an epidemic of men who only pursue relationships with women if sex is involved. very unfortunate. but again, I'll save that for yall to dissect. cuz yall whacking em already enough. under these same cishet norms though, the same can be said for some women towards men

for context, I rarely approach people unless its like, online or through apps, large part due to my debilitating social anxiety. and I do mean debilitating. so in order for most, if not any -ships to begin I have to be approached or have them intiate. women specifically speaking have largely pursued me for just sex and/or romance, which let me be clear, I am mostly fine with this, but I'll get more into that later. I may have not recognized this then but I do notice how this def fucks with dynamics of a friendship if the people involved aren't ready or mature enough to engage with that dynamic. but I think the root of the issue, apart from the way a lot of men view and treat sex, is on a deeper level so many men crave intimacy, and seek it from anywhere they can get it. growing up in a world, and I'm sure this would be annoying for a lot of people to hear, where your feelings as a man arent nurtured through your youth, and not taken seriously, patiently, or with the same sense of urgency as others when you're grown, I can understand the eagerness for men to want, crave, more in situations, even when its inappropriate. like, I grew up emotionally repressed thinking I was never going to be intimate ever with anyone with the way I looked. only to grow up realizing some women never minded, some even liked the way I looked, so you can rest assured I was eager to be thrown any kind of intamacy anyone offered. even when I really shouldn't have. and, well, long story short this sort of can-do attitude, in one example, is what got me sexually assaulted in a movie theatre. while it was packed. and I didn't even realize I was sexually assaulted till another women painted it clearly out for me. and then, the people who engaged with me non-sexually??? well. the one of the more recent women I tried to be friends with, whom I was friends with for awhile before then, sat down with me and expressed how much she missed me and wanted to build a friendship, only to then ghost me after I texted her telling her to lmk when shes free. we were trying to go to a board game restaurant. another wanted to be friends, fuck buddies at first, but when that was taken off the table, for a reason that "didn't involve me" nor did I need to know why apparently(?), proceeded to try and tell me she wanted to be friends and could "see something with me" but could not treat me like a friend (as in opening up or generally just being there for eachother), while in the same breath saying how she has other friends she treats as friends and even then that was a toss up??? and let me not even get started on the countless amount of times I've tried engaging with women about my interests, day, or general life, and be met with disinterest or, hell, even criticism in some cases? all this to say, could you imagine how confusing it is to then try and understand how to engage with women when this is the bulk of your interactions with women? it took me a long while to realize I was essentially groomed and primed to be ready for any and all types of sexual advances from women, sometimes desperate enough that if you gave me an inch I'd be damned if I didn't try going the mile, all because that's the only way women engaged with me seriously, up until a certain point. ultimately I did have to come face to face with how my personal deep need for intimacy encroached on these relationships in ways I did not want or intend. but looking deep down it has only left me with heartfelt, bitter questions. like. Do women treat me with the same level of empathy, patience, and care as their non-masc peers? Are women inclined to invite me to things that aren't sexual in nature? Are men allowed to be sad, emotional, silly, crass, or even wrong around the women I'm around? Can I enthusiastically engage with women about our interests that arent sexual or romantic in nature? do you see where I'm going with this.

I'm fortunate to have made and become besties with a friend who has helped break down a few of these questions that seemed like walls to me and has shown me I am capable, and more importantly, deserving of a friendship thats rooted in care and not just sex. I do not have proof, nor have a spoken to many men on this, but I'm positive a lot of men are dealing with the same or similar feeling or situations. and its seldom ever talked about cuz I don't think these conversations are taken seriously. or just met with bad faith in general. women are absolutely not the ones who are responsible for men or anyone else for that matter. and yes, I do think op is right. men will greatly benefit from divesting from this mental prison we've found ourselves in. I do think we can benefit though from trying to engage with men in more effective ways beyond "men bad", even when they're being (reasonably) ridiculous. but oh my god anyways.

[zanguntsu]

attractiveness and morality - or how people think with their metaphorical dicks instead of their brains

people are fucking horny over the villain characters in bleach, i mean specifically the male ones because as we know the female villains are nonexistent lol. but it’s not hard to see how attractive the male characters are even though i just refuse to acknowledge men unless i have too.

however, there is an issue with how we perceive the characters based on how attractive they actually are, more along the lines of how people will excuse any offensive behavior based on physical attractiveness

the convicts oops i mean examples

there are a few examples i can name like popular male villains that people lose their shit over.

aizen is the big one, where despite the crimes he has committed, such as emotional manipulation, attempting to wipe out a whole town, murders, and hollowfying his colleagues and getting away with it. yet, he is sympathized, especially over Tousen who tends to be more villainized by the fandom or at least held in a less favorable regard.

Gin is in the same boat, with the emotional manipulation and general emotional harm inflicted on multiple people but is sympathizes because uwu he loves rangiku even though he did cause her harm, simply because he betrayed her and hurt her friends and colleagues.

Ulquiorra is another very notable one, since he also has that whole manipulation thing although not as blatant as aizen. he did kidnap a minor and abuse her (isolating her, threatens her and her friends, and it is used to control her/keep her in captivity).

Grimmjow is another example, and its especially notable because he’s just very very violent. And he never apologizes or feels remorse for it, despite generally terrorizing Ichigo and co.

