#being gay doesn't make something inherently better

[aceredshirt13]

today on things I ponder while playing rhythm games: I think that when fellow queer people say that so-and-so m/f pairing is "for the gays" what people actually mean is that so-and-so m/f pairing is "competently written and makes you invested in their relationship as human beings, rather than shoehorning in a romance because of the belief that if a man and a woman are in close proximity they are required by law to kiss and/or bang"

so like. perhaps we should stop denigrating m/f relationships as inherently inferior, and instead acknowledge that the problems often seen in m/f relationships in fiction (especially when the romance isn't the main subject of the work) are caused by authorial laziness in favor of the heterosexual hegemonic rule of "boy + girl = sex"

[oarfishing]

Alright, I'm sick of seeing TERFisms on my dash, so here's a handy list of TERF dogwhistles and talking points to think about before you reblog a post.

I've seen a few of these before, but it doesn't hurt to make more. Especially when we're seeing a lot of radfem rhetoric popping up in LGBT spaces from people who might not know better.

SCREENNAMES: these are terms that commonly appear in radfem usernames across the web

rad or radical

fem or femme

vulva, clit, uterus, womb, ovary, vagina, etc.

febfem

anything along the lines of "angry woman"

xx or chromosomes

wombyn, wimmin, womyn, etc.

LGB

feminist

BIOS: things that show up in radfem bios

♀ or ⚢

febfem

female separatist

female, human female, adult human female

xx

something along the lines of "the scary feminist you were warned about"; being an angry woman, being sick of being silenced, being an evil woman, being an angry lesbian

detrans (NOTE: detrans people are absolutely not always transphobic)

dysphoric female

males/men do not interact

LGB✂️

misandrist

feminist (NOTE: again, very few feminists are actually terfs, but this is commonly in terf bios alongside some of these other terms)

TERMS: terms that radfems use in their circles

TIM - trans-identified male, a way of saying transfems, trans women, and other trans people

TIF - trans-identified female, same as above but the other way around, less commonly seen

DSD - disorder of sexual development, a way to avoid saying intersex and to categorize intersex people as "still male or female" (you might see "males with DSD" or "females with DSD" for example)

females or males instead of women and men

alternatively, women and males to dehumanize men

"peaking" or "peaked" - referring to becoming radicalized as a radfem or TERF

womyn, wombyn, wimmin, wo**n, and any other spelling that takes "man" out of the term woman

mentally ill men/women

sex-based oppression

gender critical

"TIRF" - trans-inclusive radical feminist (don't be fooled by the name, they're very much not)

TRA - trans rights activist, derogatory

sex-based rights

female separatism/"women's land"

WBW - womyn-born womyn

autistic girls/children

troon - (ridiculous) slur for trans people

RHETORIC: general ideological themes in radfem rhetoric

men are inherently more violent than women

women don't or rarely rape men

(woman on woman rape is ignored by almost all radfems)

being nonbinary is a way to "stop being" your assigned sex while still acting as your birth sex

lesbians are not attracted to men/penises and can never have sex with men/penises (otherwise, you're bisexual)

men can and will never be lesbians

there is no such thing as a bi lesbian, only lesbians and bisexuals. labels are rigid and sex-based

all of the world's suffering is driven by men

women would be better off separate

an all-female society is utopia

sex is binary, and intersex people are "glitches" or "still male or female but DisorderedTM"

men should expect to be feared by women

female/female relationships are safer and more pure than straight or gay male relationships

men and women are more different than similar

intersex people should not be allowed in sports

intersex people and trans men are never in men's sports

terrible world events wouldn't have happened if women were in charge

men are stupid and aggressive

being a man is not a positive thing

men's problems are lesser than women's

penises are disgusting and vaginas and vulvas are beautiful

trans women are performing at being girls

trans men see themselves as above lesbians

attraction is sex-based

porn is rape

porn is inherently violent

watching porn makes you predisposed to inflicting abuse

BDSM is inherently violent and misogynistic

transitioning children (whether socially or medically) are being abused

"bitch" and "cunt" are slurs against women

only gay men can say faggot and only lesbian women can say dyke

When you see a few or more of these together, RUN! It's a terf.

