#b) normal people aren't in fandom culture

[invisiblyvisiblejay]

the girl im dating doesn't know what the omegaverse is which is like lowkey insane to me. she's like. the first person ive been close to who has never really been involved in fandom or like. twitter culture which is just really interesting sometimes like for example i forget that the omegaverse isn't common knowledge. or like. the way i use the label asexual is sort of Technically correct but is very confusing to most people outside of Knows A Lot About Specific Identities culture because even though it's technically about sexual attraction and not really associated with someone's willingness to have sex the general public (or. the general public who has a working idea of what asexual means) understands it more to be about wanting or not wanting to have sex. and i don't use the label correctly anyways lol i don't particularly use any of my labels in a way that would actually convey what i mean to a normal person. but the general point is wow all of my close friends up to this point. every single one of them. have been involved in fandom culture

[hamliet]

In the context of fiction and media, everything is so sexualized especially when I think of shipping. Even ships with underage minors and adults are popular and why?? Fiction directly affects reality does it not? Why is it okay to show that?

Sexuality is a very normal, healthy part of human behavior. While some people are asexual and that is also normal and healthy, the majority are not. Most people like sex, find it fun and meaningful. All human experiences should be reflected in art (what else is art for?), so sexuality should be reflected in a lot of art.

Unfortunately, we live in a culture that paradoxically both idolizes and shames sexuality, and this is as prevalent among the fundamentalist religious as it is among leftist spaces. So when art ignores sexuality completely, or ignores certain types of sexuality (see, the female gaze, or queer expressions of sex) fans will create that art themselves--such as via shipping. Shipping is simply "there's a story to be told here" and that story may or may not involve sex (most often does) and even in some cases, be primarily about sex.

Fiction is both shaped by reality and can shape reality, but that's not the same as saying it's a 1=1 mirror of reality where you can exactly correlate A cause with B result. Like, look up the anti video game movement of the 90s, the Satanic Panic and the way emo music was blamed for tragedies like Columbine, and ask yourself why people who like detective mysteries aren't murderers.

Yet, there is nuance here for sure. Like, I'll just bluntly state moral policing is a boring way to engage with art and fandom, and that goes beyond just sexuality. However, that isn't the same as saying take off your critical thinking hat, anything goes. Criticism is a very necessary part of fandom and engagement, and must be allowed (shakes fist at toxic positivity). But criticism as a field is designed to open doors more so than close them. It's a discussion more than anything else (note: discussing does not mean conclusions can't be drawn; they can). I have called out the real life implications of different stories before, and I'll do it again.

Me saying "moral policing stories is boring" also isn't me advocating for amorality. Not at all. Ethical questions posed by works can elevate a work to the realm of a masterpiece. There's a reason The Brothers Karamazov is considered top-tier literature. But ethics and morality are best explored not through statements, but through examination of what someone means when they say something is wrong or right. Fiction is a fabulous way to do this.

Let's use the example of minors and adults. Sad face, because "minor" in fandom can mean anything from "short person" (yes, really, I've seen that argued that someone who is short is "minor coded") to "17 year old" to "five year old." Shipping a 17 year old and an 18 year old is way different than, say, a preteen and a person their parent's age.

Like, in real life, people do not have a magical switch in their brain when they turn 18. An 18 year old dating a 17 year old is normal. It's not ethically dubious. An 18 year old (legal!) dating a 40 year old? Is ethically suspect to me, even if it isn't illegal. Ages are the best ways we have to protect children and keep them safe, but there's a reason most laws allow for an 18 and a 17 year old to date. At the same time, no one in their right mind would object to the moral statement "minors shouldn't date adults" (unless you're Matt Gaetz) with a "WELL WHAT ABOUT" because basic guardrails can't be built around exceptions, and the alternative is so horrifying that the guardrail exists for a damn good reason. But real life or fictitious, an 18 and 17 year old is not really sketchy.

Plus, I caution that the portrayal of a thing isn't necessarily the endorsement or "normalization" of said thing. Framing matters. A story can be used to powerfully show the pain of entering a relationship in which a young person is in way over their head. In fandom specifically, the shipping "story" people are interested in, regardless of ages or whatnot, might not be a happily-ever-after one, and might be a way to process their own abuse. I think there's a famous queer author who got "cancelled" for this, but she was processing her own experiences and framed it as negative, which is very sad.

There are other considerations too. For example, the medium of a story also matters. Film (and theater) inherently muddy the fiction and reality discourse dilemma in a way that written or drawn mediums do not: they use real people, so there are multiple layers in which this discourse can be discussed. Fandom and shipping, however, does not (on the whole) use these mediums.

I also know some people age up characters or de-age them to ship them at the same age, because they like the dynamic but do have ethical concerns about ages. I personally feel squicked out when there's a power dynamic like minor/adult (as in the paragraph above), teacher/student, or mentor/mentee, even if both are adults. And yet despite this I still like stories like Scum Villain's Self Saving System which are literally designed to provoke questions about shipping and fandom and morality, because they make me use my critical thinking and are aware of the problematic aspects of their works and precisely explore what makes it problematic, and what makes it not. SVSSS approaches it like:

A teacher who abuses his pupil enters into a relationship with him when they are adults, no grooming when kids. Sounds ethically suspect, right?

What if it's set in an ancient fantasy world where people fly on swords and live as immortals?

What happens to the idea of age (past a certain point in development) when you're immortal and stay physically young? (We don't have a real-life starting point for this.)

What if said teacher is literally no longer the same soul, but has been swapped for another soul?

What if the new soul is forced to be unkind under pain of not just death but soul obliteration?

What if age becomes speculative because the new soul isn't necessarily older than the pupil?

You see, there are a million angles from which SVSSS approaches this question, and ties these questions in with themes about individuality and presuppositions (essentially: see the individual more than the "type" of character). It's not mocking the questions. It's genuinely exploring them.

So, ethical questions can be very interesting in stories, and in terms of how fans interact with fiction as well. But not in terms of preaching, but in terms of interaction, in terms of making you question things--which is not the same as tossing aside all principles of morality.

[tinylittlecubby]

In the following possibly concerning for my psychiatric health rant , I will be covering what the actual definition of parasocial is, the function and normalness of regular parasociality, why some mediums invite stans more than others and what would need to change to eradicate stan culture. Im unfortunately just someone with an internet connection and im writing this on mobile so if any degree of understanding in regards to those facts can be maintained I would be very grateful!

1) i would rather do a flip off the bellagio instead of meet any of the people who's art/content I consume I just want to say that first

1b) however I have participated in fandom since I was literally 7 years old so I know way too much about fandoms in general and also parasociality.

2)the partition between social worlds is an illusion. If it happens in one place it happens in another. People putting artists on a pedestal and then tearing them down is something that also happens in arenas outside of popular culture like the sciences and in peoples very own homes. Uniqueness of circumstance is rare and the breadth of human capability in terms of horror and beauty is present no matter the field.

3) Parasocial relationships have an actual psychological function (more on this later) Because of the term 'relationship' and the cultural baggage around that term it is assumed that it is something that is purely done outside of the bounds of the time it takes to consume the media. Even the term caring is loaded more than it should.

Art and media should push us to care and ultimately, a parasocial relationship is JUST caring about a subject ( like a person or object or idea) BUT they/it LITERALLY can not care about you back due to lack of knowing SPECIFICALLY you.

Off of that definition that is why in order for media to be effective a parasocial relationship has to exsist. It makes sense to care about one character over another depending on how a film is written, and this state/relationship of caring last the duration of the film.

That feeling of caring about the character can persist beyond the literal duration of the film due to how emotionally moving it could've been however I find that for films most people do not continue that state beyond the literal duration of the film (in terms of fantasies about the character as I dont find that there are many fanfictions for example about movies -unless they have been made into TV shows as well- etc), due to it being one of the shorter mediums today both in the media itself and the promotion cycle/exposure to the people involved, which is why I picked movies.

I want to make that distinction cause people often say we need to eradicate parasocial relationships altogether and I dont think they understand that parasocial is a sociological term that was coined in 1956/57 and has an extremely long history OUTSIDE of social media. And if the term was coined then that means the phenomenon was going on prior.

Also, films are fake. Literally everyone knows this, no one gets mad at anyone for saying that cause we all know this. However films, when the term was coined, were seen as THE medium that facilitated parasocial relationships (in the sense i described above in terms of the duration of the film, rather than the sense that is used now in terms of being a stan)

And about movies being fake and maybe that being why people stan actors less (sometimes def not all the time)

A) the amount of films and TV shows that try and use this narrative to go far beyond actors zone of consent ìs one of THE main problems with the entertainment industry. They are real people doing fake things but they are still people first.

B) i personally believe that it is in a streamers best interest to create a degree of a character to be on stream (can be a genuine persona or just to the degree of customer service agent. Aint nobody their god damn selves when being a customer service agent but they also aren't not being themselves. If you know you know.) So they too are in an arena of fakeness as well. This lack of understanding is why they constantly have to tell their audience "bro i don't know you AND you don't know me"

4a)and in regards to the statement that I made in terms of parasocial relationships having to exsist, I'm saying that with finances/politics/sociology in mind. There is a business theory in the arts that if you have 1000 true fans (defined as someone that will buy ALL of your merch, concert tickets,will listen to 90% of your music and genuinely enjoy, talk about the music to their friends to get them to like it as well etc etc) you can make your art on your own terms and consistently from a financial stand point. However, that kind of consumer is the exact type that participates in the parasocial relationship outside the duration of the medium and can take them to stan town. And record labels know this, that is why pop music lyrics are the way they are and even when they aren't romance oriented they still market the artist to be as 'authentic' as possible so the development of the parasocial relationship can continue outside the literal duration.