Nn*itra is especially reprehensible, he is overtly sexist, as most of his violent acts are targeted at women and uh. actively saying he hates women. creepy (implied sexual) behavior towards a minor as well.

Szayel as well, he has no regard for his minions, and then theres whatever he did to nemu what the fuck that was so fucked what the fuck.

notably, these men are also wildly popular among the fandom. they will have the most fanart, most discussion, most fics i guess. 

why do horny fucks sympathize with them

people empathize with people they see as attractive, and i mean conventional attractiveness. note how none of this empathy extends to people who do not fall in the category as attractive (often pale side eyes) hunk/twink. does zommari get that attention? yammy? why are they not held to the same standard as say szayel/gin or grimmjow. yammy is also angry and prone to violence, much like grimmjow.

what sets them apart is that they are not deemed sexually attractive so therefore, their flaws become easier to ignore and they arent sympathized as much. of course, kubo probably did inadvertently create this problem, seeing as theres a discrepancy in creating a complex character. another example of this is the comparison between byakuya and omaeda. of course, they are obviously different characters, byakuya has more development and screentime. however they are similar in that they are wealthy, in high positions of power, and look down on people they deem inferior for a variety of reasons. byakuya, however, is conventionally attractive and also has screentime. that being said there is an underlying issue of fatphobia as well in reducing omaeda to a comic relief character.

people empathize with attractive people or at least favor them. “People more strongly desire to form or maintain bonds with physically attractive partners relative to unattractive partners—an attractiveness-based affiliation effect (Path B). In turn, through projection, attractive partners are perceived to possess attributes that are compatible with these goals, which largely center on their reciprocation of interest in establishing or maintaining close relationships (Path C).”  this is indicated by the halo effect, “the tendency for positive impressions of a person, company, brand or product in one area to positively influence one's opinion or feelings in other areas“ which also applies to beauty and how attractiveness impacts how one recognizes a person. for example, an attractive person will often be associated with positive traits such as compassion, intelligence, and other desirable traits. it could be things like how appearing well groomed heightens others perception of you, how you will appear responsible and capable.

and this does extend to the villains. aizen is viewed as a tragic villain who fights for injustice or something like that. gin is a tragic antihero i think that did everything for his true love tm. ulquiorra is a tragic villain who does not understand love. grimmjow is grimmjow. nn*itra is somehow tragic with an inferiority complex lmao take that fucking L bug boyyy loser. and szayel... exists. see how fanon interprets these characters despite none of them having any remorse for what they have done. the fandom leaps to provide a justification or rational for their actions no matter how abhorrent they are. yammy and zommari are still held as villains, yet they are not sympathized with in the slightest nor are beloved to that extent. compare the sexualization of these men and the amount of sympathy garnered from the fandom. 

why this matters

its no secret that in online spaces especially, offenders are romanticized or at least sympathized. take the true crime community for example, in which case male serial killers were romanticized despite the atrocities they have committed. and this is linked to the “bad boy” trope that is prevalent in romance novels, where a troubled or dangerous man seems like a desirable partner despite stalking their love interest among other crimes. of course, this also gets a bad rep from wattpad ya books and just ya books in general.

there are examples of this trope. i have vaguely alluded to edward from twilight. there is also the cause of that white guy from 50 shades of gray, which is most known for romanticizing abuse but the audience cannot help but be allured by his white guyness or something/ there is the netflix film “you�� where a man stalks a women but it is seen as romantic and people find themselves attracted to joe despite his violence. literally this type of behavior:

there’s ted bundy film and how people raved about how hot he was despite him being an absolute monster and having real victims whos family have to live with the fact that people find their family member’s killer hot. it is this in its absolute extreme, where people are fully aware of their crimes but still find sympathy or attraction towards a criminal. in this case it is the gradual romanticization of violence that may creep up. i cannot assuredly claim that there is a strong correlation between finding villains attractive and romanticizing violence but there can be some indication of this.

and this view of how attractiveness can bleed into criminal court. of course, there are other factors such as gender, sexuality, age of judges and the inherent corruption within the legal system. here is a list of studies about this topic because christ i am not copy and pasting all of that go read it yourself.  but the main takeway is that in mock jurors and other public opinion, the more attractive defendants accused of crimes have less severe sentences or even less sentences (however this is not seen as frequently in judges). it shows that there is a level of sympathy, leniency, or more compassion towards attractive people. 

Conclusion

the point being made here is that attractiveness affects how one sees a person. yes, it is possible to find villains attractive, however the bias of physical attractiveness and actual character can potentially be dangerous if left unchecked. this is not exactly a call to action or a psa because a) i am fully aware that this fandom is horny to the point of brainrot and that it is incurable and b) this is just an analysis on behavior in the fandom. and i am aware that the studies are cishet in nature and are not indicative of the fandom as a whole seeing as there are a fair amount of lgbt people in this fandom. that being said, my point still stands.

[cat-sapphics]

Hey!

I follow the" aroace lesbian" tag and your recent posts have come up in my feed so I just wanted to say that being arospec, acespec (demiromatic graysexual, both labels in the aromantic and asexual spectrums) & lesbian is completely OKAY and you should not let anyone tell you the contrary. Especially uneducated people so 😚🤍

Many aroaces use the term aroace to encompass being in both aromantic and asexual spectrums; this means you experience little to no romantic/sexual attraction and that's more than valid. You can be both arospec and aspec! 🔥 Or arospec and asexual. Aromantic and acespec 🥺🤝

The way YOU experience romantic and sexual attraction is just different to the average allo person, & that doesn't make it any less valid. Attraction is an abstract concept and we shouldn't be putting ourselves into boxes but letting feelings be that, feelings.

