#aromantic asexual icon my beloved

[khruschevshoe]

Mel Spriggs

Long is the road that leads me home

And longer still when I walk alone

Steady is the hand that's come to terms

With the lessons it has had to learn

I've seen the things that I must do

So take my hand and set me free

Take my burdens and bury them deep

Take this burden away from me

And bury it before it buries me

-The Oh Hellos, Cold Is The Night

As Archie twirls her into her brother’s arms, Mel feels more a part of the sea than ever before.

She is no merchant's daughter. She is no trapped child. She is no criminal.

She is a pirate. She is free.

She is home.

This is the moment that Mel Spriggs wants to stay in forever, uninhibited, with her brother and her friends and this new, incredible family that she is beginning to call her own.

-aletterinthenameofsanity, look at the stars and confess our dreams (we can't wait 'til tomorrow)

I would like y'all to meet my new blorbo, Mel Spriggs, stubborn, beautifully-developed aromantic asexual queen. Since I am cursed with said blorbo being an OC in a fic series I'm reading, I just had to make her a moodboard.

Y'all can meet her in her intro fic here, though she gets a full arc over the course of the series:

(I'm thinking of making moodboards for other characters/ships in the series, if people are interested? What do y'all think?)

@polikate @bricksbloggyplace @angxlwiings @possumsmushroom @aletterinthenameofsanity

[blahaj-blastin]

A very happy pride month to:

Kristen Applebees, my lesbian queen

Fig Faeth, my bisexual icon

Gorgug Thistlespring, my pansexual king

Riz Gukgak, my aromantic beloved

Adaine Abernant, my asexual goddess

Fabian Seacaster, my… well idk yet, but be isn’t straight

[sundixled]

Roleplaying Profile Meme:

PLEASE REPOST, DO NOT REBLOG!  Feel free to add to any of your answers!  The purpose is to tell your partners about the way you write!  For the multiple-choice ones, BOLD all that apply and, if you want, italicize if it’s a conditional answer! REDOING THIS SO ITS UPDATED

– B A S I C S –

NAME : Sun

ARE YOU OVER 18? Yes / No (20 y/o)

YOUR MUSE? Yes / No (depending on muse)

ARE YOU SELECTIVE ABOUT WHO YOU WRITE WITH ON THIS BLOG? No (anyone) /Semi / Yes / Highly / Private

ARE YOU SELECTIVE ABOUT WHO YOU FOLLOW ON THIS BLOG? No (anyone) / Semi / Yes / Highly

IF YOUR MUSE IS CANON, HOW MUCH TO YOU ADHERE TO CANON? Not at all / A little / Somewhat / Mostly / Strictly / OC

WHAT POST LENGTHS DO YOU WRITE? One Liners / Single-Para / Multi-Para / Novella

DO YOU USE ICONS AND/OR GIFS? No / Gifs / Icons / Gifcons

DO YOU WRITE ON OTHER PLATFORMS? No / Yes (discord my beloved)

WHAT LEVEL OF PLOTS DO YOU WRITE? Unplotted / Open-Ended Plots / Semi-Plotted / Fully Plotted Epics

HOW QUICKLY DO YOU USUALLY RESPOND TO THREADS? Very Slow / Slow (3-4 Weeks) / Average (1-2 Weeks) / Fast (Less Than One Week) / Very Fast (Less Than Three Days)

WHAT TYPES OF THEMES DO YOU LIKE? (feel free to add!) Fluff / Angst / Smut / Action / Tragedy / Domestic / Family / Conversational / Hurt-Comfort

WHAT GENRES DO YOU LIKE? (feel free to add!) High Fantasy / Supernatural / Science Fiction / Historical / Horror / Comedy / Romance / Drama / Action / Adventure / Espionage / Everything

ARE THERE ANY THEMES YOU’RE UNCOMFORTABLE WRITING ON YOUR BLOG? No / Yes (Non-con)

DO YOU HAVE ANY TRIGGERS?  HOW DO YOU REQUEST IT TAGGED? No / Yes ( Non-con.)

– S H I P P I N G –

WHAT TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS ARE YOU OPEN TO? Romantic / Platonic / Familial / Physical / Sexual

WHAT TYPES OF PRE-ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIPS ARE YOU OPEN TO? Romantic / Platonic / Familial / Physical / Sexual

DO YOU HAVE OTPS? No / Chemistry only / Yes

DO YOU HAVE NOTPS? No / Yes

WHAT IS YOUR MUSE’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION? - Heterosexual / Heteroflexible / Bisexual / Homoflexible / Homosexual / Pansexual / Demisexual / Sapiosexual / Asexual / Questioning

WHAT IS YOUR MUSE’S ROMANTIC ORIENTATION? - Heteroromantic / Heteroflexible / Biromantic / Homoflexible / Homoromantic / Panromantic / Demiromantic / Grayromantic / Sapioromantic / Aromantic / Polyamorous / Questioning

ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WRITING SMUT? No / Selectively / Yes

HOW EARLY IN A RELATIONSHIP DO YOU SHIP ROMANTICALLY? Autoship / During Plotting / After A Couple IC Interactions / Several IC Interactions / Slow Burn / Depends on partner & muse

ARE YOU OPEN TO TOXIC SHIPS? No / Selectively / Yes

ARE YOU OPEN TO PROBLEMATIC SHIPS? (canon history, age difference, complicated, etc.) No / Selectively / Yes

ARE YOU OPEN TO POLYSHIPPING? No / Selectively / Yes

ARE YOU AN EXCLUSIVE SHIPPER? No / Sometimes / Yes

DOES CRACK SHIPPING EVER HAPPEN? No / Sometimes / Yes

DOES CROSSOVER SHIPPING EVER HAPPEN? No / Yes / Depends

[elaboratejellyfish]

SAD-ist Gogy pride icons!

Art by SAD-ist obviously

[roboticromantic]

Thinking about… 🌟them🌟

[dracolunae]

Hi, you can call me Luna🌙, or Draco🐉 (if you know me from Twitch), or whatever nicknames you wanna give me!