[lucystark12]

milevens are insane

warning now - i get extremely heated in this so if you're going to tell me to calm down leave. before any of you weird bitches tell me to go do something more productive or to touch grass- no. i'm fifteen, it's summer, and i'm a highly involved high school student. i'm not here because i have nothing better to do, i'm here because i understand good writing and am able to have hobbies ❤️

anyways

was on the mileven endgame hashtag just now and because i don't choose violence i wont be addressing any of them directly, but i will be addressing some of the ridiculous bullshit on there. term bullshit used intentionally

the love confession came as a result of mike "gaining the confidence" to tell el how much he loves her because he was afraid that he loved her more than she loved him.

are you listening to the words that are coming out of your mouth right now? i want to sit down and get a coffee with you and dissect what the fuck you meant by that. sure, right, yeah, he gained so much PRODUCTIVE confidence from his conversation he had with will where will was using eleven to mask his own feelings for mike. it makes so much sense narratively that this end all be all mileven event is sparked from will's feelings and not mikes! sure! right! this is such an idiotic piece of reasoning. you are literally saying that you are okay with your endgame ship only being endgame based on faulty communication and lies. are you joking? "you just gotta improve your motivation" ass piece of evidence

also, mike being insecure about loving her more than she loves him is complete, total, utter bullshit. el frequently expresses her love to mike via letters and youre here to say that mike would have any problem with doing the same thing if he were insecure about her love for him? that literally makes no sense. i wouldn't be afraid of loving somebody more than they love me if they are actively putting more effort into insuring me that they love me than i am to them. like, what does that even mean?

“Will Byers is a pathetic loser annoying character and contributed little to the plot of ST. "

yes that is a direct quote. no i'm not kidding.

what kind of fucking neanderthal watches stranger fucking things- a show about a kid who disappears- and thinks the kid who disappears isn't a central part of the narrative? the first episode of the goddamn show is called "the vanishing of will byers"! maybe this is hard for you and your confused brain to get your head around, but el and mike met when mike was out looking FOR WILL. mike and el are still together because mike gained courage from WILL'S LOVE FOR HIM. what a fucking idiot you must be. i would try to explain to you the myriad of other reasons why will is absolutely central to the plot of the show, but since the show itself has clearly gone in one ear and out the other, i probably wont be able to get through to you either.

“what if we learned to cope with world that doesn’t accept us as individuals by embracing each other completely?” said about mileven

um.. what. that's literally byler. closeted gay guys in the 80s. but sure, the ones that aren't being accepted are the two white and allegedly heterosexual individuals. the "world that doesn't accept us" in question is a few high school bullies in comparison with the stigmatization, violence, and ostracization that has longstanding been a part of what it means to be queer. be so serious right now. mileven is not important for being non conformist, the GAY SHIP IN THE 80S IS!!

“The only people who queerbaited, was byler fans themselves lmao.”

even if we're ignoring the horrible grammar there are still SO many things wrong with everything that was just said. what they're saying above for anybody who can't decipher the weird medieval english code this person is using is that bylers actively queerbaited themselves which inherently makes no sense at all.

below i have included the oxford dictionary definition of queerbaiting: "the incorporation of apparently gay characters or same-sex relationships into a film, television show, etc. as a means of appealing to gay and bisexual audiences while maintaining ambiguity about the characters' sexuality."

how is it possible that byler shippers themselves are the ones doing the queerbaiting? are we running the show? nope! before you come on and post something as offensive as this- which i will get into- at least make sure you know what you're saying. xoxo

to insinuate for even a second that mike wheeler not being gay would be anything other than deliberate queerbaiting is insane. there is something wrong with you. aside from the parts of the show where his queerness is deliberately alluded to like music, costuming, analogies, allegories, and set design, netflix has been, weather you like it or not, actively marketing in favor of byler and mike not being straight. all below come from official netflix accounts-

how is this not queerbaiting? genuinely what are you on about. this is literally textbook.

“will is fruity but mike didn't like the fruit on his pizza”

you seriously are basing your argument about mike not being gay on him not liking fruit on pizza? you seriously think that some of the most commended and celebrated writers of the last decade would use symbolism involving a word that can literally be interpreted as a slur when their show has two characters who are canonically a part of the group affected said slur? are you fucking stupid? that was harmless banter used to communicate the differences in habitual action across the country. it wasn't the duffers trying to do for you what they do for us in deliberate, straightforward NON-OFFENSIVE symbolism.

i saw somebody claim that mike's character arc in season four was inherently about not believing in his self worth nor in his competency to be in a relationship with el

while i do for the most part agree with you, i'm going to ask you a question- mike was never anxious about his identity and self worth involving el before season four. why do you think that just came up now if not for the fact that he's been having insecurities involving his sexuality and romantic attraction to women as a whole? in my opinion, mike realized that he might not like girls in that way circa the end of season three- a realization that only festered and grew through the absence of not only the boy he loves that is causing this insecurity but the girl whom he is using as a way to say hey, i can't be gay, i have a girlfriend! mike was clearly going through some serious emotional struggles as we can immediately see in this scene with how suddenly awkward he is with will and the immediate emphasis that's put on the "from mike" on the flowers.