4b) in terms of the psychological function of parasociakity I would read into how children develop relationships with their toys. During active play it is developmentally normal for the child to act as if the toy can react back to the child's own affect/actions, that's why children will talk to or feed etc their toys. Outside of active play sometimes the child will mention the toy (usually in terms of requesting for it to begin active play OR talking about it like they are a friend and saying to a parent "do you think Bella would like this dress?" And the parent knows they are talking about the toy and would respond in kind and maybe they buy the little dress to dress up the toy (think of build a bears model of the type of inventory they sell) it is also common that if they are playing with a sibling or a friend and the other child is being rough with the toy the main child will use language such as "you are hurting them!" suggesting the child believe that the toy can feel literal pain the same way they can (because they are a literal child duh)

A child being able to show the capacity to communicate, empathize, emote and respond to stimuli the object may provide back (like if its a talking to) is absolutely MAJOR and is used in clinical studies during neurological testing in children literally all the time. And if you as an adult were to go up to a child and start berating them for this dynamic pal....you yourself got problems.

This is one of the many types of ways that children learn how to socialize and it happens concurrently with other types of learning in terms of interacting with peers, adults that may use language they dont know but helps them build they own language tool kit etc etc. It is absolutely NOT to be seen as the ONLY type of socializing. That is horrifying and I dont know what the hell would happen if it was literally the only type of socializing a child or even an adult would be receiving (also I dont know how that would literally happen either like do they live in the woods with literally no one else around??)

I say all of this to say that parasociality should NOT be demonized because doing so would be inconsistent with the overall cultural narrative about being social animals. If we are social animals then it makes sense that parasocialism exists. UNHEALTHY!!!!!!!!!!!!! parasocialism ABSOLUTELY needs to be extinguished i am not fighting anyone on that at all. Being a legit stan is VERY VERY SCARY! and I dont mean arguing about charting stan I mean hacking airport security cameras stan (if you know you know unfortunately)

My personal hesitation in terms of putting hope into this changing though is we would need to do the following

Reduce the social capital tied to perceived authenticity

Remove profit motives tied to artists being accessible

Eradicate amanormativity

Build safe,accessible and thriving third spaces

Invest in psychiatric infrastructure and resources

Create a healthy culture that supports the notion that individuality and interdependence can exsist at the same time

Eradicate misogyny

Eradicate ageism

Eradicate racism

Eradicate classism

Eradicate ableism

Eradicate whorephobia (BIG ONE!! the amount of female/non binary stans that are wild about their targets because they feel like its the only safe place they can express their sexuality via fanfiction, fan erotic audios (which is new and the audio stuff i dont know too much about but its something I'm seeing more and more)amongst other things is a proportion that is tooooooo high!

And the list goes on and on and on honestly

(Added this poll on accident because I'm on mobile and it won't erase oooppss)

I dont know if any of this made sense I feel like I just blacked out and I'm coming to but yeah yell at me if you like or ignore this its just my thoughts about parasociality and the like okay byyeeeeee

[glittering-snowfall]

Your post has made me realize just how massively fucked up the fandom is right now.

I'm going to speak as someone who never even saw the Frozen movies and thus has no real investment in the ship. Just a queer person from the early 2000s era fandom. And to me it has always been 100% clear what Elsanna shippers were about. No one from that fandom era could look at this ship and seriously think, ooh, all those folks are into actual incest. The idea just breaks my brain.

The point is, the whole "don't normalize it" argument makes zero sense. Because very few --a vanishingly small!-- number of people are actually fighting the urge to get with their sibling. No amount of "normalization" would ever make me want to get with mine. Not even if they were the last person on earth! So even actual incest represented in canon, like in GoT, has not resulted in a "normalization" of it in the broader society. And those actors were hot af! If anything was gonna do it, that would be it! But widespread incestual attraction it's just not a thing. To most people it wouldn't even occur to think of their real life sibling because it is simply not a thing most people think about. They don't want to think about it. They are not looking for an excuse.

What the current fandom police doesn't understand is,

a) we were used to looking for any shred of representation wherever we could find it. It didn't have to be 1:1 representation--that was rarely a thing anyway. It's easy better now, but I remember how any cultural text with explicit queerness in it was basically a treasure, and how there were lots of cultural texts that were broadly taken as queer without ever explicitly representing queerness,

and b) fandom was all about silliness! Some "problematic" ships were just crack. And those that were not crack still existed in the same environment. The crack just emphasized that it was all, at the end of the day, play. If someone could come up with tentacle porn, surely one could also disregard bits of canon such as "they are sisters."

I want to end with something that doesn't apply exactly 1:1, but since we come from an era when people still knew how to engage with texts, I hope this doesn't get misinterpreted. This is Captain America consoling his gay best friend and telling him that the bullies who tortured him are the wrong ones. So that's the bit that I think applies: the sickos are those who would look at something as innocent and, frankly, silly (sorry XD it can be both silly and mean a lot to people) as Elsanna and immediately think about actual real-life incest.

This ask is beautiful. Thank you for it. It's cathartic to read responses to people who understand what I'm trying to say.

Also, another ridiculous thing about the "it'll normalize it on a vast scale" argument that proves it's not logical is... all the former shippers - the artists who used to ship it a decade ago but don't now - did actual incest becomes normalized for them and did this ship become a dark gateway for hurting people? NO. They just moved on... cuz it was a ship. The fact these artists moved on proves the ship wasn't some kind of "gateway drug" to true evil. And the fact that people who STILL ship it (like myself and others) aren't actually committing incest etc. is further proof.

And, like you say, if anything was going to normalize it, it would be a popular mainstream television show, not shippers on tumblr who have neither the money nor the cultural reach of large-scale television productions. But it doesn't happen because no one wants to commit actual real-life incest; they KNOW it's bad and they KNOW it's fucked up. And even if there's someone who doesn't, that's because there's something wrong with THEM as an individual.

And yeah, this ship means a lot to me. It's difficult to explain in the current fandom environment because people will immediately accuse me of equating LGBTQ+ identity with incest (which I'm NOT DOING and that should be obvious) but the ship WAS a haven for scores of LGBTQ+ youth back in the day and I'll always have an emotional connection to it. The antis can be mad that happened... but it did happen.

And the antis can call it "tragic" that we had to resort to a Disney incest ship to find community, but I don't think it's tragic in the slightest. I think it's amazing that we were able to look at a film that moved us and make it our own in a beautiful way, allowing our creativity to overflow in a thousand beautiful ways.

I know I'm waxing poetic here but no, it's not tragic. I find it inspiring.

(Also, as you say, it IS silly in the grand scheme of things because it's a bunch of folks on tumblr and FFN and Ao3 having fun, so the idea that could have the reach and influence of actual propaganda/cinema/well-funded works of cinema is... misguided.)

[ilistentogirlinred]

ramblings

because i watched too many kpop music videos and dance practices and now youtube thinks i want to know about lee know's cats

i think a lot more people would hate kpop less if the fans weren't generally a bit less insane.

a lot of the music is actually rather good, but if you want to watch the music videos then youtube will forcibly send you down a spiral of fan edits and other off putting frightening things. the music videos are good, though, and the dance practices.

people do tend to be put off by the fans because even the average fan is a LOT. quite a few of them treat being a [insert group] stan like it's a sport, but not in the sense that they're a highly invested LA lakers fan. being a kpop stan seems to be a sport in the sense that the stan is the player. streaming, voting, spamming hate comments, that is the sport, although i don't think you can actually win.

kpop stans are frighteningly dedicated, i feel like they could probably take down and reform an entire government if they felt like it. although there is a lot of infighting between fans of different groups. that being said if they teamed up they could do quite a bit. i stand by the fact that if they unified they could easily overthrow the australian government. not the USA government but definitely the australian government.

did you know the greater kpop fandom has a word for people who stan multiple groups? the fact that there are so many people who are aggressively fans of one group that they need a word for people who like multiple groups is astounding (and furthers my point that being a kpop stan is a sport). MULTISTANS. as in stans of multiple groups. aka people who listen to music like a normal person.

i do feel like another turn off for people who might like some of the music is the industry itself, which is deeply fucked up. the training is dreadful, the culture is cruel and the idol-fan stuff is just off putting. (oshi no ko does a great job at showing this and its so funny to me that all these kpop idols were doing dance challenges to the oshi no ko theme song is so funny cause like... that song was written from the perspective of an idol. like you. who gets fucking stabbed by a fan. which is a thing that has happened in real life.)

ooh you know what else might push people away? the SHIPPING. those are REAL PEOPLE. yeah they could be dating but you realise they're probably a) acting a fake/exaggerated dynamic BECAUSE the shipping draws views and b) probably only like that on camera. idols are pretty much acting when on camera or in public. they are playing a character that is palatable, likeable and appealing to the general public. some of them might be more like western celebrities and be more like themselves on camera (generally the idols who were born/raised/spent at least 5 years of their childhood in the USA/canada/australia/new zealand usually) but they're still acting. they've done a fair bit of media training. when they're on camera they aren't people. they're idols, celebrities, characters, personas. BUT THE SHIPPING. fuck i hate the shipping. sometimes the idols might have a good friendship and then they'll stop interacting because of the shipping. it makes them uncomfortable sometimes! probably generally, it makes them at least mildly uncomfortable. and the odds are, they probably aren't dating. there is like a 1 in 1000 chance that two idols from the same group are dating, in that 0.1%, there's a like 1 in 10000 chance that they'd ever go public with it. AND STOP THEORIZING ABOUT REAL PEOPLE'S SEXUALITIES! it's invasive, it's gross, it's rude and it does absolutely nothing good.

another thing that might turn people off music they could like is the generally poor vocals. there are very few kpop vocalists (not korean vocalists, just kpop idol vocalists) that are on par with western singers. solar (mamamoo), lily and haewon (nmixx), wendy (red velvet) and belle (kiss of life) are the few i consider to be as good as your average western vocalist. lots of idols generally mediocre vocals are overhyped because, usually, they have good control over their higher vocal range (cough cough han from stray kids). the thing is, lots of the idols in this category could easily be good vocalists with more formal training! THE IDOLS DON'T GET ENOUGH VOCAL TRAINING BECAUSE THE INDUSTRY VALUES LOOKS OVER SKILLS!

the industry is basically: looks > dance > personality > sense of rhythm > vocals > rap > actual skills pertaining to creating music and performance i.e writing, producing, composing, choreography, etc (don't yell at me ik there are self producing groups and those are usually my favourites but my point still stands)

if you read all of this, i do highly recommend watching some music videos and dance practices because they are honestly phenomenal. the editing in the MV's is top tier and the dances are usually just so fun to watch.