My username is typically DracoLunae or draco_lunae on everything, so if you see an account with that name and the same icon as here, that’s probably me!

I mainly use she/her and they/them pronouns but I’m a-okay with other pronouns, go wild! (Any pronouns)

Feel free to ping me in stuff or send asks! I love talking with people!

Sideblogs:

MCYT: @antarctic-empires

JRWI: @pretzel-the-frogtopus

STH: @tikal-the-echidna (previously silverkinesis)

LoZ: @sakura-satori

Tag List

Under the cut: my interests, other blogs I moderate (mostly update accounts lol), boundaries and some general info about me!

Main/Static interests:

liguistics, mythology, world-building (especially in a fantasy context), dragons, cats, owls/corvids/misc. birds/wings, ceramics, Origami, Minecraft, Mushrooms

Current big interest(s):

Sonic The Hedgehog

Transformers (especially Prime but I’m working my way through everything I can find)

Other Interests I’m especially open to talking about:

Sonic (especially any sort of lore and the Archie comics)

Welcome to Night Vale

Jojo’s Bizarre Adventure

Witch Hat Atelier

Avatar: Journey to Pandora

Yu-Gi-Oh! (Especially the card game)

Bee and Puppycat

Saiki K.

Hellboy (especially the Guillermo del Toro movies)

Inuyasha

The Legend of Zelda

TMA

Blogs I am a moderator/admin on:

@technoblade-updates (may his memory be a blessing)

@philza-updates (hiatus)

@awesamponk-updates (hiatus)

@bealio-updates (hiatus)

@sophietexas-updates (hiatus)

@grian-updates (hiatus)

@mumbo-updates (hiatus)

@happyduo-updates (hiatus)

@billzo-updates (hiatus)

@slimecicle-updates (hiatus)

@origins-updates (hiatus)

@jrwi-updates (hiatus)

@fundy-updates (hiatus)

@mcytimagedescribed

@the-update-hub

Link to the subscription dash: here

Boundaries and general info:

I’m 22 years old, German/Australian and identify as Asexual, Aromantic and Agender/Gendervoid!

I give zero shits about my gender, use whatever phrases and pronouns you want for me!

Please do not sexualise me or make jokes about me being into someone sexually if I don’t know you (mutuals get more of a pass to joke about this one, I’ll tell you if I’m uncomfortable)

Empty blogs that follow me get blocked, unless they state that they just follow from a main they don’t use. I don’t like having empty followers, sorry.

I am fine with playful insults and banter, especially if we’ve talked before! I’m okay with die jokes addressed at me if we’ve talked before or you make it obvious you’re joking.

Feel free to send me asks if you just wanna say hi or chat about something! Or even just to infodump about a shared interest!

My DMs are open! Just don’t be weird please (well you can be a little weird, as a treat, but don’t be creeping on me, ya know?)

If you follow me and need me to tag something I can do that! I tend to organisationally tag most things anyway! I might forgot though if you ask on anon, so feel free to remind me!

Feel free to tag me in things! I’ll reply/reblog if I feel like it but I’m always happy to get tagged because you thought of me or something :D

If you’re ever wondering how to interpret my tone please imagine a very affectionate golden retriever saying it by default!

I’ve been on tumblr since 2016! If you have any questions about how tumblr works I have, like, a 45% chance of knowing the answer so feel free to ask!

I use gendered terms like girl, dude, bro, guy, ma’am, sir, king, etc. pretty interchangeably as just phrases. They hold no gender to me so I don’t tend to register that I used them. If I call you smth and you don’t want me to, pls let me know!

General Organizational Tags:

Original posts: #lunar lullabies

Asks: #friendly visitors

Mutual interactions: #my beloveds came to talk

Liveblogging: #lunar liveblogs

[fictionallyinparadise]

The beloveds and their pride HCs, part two!! I didn't expect to fit all the tags :0

Not doing all the clones bc that'll hit post limit lmfao

Obi Wan: Bisexual and non binary

Ahsoka: Lesbian

Anakin: Pansexual

Padmé: Bisexual

Lucas: Gay and polyam!!

Olivia: Lesbian, non binary

Raven: Pansexual, genderfluid

I don't have a head canon for Dan, Maze, or Eve

Ella: Queer and genderfluid!

Mulder: Gay and trans

I don't have head canons for Deadpool. Pansexual icon my beloved

Alyx: Aromantic!

Barney: Aroflux and trans

Kliener: Queer? Idk tbh.

Alcina: Lesbian and asexual

Donna: Questioning

Salvatore: Also questioning!

I still have no head canons for my TMA f/os

I don't have HCs for Ruth or Stan

Dale: Aromantic, gay

Kendra: Pansexual

Seth: Trans

Newel: Bisexual

Doren: Gay

Percy: Aromantic, trans

Bowser: Pansexual

Peach: Demiromantic, polysexual

Mario: Bisexual

Shaggy: Bisexual, trans, polyam

Fred: Pansexual, polyam

Daphne: Omnisexual, polyam

Velma: Pansexual, bellussexual, polyam

I don't have head canons for Zael or Yurick

Sidon: Pansexual

Raine: Lesbian

Silas: Queer, asexual

Kaz: Queer

Ira: Aromantic, non binary

I don't have head canons for my Love Nikki f/os

Biff: Non binary

Orville: Gay

Coco: Pansexual, non binary

Fang: Gay, trans

Label: Lesbian

[protectwoc]

thots on little women (2019)

or, y’all are giving greta gerwig too much credit (part two)

The character arc that was changed the least from the source material, but that still manages to personally offend me the most, is, of course, Amy’s. It’s no secret that Gerwig is an Amy stan, or at least more of a fan of her than most people. I am as well, which is why I am so disappointed with this particular arc.

It’s honestly more disappointing because Gerwig handled parts of Amy’s arc extremely well, namely, her relationship with Laurie. Gerwig did an excellent job of making Amy and Laurie’s relationship feel less like a consolation prize since Laurie did not end up marrying Jo and more like a fully realized and reciprocal relationship, arguably more so than Alcott herself. HOWEVER, and this is a big however, the Amy/Laurie relationship is not the only important part of Amy’s characterization in the novel, and unfortunately, it is in the movie.