Your experiences are necessary and important to our diverse & big aro/ace communities as an aroace lesbian! An aspec person is that who experiences little to no romantic attraction. That's it. THAT'S OKAY 🥰

And being an aspec lesbian is more than valid too, it's not a contradictory term because the little and fluctuating romantic & sexual attraction you DO experience, is ONLY towards women/nb so; I don't see why lesbian isn't a term you can't use. A lesbian is a women/nb female aligned person who experiences romantic, sexual and/or emotional attraction towards women/nb female aligned people. Check, check & check ✅

All in all, ace lesbians, aro lesbians and aroace lesbians are ALL part of the lesbian community & our unique experiences with romance and sex are necessary and valid for it 💓

Sorry if this got long, hope I made my point clear. Aroace lesbians have always been lesbians so don't let any exclusionists steal your peace 🧡🤍💖

thank you!! thank ya thank ya thank ya!! i really appreciate it <3

i will say, i think some of the anons i got did make some valid points (obviously not everywhere you look but they at least gave me something to think about in general) but it really took me by surprise how condescending and disapproving they all were. super uneducated too, i said i experience attraction differently or at least less frequently than average allo people and like ?? that doesn't mean i'm secretly a self-hating lesbophobe ?? you don't get to determine that for me if i'm genuinely happy even though i participate in lesbian discourse and am passionate about keeping the definition specific and closed ?? lol i didn't redefine lesbian or take away its initial meaning so it really had me peeved

i think most of their comments reflect on how they don't believe in aromanticism and asexuality being a spectrum, which i guess i invited by my own doing since i have some conservative and exclusionary views on the lgbt community and that affects my following/audience, but my response to that is that i use these labels because they bring me personal comfort. when i say i'm demiromantic i don't mean that alloromantics have zero standards when it comes to a potential partner or are completely mesmerized by the idea of hook-ups, just that the connection they need to start crushing comes within a decent time period with a personal connection, but not a super strong and deep and loving one that makes it exceptionally hard to fall in love despite however much we may desire to. the label doesn't exist to imply something bad about """normal""" people, it exists to name an experience many people have but to an intense degree. so, yes, it's a pointless social construct, it probably means nothing to you and that's fine, but it still means something to me. i'm not crying oppression or marginalization, and i'm not claiming that i'm lgbt on the basis of being demiromantic/greyasexual, but through being a nonbinary lesbian. that's the difference between mspec lesbians and aspec lesbians, is one is actively harmful to multiple groups and actually Does spawn from a place of internalized lesbophobia and/or biphobia, and the other is just "mmk this is just for me and affects nothing at all, it doesn't drag you into anything at all, i still qualify for lesbian the way you (should!) see it as technically even if you do believe it's redundant, so just... leave me alone" cause it reflects more on them than me when they make it their business by unfairly assuming things about me

same applies to me being greyasexual. still trying to figure out if it means that i experience sexual/physical attraction less frequently, less intensely, or both, but does that matter?? genuinely?? this is also redundant but i didn’t wanna leave it out of the paragraph about me being demiro fk;ljslkgbdvhbs. the aro disapproval part isn’t acceptable at all but i can at least see it since romance is so normalized and is a core part of, y’know, lgb relationships; the greyace disapproval however....... i don’t wanna label it as acephobia because i don’t really believe in aphobia being a thing, but it still kinda rubs me wrong to claim that sexual/physical attraction is a requirement ykyk... NOTHING WRONG WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEX OF COURSE (i myself kinda wanna try someday if that works out) i just think frowning upon someone who doesn’t UNLESS they try to claim they’re lgbt on that basis is.................. not really cool. i really hope people who read this understand what i’m trying to say and don’t label me as an ace inclus who thinks aphobia and oppression are real, i was just trying to make a point about my personal experiences oops lmao

and then it became "aroace means NO ATTRACTION AT ALL" okay... so i'm angled aroace, that's a sub-term since aroace is literally an umbrella term, actually (unlike lesbian, shit's complicated ykyk). "YOU'RE NOT AROACE THEN"....... they don't even like the idea of oriented aroace now either, so like, what then, are aroace people just never allowed to feel love or positive feelings from other people ever? jesus christ. i'm not even getting into this, i consider aro/ace identities to be secondary to describe one's attraction so this debate should not be as important as, say, discourse centering the L, G, B, or T. it's just dumb all around tbh

hope i addressed all the arguments against it, but i can't really care at this point if i missed something :/ i'll probably get a mean anon about it so don't worry!! /s jslgjgjkshkj;lhfp

speaking of, i've had to delete so many anons and even turn off the option to ask anonymously because of this discourse. it's so pointless in my opinion, so i've just stopped giving them my time unless i think it's worth answering - but even then, i try to keep it fairly short. i genuinely was not expecting my take on (cishet) ace discourse to turn into myself failing to be seen as a "real lesbian" despite literally meeting its definitive qualifications and then it just kept building up ?? stan behavior tbh, especially since plenty of them obviously come from the same users

i apologize for the rant. i just never really felt like i'd be listened to if i tried to explain my identity, so i gave up and just tried to ignore my way out of it. so i really genuinely appreciate your ask, especially since i can identify you. it really feels like i actually have someone on my side now, so even if you ever disagree i'd know you wouldn't harass me about it. it really means a lot, i really needed this from you and i don't wanna dump more shit but i feel that you deserve to know. so thank you again <3

[brw]

Pietro & Wanda for the character ask thing!!