[atamascolily]

This is all great, and one of the things that I love about PMMM is that all of this layers exist atop each other simultaneously! I tend to focus on the psychological aspects of witches, because that's the realm that interests me the most, but you are so right that the show also has a lot to say about womanhood, misogyny, and gender roles. I don't think that's shallow at all, just a different lens.

One thing that's particularly striking about the magical girl genre in general is that it is, explicitly, focused on girls. This might seem obvious, but the reason there are so few "adult" magical girls or "magical women" in anime is that while it's culturally acceptable for girls to have adventures and deep bonds with each other, it's equally expected that eventually they will "grow up" and become wives and mothers and workers, subsuming themselves into "normal" adult society. Anyone who bucks the trend is literally or metaphorically branded a witch.

You can see this in classic magical girl shows like Sailor Moon, where the beautiful teenager (literally in the show's Japanese title!) is pitted again and again against adult women oozing sexuality who try to steal the protagonist's man. It's why Usagi loses her power as Sailor Moon the moment she gives birth to her daughter in the future (who takes up that mantle herself when she reaches puberty). Sailor Moon gets to do things, but Neo-Queen Serenity spends her time off-screen and in a coma for most of the '90s anime (and only gets slightly more to do in the manga).

We joke about the '90s being the era of "girl power!" but it is literally just that--GIRL power. Not "female power" or "woman power". Once you notice this, you start seeing it everywhere.

You can see this in Magia Record blithely declaring that younger magical girls are more powerful, and the older they get, the more their powers decline. It's why a classic anime insult for any woman, regardless of age or appearance, is "Baba!" (Old hag). It's why the aged-up Holy Quintet in the PMMM manga spinoff Mami Tomoe's Everyday Life look askance at 30-year-old Mami for wanting to keep dressing up and fighting witches "at her age", and why everyone except Mami is married… and to men, not each other.

[The English-speaking PMMM fandom likes to pretend Mami Tomoe's Everyday Life doesn't exist, and all the scanlators dropped it after the first volume, but the fact that it is both the longest running manga spinoff AND the most popular spinoff in Japan tells you a lot about a) who the target audience of PMMM is supposed to be, and b) traditional Japanese gender roles. It goes back to the stereotype about otaku who love the "purity" of yuri, but hate lesbians for "making it dirty"--the idea that passionate relationships between women are okay in fiction, but only as long as they aren't physical and don't interfere with the characters eventually hooking up with men. In other words, a homoerotic co-dependent relationship with your bestie is A-Okay--as long is it's "just a phase".

On a related note, I think a big reason for PMMM's appeal across such widely divergent demographics is precisely because it centers itself in this gray area. As much as I'd like a MadoHomu kiss, I suspect the creators will continue to "play it safe" by keeping their relationship ambiguous, with just enough plausible deniability that people can read what they want into it, because that's what will sell the most.]

Kyubey's predatory behavior towards magical girls is consistent with capitalism and the patriarchy. One of his big selling points is that magical girls can potentially live forever (presumably staying young and beautiful) as long as they keep cannibalizing their less fortunate comrades. [Compare this behavior with many evil fairy tale witches, who also consume their fellows in order to unnaturally preserve their appearances.] Magical girls are a tool, and once they are no longer useful (i.e., have "matured" into witches), they are harvested and used as fuel. It's not a coincidence Kyubey uses male pronouns--the Incubators are gender essentialists whose entire system is predicated on the theory that women are more emotional than men, to the point where it makes perfect sense they would "logically" identify as male themselves!

And this is without even going into the fact that the magical girl genre evolved out of the "little witch" genre, which itself was a Japanese adaptation of American TV shows like Bewitched, which were incredibly popular in Japan during the postwar era. In that sense, magical girls becoming witches in PMMM is a return to their origins--the two have always been linked from the very beginning!

Re: Junko Kaname, I don't have a link on hand at the moment, but in the light novel of the original series, Madoka compares her mother as an asura, part of a class of superhuman demigods in Buddhism and Hinduism, which provides some additional context both for Madoka's relationship with her mother (and the pressure she feels under to be something and do great things!) and her ultimate role as a bodhisattva-like savior.

To bring all of these threads together, I believe that the ultimate solution to witches on both a psychological and feminist level is not to erase them but to fully integrate them into the psyche/culture, so that characters can draw on both their positive and negative qualities without being limited by strict roles or dualities (and without having to be erased from existence first, like Nagisa and Sayaka in Rebellion). We see a little of that with Magia Record's Doppels, but to me, they are an imperfect solution at best despite the game's attempt to frame them as a happy ending (and come with even worse consequences in the MR anime).

Is it better than anything we've got so far? Yes. Is there still room for improvement? I would argue yes, too. Exploring what exactly such an integration might look like is thread I frequently return to in many of my PMMM fanfics, and I haven't exhausted all the possibilities yet.

There is a tendency I see in PMMM analyses and discussions to treat the witches simply as monsters that can be overcome with sufficient force regardless of other circumstances--and thus Homura's failure to ever win against Walpurgisnacht on her own terms is something that could be easily fixed with more firepower and different tactics. And while there's nothing wrong with this interpretation, it's not one that particularly interests me, either.

What I like about PMMM and what makes it so engaging for me, is that it can be read on multiple levels--both as a literal journey and as a symbolic one. In-universe, witches are the shadow selves of magical girls; is it really so surprising that they also serve as narrative foils to those who face them, thus making victory or defeat as much of a character issue as a tactical one?

It is not a coincidence that Mami Tomoe, a girl who was forced to grow up too fast and who could have wished to save her dying parents but didn't, meets her end at the hand of a particularly childish and immature witch, a lumpen, misshapen doll that transforms into a clown--a girl who never grew up, who could have wished to save her dying parent but didn't. Mami, an experienced veteran who wiped the floor with the Rose Witch and her familiars earlier, is completely caught off-guard and is eaten alive by a witch who embodies all of the issues she herself struggles with and has yet to overcome within herself.

Yes, Mami was careless and overconfident, which led to her doom--but she had also fulfilled her role of introducing Madoka to the world of magical girls. On a narrative level, her death was necessary--not only to free Madoka from her impulsive promise to become a magical girl too early in the story, before she'd learned all the facts and could make a fully informed decision, but also to teach Madoka one final, horrific lesson about what life as a magical girl is really like.

This is not to say that AUs where Mami survives are wrong or missing the point--I've written them myself and I love them! (It helps that Mami's survival is usually the result of someone else's interference, not something she accomplishes on her own.) Nor do I mean to suggest that Mami's death is a moral failing on her part--merely that I think that Charlotte represents Mami's own particular brand of kryptonite at that particular point in her life, one she might have been able to survive if she had been able to move beyond the psychological issues hobbling her.

Meanwhile, Homura is able to easily defeat Charlotte, because metaphorically she's moved beyond the childish worldview that Mami is still stuck in. From that same symbolic perspective, it's this relative level of maturity, as much as her time stop and pipe bombs, that allows her to win.

Likewise, it is not an accident that the next witch Madoka encounters is one that specializes in extracting the memories of its victims, trapping Madoka in a spinning carousel as she is tormented by her own grief and guilty conscience over Mami's death. She is freed by Sayaka, who has moved beyond such angst by her decision to take on Mami's role as an idealized magical girl protector. Later on, Sayaka's descent into dualistic thinking is symbolized by her fight against a witch whose world is literally black and white--whom Sayaka defeats, but only at the cost of pushing herself dangerously to her limits.

As with Mami, Sayaka's death is directly tied to her own psychological issues--in this case, by her incredibly strict rules about how magical girls should behave and her refusal to cut herself any slack whatsoever. Her metaphorical self-denial results in literal self-denial, and her death as a magical girl and rebirth as a witch.

Then we come to Walpurgisnacht, a witch made of cogs and gears--the one witch Homura cannot beat, no matter what she does. Homura is stuck in her loops, unable to imagine a future beyond them, increasingly isolated from any meaningful connections or relationships--Walpurgisnacht may be the "fool that spins in a circle", but so is Homura. The inside mirrors the outside; when we watch Homura fight against Walpurgisnacht, we are also watching Homura's struggle with herself. Unlike Mami and Sayaka, Homura's magic allows her to fight this battle over and over again--again and again she is forced to retreat and start over, unsatisfied with the results and determined to do better next time. She doesn't die, but she doesn't win, either--instead, she's locked into perpetual stalemate with no end.

Madoka, however, is able to see beyond the vicious cycle represented by Walpurgisnacht and thus easily and repeatedly defeats an enemy that Homura cannot, regardless of her relative power levels in any given timeline. It's probably too simplistic to say that hope triumphs over despair--and yet, that's exactly what happens, every single time. Homura has numbed herself through repeated exposure to where she no longer feels hope or despair, thus existing in perpetual stasis with her purpose the only thing driving her. Paradoxically, the one thing she needs to do to win is the one thing she cannot do--and the thing that Madoka can do all too easily.

(This is not to say that Madoka doesn't have her own issues--she does!--just that her issues are different from Homura's, meaning she's not tripped up by this particular obstacle in the same way that Homura is. And it's not that Homura's struggles were pointless--they were what allowed Madoka to get to point where she had both the power and the knowledge that she could save everyone, including Homura.)

Homura's final battle with Walpurgisnacht shows Homura going to insane lengths, including a wall of C-4 explosives inside a refinery, a flaming oil tanker, and a submarine with Type 88 Surface-to-Ship missiles--none of which has any lasting effect on Walpurgisnacht whatsoever. That episode goes to great lengths to show that Homura's approach to fighting Walpurgisnacht fundamentally isn't working; I don't think adding more nukes would help.

The one time Homura gets the closest to her happy ending is the one timeline where she and Madoka fight and fall together--the one timeline where they are shown as equals, and the one where they debate becoming witches together and destroying the whole world before Madoka thinks better of it. This is also not a coincidence. If there is ever to be a truly happy end to this franchise--or an end at all--Homura and Madoka must be equal and willing partners, not one protecting/sacrificing themself for the other again and again. It is also likely that they will remake the universe in the process, through the combined power of their mutual wish.

[It also wouldn't surprise me if that line foreshadowed future plot elements--after all, Madoka technically became a witch in the final episode of the TV series (she got better, thanks to the nature of her wish), and so did Homura in Rebellion--but we shall see if the series ever follows up on this.]