i agree that his season four and part of his season five arc are about his feelings of insecurity about being in a relationship with el, however, i don't think he's insecure because he thinks she's better than him in the sense that she's some superhero, i think he thinks she's better than him because he knows that he'll never be able to love her the way she deserves to be loved. he's not going to outright come and say to will that he doesn't think that he can love her in the way she deserves to be loved. he's closeted. what he says in the van scene is the only way he knows to express his feelings. it's very similar to what will does in the same scene. it makes no sense for this insecurity to randomly manifest in him if it wasn't for an external factor that doesn't involve el, because nothing has really changed with the dynamic of their relationship other than the move. one could argue that mike is feeling insecure over el's supposed popularity she claims to have in her letters, but mike's arc has never been about caring about popularity in school. that's not something on his mind so much as the grand scheme of the world is. lets not forget that he joins hellfire in season four.

“When Mike didn’t say “I love you”, By*ers twisted it to their narrative. When Mike did say “I love you”, By*ers twisted it to their narrative.”

you literally sound like trump going on about the democrats. listen to what your saying right now. also, it's a ship name. there's no need to censor it you fucking weirdo.

wasted time building up mileven

i'm sorry, what build up? i'm confused. there's no "build up". THIS is build up:

above is will, possessed by a monster who feeds off of those lacking love in their lives, only being able to be broken out of possession by a heartfelt monologue by the PERSON HE LOVES detailing how the best decision he ever made was to befriend him.

above is will claiming he will never fall in love, then his love for one of the other main characters becomes a central plot point of the two seasons to come. joyce and i see through will and all of you weird milevens

mike telling will how it's not his fault will doesn't like girls only after he loses the person he's been using to cover up his own insecurity about the same thing- not liking girls. suspicious.

will's LOVE FOR MIKE being the thing to give him the confidence to help el SAVE THE WORLD, only episodes after we establish that mike is bound to be pissed that he was lied to. and theres no buildup? THERE'S REALLY NO BUILDUP?

if you don't see buildup i fear you are literally just a lost cause because it is so painfully obvious to anybody who made it past seventh grade english class that there is something deeper and more intimate than friendship going on between will byers and mike wheeler.

“Women can be independent while being in a relationship guys😭!!”

OBVIOUSLY! i am literally the biggest feminist on the entire western seaboard. i couldn't agree more with this, which is why we have arcs like nancy's where she actively becomes more independent while still maintaining a relationship with jonathan. the difference is that mike and el have been together since they were like thirteen. when el was immersed into the real world for the first time in season two she immediately leaned on mike for support in that. it's not that she can only be independent on her own, it's that mike is directly symbolic to her of a time when she was stumbling around the world with naivete and not quite knowing how to navigate that. by spreading her wings away from that relationship, it will not only give her independence, but also a way to see beyond the barriers of hawkins and a life where she was valued mostly for the qualities she brings to the supernatural equation. el's arc is one of my favorites. i would never claim such a thing and discredit the essence of what makes the emotions behind her character so interesting. she's somebody who was literally raised in a lab. she shouldn't be held back by somebody she is quite literally dependent on.

last but not least, i saw a post that said milevens always win.

"are you sure about that?" i ask, noah schnapp's most recent instagram post open on my phone, finn wolfhard's spotify playlist in my headphones, my mike holding will's painting funko on the desk in front of me, wearing a yellow shirt with a blue sweater over it.

thank u for listening to my ted talk 💙💛

[cardentist]

I'm like, 70% sure this is only an issue with the gravity falls fandom on twitter, but if I don't say something I think I'm gonna explode

there Doesn't Need to be a bad guy between fiddleford, emma-may, and ford ! we can recognize one character causing harm to another, both directly and indirectly, Without framing it like it's intentional or that it makes any of them inherently bad.

in particular, I think there's been pushback against people vilifying ford (both in general and as angst material for other characters) by just. shifting that blame over to another character instead and running with it.

so to get this out of my system:

Yes I agree that fiddleford and ford have a lot of queercoding between each other. I think it's always been there to an extent, but it's absolutely been reinforced with the book of bill and "thisisnotawebsite."

and even if you choose to read their relationship as platonic (which is fine ! a lot of people like to read ford as aroace, for instance), it's very clear that fiddleford's relationship with ford heavily put a strain on his relationship with his family and ultimately lead to his and emma-may's divorce.

and there's nothing wrong with exploring that! exploring how it hurt emma-may and tate, exploring how it's another facet of fiddleford ruining his own life without even thinking about it, exploring the complicated feelings that were happening in that cabin. and I don't even think there's anything wrong with joking about fiddleford being a cheater or ford and emma-may being rivals.

but it Really grinds my gears when people frame fiddleford as being inherently in the wrong for taking the job with ford, as if he was intentionally hurting his family or that he Genuinely went there to cheat.