Amy starts out the novel as a selfish twelve year old girl, which is evidenced in no other but the infamous book-burning scene. However, throughout the novel, she grows out of that selfishness and into a more selfless, self aware woman. (Again, whatever your thoughts on “learning to be selfless” as a trope in women’s narratives are not necessarily relevant.)

For example, in the first half of the novel, one of Amy’s most notable chapters deals with pickled limes. For anyone who only watched the movie or doesn’t quite remember the book, a short summary:

Amy, the only one of the March girls who attends school, is upset because the girls in her school have been trading pickled limes. The limes are seen as a status symbol, which can be traded for little trinkets, bestowed upon favorites, or indulged in in front of your enemies. The pickled limes trend has become so popular that the teacher, Mr. Davis, has banned them in the classroom, which has done nothing to curb their popularity. Amy, who is relatively popular among her classmates regardless of her relatively lower class status, has been gifted several limes but had no way to return them, is greatly “in debt.” When Meg gives Amy enough money to buy a whopping twenty-five pickled limes, she flaunts and preens her way around the classroom until a girl she snubbed tattles to the teacher and gets all twenty five limes taken away.

This scene is a good example of the beginning of Amy’s arc of overcoming her one major personality flaw. It shows how her selfish nature is really just immature behavior, and as she ages, she matures out of that childishness. Another good example of this arc happens when Beth contracts scarlet fever. At first, she complains, saying that she would rather contract the deadly disease than to go to her Aunt’s house, but as she remains there, we see her mature and even grow fond of Aunt March. Her personal arc independent of Laurie was a big part of Amy’s plotline, and it was unfortunately left out of the movie.

The most glaring example of this is the omission of one of the most important scenes of Amy’s arc in the book: the occurrences at the fair. Again, indulge me in a brief summary for those who won’t know exactly what I am talking about:

The mother of one of Amy’s friends, Mrs. Chester, holds a three day fair for all of the girls in Amy’s social circle. As Amy is the most talented and most well-liked of the girls, she has the best table at the fair, at the very front, where she is to sell her beautiful artistic creations. However, her friend, May Chester, is jealous of her, and seeing this, Ms. Chester takes the table from Amy and gives it to May, relegating Amy to the back corner to sell flowers. At first, Amy is incredibly upset, and takes all of her art back to the table with her, however, after talking with her family, who are properly indignant on her behalf, she resolves to be gracious and humble and gives her own drawings to May to sell. Seeing this, Jo tells Laurie to take all of his handsome, college-aged bachelor friends to Amy’s table, which he does, and they spend the entire next day of the fair flirting with her and buying every one of the flowers from Amy. On the final day of the fair Amy, who has entirely overcome her own selfish wishes, tells Laurie and his friends to go do the same to May. This string of selfless acts is seen by Aunt March and Aunt Carrol (who in the novel has half of Aunt March’s role in the movie) and is the premier reason behind Aunt Carrol deciding to take Amy to Europe instead of Jo.

Leaving this scene out of Amy’s narrative in the movie is, I think, unforgivable. The inclusion of this scene would have exponentially improved Amy’s arc, for three major reasons:

This scene is the culmination of Amy’s “selfish to selfless arc”. Again, regardless of your opinions on whether this is a good lesson for her to learn, it is an arc, and as the movie stands currently, she simply doesn’t have one. The occurrences at the fair show her finally growing out of her childhood vices into the mature woman we see in Europe, and to exclude this scene does her a disservice.

Prior to her trip to Europe, this is one of the only scenes in the novel where Laurie and Amy have any sort of interaction. If Gerwig wanted to more fully develop the Amy/Laurie romance I cannot imagine the logic behind leaving this scene out. It would make the romance seem less rushed, which has been a common critique of their love story since the book came out, and would even  provide context for Amy’s “Not when I have spent my entire life loving you” line which Gerwig added to the narrative.

As previously mentioned, this scene is one of the main reasons behind Amy being allowed to travel to Europe with Aunt March/Aunt Carrol. Within the movie, this reasoning is less obvious, especially given the fact that Aunt March had already told Jo she would take her to Europe, and the inclusion of this scene would have made the trip feel more earned for Amy.

Greta Gerwig has made no secret of the fact that she both a feminist and a fan of Amy March. I am both of those things as well, which is why I cannot understand her logic behind robbing Amy of a complete arc. In the movie, the most important parts of Amy’s arc are all tied to a man. Even that arc is not as fully developed as it could be. Gerwig did a magnificent job with Amy’s overall likability, but that is not the same thing as writing a fully realized arc for her.

But even though Amy is my personal favorite character, and I am more personally invested in her arc, Gerwig’s mishandling of Amy is not the most egregious sin committed in this movie. That honor is reserved for Jo’s arc.

Part Two: Jo

A Buzzfeed article entitled “The New ‘Little Women’ Makes Space for Jo’s Queerness” claims that “Gerwig’s adaptation, without being too explicit about it, does gorgeous justice to that [queer] reading.” An Advocate magazine article called “Greta Gerwig Brings Out the Inherent Queerness of Little Women” makes the bold claim that the 2019 Little Women “offers the queerest and most feminist reading yet.” An even bolder declaration by them magazine says that “The New Little Women Basically Proves Jo is Queer”. Gerwig has been lauded both by critics and by her own actors for creating an explicitly queer narrative for Jo March. 

As previously mentioned, I do not generally read Alcott’s Jo as queer. However, upon my first encounter with this headcanon, I could immediately see why so many people did see her this way, and why this interpretation is so beloved. Jo has a lot of non-stereotypically straight traits that have made her something of a queer icon in many progressive literary circles. Both the way she bemoans being “born a woman” and her intense desire not to marry spoke to a lot of queer or non-cis readers, many of whom were excited to see her portrayed this way on the silver screen. And though I am not particularly attached to this headcanon, as a bi woman, I too was excited to see her that way.