This is why I'm so excited that Walpurgis no Kaiten seems to be laying the groundwork for Homura creating her own enemies and her greatest enemy being herself--once again, making the metaphorical literal. I'm excited about the prospect of Homura getting a do-over with Walpurgisnacht, which would represent a chance for her to confront her narrative foil one more time, and show us how her character has changed. Though it may play out on a larger stage, the real battle will be inside Homura's mind and heart--and, I would argue, always has been. The only way the outcome will change--the only way we can move beyond what's been and into something new--is if/when she changes.

I want to be clear that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the strictly literal interpretation of witches, and I think people should write what they want to write; if that's the story you want to tell, then go for it! For me, however, I find it far more compelling--not to mention richer and truer--if the actions and words on-screen correspond to the characters' emotional and psychological journeys, and there's no question that this preference how I interpret media in general, and PMMM in particular. And it's not that I think Homura couldn't defeat Walpurgisnacht in an AU scenario--merely that any story where she achieves this victory without changing in any way or addressing her own psychological issues in some fashion removes exactly the elements that drew me to this series in the first place.

[beggingwolf]

I need people to tell me about other fandoms because I have been so deep in hockey sauce for like over half a decade (in varying degrees, thanks omgcp) that I no longer know what's normal or kosher elsewhere. someone just told me that hockey has "a lot" of a/b/o relative to another fandom and that just didn't compute for me. what do you mean other fandoms aren't resplendent with the best thing fandom culture has gifted us with. what do you mean hockey has a lot of a/b/o (like, REALLY? is that true?) what's going on in other fandoms. what are the niche little fandom narratives populating the internet these days. I am so lost.

[dg-outlaw]

Reblogging mostly to boost this post from OP, though I have a slightly more nuanced and personal take on it--but I don't disagree with OP's view here b/c it's theirs and it's valid.

While I know fandom is varied with a range of people from toxic to wholly supportive, I know things can be interpreted with a certain context, especially since we're all strangers on the internet and it's hard to convey tone in walls in text--as I proceed with a wall of text.

As a BIPOC person myself I can understand the sentiment here with OP. At the same time, as someone who grew up in the 80s and 90s and in a more conservative area, embracing white cishet culture and feeling the pressure to fit in shaped/warped many of my views of what was considered "normal" or acceptable--including fandom characters I gravitated towards versus others. A few other things in my life also made me feel "other" in the world I grew up in so for me I often did my best to hide my other-ness as best I could, which also included hiding my love for comics and other geek fandom. These are things I'm not proud of, but it's my story nonetheless and it's part of my journey in growing and learning, accepting myself, and finding love for so many other characters outside of my own identity.

Personal rant aside, I think for me, there are a few reasons Duke, Cass, Damian, Steph (and others) aren't always on the forefront of my mind, though my tumblr was specifically created to promote my fanfic stories for JaySteph (Jason and Steph), so...

I'm old... or at least an elder millennial as some have labled my place in the generation. So for me; Duke, Cass, Damian, and Steph represent the new kids or next gen characters--Tim as well. When I grew up, especially watching old re-runs of the Adam West Batman show and Batman: TAS, the Batfam I was familiar with was Bruce, Alfred, Dick, and Babs. That's it. Jason didn't come around until later in my comics knowledge (see above about hiding my fandom) and I was getting older when Tim showed up on the animated series so I resonated more with Dick (who was a teen/college kid) than with little boy Tim (who was more of a Jason/Tim hybrid).

Jason came into my world around the time of the 'Under the Red Hood' comic and the animated movie. This also coincided with my angry teen/young adult era where I was blasting Linkin Park and raged against the world as to why adults had let me down. Yes, on the surface Jason is the edgy one with guns, but as I've grown, seen decent writing with Jason, and learned more about him I've come to really appreciate and admire the complexities of the character. So, he's still one I resonate more with as a more mature and mentally healthier adult beyond the shallow fanboy-ness (emphasis on boy) of "he's the cool, angsty one who kills people." Again, another post for another day if you want my views and evolution of being a Jason Todd fan.

Duke, Cass, Damian, and Steph are awesome. I've enjoyed getting to know them, reading their stories, but just like how some view music they love from their youth compared to music they love as an adult--it hits different. I feel the same way about the "new" kids. Yes, I know they've been around for a bit now, but in comic book time it's only been a hot minute. They are the new music to me--fun but different.

Tim also falls into the same category of "kids" as the above four. Yes, he's white and male, but since he came out as bi, I think he should be added in the list of "othered" Batfam characters. Because believe me, that made someone's day when they found out Robin could be bi, just as it probably did for girls seeing Steph as Robin.

Lets also not forget Luke Fox and David Zavimbe as Batwing (1 and 2), Kate Kane as Batwoman, and Harper Row as Bluebird, but as mentioned above, these are characters who weren't part of my youth, but who I also consider part of the Batfam.

Ultimately, I think it's about connection to character and I think it's great that the Batfam is fairly diverse with different personalities, histories, ages, and identities for so many to connect, resonate, or just be a fan of, even if they don't always get the most attention.

TL;DR: I have love for the whole Batfam. For me, I post or reblog what I find fun, exciting, or intriguing, but it's never meant to exclude a character especially based on their gender, sexuality, ethnicity, identity, or anything else. So if someone is not included, it's not on purpose or intentional.

I think we all have characters we probably resonate more with than others, which is 100% fine, but I hope OP's message is seen as more of a call to action to remember some of the often overlooked characters in the Batfam (because it is for me), and if those characters can be included in posts, wrong quotes, reblogs, art, etc.? Great! If not, and you just want to show your love for [insert your favorite Batfam character(s)], then I think that's fine too.

All in all, let's have fun, enjoy our fandom, and please don't be a hornet toward OP. :)

i will not interact with a batbrothers post without duke. i will not like or reblog a batsibling post without cass. i will one hundred percent scroll past a robins post without steph. fandom may not care about female characters and especially poc characters but i fucking do and i have had fucking enough. fandom may prefer male and white (dick and dami arent, but they are whitewashed a lot) but i dont and wont goddamn tolerate it. i know im swinging this bat at a hornet's nest but i dont fucking care.

[b-rainlet]

Pt2 😅 people have been shipping literal incest in shows. like spn. It's even named wincest. and the show went on to basically confirm they were soulmates btw. I've never seen anyone harassing them as much as it happens in tua fandom. These are shows about gray people with different circumstances. And not everything in a show is supposed to be right anyway,The age limit is there for a reason. It's not like all the other relationships they had aren't fcked up too. 🙄

I think it’s because Spn is fairly old and back in the day fans weren’t as entitled. Like, there was a clear line between fan and creator and also the Fandom rules that I grew up with like ‘Don’t like/Don’t read’ so even if there were people who weren’t into incest, they simply blocked tags or stuck to their own platonic fics and fanarts or whatever. 

And the people who proclaimed incest shippers ‘icky’ or tried to start fights were few and far between and not the overwhelming majority. 

But now there’s a lot of - younger - people in Fandom who expect everything to cater to them. 

I personally blame purity culture and radfem ideology seeping into everything but now you have stuff like people thinking Fandom is for teens only (which is such a shitty take obviously but tbh, if there were only teens within Fandom, most of your fave fics and fanarts wouldn’t exist because writing is a skill you have to practise and a 16 year old simply isn’t as far advanced as a 30 year old and also probably doesn’t delve into more mature topics - without trying to bash younger people, but just imagine only teens are allowed to write fanfic and then add the fact that now it’s trendy to shun people for writing about stuff that doesn’t 100% reflect their life experience and you would have hundreds upon hundreds of fics that are simply high school AUs). 

And now there’s also the fact that creators are easier to reach which some people seem to translate to ‘I can have a say in what happens on the show’ and that’s why the backlash is so big now because instead of thinking ‘The incest part is icky but what can I do except ignore it?’ you know have people going ‘This is bad and if I harass the creators long enough, they will do what I want instead!’

(And like, maybe this is just me but this obsession with not only the show but also the cast of a show you like is so...exhausting. Like, most of the time people who like the show seem to glorify the cast and then inevitably turn on them when something ‘problematic’ happens instead of....simply following the show and that’s also why most people seem to have such a problem with separating actors from their characters which is sad honestly. By all means, follow actors on insta - I do too! - but don’t stalk their every move and start fights online over them. They don’t care for you. They don’t know you. They have PR Teams who deal with drama they don’t need you defending them). 

Same with people who stan singers, they genuinely scare me. 

But since harassing the actors and producers doesn’t work most of the time, how about we send threats to fellow shippers who don’t ship the ‘good’ ship or like the ‘good’ characters because that’s even easier! 

What baffles me the most is how antis tend to create an entirely new show that has nothing to do with the original most of the time that exists solely to back up their own ideology. Which is how you end up with takes such as ‘Luther harrasses Allison all season while she desperately tries to get away, poor thing’ which is just so obviously false that I sometimes go ‘D-did we....watch the same show?’

I think at some point, maybe you should just stop watching the show if everything that happens in it is something you hate or don’t want to see, instead of trying to bend canon until it breaks and then pretending it’s always been like that. 

I mean, that’s what AUs are for. Make believe! 

(And yeah, I am always like ‘???’ when minors are in Fandoms where the source material is obviously for adults? Like, the IT Fandom for example. I mean, y’all can do whatever and I used to watch and read stuff for adults when I was a teen, that’s probably just part of growing up and exploring new things but I can’t believe how normal it seems for these minors to walk into adult spaces and then demand that the adults a. Leave or b. Only produce kid friendly things. 

Like, dude, you do understand that the source material is r-rated? We should be asking what you are doing here, not the other way around).