PIETRO

Sexuality Headcanon: Honestly I'm not sure! On one hand ofc both twins can be bi and also he has some nice Homoerotic Relationships™. On the other hand it's kinda funny to imagine him as a cishet who doesn't understand but is supportive of his trans bi sister, and his two queer nephews. The token straight of the Maximoff gang <3 but yeah basically nothing it set in stone for him dhrhhrhfhr.

Gender Headcanon: I personally do not have anything perfectly set in stone again however I like the headcanons some people have of him being trans and have read a few nice fics so :> yeah nothing again that's set in stone or disputable for me I just like seeing people's Thots™ on the matter

A ship I have with said character: God I dunno 🙈 I have relationships that I like with him but nothing that I strongly ship u know? Like lots of concepts that are fun but nothing that I go "yeah that's good". Probably either the Silverfish ship or him and Emma in No Surrender were sweet.

A BROTP I have with said character: Hmm him and Lorna I think! I absolutely hate P*ter D*vid still but their moments were nice :)

A NOTP I have with said character: Saw some xmcu fans ship him and Scott together which <3 no.

A random headcanon: While I don't think he's got ADHD (I stay away from hc speedster characters as having ADHD bc :/) I do think he would benefit from having stims so I think he uses figit spinner when he wants to go Fast™ but cannot :>

General Opinion over said character: He's nice tbh. I prefer him in X Stories tbh (I swear every time him and Vision are on panel together I'm just like "stay away. go someplace else PLEASE) but I liked him in the Cap's Quartet days! I also think marvel should bring back him liking the circus bc that was really pure and nice :) also I think he's not dramatic enough these days. Needs to be more over the top I think. Also rip to the way Englehart wrote him, though Englehart just had a think for cucking (I mean seriously, he wanted to write Vision cheating on Wanda w/ Mantis and wrote Clea almost cheating on Strange with Benjamin Franklin apparently??? So who knows what was going thru his head) so hdndjrh.

WANDA

Sexuality Headcanon: Bisexual :> but tbh I'm open for most headcanons and stuff hdhhdhrhrh.

Gender Headcanon: Trans Wanda my beloved... I just like the idea :) I have the url transwandamaximoff for a reason! It is just a vibe ❤️ marvel can kiss my ass idc

A ship I have with said character: Guess. Go on, guess.

Them, of course. One of the classics. Hope old marvel writers are rolling in their graves at me calling this a lesbian romance hdhdhdhhd.

A BROTP I have with said character: Her and Janet! They were really sweet together and their friendship was nice :> also her and Mantis. They were friends too and idk it was nice to see them be chill together. None of this "women forced into a stupid rivalry bc of a love triangle" bullshit I just want them drinking tea and gossiping together.

A NOTP I have with said character: Her and Simon 🤢Byrne I'm never going to forgive you for that. Also her and Victor. That was... strange and unappealing. I really... do not understand. Also her and Carol. She deserves better than an ex-military war criminal jfc.

A random headcanon: Honestly considering Wanda helped design some outfits for people (the Goliath Hank Pym fit was her :>) I like to think that Janet decided to take her sort of as an apprentice for a bit and taught her how to design clothes and that she's actually good at it :> I also imagine if Janet asks she models for her on occasion!!

General Opinion over said character: Wife ❤️💖💞 treated like shit by m*rvel c*mics and for WHAT. if she was written by Bendis it didn't happen <3 deserves way more than what she gets. Should get to lead her own Avengers Team at some point tbh. Her relationship with Vision also wasn't any worse than any other Silver Age Romance at the time so idk why people act like it was? But um yeah 👉👈 Hickman if ur not gonna retcon the stupid AXIS thing keep your filthy hands of her.

send a character

[nona-gay-simus-main]

Top 10 Worst Tropes in Romance - Part 2

Disclaimer: This is MY opinion, you do you.

Part 1: Here

1. The Child Partner

I’m not talking about literal children, because duh. What I mean is the a person who needs their partner to emotionally parent them.

Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like the whole point of a romantic relationship is to be with an equal. You’re supposed to be teammates, best friends, and lovers.

Of course, I'm not including cases where one partner is disabled or chronically/mentally ill and needs the other to take care of them - that’s an entirely separate thing. 

I'm referring to people (usually cishet men), who constantly need their partner to manage their moods and emotions. They always have some ~trauma~ to manipulate the partner into staying in the relationship in order to keep reassuring them, confirming their self-esteem, and even doing their cooking and cleaning, as if they aren't abled adults with two functioning hands.

That shit sucks!

Imagine doing that for someone all the time and then also trying to have a kid (or multiple kids) with that person. Not only will you be taking care of your actual child; but also - your partner-child. Stop normalizing lazy, emotionally stunted men. That shit ain't cut no matter how hard his abs are or how big his dick is.

2. “I’ve been in love with you since the first moment we met.”

I don’t know what it is about this trope, but it shows up in many romances and it always makes me uncomfortable. How the hell are you supposed to react to that? 