And then… I didn’t.

Look, I hate to burst y’alls bubble, but there is literally not a single second in the movie where Jo is anything resembling queer. At best, she could be read as aromantic/asexual, but that’s about it. (Note: Obviously I don’t intend to imply that being aro/ace is somehow “lesser than” being L G B or T, but obviously the form of queerness people were expecting is one in which Jo is explicitly attracted to women.) There are no subtle looks in the direction of another woman, no scenes in which Jo expresses any negative emotion towards the idea of marrying a man specifically. She doesn’t even have a single female friend outside of her sisters.

One of the reasons the 2019 Jo (and by extension, Laurie), have been hailed as queer icons is their relative gender fluidity. Jo and Laurie exchange clothes throughout the movie, which was intended to display their “gender fluidity”. I knew about this particular facet of the movie before going to watch it in theaters, so I was looking for these occasions specifically, and I still couldn’t tell that they were supposed to be gender neutral. Maybe that’s just me, because I don’t know a lot about civil war era clothing, but whatever.

The other reason that Jo is considered queer in the movie is her rejection of traditional Civil War era femininity. She doesn’t want to get married, and she has no interest in “girly” things like dresses or parties. But neither of those things are specifically queer. Being “not like other girls” as your premier personality trait is not queer, it’s just garden-variety misogyny.

Even Jo’s big scene where she laments her competing desire to stay unmarried and her intense loneliness, has nothing marking it as explicitly queer. “I’m so sick of people saying that love is just all a woman is fit for,” she bursts out. Love. Not love for a man. Not even marriage. She is decrying the entire concept of love.

“But Rae,” I can hear you asking, “what about the ending, where it’s implied she doesn’t marry Professor Bhaer and gets to publish her novel?” To that, there are two important things to consider. One: the ending is intentionally portrayed as optional. Even though it is heavily implied that Jo did not go off and get heterosexual married at the end, it is possible to ignore that ending or do some light mental gymnastics to make the two versions of Jo’s ending coincide. And I’m not just saying this as a worst-case-scenario, I actually have seen people do this, in fandom and my own life.

Secondly, even if you take the ending as completely factual, we still have all the scenes involving Bhaer previous to the ending to give some hint of Jo’s sexuality. We never see her even look at another woman, but she flirts with Bhaer and blushes when he looks at her and asks for his opinion on her work. Even ignoring the straight-as-default setting of most casual viewers, canonically, Jo has only ever shown interest in men. One man specifically, but still.

“But she could still be bi/pansexual, or suffering from compulsory heterosexuality,” I hear. And this is basically the crux of my argument. In fandom, you don’t have to assume straight as the default, and it's probably better not to. Bi/pan headcanons for “straight” characters are a good, positive way of adding to a fandom culture. However, when it comes to canonical representation, the opposite is true. Representation is not representation if it is not explicit.

I’m not saying that queer viewers cannot feel represented by Jo in this movie. I personally  feel represented by Hermoine Granger as a black woman, due to her “wild, bushy hair” and her penchant for social activism (SPEW). However, I cannot give JK Rowling credit for that representation because she had nothing to do with it. She did not do any of the hard work to actually make Hermoine a black woman. In the same way, we cannot credit Gerwig with adding queer representation to Little Women, because she didn’t.

Conclusion: The Response

I know reading this essay probably makes me seem like a Greta Gerwig-hater or like I disliked the movie. Both of those things are untrue. As previously mentioned, I loved the movie. I’ve watched the Amy/Laurie scenes of the movie like a hundred times already. I also don’t hate Greta Gerwig. This is the only movie of hers that I’ve seen, but I heard all about Lady Bird and its popularity, and I think the directing of Little Women was excellent. The fact that Greta Gerwig is a very talented filmmaker is not necessarily an arguable point.

I don’t believe that Gerwig had to fully develop any of the sisters. I don’t even think that Gerwig is required to add queer representation (or racial diversity for that matter) to her movies. Greta Gerwig decided to adapt an extremely white, cishet Civil War era book into an extremely white, cishet Civil War era movie. Hot take time: she is entirely in her rights to do that.

BUT. The thing that bugs me the most about the movie, and is basically the impetus behind me writing this essay, is the response to the movie. For whatever reason, Gerwig’s Little Women adaptation has been deemed more “woke” than it actually is. Little Women (2019) has been lauded for its strong female presence (even though there are only white, cis, straight women), for it’s development of the other, non-Jo sisters (even though it doesn’t), and for giving its lead space to be queer (even though she isn’t).

Greta Gerwig made an excellent film, but she did not do anything that has never been done before. I liked the movie, but I’m not about to go campaign for Greta Gerwig or the movie to win an Oscar. In general, we need to be less willing to acclaim those who do the bare minimum.

Again, I’m not good at writing conclusions. At a certain point I’m going to just start repeating myself, so I’m going to go ahead and cut myself off now. Again, if anybody has any opinions on this, agree or disagree, please come talk to me about it! I’d love to hear any other thoughts.

[famous-aces]

Morrissey

Who: Steven Patrick Morrissey

What: Musician

Where: English (Active, internationally)

When: May 22, 1959 - Present

(Image Description: a black and white photo of Morrissey from 1992.  He is a young white man in his early thirties with dark hair and eyes. His hair is short and messy.  He has thick eyebrows and a strong jawline. He is smiling very slightly. He is wearing a pale knit sweater. End ID)

Morrisey is one of those world-famous single named singers: Cher, Sting, Prince, Madonna, Morrissey. Perhaps a little Bono as, while he is more ironic and droll than the U2 frontman, he also has a reputation for douche-baggery.  Morrissey is famous for his music's bleak drama blended with bleak humor, sexually ambiguousness, themes of the past and self-reflection, and being an all around "anti-pop idol".