[chaos-and-recover]

Figured it out. Back in tumblr heyday tags were used for categorical purpose but also kind of -mutter quietly to self- so often people would out snarky remarks there. Back then literally everything was Discourse. I literally was told that I was worse than a Westboro Baptist person for liking South Park. I was sent harassing anons for months, every single day, telling me to KMS because i didnt ship Johnlock. I am a lesbian trans woman and was told that I was lesbophobic and transphobic because I watched Hannibal and didnt think Will was AFAB. This was just totally normal back then and expected. A lot of people who showed up after canon destiel haven't been on tumblr since the heyday and don't know that we just don't really do that anymore. But you know who does? Twitter. And you know what is happening on twitter? People are saying that either thr dub itself was fully fake, or sending actual homophobic messages to people who are discussing it with the appropriate tags. As in, people are literally gaslighting the SHIT out of us by saying that we are making it up. People are posting factual evidence and then hordes of DMs telling them they are crazy liars. All of your tags have been mocking and implying anyone who ships destiel is crazy because that is absolutely what would have been true five years ago and IS happening in twitter. Destiel is canon, the cast has repeatedly confirmed it. Multiple cast members have repeatedly confirmed it. Tumblr culture changed and they don't know and since people on Twitter are like "nah you are wrong and all of this evidence is fake the dub doesn't exist and the Spanish people are idiots unlike us Americans and the cast never did that" (even though they did). So if you come onto tumblr thinking a) tags are passive aggressive remarks because they USED to be b) EVERYTHING is Discourse because it USED to be and c) you have just spent thr last two days being constantly harassed on Twitter, which is basically exactly how they remember tumblr being, then you are going to see things in a certain light. Especially because people in the dubbing industry are being attacked and called liars for explaining how they dub and are sort of being accused in very racist ways of destroying the show. Everyone in the #TheySilencedYou tag is talking about the repeated misogyny and queerphobic and racist bullshit Supernatural has pulled, it is NOT only about destiel, it is about censorship and queerbaiting and pisspoor representation (lots of ableism with Eileen as well) but loads of people are sort of gaslighting the movement to be "oh you just want Dean and Cas to fuck and didnt get your way." Which I dont blame you for not knowing as an outsider. So even to me is came off like you were saying "the dub doesn't exist and you are crazy and think there is a gay sex scene somewhere." But tumblr has changed. Twitter has become tumblr. Your tags aren't what they would appear to someone who hasn't been on tumblr in years and after being called crazy by hordes of wincest shippers for discussing actual physical evidence that truly exists and having your job AND race insulted all day then you come on here and get told "I know you are a foreign dubber but i think you are lying and are crazy fuck you" you absolutely would have reacted that way too. (I am not saying that is what you said I am saying that is how you were percieved.) There is a reason why I have started using tumblr again and it is because it is nicer than it used to be! But even I get my hackles up sometimes.

THANK YOU FOR THIS I think that makes a lot of sense and you’re def right. All this SPN finale stuff probably brought a ton of people back to Tumblr who’d probably moved on years ago and don’t know what it’s like here anymore. That’s also why I don’t really do fandom on Twitter because I don’t wanna do the legitimate discourse anymore. Also the whole “that’s where the creators are” thing.

Also I just want all destiel shippers to know I would never ever ever side with wincest shippers intentionally, because hoooooooooly shit. (that goes double for j2 shippers. I probably just kicked a whole new hornet’s nest with that, but oh well).

Anyway you’re right, I think what we have here is a misunderstanding.

[drowninginredink]

Shit, I should write aro rarepairs! That's a really good point. Okay adding that to my mental list.

I won't say who, but I know an aro person in this community who really wants to write gen fic but is afraid no one will read it without a ship, and makes fics they want to keep platonic a little romantic for that reason. I hate that fandom culture as a whole has given them that very reasonable fear. This fandom in particular is not the problem. I mean, yes, it's ship-centric and there's barely any gen, but that's not exactly unique. My aro Ian fic has 70 fucking kudos; clearly the fandom is receptive to aro content and it just isn't being written.

I will encourage you to write aro stuff, Jax. I get the uncomfortableness, but a) do you know how much I'd read the FUCK out of a fic with an aroflux character? I'd read that so, so, so fucking hard. I used to ID as aroflux and I think it's less a case of "I was wrong about my identity" as "I just kinda ended up feeling a lot less romantic attraction over time so aroflux stopped fitting and just straight up aromantic was better." So. As a former aroflux I'd adore that

b) I don't think anyone should be afraid to write aro characters even if they aren't aro. I mean yes. Don't do anything you're not comfortable with. But I personally would just kill for someone to try, especially if the fic itself isn't actually about being aro, the person just happens to be aro. Write an FWB fic and focus mostly on the dynamic and have a throwaway line where one of them says they "don't do dating." There. You've got an aro character. It doesn't have to be a huge thing of representing the community. It can be a background detail. Actually, unrelated, but I wish people did that with psychotic characters. Just offhandedly have people hallucinate and it's just, a normal thing that character does sometimes and they check if it's real and then move on.

c) If you or anyone else in this fandom is nervous about writing an aro character and you want me to beta-read for you, I totally will. Or you want to ask me questions about being aro before writing. I've done that for someone already, in fact.

d) Aromantic fics doesn't have to be about actually being aromantic, IMO? Like I count my QPR Changela fic (which, that's my rarepair—God I love it so much and I need to write more and I need other people to join me) as aromantic, but I see both of them as being allo in that fic—their soulmate just happened to be someone they weren't romantically attracted to even though they are allo and so they decided they'd rather have each other than anyone else. I'd count that FWB Shaymien fic you wrote me as aro. Aro fic can just be prioritizing other themes over romance.

e) aro background characters are always an option.

Anywayyyyyyyy if you like aros and rarepairs so much you should join me on that QPR Changela train. I guess the QPR Damian fic I'll write someday counts, too. And since antmien's number one fan started this, now I've got an aro antmien fic half-written in my head...

I have such a love hate relationship being in love with rarepairs. Like bro there's little to no content unless you make it yourself but that's also the fun of it? There's just so much fun in taking something that maybe others wouldn't see or ship and being like "yeah... I like that" but it also sucks y'know what I mean?? Anyways we have fun here lol

[mewhiphand]

Part 2!

This is a really interesting scene where the link between sex and violence is examined, bizarrely but fittingly through the lens of a psychopathic misgonystic murderer and his mirror image. Orc wanted to take his anger at himself (and his family) out on Astrid, because she was nice to him and he was attracted to her, so he labelled her as 'okay' to take out his frustrations on. Drake wanted to take his anger at his mother out on Astrid because he was attracted to her and could only play out that attraction and gain pleasure if it had the twin element of pain.

Final/8| General outlook : The fascination with Drake in the fandom

Drake is characterised as a hyper-masculine, attractive, dominant person - and the aggressiveness aspects appeal to those who crave someone strong (generally, those with tough childhoods who now feel as though they need the protection that they didn't have). Similar to cultural fascination with serial killers, people are drawn to Drake.

The cultural taboo around liking "dark" things (such as Drake's character) adds an aspect of curiosity and mystery - we wonder about the things aren't openly talked about, like mental health and, specifically, Cluster B personality disorders such as antisocial personality disorder (the disorder that I speculate Drake has, as "psychopathy" is not a registered condition). People want to know what is going on with Drake mentally, why he acts the way he does.

Some may simply find his character intriguing, some may relate to his story, some find his interactions with others interesting, and the not-so-rare few are attracted to him.

This can be explained.

Drake is witty* and acerbic** several key times in the books, which appeals to readers' sense of humour, and adds a comedic effect to ease the tension of GONE's general, harrowing tone.

An example, in GONE :

"I got till June," Chunk said. "You know what that makes me? I'm a Cancer."

"Got that right," Drake muttered.*

"Yeah, that's right, three thousand feet down this hill and I'm going to shoot them with a handgun," Drake said sarcastically. "Moron." **

Drake's playful, seemingly easygoing manner also charms fans. He's strong (his fight with Orc at the start), determined, has interesting dynamics with Caine, Diana and others, and he (before his arm and immortality are given to him) revels in his normality and humanity which is relatable to readers.

And whether you love him or love to hate him, GONE simply wouldn't be what it is without the character of Drake Merwin.

[Happy 27th birthday, Drake!]

Drake analysis for his birthday!

Long post, part 1 of 2! Feel free to share your thoughts!

Drake analysis;

*WARNING : MAJOR spoilers for the Gone series and Monster series, discussions of child abuse, misogynistic mindsets, victim blaming, discussion of torture, sexual assault and rape*

This is a general analysis of Drake's character, focusing mostly on scenes from GONE and HUNGER (where he, arguably, has the most autonomy). If there any specific scenes or books you'd like me to take a look at, please let me know! :)

1| Pre-Coates Drake (overview)

Drake was already showing worrying signs, even before the FAYZ (and before he got sent to Coates); it's mentioned that he found enjoyment in microwaving a puppy and burning frogs. Either this was done covertly until the Holden incident, was done at Coates, or was ignored by his family (likely the former).

This tells us a couple of things:

A. His family may neglect or ignore him (or he ignores them)

Torturing these animals, a strange hobby as it is, does require time and commitment. This distance from his parents during his formative years could create antisocial tendencies and isolation from his 'loved ones'.

B. His sadistic tendencies developed before the death of his father and his mother's remarriage (more on that later).

However, Drake didn't start hurting people until he shot the "neighbour's kid, Holden" who "liked to come over and annoy him".

This short description gives us an insight into Drake's short leash on himself: his temper and impulses are hard to control, and he's aggravated to the point of almost committing murder at a young age (he was 14 in Gone, so this could have been at any age before then) - the book tells us that despite only being shot in the leg by Drake with a .22, "even then, he'd nearly died".

This was the incident that got Drake sent to Coates (a boarding school for mostly "rich", messed-up kids) - this could also clue us into how Drake didn't appear to be legally punished for shooting Holden, as his family might have been well-off (implying they'd rather just buy the victim's silence and ship Drake away rather than deal with his issues on their own, or get a private therapist - or perhaps they believe it's out of their hands?).

However, this is based on assumptions and not solid ground.

2 | Drake and his father.

Drake was taught to shoot by his father, a Highway Patrol lieutenant, using his service pistol. This formed an integral part of who he became, and they now had something in common -

"Don't shoot a person," his father had said. But then he relented, relieved no doubt to find something he could share with his disturbing son."

Despite his father being wary of Drake's early sadistic tendencies, he seemed to be the person that Drake was closest to, and his death affected him majorly. As perhaps the only person who even slightly understood him or sought to find something to do with him, his father's death appeared to be a pivotal moment for Drake - it signalled the end of any sense of a positive male role model in Drake's life, as his mother's next husband was abusive. This would cause him to seek out "strong", violent, dominant men when he was older.