Oh, you’ve been in love with me since the first time we met? Yikes, my dude.

You can’t even fall in love with someone that fast anyway. You're not in love with the person, you’re in love with your idea of them!

The only acceptable version of this is the one where it’s more along the lines “I thought I might fall in love with you if I spent any more time with you.” But other than that, I really don't understand why this is a thing?

3. Lust = Love

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a prude. I’m perfectly fine with couples who have loads and loads of sex. I’m also perfectly fine with casual sex and friends-with-benefits and any other consensual arrangement between adults.

I just get tripped up when pretty much all a couple does is have sex. They have little in common outside of sex, spend little time together when not having sex, and don’t share any hobbies, interests or even conversation topics. Or worse, when they aren’t having sex, they’re fighting. 

If you want your characters to get laid, that’s cool. But if you want me to believe they are also falling in love - you’re gonna have to try a little harder.

4. BDSM = Abuse

Yes, abuse happens under the pretense of BDSM, but BDSM is NOT inherently abusive. It only happens within pre-established boundaries and safe words and with explicit consent. The only people who claim it's abuse, are people who have a vested interest in controlling what women and queer people do with our bodies.

So I really, really hate it when people use “It’s just BDSM, don’t be so uptight” to justify their rapey, abusive love interest’s actions. If the submissive has not already consented, or their consent was obtained through manipulation or intoxication - it’s not meaningful consent.

BDSM is a lot more complex than some of the simplistic catchphrases we use to explain it to the vanillas, and we can discuss those complexities for hours, but at the one thing is definitely true - the Dominant only has as much power as the submissive is willing to give. If they (knowingly) cross a boundary or take power without the consent of the submissive, it’s not power exchange, it’s abuse, pure and simple.

5. "All women want him. All men want to be him"

Really? ALL women? Are you sure?

I hate to tell you this, but some women are exclusively attracted to other women. And some women aren’t attracted to anyone. Some women have low libidos, and some women just don’t prioritize sex and relationships for whatever reason. And some women are in happy, fulfilling monogamous relationships already.

And all men want to BE him? Did you know that some men are attracted to other men? They might want a piece of that too. Or perhaps, they just don’t value being some alpha douchebag and are happy to be their much better-adjusted self. That's a thing.

Can we let this cliché die already? Please?

6. Giving up your dreams for ~love~.

Oh man, this is the worst! And why is it nearly always the woman, who has to make a choice between her career and ~~~LoVe~~?

So many books/movies etc. start with this powerful career woman and then by the end reduce her to nothing but a trophy to her man. That’s not feminist, it just keeps perpetuating the same tired gender roles.

And I can’t help but think about the future of this relationship. What if it doesn’t work out? Then the partner who the dreams were given up for looks like a jerk, even if they never asked for this.

And even if it works out, the partner who gave up their dream job, or opportunity, or whatever, will always have this “what if” at the back of their mind. Over time, they may even end up resenting their SO, especially if things don’t work out for them career-wise.

Just such a bad trope all around. It’s not romantic, it’s toxic, and co-dependant and I want it to stop.

7. He treats everyone like crap ***but you***.

You know the limitus test to see if someone’s a good person? Look at how they treat people who are “beneath” them. Their servers, the cleaning lady, etc.

If this guy treats servers like crap, treats his friends and family like crap, treats everyone like crap, except for the person whose pants he wants to get in (or wants to keep getting in for the foreseeable future), why are we romanticizing him? He’s a selfish jackass.

You can have a grumpy (but ultimately caring and good-natured) character, that's fine. But if he only treats people like humans when it benefits him - that's not sexy, that's sociopathic.

8. Love Cures All

Ahhh, the worst of them all. Truly, having a character who suffers from mental illness or has a major trauma, but oh look, they got some cuddles from the love interest and now they are all good!

Just stop, please. It’s so damaging to the people who are going through this, to tell them that all they need to feel better is ~~~LoVe~~~. And if they aren’t getting better? Well, they just haven’t gotten enough ~~~LoVe~~~!

It’s also damaging to the partner - no one should have this much responsibility on their shoulders.

Obviously, the love of a partner, friends, and family can HELP with the healing process, but it’s not enough by itself. Get them some goddamn therapy, please.

9. Accidental Pregnancy

I don’t know about you, but for most people I know, myself included, accidental pregnancy would be an absolute nightmare, not something romantic.

Do you know how bad my entire generation is doing financially? And people use this as a plot device to strengthen the relationship?

Also, relationships get weaker after having a child, not stronger. Babies are cute when they are sleeping, the rest of the time they are crying, screaming messes. Yeah, why wouldn’t sleep deprivation and constantly hurting everywhere strengthen your relationship? 🙄🙄🙄

10. Violent Men

IRL, violent men are scary, not sexy. Even if the violence is never directed at the love interest, chances are that over time it will be. But even if it’s not, why would you ever want to date someone who has the emotional maturity of a pre-schooler?

Because after pre-school, kids tend to learn to solve their problems with their words. But I guess your love interest hasn’t matured past the age of 6, which coincidentally also leads back to the first trope on this list. Charming.