Morrissey made a name for himself as the frontman for The Smiths in the 1980s (1982-87), but has a successful solo career since 1988 with only a brief hiatus from '98-'03.  His most beloved albums include The Queen is Dead (1986), Strangeways, Here We Come (1987), Viva Hate (1988), Your Arsenal (1992), Vauxhall and I (1994), You are the Quarry (2004), Years of Refusal (2009). His most recey album (California Son) came out in February of this year (2019).

He is outspoken politically on, for example, vegetarianism and animal rights and against the monarchy and Americanization. In 2006 a BBC poll voted him the second greatest living British cultural icon.

I admit that while I like the Smiths well enough I had never liked them enough to really follow Morrissey's career, which is odd as I do like the whole punk/new wave/post punk scene very much. But I started listening to him a bit for this and a bit depressing but quite good.

(Image description: a photo of the Smiths backstage in 1984 by Tom Sheehan.  From left to right Andy Rourke [a white man with brown hair and a leather jacket. Below that he has on a shirt with what I think is a crow on it. He has his bass slung around his neck and his hands behind his back. He has his head slightly cocked], Morrissey [wearing a striped shirt with a low neck, long necklaces, and square glasses. He has his arms crossed], Mike Joyce [pale with black hair spiked up and his bangs falling into his face. He has on a Smiths t-shirt and is mostly hidden behind the others], and Johnny Marr [pale with a black mop top with long bangs, he is thin with an angular face, he is wearing a black shirt with the sleeves rolled up. He has his guitar slung around his neck and fingers on the frets.] End ID)

Orientation: Humasexual (A word of Morrissey's own creation meaning "attracted to humans" but I will go into why, in Morrissey's case, it seems to fit under the asexual umbrella.)

I'm breaking my own rule here. Morrissey does not call himself "asexual," but uses his own term: humasexual. But as he defines the term and the nature of his sexual/romantic orientation it fits under the aspec umbrella. At one point Morrissey identifed as a bisexual who "hates sex" and later a "non-practicing bisexual," but be later abandoned that terminology. By the 2010s he was very open on the exact nature of his orientation.

While I would not go up to him and demand he identify as aspec the experience he describes does fit in fairly neatly into our letter of the Alphabet Soup. Again, I would not demand anything of him. He is a human person. Sexual orientation is, in the end, highly personal and individual. Do not be The Guy/Gal/Person. In the end everyone is entitled to name and define their own experience.

It may seem odd that a man who writes a lot about sex/sexual desire in his music could be asexual, but I don't think writing is necessarily indicative of the writer's true feelings.  Morrissey agrees, saying time and time again from his earliest fame that he is writing a general story, not a biography. He says of his lyrics that "It was very important for me to try and write for everybody...nothing is ever open and shut.". Remember, while the artist always leaves a trace of themself in their art it is not always in the most obvious way.

I believe his humasexual might be closer to demi (or perhaps gray) than it is to utterly asexual. Aspec, but not at the zero/zero point, when we get to the quotes section I will explain further.  Morrissey is definitely not aromantic. But he was intentionally celibate until his mid-thirties. It was then he had his first serious relationship, all by his own admission, not being interested in sex much before that.  He still seems to have stints of celibacy. Sex as a "maybe" or a shrug rather than a necessity. And again it took a deep personal connection to his partner for him to even feel the urge to have sex. Indeed, he claimed to "hate" sex before that.

I hope to clear things up in the quotes section when I let Morrissey speak for himself, which he has done, extensively. I included quotes from his most recent public discussion on the matter from 2013.

(Image Description: a more recent photo of Morrissey performing on stage this one in color. He has graying hair now and is slightly larger than he was as a younger man, though he is not overweight. He is just less trim. He is wearing a dark suit. His face is wracked with emotion, eyes closed, mouth open. He has one hand in front of him, open palmed. The other holds the mic to his mouth.  End ID)

“Unfortunately, I am not homosexual. In technical fact, I am humasexual. I am attracted to humans.  But, of course . . . not many.”

-Morrissey in a statement from October 2013 (quoted by Time Magazine. Emphasis in original as it is the same in multiple sources) (I think this should be obvious. Again, labels are entirely up to the person using them and thus I am not applying one to Morrissey, but clearly he could stand under the ace umbrella mspec romantically and aspec sexually)

"[F]or the first time in my life the eternal ‘I’ becomes ‘we’, as, finally, I can get on with someone, Jake [Owen Walters] and I neither sought not needed company other than our own for the whirlwind stretch to come.”  

-Morrissey in his 2013 memoir Autobiography.  (Walters was his first serious relationship.  The relationship began in 1994 and ended in 1996. It describes sentiment echoed by many demisexuals "'I' becomes 'we'" and "finally I can get on with someone". Also the idea of solitude may reflect an aspec relationship.)

"Girls remained mysteriously attracted to me, and I had no idea why, since although each fumbling foray hit the target, nothing electrifying took place, and I turned a thousand corners without caring … Far more exciting were the array of stylish racing bikes that my father would bring home.”

-Morrissey on being a teenager in that same memoir

"I don't recognise such terms as heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and I think it's important that there's someone in pop music who's like that. These words do great damage, they confuse people and they make people feel unhappy so I want to do away with them."

-Morrissey in a 1985 interview. (I don't agree with him in the least, my label makes me very happy and I know it makes many other people happy [although I did feel like this before I had my asexual label.] I think he might have been projecting. I think his not quite fitting into anything made him uncomfortable and it shows why he might not be inclined to stick to a traditional label and instead invent his own.)

[Nick] Kent: …[Y]out write a lot about homosexual longing.

Morrissey: I've always said that I leave things very open and that I sing about people. Without limitation. And I don't think that automatically makes me homosexual.

Kent: What about...sexual relationships?

Morrissey: I don't have relationships at all. It's out of the question.

Kent: Why?

Morrissey: Partly because I have always been attracted to men or women who were never attracted to me. And I was never attracted to men or women who were attracted to me. So that's the problem. I've never met the right person.

-A 1985 interview with Nick Kent, quoted by David Brent in Morrissey: Scandal and Passion (2004) (not finding "the right person" seems quite demi to me. He also says that is "part" of the reason. So there is probably a more complicated reason too. Also of note, Morrissey doesn't like Kent [or at least didn't at the time] so odds are he was disinclined to further articulate his most personal life to him. But that is purely speculation and it is dicey waters even speculating that much.)