The most likely timeline in my opinion is :

•Drake develops sadistic tendencies

•Drake's father dies

•Drake's mother remarries

•Drake shoots Holden and is sent to Coates

3 | Drake and his stepfather and mother

There is subtextual information that Drake is abused by his stepfather: "the beatings he'd suffered, and the much more numerous beating he had delivered, the pleasure he had found in burning frogs and microwaving a puppy and drawing all those endless loving pictures of weapons, spears, knives, torture devices, all of it, all the hatreds, all the burning lust, all the madness and rage.."

"But he was always a troubled boy. Especially after my son died. The stepfather...young Drake’s stepfather..." - Drake Merwin Sr to Connie temple

To digress :

This small passage in Plague and Sr's speech in Light gives us leagues of information.

Drake is drawn to things that cause pain, he's sickly fascinated with all kinds of weapons, "torture devices" (cleverly hinted at in Hunger, when he's watching Saw II), and the true depth of his emotions are revealed - along with a great deal of self-awareness.

Drake doesn't lack emotion - he's incredibly emotional. The things he does feel (rage, lust, joy) seem to be felt deeper, as if his lack of empathy amplifies the rest of his spectrum of emotions. Drake is also aware of what he feels - the "burning lust" mentioned is especially important to understanding Drake - the misogynistic hatred of Astrid and Diana stems from his apparent inability to distinguish between sexual attraction and causing pain (again, his sadistic desires)

The two are one, in Drake's mind.

[More on that later*]

But where did the misogynist mindset come from in the first place?

The answer lies in Drake's home life following the death of his father.

Drake's mother remarried - but his stepfather was an abusive man, leading to an incredibly toxic relationship. Drake, in his youth, already having the urge to hurt and kill, was exposed to that kind of extreme violence. Drake's stepfather beat his mother in front of him, and because his mother seemingly took actions to antagonise him enough to beat her, Drake (with the mindset of a child, who may have already seen it as a betrayal by his mother to remarry after his father's death)

concluded that she did it deliberately because she liked it.

This misconstruction and victim-blaming set in place a cycle of violence that would form Drake's victim-perpetrator mindset. [*]

It could also imply that Drake's mother's actions of irritating his stepfather directly impacted Drake himself: his stepfather took out his anger on his stepson, and beat Drake too.

This could stand to reason as another explanation why Drake's hatred of women developed - lacking positive female role models and maternal figures in his life led to distance from women, and led him to think that all women were intrinsically weak, irritating and masochistic in their desires.

(This would establish a sadistic-masochistic dynamic that Drake believed all woman [for some, like Astrid, secretly] wanted / partook in, and fuel the idea that women were weak and cowardly as his mother failed to protect him from her husband's violence.)

With a stunted, childish psyche, Drake lost sight of the real issue - the fact that his stepfather was abusive - and directed his anger at someone "safe" and "easy" to hate- his mother, whom he victim-blamed.

We can infer that Drake's childhood was filled with uncertainty and violence, and therefore he sought out control as a way to find a sense of stability in his life, and linked violence with strength and power - therefore, he won't recognise any authority that doesn't use violence as the main way to achieve its aims (hence why he's so gleeful when Caine "is lowered to his level" by using violence, and Drake himself only exercises power through shows of violence and using fear as a means of control - he has no sense of loyalty)

The build-up of resentment at his mother would explode, but not at its original target - at Drake's two known objects of sexual attraction in the FAYZ, Astrid and Diana [who will be addressed separately, as their treatments differ in some aspects. In this post I believe I'll only be addressing Diana, but if you want the full Astrid post comment I guess!]

4| Drake and Diana

A.

Drake fears humiliation - mainly, from the female population. In Gone, Drake comments on this :

"He felt a moment of panic then...He would look like a fool if he didn't get [Astrid]."

"Drake cursed and, again, for just a moment, felt the almost desperate fear of failing Caine. He wasn't worried what Caine would do to him - after all, Caine needed him- but he knew if he failed to carry out Caine's orders, Diana would laugh."

What Drake hates about Diana here is her ability to make him feel humiliated, weak, powerless, a failure - everything he's bound to have felt in his childhood when he couldn't protect his mother or himself against his stepfather. He craves the feeling of power over others, and loathes the feeling of helplessness. We can see that he's aware that Caine uses him and needs him to act as a threat, and he accepts this for now, with the ultimate goal of overthrowing him, but his real fear is being publicly seen as weak and being laughed at, which drives him to do anything to succeed in Caine's eyes and, in his own words, "wipe the smirk off Diana's face"

B.

"Drake had made time to check out Diana's psych file the day after the FAYZ came. But her file had been missing by then. In its place she had left Drake's file lying open on the doc's desk and drawn a little smiley face beside the word "sadist".

Drake had already hated her. But after that, hating Diana had become a full-time occupation."

Diana humiliates Drake, and gains power over him by knowing information about his mental state. Drake, who had the same idea to gain power over Diana, is infuriated and his hatred of her, once a burning ember, is now a raging volcano. We can see that Drake doesn't fear that Diana will hurt him psychically, but emotionally by provoking and humiliating him.

C.

"To Drake's disgust, Caine accepted Diana's back-talk."

Diana has power over Caine that Drake can't hope to accomplish, due to the fact that Caine is attracted to her. Caine's desire of Diana outweighs any loyalty or comradeship he has with Drake. Diana also uses Caine's want for her as a failsafe protection against Drake.

Drake's misogyny shines through here: he sees the fact that Diana is manipulating Caine, and sees how he tolerates it. Drake realises that Diana can get away with much more than Drake himself can - she has more power over Caine than Drake does. And this power, in Drake's eyes, isn't "earned" as it wasn't gained through violence.

Drake disregards any kind of power that isn't earned through pain - this also shows in his hatred of freaks, who he sees as not having "earned" the right to be powerful, and explains his glee at, yes,suffering the pain of his arm being burnt off, but it being replaced by something that enables him to cause pain to others - like a reward for enduring the pain. Drake wants his suffering to mean something, and to gain something from it. Drake wants to be important.

"Go ahead, raise a hand against me, Drake," Diana taunted. "Caine would kill you."

We see another example where Diana uses the threat of Caine to keep Drake in line.

Diana is described as attractive throughout the books by varying characters, and so we infer that Drake finds her attractive, but in his twisted, misognyistic mindset, this is translated to violence. Additionally, he already disliked her so his hatred for Diana is stronger than for any other girl in the FAYZ (even Astrid).

5| Drake and Caine

The foreshadowing of Drake's betrayal

We've established that Drake lacks any sense of loyalty and trust due to a lack of these in his own childhood. Drake also only sees respect as being earned by shows of violence and dominance.

Drake, lacking positive male role models, appears to latch on to Caine, the "most ruthless" of all the boys at Coates, and the most powerful (in a literal sense, with his telekinesis). Caine is mentioned to do small favours for Drake (but, crucially, plays Drake and Diana off against each other [*]), and seemingly gains Drake's initial respect.

Drake, however, seeks to usurp Caine (due to his hatred of freaks, and needing to have a sense of superiority. He also sees Caine as weak and below him for bowing to Diana's demands due to Caine being attracted to her.)

When the Coates trio is first introduced together, in Gone, - "Drake Merwin stood smirking, arms across his chest, on Caine's left, and Diana Ladris watched the crowd from Caine's right"

I'm perhaps guilty of looking too much into this initial description, but I find it interesting - despite being Caine's "right-hand man" and even Drake taunts Diana that he and Caine are "like brothers" (Hunger), Drake stands on his left and Diana on his right.

While this also serves to cement (haha) Caine's role as the 'Fearless Leader', it could also foreshadow Drake's betrayal later in Hunger, and his need to "run the show".

Drake, the Judas figure to Caine's christ [maybe a post on this at some point?*], stands on his left. It also marks Diana as the loyal follower, the one to stay with Caine until the end.

The decimation of Drake and Caine's relations ship culminates in the final events of HUNGER, when Drake almost kills Diana and Caine throws Drake down the mineshaft in revenge and anger.

This marks a shift to Drake's character - he's no longer under Caine's control - but emphasises that his loyalty is now fully to the Gaiaphage, whom he worships for giving him power over others [!!] (the whip hand, which grants him the ability to hurt and kill others, and in LIES, immorality)

We can see that what Drake actually craves is, in GONE: to run things himself, a personal anarchist dream where he can hurt anyone he wants, (and yet he needs a strong male figure behind the scenes to give him motivation), or the illusion of control, found in causing others pain, as he lacks the mental stability and leadership needed to be in control, and he lacks long-term goals beyond revenge and fulfilling his sadistic desires, and is rudderless without a leader (as seen in Monster, where he is "mindlessly killing, torturing and raping anyone he comes across" until he is sought out by Tom Peaks, who gives him motivation)

This is supported by Peaks' comment on this in VILLAIN -

"But along with the sneers, he sensed that Drake was looking for leadership. Drake had no plan, never would have any plan, beyond his next murder."

Drake and his hatred of freaks, and how this impacts his relationship with Caine -

"Drake hated the power. There was only one reason why Caine and not Drake was running the show: Caine's powers."

"But Caine understood that the kids with powers had to be controlled. And once Caine and Diana had all the freaks under control, what was to stop Drake from using his own nine millimetres of magic to take it all for himself?"

Drake always planned to usurp Caine, as he thinks he's too influenced by Diana and due to his hatred of freaks. Drake hates anyone having power over him, and Caine's abilities give him a unique advantage, which Drake loathes.

Caine and Drake - altercations before the betrayal and what they show

"She was your mother and she gave you up and kept Sam?" Drake said, laughing in his enjoyment of Caine's humiliation.

Drake's sadism shines through and he turns entirely reckless in tormenting Caine, his desire to see Caine humiliated outweighing any fear he has of him. For Drake, fulfilling these sadistic urges take precedence over everything - even fear, pain, rage. We can see that he seems to not know when to stop, or chooses to push people past their limits anyways.