[nevaryadl]

Request for a character study on Nitara

Nitara is morally neutral, she is not out for evil gains and actually has a rather morally good goal in life in trying to free her realm from the mess of realms that’s stitched together to make Outworld. She just wants to save her realm from Shao Kahn after all and while her means may not be holy, her end goals are of a virtuous nature. Not to mention her own need for blood to survive is a necessary thing, but this is more of a ‘she does not take joy in doing something that literally is keeping her alive’ sort of necessity.

The bandanna that she wears over one eye was likely an aesthetic choice, but I like to write/think of her bandana likely covering a scarred/blinded/missing eye that she got in her continuous fight against Shao Kahn’s forces in trying to get her realm back. She is a fighter after all and she certainly is trying with all her might to get her home back, so I can see her having her fair share of rightfully earned. Also NRS are sexists cowards, I’m pretty sure Nitara would wear actual leather armor/useful armor that allows her use of her wings and her magic and not… that.

Nitara’s vampire nature differs greatly from vampires that Earthrealm knows or anyone really. Unlike Earthrealm where vampirism stems from a hyper intelligent and hyper evolving virus that needs blood to feed its host, vampires are simply born creatures and more akin to mammals. They are born the way that they are and are seen as natural creatures within her realm so people seeing her as odd for her powers of her vampire nature was something that Nitara had to get used to shortly after her realm was taken and she was forced into other realms.

Going off the previous point. Nitara needs blood for nutritional content. Her body lives on nutrients found in blood with creatures from her realm ranging in the best for her nutrition, followed by Outworld because she’s likely made herself adjust through time there in her fight. The very worst in terms of nutrition is Earthrealm, which are borderline toxic due to the higher concentrations of vitamin D that Earthrealmers get from their sun. Nitara can eat it but it will make her sick and she risks expelling it. If she can keep it down she becomes ill, nauseous or on the lesser end of things, sluggish and sleepy and exceptionally tired until the blood is fully digested.

In terms of personality, Nitara is very relaxed and chill with her passions sometimes causing passionate flair ups. Outside of battle she’s nice and rather laid back, she will crack a few jokes and laugh at a few good others. She likes preserving history, so this means breaking into museums and taking stolen shit and giving it back to the people that they belong too, as well as helping Nightwolf record history by gathering things he needs, usually words by mouth. She also has a fondness for Earthrealm bats and other blood sucking creature (not misquotes, fuck those guys), as well as carnivorous plant life. When her passions are riled, she almost becomes consumed by them, gaining a one track mind that thinks in terms of ‘Accomplish X Goal’ such as if she sees a means of helping her fight to save her realm. Though she is not completely without heart, she just becomes a little looser with her morals (never stooping into evil actions of course, but a little Chaos never hurt anyone).

In terms of sexuality and romance, I know NRS tried to shove us the piping hot pile of shit that was Nitara and Erron hooking up and obviously pandering Nitara towards gross cishet men, but quiet honestly NRS will have to strangle me themselves to take lesbian Nitara out of my hands. She ADORES women. To her women are simply wondrous creatures that make her heart soar whenever she sees them. She has a soft side and a mild preference for more feminine presenting women, though still adores more masculine presenting ones do not get her wrong, but she loves long hair and pretty makeup and long flowing outfits like dresses on her partners. She ranges more on the futch side of the scales herself, presenting semi masculine with some feminine touches.

[janiedean]

www(.)slate(.)com/articles/arts/culturebox/2017/02/how_sensitivity_readers_from_minority_groups_are_changing_the_book_publishing(.)html This seriously worries me. Tumblr mentality spilling over real life

... yey.

okay, no rewind. first thing, I’m sad to say but tumblr mentality has spilled over irl a long time ago and at this point the only thing we can do is hoping this historical moment passes a long time ago (it had already spilled over the moment I had to read actual articles about people actually asking to remove Ovid from a ***classic literature*** curricula because there are rape scenes in the metamorphoses). whatever.

now about this, the problem is: I do think that if someone writes about X character that belongs to a minority they should do their research before touching the topic if they care to write a good book (if they don’t then it’s another problem entirely but let’s just assume they do), but it has to be a thing you do before you actually write that shit. I absolutely don’t agree with write what you know only because otherwise we wouldn’t be publishing a damned thing and honestly some people also write so that they don’t have to always rehash what they know, but if you’re doing a socially sensitive theme you have to try and do it right - if I decide I write a book with a trans character I can’t do it before I talk to a sizable amount of trans people and I don’t read more than a bit on the subject, same as if I decide to write a book set during idk the vietnam war where the protagonist is a ptsd vietnam veteran I can’t do it if I haven’t read a ton of lit/history books about the vietnam war and talked with a few psychologists or psych students or read something about ptsd. but that’s a thing that’s your duty as the author, if you want to do a serious book about a serious thing. if you just want to dick around it’s another problem entirely but let’s just say that I want to do that, it’s on me to do it, not on my **sensitivity readers**, and anyway a sensitivity reader (which once upon a time should have been called editor but never mind) shouldn’t have that much power, ie: once I read a tumblr post which basically said ‘white writers couldn’t ever write poc characters because they possibly can’t understand [now what POC meant in that sense is an entire other question that was left unanswered of course, bc poc doesn’t mean just black but nvm] but they have a moral obligation to because poc writers aren’t as popular/are hired less than white writers, and even at their best they will never get it right and they’ll fuck the poc characters up but who cares, they have to do it and take the criticism so they realize how it feels to be discriminated’.