(Image Description: the album cover of You are the Quarry. It shows Morrissey on a red background holding an old fashioned Tommy gun and wearing an old fashioned pin stripe suit. He takes up most of the left side of the image. Beside him on the right it says "Morrissey, You are the Quarry." End ID)

[ckatmyla]

Elsa’s Girlfriend and the Bottom Line [an essay]

It is safe to say that – even nearly six years on from its release – Frozen is still a phenomenon. Despite its over-saturation and the backlash it inevitably faced because of it, Frozen is still a strong film from Disney with great characters, beautiful songs, and a lovely core theme about the power of familial love.

(its only real stumbling block in this blogger's opinion would be its case of 'twist villain syndrome' but we'll just gloss over that for this post.)

Although it is certainly true that this is a film for every age group, it continues to strike a chord the most with kids. I work in a daycare with children ages three to five (most of whom were not even born yet when Frozen was released) and it is still one of the most requested movies for me to show them. They argue over who gets to play as Elsa and Anna during dress up time, and I have even encouraged some of the young boys that it is perfectly fine to like a 'girl  movie' if you like the characters so much.

Even though both sisters in the movie are integral to the plot, and I tend to speak about them as a unit, for most of the kids in my class it's all about Elsa. Literally, they don't even call the movie Frozen, they just call it 'Elsa'.

It brings back memories of that Christmas season in 2013 when I went to the Disney store and all of the Elsa dolls were gone, leaving most of the Annas still on the shelf (which made me quite sad, since I tend to relate to Anna more myself).

It's not a stretch to say that Elsa is not only the breakout character of her movie, but a huge part of its crazy popularity. Everyone knows her, knows her powers, and knows her iconic  song (whether or not they like it.)

She is an icon to so many people across the world, and as such thee are certain aspects of her future in the Frozen sequel that many people would like to have addressed. Will she continue to harness her powers or perhaps learn from where they came? Will she continue to break down the walls she built up around herself to let her sister closer to her? And possibly the biggest and most controversial question: will she ever find romantic love and if so, will it be with a man or a woman?

While there is something to be said about the fact that Elsa is a strong, independent queen who don't need no significant other of any sort (and as previously stated there are other aspects of her story that need to be addressed just as much if not more so than who she's courting), there is merit in the theory and/or hope a good portion of her fans have that she just might be into girls.

While researching for this post, I read two of the children/middle grade Frozen chapter books: A Frozen Heart by Elizabeth Rudnick and A Warm Welcome by Erica David.

In Frozen Heart, we follow both Anna's and Hans' perspectives during the events of the movie, and during one of the portions from Hans' point of view we learn that Elsa has not only done what we have seen her do (close the gates of the castle to her subjects and isolate herself as much as possible) but evidently turned away any potential suitors looking to court her.

And in Warm Welcome, Elsa an co. travel to the kingdom of Eldora where they meet the queen of that land named Marisol and we see from Elsa's point of view that she finds the queen's name beautiful. Now, one could take that however they wanted, but when I showed that part to my friend she said 'Wow Elsa, how very gay of you.”

Then of course there is the queer-coded subtext of Elsa's story. Being told that she should hide her powers and conceal her true self from the world until she is finally able to accept herself in the now forever-ingrained-in-our-brains earworm.

Now the production team of the movie could have spun her story another way to make the powers more explicitly nothing more with no perceived allegory other than 'being different is okay'. BUT one exchange Elsa has with Anna after they meet up again post-Let It Go makes one wonder. She explicitly says that she left Arendelle so that she could 'be who she is without hurting anybody'. That alone colors her powers in a different light, and makes them far much more than a simple  magical ability and closer to the same type of vibe one gets from the subtext of the X-Men.

So, there is definitely some evidence to support the hypothesis that Elsa could be sub-textually queer, but this blog post is centered around the big question: Should it be overtly canon?

While this blogger would be perfectly happy to continue her headcanon that Elsa is asexual (possibly aromantic) and will make it through the entirety of Frozen 2 with no love interest whatsoever, I can also see the other side of the debate.

Most would agree that a female-led animated film hardly ever has a protagonist not fall in love by the end. And when they do they are usually children and so don't need a love interest (Moana and Coraline to name a couple), but they do happen occasionally. Elsa would still be an amazing paragon of female empowerment if she were to remain single, leaving the romantic love story to that of her sister and Kristoff.

BUT what is also abundantly clear is that we have yet to see a main character in an animated film fall in love with a person of the same gender. It would be a game-changer in the worlds of animation and family entertainment, for sure. And while some would say that that type of thing is unsuitable for children to see, most of those people are perfectly fine with the plethora of heteromantic pairs so abundant in animation. (If the argument is that kids shouldn't see romantic love between anyone that would be a different thing, but I have never heard any outcry about that.)

Were Disney even to approach it, there is also the question as to whether or not Elsa is the right character to make that particular story choice. Yes, she is a prime candidate, but as she is one of the most beloved Disney characters possibly ever, there would inevitably be some backlash to her and with that to the Frozen brand (because remember, Disney is foremost all about making money).

The other option some have some up with -to create an entirely new animated film where we star a same-sex couple – has merit as well. It could potentially introduce not one but two new princesses to the Disney Princess lineup and do all of the things that the LGBTQ community and its allies want out of Elsa while giving us a brand new, possibly totally original new story.

This blogger would be completely on board for that as well, but there is also in this idea the possibility of a backlash, or even a boycott. And if the first same-sex animated feature doesn't do well at the box office or in the merch sales, there might not be another one for a long time - if ever again.

Frozen 2 on the other hand – however the quality of the film ends up being – is almost a guaranteed hit before it even comes out. It is sure to rake in both ticket and merch sales by the boatload, even if they do decide to give Elsa a love interest of any gender.