Caine responds in physical violence, the language Drake seems to understand - "Something slammed Drake's chest. It was like being hit by a truck. He was lifted off his feet and thrown against the wall."

Drake refuses to be humiliated (in front of Diana, curiously) - "He made himself shake it off. He wanted to jump up and go for Caine, finish him quick before the freak could hit him again. But Caine was there, looming over him, face red, teeth bared, looking like a mad dog."

"Remember who's the boss, Drake," Caine said, his voice low, guttural, like it was coming from an animal."

"Drake nodded, beaten. For now."

This small passage gives us a lot of messages about Drake. He wants to appear strong and vicious, but plays it smart and backs down to avoid the risk of Caine actually killing him. Drake and Caine's dynamic is, crucially, a power struggle at its heart.

However, Drake doesn't give up - he's admirably resilient and persistent in chasing his goals of revenge, and "winning" the power struggle against Caine. He does, at least in GONE, possess a good amount of intelligence and foresight.

Caine (and Diana) being aware of Drake's psychopathy

Caine :

"Drake is a violent, disturbed boy." - Caine to Sam, the gym scene in GONE.

Caine knows of Drake's afflictions, but keeps him around as a lackey to do his dirty work. He also considers himself morally superior to Drake - he remarks that at least he doesn't "get off" on what he does.

Hypocritically, Caine does not see his own actions as being just as damaging, but this is due to his overinflated ego and delusions of grandeur - he believes the ends he wants justifies the means he uses.

Diana :

"Drake is sick in the head. I'm not saying that just to scare you, I'm saying it because it's true...Drake is flat out sick in the head. He could kill her, Sam" - Diana to Sam, the gym scene in GONE.

"Well, that's why we keep Drake around. He enjoys hurting people." - Diana to Astrid, classroom scene in GONE.

Diana shares a similar opinion to Caine - he's mentally unhinged, but Diana recognises the threat he poses to both her and to Caine, and wants him gone.

6| Drake and dominance & submission

A.

"Drake moved past Diana and kicked Sam onto his back, legs twisted beneath him. Drake stood over him and pushed the end of his hat against Sam's Adam's apple. The same move he had used on Orc the night before."

We see that Drake is physically strong, despite his unassuming stature - he's described as "lean". He has been in enough fights and has enough experience to take down people at least "fifty pounds" heavier than him (Orc). He also puts these people into humiliating, submissive positions where they have no choice but to capitulate to his demands.

B.

He speaks to Astrid in LIGHT about this -

"Are you as clueless as the rest of them, Astrid? It’s simple. Here it is, here’s the answer, Astrid the Genius: it’s fun to hurt people. It’s such…it’s such joy, Astrid. Such joy realizing that all the power is yours, and all the fear and pain is right there, in your victim. Come on, smart girl, you know what it’s called. You know the word for it. Come on, say it.’ He cupped his hand to his ear, waiting for the word.

'Evil,’ Astrid said.

Drake laughed, threw up his hand wide, and nodded his head. 'Evil! There you go. Good for you. Evil. It’s in all of us. You know that, too. It was in you. I saw it in your eyes as you looked down on me in that cooler. Evil, hah. We all want to have someone powerless beneath us while we stand over them.’ His voice had grown husky. 'We all want that. We all want that.’

One thing that stands out about Drake's character is that he likes to believe that everyone, at some level, has the same desires he does: Drake is just "strong" enough to act on them.

Drake likes to antagonise people to 'bring them down to his level'.

In this speech, Drake reveals a lot about himself.

"it's fun to hurt people" ,in particular, keys us in to the fact that Drake is self-aware, and making Astrid call him "evil" is part of this: Drake knows what he's doing is morally wrong. Drake wants people to think that he is evil, that he's ruthless, that he's nothing but a sadistic murderer, because he doesn't want to reveal his true vulnerability and helplessness.

He calls out the hypocrisy of Astrid for seemingly reveling in his pain and still condemning him for the desires over which he has no control. [This is not to say that I believe he is right for acting on them; the urges he can't control, but he can control his actions]. This is Drake's make me your villain speech. His final cry for help, in a way.

He wants everyone to be like him. He wants to not be judged, he aches for the confirmation that he is not alone in wanting power and vengeance and pain.

"We all want to have someone powerless beneath us while we stand over them." - Drake's experience of the roles being reversed, and the victim-perpetrator cycle show through here. Drake seeks power because he was denied it.

It is paradoxical in that, arguably, he wouldn't be like this if people hadn't punished him for things he couldn't control (involuntary sadistic impulses), and it is sad that we realise he could have been so much more, had circumstances been different.

Drake is a dark mirror of every dark thought we ever have. He, horrifyingly so, reflects the human urge to inflict pain as revenge. Drake's story is a cautionary tale. Many can relate to his harsh childhood, and Drake reminds us that no matter how much pain is inflicted on us, we bear the weight of not continuing that cycle onto others. That is the curse of being good. That is the curse of being human. That is the curse of empathy.

C.

Crucifixion - in MONSTER, it is revealed that Drake has been 'alive' for years, and we find out in VILLAIN that he resides in a cave in the desert along with 3 bodies - 2 female, one male, people he recently tortured. He crucified them with "railroad spikes" and left them to hang from the bones of their wrists. We can see that Drake leaves them in humiliating positions deliberately - "The only thing better would be to have Sam nailed to the opposite wall, forced to watch it all. To see Astrid degraded as Sam watched? He could not imagine anything better."

This is an example of his psychosexual development being warped - he associates sex with violence and power. He tortures and degrades his victims as a way to fulfil his sexual and sadistic urges.

7| Drake and Orc as foils

Drake and Orc first oppose each other in the early chapters of GONE - Drake is given power over Orc by Caine - "Drake and his people, including Captain Orc.."

This establishes a hierarchy within the "sherrifs". Drake leads them, but ultimately defers to Caine - (and, he is given power over others at Caine's will.)

Orc, like Drake, had a traumatic childhood and was abused by his father, and his "dumb dishrag" mother does nothing to stop it (she herself is abused by her husband, and rebukes Charles for wanting to kill his father.)

Both Orc and Drake blame their mothers for failing to stop the abuse of their husbands (and their father and step-father in Drake's case).

This is an interesting comparison, as it cements (haha) both Orc and Drake as bullies with short tempers who need to have control, each with a shrewd, conniving friend who effectively "leads" them.

Also, for the most part in the books, they're the only characters with physical mutations (both resulting from physical injury!) and turn their backs on the shrewd friend at some point (Drake and Caine becoming enemies, Orc finding faith and becoming distanced from Howard's crimes).

The fight between them at the start of GONE is a clever foreshadow to their battle at the end of GONE (and, of course, their long-lasting rivalry) and provides a comparison between the two.

They butt heads when Orc is ordered to defer to Drake when Caine is giving out roles, and Caine handles it by crushing a boy with a cross - but no physical altercation happens until Orc punishes Bette for "doing magic tricks".

The anti-freak agenda (ironic, considering they both end up gaining mutations, at similar points too!) of both Drake and Orc is pointed out, but Orc is almost painted as a "lesser evil" - as if Orc may be a garden-variety bully, but Drake is pure, distilled essence of evil.

"Orc...went for Drake like a linebacker. Drake stepped aside, nimble as a matador."

"Drake hit Orc in the ribs with a short, sharp forward thrust of the bat. Then again in the kidneys and again in the side of the head. Each blow was measured, accurate, effective."

Drake is the quick and nimble to Orc's sluggishness, the playfulness to Orc's sullen demeanour. He is "lean" where Orc is "wide" - their battle at the end is described as "their quick-and-slow, nimble-and-heavy, sharp-and-dull battle".

This is a perfectly well written description in my opinion - succinct, and perfectly accurate of them.

The main differences, however, are their personal views on their mutations, and their arcs.

Orc thinks he's a monster - he knows he is physically repulsive, and detests himself. He feels immense guilt over the pain he caused, and seeks to redeem himself through finding faith and asking for forgiveness from God.

Drake, in contrast, adores the power that his mutation gives him. He even describes himself as "Jesus with a whip". His mutation, in Drake's eyes, gives him control over others and he relishes in this.

Drake feels no remorse over the pain he causes, and doesn't desire redemption.

His God-figure is the Gaiaphage, whom he eventually betrays as he desires personal revenge on Astrid and Diana and cannot cope with Gaia being female due to his misogynistic views.

However, Drake and Orc share an interesting scene in Plague with Astrid - Orc seeks out Astrid with the intent to hurt her (it is implied to be sexual violence) and is interrupted by Drake arriving at Coates with his army of bugs. Drake picks up on Orc's intentions.

Drake confesses to Orc that he had the same idea.

"You think she'll give you a big, wet kiss on your gravel face?" He peered closer at Orc as if looking inside him. "Nah, Orc, the only way you get Astrid is the same way I get her. And that's what you were thinking, isn't it?"

[idreamtofmanderleyagain]

Thank you for clarifying.

So, first off, I think my confusion stemmed from the fact that you were possibly lacking context for the meaning of the OP. Unfortunately this is the nature of social media discourse, you don't know me and I'm guessing you don't follow me.

A few things to note:

A) I'm a person who's life has actually been impacted by a real life criminal who harmed a close family member and reaked general havok over my entire life and cause significant trauma and generational trauma within my family. I have had fantasies revenge myself, I consider those kinds of fantasies to be pretty human and normal for this type of experience. That is trauma catharsis. Fantasy is not reality.

B) in terms of fandoms, my most prominent one includes violent revenge catharsis against predatory men as major themes.

C) I'm currently writing fanfic in that universe that features a lot of that very theme several times.

D) this post was not about any of that. This post was about the toxic purity culture part of fandom, specifically relating to how we discuss redemption arcs for characters who are decidedly not violent rapists. We're talking about major popular villains here.

In response to your perspective though, I think there is a huge difference between the very human, very understandable urge to retaliate against a person who harmed you with cruelty, and how we construct moral ideas and rules around who does and does not deserve violent punishment. This includes the views we have about fictional scenarios.

In other words, cathartic stories about revenge are not inherently moral or righteous. They are a depiction of a feeling, a way to purge rage and pain. In general, I would consider them very morally grey, leaning on dark. And that is okay. It's enjoyable and cool to have stories like that. We are allowed to feel good about that second-hand experience.