now, I personally would never hear any advice from THAT above person if they were my sensitivity reader, because the concept that if I’m white then I can’t possibly get it right means that they already decided my work is going to suck ass even if it’s a masterpiece, and then... fuck that? I mean, I have no moral obligation to write anything I don’t want and with that attitude you basically make sure that someone is never gonna try to branch out. and where were the sensitivity readers when fifty shades came out, and all the subsequent YA porn books where it looks like your ideal man should be a stalker? we just don’t know, but no one cares to have sensitivity readers on ***that*** shit because guess what, it sells.

like, the problem shouldn’t be that you as a writer might offend someone with your writing because that can be because you’re actually offensive or because you’re nabokov and you wrote lolita and people who don’t get the point of it think it’s offensive and that it should be burned. you can’t start writing shit thinking of whether you’re going to offend someone or not with it because otherwise you’ll never get anywhere and you couldn’t touch one single sensitive topic (and on this, I’d appreciate sensitivity readers when it comes to atheist characters but NEVER MIND THAT XDDD /joking). what people should do is encourage potential writers who want to write socially sensitive stuff to talk to other people first and research their topic if it requires it.

What I mean is, let’s do a practical example: let’s take the basic lady chatterley plot (woman has a husband that neglects her both sexually and as a person and finds happiness with another guy who lives just under the husband’s nose). the original lady chatterly is already socially sensible because it has class issues and whatnot, but if you just want to write your torrid romance novel about the white suburban mom falling in love with the new white hot neighbor while her white husband doesn’t notice her existence and they have all the a+ sex in the world you’re perfectly entitled to and like, just get yourself an editor that will tell you if your porn sucks or not. there, this one’s easy.

but, let’s say that you want to have the white suburban mom being a victim of domestic violence instead of having the husband being just neglectful then you should research something about domestic violence and the effect it has on people. it has already become way more socially sensible, because you can’t just shrug it away and the sex she’ll have with her new guy won’t be the same as the sex she used to have with her husband, or alternatively, if the husband’s neglectful only you can have a difference between quick missionary and hot steamy long fucks with the new guy, if he’s abusive and he abuses her sexually you have to have nonconsensual vs consensual which is already a whole new heap of problems.

or, let’s flip it around: the domestic violence victim is a man, the wife is the one abusing him, he falls in love with the new female neighbor next door. this implies that you have to look into female on male domestic violence and research how frequently men aren’t taken seriously especially if the perpetrator is a woman, so you have the above plus this.

or, the victim is a man, the perpetrator is a woman, he falls in love with the male neighbor next door. in this case you have to make sure you know how to write a guy who has to get out of an abusive relationship and have a sexuality crisis if he didn’t know he was also into dudes.

or, all three are male, or all three are women: you have to look into statistics to see how male on male or female on female abuse works, on top of all of the above, on top of you have to know how to write an abuse victim. and, if there’s children involved? you have to deal with that too and you have to make sure the abuser isn’t a complete stereotype or some kind of boogeyman because that kind of story is effective if the perpetrator is someone who doesn’t look out of a twilight fanfic *cough*. if you make any of those characters trans then you have to look into it, too, if you make any of them not white or not your ethnicity you might wanna look into that too, and so on. and if you wanna throw in the lady chatterley class thing then you have to also think about what it means if some of the characters are rich, if others are poor, if they’re all middle class, if they’re all poor, all rich and so on.

what I mean is that the same plot, with some changes, can require zero research beyond what metaphors to not use while writing porn (example one) to a whole fucking lot of research and it’s on you to find people to discuss it with before and then to possibly proofread it before you send it to any publisher so you at least are sure you have a thing in your hands that doesn’t suck or has glaring inaccuracies. at that point your sensitivity reader should be able to give it a look and maybe give you advice which you should be able to reject if you don’t think it sound - for example, let’s say I write the above book in its most socially sensitive approach. like, dunno, let’s say the abuser is a cishet white man, the protagonist is a white ftm trans person who also can’t/won’t transition because of their abusive husband and the neighbor is, dunno, a black cishet woman. this would require a shitload of research should I try to write it. but then let’s say I do it and then I decide to write it from the pov of the abusive husband. which is a legitimate literary choice and I’m taking it with the entire intent of making him an abusive asshole without trying to justify his actions and to pull a less skilled humbert humbert in the world (because I’m not nabokov and no one is, but one could and should be able to write villains as a POV if they want to) and that I made sure to depict him as The Worst. if my sensitivity reader says that it’s offensive that I would write it from that guy’s POV in the first place and nothing else matters, it wouldn’t matter if I wrote the best book of the last ten years, it would still be deemed offensive. and that is a thing that shouldn’t fly - meaning, that if this is just a background check to make sure you don’t do bad representation (which you should have already done yourself anyway) it could have its usefulness, if it becomes a way to say that you can’t write what you want or problematic characters/villains shouldn’t be a POV choice even if you show them to be terrible then we’re straight into censorship land and that... shouldn’t be a thing.

tldr, you didn’t even ask for this entire rant but tbh I’m worried about that possible outcome (especially since that article mentioned roth which on this website is already hated as the champion of the white old man protagonist who wants to bang his students by people who don’t understand shit about either roth or writing in general) more than about checks on whether a thing is offensive or not, which anyway seems to me like is thoroughly ignored if the book sells (see: every other stalker seen as an ideal dude in YAs post-50 shades *sigh*).