So, the concluding statement should be in favor of giving Elsa a same-sex romantic plotline, right? If they're  going to actually do it, doing it with this movie would pose the least risk to the bottom line.

There is one more thing to consider, however: The story.

One of Disney's adoptive child Pixar's founding rules is that 'story is king'. That means that whatever will make the story as a whole stronger and the best it can be is what should be done for any film.

(However you feel about Pixar's latest outings, that's still one of their philosophies).

So, the real final conclusion of this post/essay is that when it comes down to it, Elsa should have the storyline that best fits the overall plot and make Frozen 2 the strongest movie it can be. They could always just throw in a girlfriend for her with no real thought other than 'they want representation'. That is what inevitably failed the attempt of ABC show Once Upon A Time when they decided to introduce a same-sex romance.

If the very first female-female romance in an animated film is going to happen with Elsa, it needs to feel natural and integral to the story. It can't feel tacked-on just for the sake of having it.

The same could be said of giving her a male love interest, or allowing her to remain single. As long as it fits the story and Elsa remains the wonderful character that so many have fallen in love with, any outcome would be fine.

I'm all for Elsa opening up her heart to new experiences like romantic love, as a fan I want that for her. I want her to stay close to her sister and become more  confident in her powers, and if the story supports it, find love with whomever her heart desires.

In this blogger's opinion though, anything other than a male love interest for her would be preferable. We already have so very many of those stories told already (even in the same franchise). Elsa deserves something different, something as groundbreaking as she is.

Whatever is in store for our Queen of Arendelle, I can tell you I will have my ticket to the first screening I can find of the sequel in order to find out.

[sennokami]

Please repost, do not reblog! Feel free to add to any of your answers! The purpose is to tell your partners about the way you write! :) For the multiple choice ones, bold all that apply and, if you want, italicize if it’s a conditional answer!

– B A S I C S –

NAME: selwyn, sel ALIAS(ES)/HANDLE(S): wait i’m supposed to tell y’all my real name? what is this, the gladiatorial ring in rome? i’m a mystery to be unwrapped, lads >D ARE YOU OVER 18?  Yes / No IS YOUR MUSE?  Yes / No ( verse dependent ) WHEN WAS YOUR BLOG ESTABLISHED? This year, definitely this year

– W R I T I N G –

ARE YOU SELECTIVE ABOUT WHO YOU WRITE WITH ON THIS BLOG? No (anyone) / Semi (most people) / Yes (some people - i answer prompts from non-mutuals) / Highly (few people) / Private (mutuals only)

ARE YOU SELECTIVE ABOUT WHO YOU FOLLOW ON THIS BLOG? No (anyone) / Semi (most people) / Yes (some people) / Highly (few people) / Private (mutuals only)

IF YOUR MUSE IS CANON, HOW MUCH DO YOU ADHERE TO CANON? Not at all  / A little  / Some / Mostly / Strictly / NA

i build everything in logical sequence to canon - so if anyone questions me, i can say “based off this and that, my hc makes sense bc of such and such”. it’s just how i like to do it.

WHAT POST LENGTHS DO YOU WRITE? One Liners / Single-Para / Multi-Para / Novella

DO YOU USE ICONS AND/OR GIFS? No / Gifs / Icons / Yes

DO YOU WRITE ON OTHER PLATFORMS? No / Yes  

WHAT LEVEL OF PLOTS DO YOU WRITE? Unplotted / Open-Ended Plots (set up a meeting and see what happens) / Semi-Plotted (one or two steps ahead) / Fully Plotted Epics (plotted beginning, middle, and end)

This is what I’m most comfortable with because it gives me a sense of progression story-wise.

HOW QUICKLY DO YOU USUALLY RESPOND TO THREADS? Very Slow (more than a month) / Slow (3-4 weeks) / Average (1-2 weeks) / Fast (less than one week) / Very Fast (less than three days)

When I’m “on”, then I reply real quick (within the day, usually). When I’m “off”, I struggle to write a decent paragraph for even my beloved mutuals.

WHAT TYPES OF THEMES DO YOU LIKE? (feel free to add!) Fluff / Angst / Smut / Violence / Tragedy / Domestic / Family / Conversational / Dark

WHAT GENRES DO YOU LIKE? (feel free to add!) High Fantasy / Supernatural / Science Fiction / Historical / Horror / Comedy / Romantic / Drama / Action / Adventure / Espionage

idk what to tell you, I just like all of them.

ARE THERE ANY THEMES YOU’RE UNCOMFORTABLE WRITING ON YOUR BLOG? (not triggers) No / Yes / Sometimes

I don’t have a hard line for anything so I’m willing to give nearly anything a go -- but I can’t write with someone who makes me uncomfortable. There is a strong divide between mun and muse here. I need to know that is reflected in my partner or it just gets weird for me. People who are self-aware and self-critical, basically.

DO YOU HAVE ANY TRIGGERS? HOW DO YOU REQUEST IT TAGGED? No / Yes 

– S H I P P I N G –

WHAT TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS ARE YOU OPEN TO? Romantic / Platonic / Familial (canon) / Familial (OCs)

WHAT TYPES OF PRE-ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIPS ARE YOU OPEN TO? Romantic / Platonic / Familial (canon) / Familial (OCs)

DO YOU HAVE OTPS? No / Chemistry Only / Yes

DO YOU HAVE NOTPS? No / Yes

I tend to knee-jerk avoid any het Madara ship because I rarely ever see him written as himself in those ships. 