What is concerning to me is the philosophy built up in toxic purity culture fandom discourse that suggests that revenge is moral, that it is inherently justice, and not only that, but certain characters can never be redeemed properly unless they have suffered under the heavy hand of this cruelty-based justice. Furthermore, that people cannot identify with and love those characters without offering many caveats and mea culpas, or even being told to also cast stones as a part of that expression of love. That they must answer for their favorite character "falling short" of the acceptable amount of cruelty and stone-casting meted out by the narrative or other characters.

And I do not believe the idea that "this character reminds me of my abuser" is an acceptable reason for people to justify why violence or cruelty should happen against that character in canon, or that anybody who thinks they aren't garbage is condoning their own personal abuse experience, etc. A personal revenge fantasy fic written about that character? Fine, whatever. A fandom culture where that fantasy is forced upon others who don't feel the same? Concerning.

People on social media are WAY too quick to equate their ugliest, darkest, pettiest feelings with a righteous moral truth, and quite frankly as a person with very legitimate reasons to feel righteous rage and hate, I find that quite disgusting. It's gross how people are so ruled by their most thoughtless emotional thinking when it comes to their moral philosophies and even sociopolitical views, and most especially their treatment of other human beings. That is what the OP was about.

To be honest, a lot of people in fandom approach discourse from a place of anger and spite. The amount of you who think characters you don’t like (or who you think are “bad” or who are designated the villain or what the fuck ever) should actively suffer in some way before you can deem them acceptable/redeemed/whatever criteria you’re reaching for…it really says something about our priorities tbh.

Is “justified” cruelty (via the other characters or the narrative itself) really the only framework we fucking have for character development? Everybody’s gotta have their “comeuppance”? Ya’ll are just really ugly without thinking sometimes and I think maybe that’s a more of a you problem than a fictional character’s problem.

[someawkwardprose]

okay @darianyunidi I rlly want to assume you've just never thought about this before but bro did you even read my post??

first of all: i wasn't saying you're a misogynist if you don't like gwen (tho it certainly plays into why most people dislike her). you can have loads of issues with gwen without actively bashing her. am I a huge fan of her cheating on rhys, and drugging him with Retcon? absolutely not. but if you hate gwen and still like owen, or hell, jack, you should probably think about why you think her problematic aspects are worse than the boys.

but what I was saying is if you make out another female character to be absolutely perfect specifically to bash another female character, specifically to support your white male fave/ship you are absolutely being misogynistic. you can a) dislike a character without actively bashing them - the amount of fanfic out there that depicts gwen as an evil man stealing harpy, homophobic, or just downright awful, as opposed to a complex imperfect female character is honestly disgusting. b) if you only write female characters in relation to your male faves (not like, just a story about your fave, but actively, constantly writing women as support characters only) then idk what to say other than please examine your internalised misogyny.

it can be hard to notice your internal biases when you're immersed in a culture that accepts it as normal. but toshiko sato does not exist so you can compare gwen cooper to her. female characters do not exist to be compared to others or be seen only in in relation to men.

it's the same with characters of colour!!! "oh I dont ~hate~ people who aren't white just this specific character who happens to have flaws just like my white faves"!! fandom needs to start critically addressing their biases instead of being like. well I'm not a misogynist, so obviously I am not motivated by misogyny here.

if u only boost tosh to bash gwen ur still a misogynist I'm sorry to say. half of u treat tosh like a saint JUST so u can bash gwen and that's just as damaging and awful bc she's a great character in her own right. either love our girls on their own merits or admit u only care about ur white male faves ❤

[garetthawke]

and IF, if we need to go into the defense of queer fanbases; i think it's important to note that writing off fandom as being "mostly queer" is particularly devastating in how it severely underestimates the power straight women's fetishism has in fandom spaces just because of some numbers.

you would all probably be shocked at the sheer amount of tropes and behaviors in m/m shipping fandoms that are literally holdover traditions from straight women who pioneered these shipping spaces.

the obsession with couple dynamics, for example; who tops and bottoms, and the roles that get given based on that assignment, following closely with heteronormative classifications, that got popularized with the emergence of yaoi. it was once called "seme" and "uke," but now has adopted actual gay terminology to hide the fact that it's literally the same fucking thing.

and the damage that has? is immeasurable. because it was so damn NORMALIZED in these spaces that baby gays who came in then adopted these behaviors and tropes uncritically.

it doesn't matter that straight women are not the majority of m/m shipping fanbases; their voices are still the loudest, coming through the mouths of kids who aren't even straight.

referring to shipping gay characters as "sinful," for example, was a thing dominant among straight women who felt guilt over shipping something they often saw as immoral due to their real life homophobia, or their exoticism of gay men that made it feel taboo. that language got picked up by all the queer people behind them, most of the time standing in for the guilt from their internalized homophobia and the shame of forced repression, without them realizing the harmful and stigmatizing impact of their words.

and a/b/o? the MOST popular au trope in m/m shipping that also packs a one+two punch of additionally being misgynistic and transphobic 99% of the time? yeah it doesn't fucking matter if you're queer and you enjoy it; straight women invented that genre (for literal hetero porn too,) and every queer person who picked it up after participated in the heteronormativity, sexism, and cissexism that came with it.

straight women have a POWERFUL legacy in m/m shipping culture that is continued by queer people who flat out don't know better, or just don't care.

and when that shit gets brought up in discussions, and you say "but most of fandom is queer" instead of listening...who are you helping? who?

not the queer people who NEED to hear this shit so they can unlearn behavior that hurts their community. not the queer people who are young and learning from their peers and likely have no other community exposure. you are only defending the problematic behavior when you pretend it's just a matter of sexuality or how many straight women are present in any given fanbase. the queer people who fetishize gay men, that you pretend don't exist, are not protected by your defenses; they are being stunted from necessary growth and are going to be hit HARD later in life when their failure to modify their behavior alienates them from their community.

i fucking DESPISE when people say "most of m/m shipping fandom is queer" in defense of gay fetishization being brought up...especially when it's denying the comparison to lesbian fetishisim by trying to claim one is all straight men and the other is "mostly queer." like?? if a queer man participated in lesbian fetishization y'all would NOT be like "oh it's okay, he's queer!" but the second that women get called out, suddenly it's an impenetrable defense??

and look, i get it. a lot of m/m shipping is the result of women's sexualities being acknowledged, normalized, and accepted for the first time. it's important. I'm not invalidating that or decrying shipping.*

BUT. if we can't have serious discussions about how women's sexualities are not totally free of the same exact fetishy pitfalls as men's have, we have a fucking problem.

and I'm not claiming gay fetishization is even as systemic or normalized as lesbian fetishism; trust me, as a lesbian, i know it's not. but just because you can't compare that aspect doesn't mean i don't know gay men who have been just as harmed as i have on a personal level by fetishism, and there is a very realistic fear that with the absolute refusal to accept criticism on this section of mainstream porn, hiding behind a shoddy defense of "queer," that we are headed to a place where the comparisons of gay fetishism become justifyably comparible to lesbian fetishism.

and we do not need to ignore the problem until it gets to that point. if people won't listen now, why will they then?

and to top it off, even if we want to disclude the possibility of queer people participating in fetishism...the word "most" still matters. the people impacted by the fetishism of straight women still matter, and it's still a problem that deserves fucking discussion instead of a brush off.

i don't fucking care if you think the comparison of the few straight women in shipping fandom to the widespread lesbian fetisization from straight men isn't comparable at all; my solidarity will have me continue making the damn comparison because I'm sick to DEATH of y'all protecting these straight women from these discussions behind your sheild of "but most of us are queer."

the ones who aren't need to be held fucking accountable for their behavior, period. it has an effect that's NOT erased by all the queer people who share the fandom. and if we can't even hold a discussion about them without you all popping in to act like they basically don't exist among the numbers of queer women in fandom - how very little do you all care about gay men then that we could even trust your asses to not be perpetrating the same harm?

people act like being queer and/or a women is a bulletproof defense for harmful behavior when it comes to sexuality, like it's anti-progressive to suggest they could do the same kind of harm straight men do. it's the fucking opposite.

it's NOT feminist to put women's sexualities on a pedestal, to behave like they should have free reign where they wish and that harm is inconsequential because of a history of repression. feminism is understanding that women's sexualities are equal to men's - in that they are capable of the same fetishization and harm, and that the liberation of women's sexualities comes with the same power towards minority groups as men's. white women have as much power to fetishize black people as white men, and straight women have as much power to fetishize gay people as straight men do. and it's equally as problematic, no matter your history with repression. you don't get a free pass to fetishize just because for the first time you don't have to hide it, that's a ridiculous argument.

and back to the point...the same can be said for queer folks. with us it's less about us having power over others, and more about the ability to play into the existing power structures maintained by straight people. men attracted to women can 100% play into the oppressive structures that target queer women, regardless of their queer orientation. vice versa for queer women attracted to men.

queerness is not a defense. if gay men call out certain fetishistic behaviors, that is not something that calls for ANY kind of defense. what it calls for is self examination of how you might be perpetrating existing power structures against them held by straight people with your behavior, queer or not. if you find yourself imitating and defending the behavior of straight women towards gay men...there is likely a problem. if you think your behavior is only defensable by the fact that you're queer...there is likely a problem.

deflection of straight women's behavior by the amount of queer people in fandom is not tolerable. defending your own behavior solely on the basis of not being straight is also not tolerable.

concern with the amount of queer people in shipping fandoms should have never even risen as a concern in the first place. gay men should have been heard when they brought up how they were being hurt, but that's not what happened. and frankly, the comparison to lesbian fetishism was first brought up not by them, but against them; as proof that their feelings on being fetishized were invalid, because their treatment wasn't "as bad" as ours.

if gay men want to compare themselves to lesbians who are fetishized, i think they're at the point to have earned it; because i would rather they use us to force a little compassion out of your self centered hearts, than for you to use us as an excuse to ignore gay men to do whatever you want.

*i am adding this to say, because I KNOW someone will get defensive and misinterpret, that i am not against m/m shipping or calling all of it fetishistic; i am referring to discussions calling out specific behaviors and tropes used too often in shipping fandoms that are fetishistic and homophobic.