[mars-ipan]

ok real quick? i never understood why people are exclusionists. why are you against neopronouns, aspec people, trans folks in general, bi/pan/poly/omni people, etc.? so what if it “proves homophobes right?” they’re gonna commit hate crimes regardless of what we do unless we crack down on it. whatever we do isn’t gonna have an effect on them. why do you care about the pronouns another person uses, particularly neopronouns? yeah they can be tough to learn, i understand, but if you need help you can just look up websites to practice or better yet, ask the person using those pronouns and they’ll gladly help??

why are people deciding if other people are “trans enough?” your being trans isn’t my business, and their being trans isn’t yours, either. and yes, some people transition and regret it. but that doesn’t mean being trans needs these big rules, it just means we need to stop encouraging immediate transition but instead encourage healthy gender exploration. like, i wondered if i was a demigirl due to the slight disconnect i feel from gender as a whole. you know what i did? i researched, and tried she/they pronouns. and while i learned that no, i am definitely a female and nothing more, i also learned a lot about being nonbinary, which helped me be a better ally. why? because i was around people who taught me how to healthily experiment. let’s do that? please? also like. don’t misgender people even if you doubt their transness. if you misgender someone intentionally fuck you. nothing else to be said about it. don’t do things terfs do, guys. you’re not protecting trans folk, you’re harming your own people.

why do people think aspec people are bad?? what did they do???? they’re just vibing who gives a shit if they don’t need sex or romance, or if they have to know someone well to want it. as a pan person and also a romantic person, good on them! that shit is tiring and confusing and if they don’t need it then cool! they have extra time to spend not worrying about it, and from what i’ve seen a lot of them spend that time cooking. that’s great! leave aspec people alone they’re literally just making food. you sound like you got rejected and just never stopped being salty. that puts you on par with a cishet dude who hates lesbians because one he’s attracted to won’t make an exception for him. shut the fuck up. oh and aspec people aren’t prudes. they just don’t feel attraction. this isn’t to say aspec people can’t have a high sex drive! attraction (or lack thereof) and horny do not have to be the same that’s not how things work. oh and stop saying they’re inhuman or broken or some shit. no they’re fucking not. plenty of people who feel attraction don’t want kids, and guess what? this isn’t fucking caveman times. we don’t really need everyone to directly pass on their lineage or really want to. gay couples do these things called adoption or surrogation if they want kids. ace people can do that too. wow. who knew. stop being an asshole and Let Aspecs Vibe.

on a similar note, bi/pan/poly/omni folk! what the hell did we do?????? we’re “hetero passing????” what even is that???? hey dumbasses everyone is hetero passing if they’re not in a relationship because we live in a world where people expect each other to be heterosexual. sometimes even people in Clear Homosexual Relationships get asked if they’re siblings or some shit. i’ve seen women post about their homo marriages and get comments like “awww besties! having your wedding on the same day as your best friend is such goals!” a lot of people have horrible gaydars (also that erases straight trans people who are btw lgbt it is in the name). we’re not gonna cheat on you or leave you. this one confuses me. how do you think we see people??? as food?? we don’t like. get sick of something and decide to switch over to something else. our whole thing is that generally we don’t really give a shit about your gender???? like it’s not really a factor? some of us have differing standards for different genders but like. overall it’s not that important?? so why do you think we’d get “tired of vagina” or “miss dick” or some shit??? that feels vaguely transphobic. why is it always about sex?? which leads me to my next question. how the hell did “you want attention/you’re a whore” become a thing???? bitch what??? say you’re a gay dude. do you want to fuck literally every man you see? “no, of course not?” huh, funny, since you seem to think that’s how attraction works. we still have fucking standards, same as almost everyone else. and even if we didn’t, then what? who gives a shit? it’s 2020 man why are we still slutshaming? some people are horny stop fucking caring. oh and also stop pitting bi/pan/poly/omni people against each other!!! what the hell!!! why is that a thing??? we should be loving each other guys!! everyone has their own definitions of labels and reasons why they use them. pan people, stop calling all bi people transphobes. they’re not. bi people, stop calling all pan people biphobic (but also bisexual at the same time??? ig they think it’s internalized?). we’re not. and let’s not erase polysexual (not to be confused with polyamourous) or omnisexual people. they’re here too and they are just as valid as us. we should be filled with solidarity and appreciation for each other, not hate and spite. there’s not a competition to be the one sole label that means “i’m interested in multiple genders,” literally just pick what you’re comfy with and respect other people. sorry this one is longer i just have more experience dealing with shit like this

in conclusion, why the fuck are our own people attacking us??? i can understand if the word “queer” is a trigger word for some seeing as it is used as a slur, so with that one we literally just let people use it if they want to and don’t force it on anyone who doesn’t want to. bam problem solved. however, why are trans people who don’t fit a perfect mold a problem? why are aspecs a problem? why are bi/poly/pan/omni people a problem? what the fuck? every group i’ve talked about has been here since day one, by the way. we aren’t new. if you’re an exclusionist i want you to please not interact with me, i’m tired and just as my points probably didn’t change your mind, your points will not change mine. dear god can we please just let people be stop giving a shit a label is something we use to feel comfortable go away

TL;DR: stop fighting each other and instead respect each other. we’re a family and we should love each other. also exclusionists don’t interact

cishets can totally reblog this btw! just don’t clown please and thank you