WHAT IS YOUR MUSE’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION? Heterosexual / Heteroflexible / Bisexual & Pansexual / Homoflexible / Homosexual / Demisexual / Sapiosexual / Asexual

WHAT IS YOUR MUSE’S ROMANTIC ORIENTATION? Heteroromantic / Heteroflexible / Biromantic / Homoflexible / Homoromantic / Panromantic / Demiromantic / Sapioromantic / Aromantic

ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WRITING SMUT? No / Selectively / Yes

HOW EARLY IN A RELATIONSHIP DO YOU SHIP ROMANTICALLY? Autoship / During plotting / After a couple IC interactions / Several IC interactions / Slow burn / Never (not open to romantic ships)

I usually come into rpc’s with a ship in mind but sometimes, I’m suddenly struck by a ship I never considered before. While I, as the mun, will jump on board immediately, getting my muse to that level requires effort from both sides. I like building a relationship beforehand :3

ARE YOU OPEN TO TOXIC SHIPS? No / Selectively / Yes

Honestly, writing toxic relationships is very fun for me. I like the possibilities it entails, I like stretching my muse and my partner’s muse to their limits. I like trying to find the breaking point. While i’m not opposed to healthy good stuff, I think it tends to get one-note. Nearly all of my ships are toxic on some level, I’m just a sucker for the drama.

ARE YOU OPEN TO PROBLEMATIC SHIPS? (incest, canon history, age difference, complicated, etc.)

No / Selectively / Yes

I’ve written incest, rape, abuse, addiction, etc etc. I understand that there’s a new wave of purity policing going around but I’ve never been really down for that. I think that only engaging with a slice of “morally acceptable” topics shackles story-telling potential and, quite honestly, reflects immaturity in the audience. There’re professional works out there that do similar or even worse, so why the hell should amateur creators be limited in what they create?

ARE YOU OPEN TO POLYSHIPPING? No / (very) Selectively / Yes

ARE YOU AN EXCLUSIVE SHIPPER? No / Sometimes (once i latch onto one person, i don’t let go lmao ask peri) / Yes

DOES CRACK SHIPPING EVER HAPPEN? No / Yes (sort of, sometimes i just wanna have a giggle)

– T A G G I N G! –

TAGGED BY: once again, yoinked from @kushimaki TAGGING: @kinokami, @ketsuekki, @mizunokami, @kiiroisenkoh, @uchihasavior, @peepingtoad, @foundsweets

[techouspeaks]

Why Representation Is Important For LGBT Characters.

Many people in the precure and even Winx community (as well as some other fandoms such as Yugioh) have been wondering if their favorite studios should add LGBT characters to their beloved series. 

There are naturally many people for this but many of these people, seem to get the wrong idea when people say they’re against certain LGBT pairings, in said fandom or franchise and they often think it’s just because of homophobia. 

While that can be true for some people, there’s other reasons to be against pairings that feature LGBT and it’s all about representation. How the couple is being handled by both the studio AND/OR by the fans is very important. Now with straight pairings in shows and fanart, it’s not that big of a deal, but because LGBT is viewed in a negative light to still a bit of a majority, it’s kinda best to handle it more carefully. To show people that LGBT is a normal thing and not a trend or something that’s over sexual. 

Treating LGBT couples in fandoms as a trendy thing or over sexualizing it is actually a bit more hurtful to the actual LGBT community, something that even many people in the LGBT community may not  see as a problem. This explains why some people, even part of the LGBT may hate or love yaoi and yuri in anime and especially fanart/fanfics. For many folks, it’s sorta like how hentai and lolicon can cause people outside anime fandom, to think anime is nothing but sex and pedophilia. Treating LGBT as a trend or sexualizing it, just gives out the wrong message to those still not sure on the subject matter.

Another thing that can be hurtful or show LGBT in a negative light is stereotypes. A good example of why I don’t like the idea of Akira/Cure Chocolat and Yukari/Cure Macaron from Kira Kira Precure being a pairing. 

Akira being a boyish girl can lead people to think that if a girl likes to be a boy or dresses up as one, they’re automatically a lesbian or attracted to girls (if they got the surgery thus are considered a boy). That can be hurtful to the transgender/gender fluid people. 

Which is true, some people have asked me or automatically assumed I was a lesbian for using a boy character in online games or shoot I even dressed up as a guy and the same thing happened. I have a friend that wants to transfer from girl to guy and they hate it when people automatically assume they want to sleep with girls. My friend is aromantic and asexual. They’re not interested in relationships at all. So that is a bit annoying and frustrating.

 Not all transgender men (women to men) or tomboys/boyish girls are going to be into women or relationships at all. And as someone said Akira and Yukari would look too much like Uranus and Neptune from Sailor Moon. Being, it’s obvious they’re trying to look like the iconic sailors, following a stereotype,in the end, it wouldn’t feel natural either and kinda forced too. In other words, if these two were to be a couple it would feel as if the studio is doing it for the sake of it. Not doing it because they actually want to show a good LGBT couple.

Another more spiteful stereotype is if a character despises one gender and that’s why they prefer the same gender as they are. Guy hating on women so he’s gay or woman hating on men so she’s a lesbian. It just makes the character look spiteful and childish. While some people in real life do it for this reason, I still think it’s a dishonest (dishonest because if that’s the only reason, they may not really be fully into it as they claim to be) and childish reason. Gender hating is bull dust. Both men and women are candidates for cheating and getting hurt. Enough said.

Steven Universe is a perfect example of doing LGBT characters more natural and correct. “Hey Tech, don’t they use a boyish girl in that?” Yes, but at the same time they do it in a way that feels natural. They show both LGBT and straight couples in the show and both types of couples feel the same. Natural, beautiful and with some couples abusive and unhealthy, which is real. They don’t feel like stereotypes, they feel like legit people in a relationship. Same with Yuri on Ice.

Making the couples feel natural. Showing that yes, LGBT is natural and stereotypes, overly sexual acts and “kawaiis” is not real. It’s not part of it. It’s just stupid trends in fandoms, that really need to die down if people want LGBT to be shown in a positive light.

Now I’m not saying shouldn’t pair anyone up, but be a bit more mindful when doing a LGBT pairing. Couples of any sort feel strong when it feels natural and earned, not done just for the sake of it. If anything, it’s sorta a note to think about when doing pairings at all.

Yes, it’s nice to have variety of couples and characters and that is something we do need more of, but it’s always important for it to be done right, to show kids; “Yes this is normal and those stereotypes are not how LGBT people really are. LGBT community is just like everyone else.”

For LGBT pairings especially, it’s best to do with proper thought put into it or not at all. Just a little tidbit from your friend, Tech.