1: one of the first things we're told about fiddleford in journal 3 is that he was raised dirt poor and wanted to climb the latter in the scientific community to give his family a better life than HE had.

and that's Exactly why he took the job in gravity falls ! it was someone he trusted as his good friend AND someone he trusted academically. the whole idea is that this was supposed to be a temporary job that would Both help a dear friend of his And open up opportunities for his future.

and like, this aspect of his character isn't insignificant. he is Very Much So an archetype of a poor person, and has been since his inception. it's part of what Makes him a match for ford, he's an intellectual match yes but he's also an Outcast that wants more out of life than what he has. this aspect isn't Malicious by any means, but it equally lead them to hurt people they cared about.

Yes he left emma-may and his young son, but it was Never supposed to be forever. he left FOR them, which is half of what makes what happened so tragic in the first place. in many ways, he hurt them Because he cared about them.

and Yes, I do love a queer reading of these characters (and I'll get to that), but it's Very clear in the source material that fiddleford Does care about his family. a big part of his falling out with ford in the first place was because Fiddleford thought they both needed to leave gravity falls to raise their own families, and it's something that fiddleford brings up earlier on in their stay together as well.

that doesn't excuse how he'd mistreat emma-may at all. she was absolutely in her right to divorce him (which I thought even before the book of bill dropped). but I feel like we're letting the subtext overtake the TEXT while examining these characters and their dynamic.

2: lets assume that fiddleford IS a closeted gay man (or bisexual, or that he and emma may are in a lavender relationship, or-), as I so often like to do.

while exploring the pain that could cause emma-may and tate is Very Interesting and fun, I think we're ignoring the systemic homophobia in the room.

fiddleford was born in the 1960s to a religious poor rural southern family, and emma-may and fiddleford's relationship happened in the 1980s.

I Do think fiddleford is definitely progressive for his time (and just overall a very chill dude), but his upbringing Also very clearly had an affect on him. if it's possible for a man who believes the world is a simulation to also believe in jesus then fiddleford's the one to have done it.

and this is implied directly in the text mind, whether fiddleford is still actively religious or not he gets on ford for doing things like taking the lord's name in vein. not something that someone who Wasn't affected by a religious upbringing would do.

there's also the textual (rather extreme) anxiety, and the Implied ocd (the hair pulling, the cubix cube, the moral fixation, etc).

with all that said !

YES it would be extremely painful for emma-may to be in love with a gay man who had a crush on someone else, whether fiddleford was aware of or even acted on those feelings or not.

but I do hope we can all understand why it's Not Great to frame fiddleford as being inherently in the wrong for this right? for either not realizing his feelings at all or deliberately repressing them in the wake of Probable religious trauma and Definite safety issues in the society he lived in? Yeah?

no we should not treat emma-may like she's "getting in the way" of our beautiful yaoi, but ignoring systemic homophobia to vilify a queer man being afraid of appearing as anything but straight in the 1980s is. um. Bad.

the thing that's Most interesting about this whole situation is that it's a tragedy through and through. you can't inherently blame Any of them for what happened, and trying to do so loses what actually makes the situation so complex and painful.

because fiddleford clearly DID care about them, ALL of them, very dearly. and he obviously wanted to do the right thing. and yet he hurt them all, and yet his entire life and mind fell apart to ash in his fingers.

it's Crazy, and it absolutely does a disservice to the situation to frame it as fiddleford just being a slutty lying cheater (or ford Ruining a perfectly good man by being abusive, or emma-may getting in the way of our old man yaoi).

except bill, we can vilify bill. I think he'd like that

[ray-winters]

opinions on misha being queer? not only in the context of dating noel but just in general (sorry if uve answered this before..)

I think it's definitely possible and that there are interpretations of it where it makes absolute sense! In terms of my Misha, it was the first time I'd played a character as an adult where I went "oh weird, I think he's straight." bc I tend to make every character I play at least bisexual, but idk. My Misha just very much so came to me very straight.

But one interpretation isn't to speak on the character as a whole/other interpretations. I think he's very easily read and interpreted as queer, I just personally saw him as a very open minded European man who didn't give a fuck about Western ideals like that. Like he's the dude who takes Noel to prom bc Talia's not able to go (bc Ukraine) and he'd rather go with his best friend & give his bestie that experience (and beat up anyone who had anything to say about it.)

The way I rational with that is this:

I personally identify as a gay man. That being said, I have in my life kissed my lady friends, danced with them, hugged them, cuddled up, etc. That doesn't make me inherently bisexual, it doesn't make me inherently straight, I am just a dude who loves his friends & expresses it in those ways. Same w/my personal interpretation of Misha- him dancing w/ or hugging or kissing Noel doesn't make him inherently bi or gay, he's just a love bug. I think that platonic affection between men, specifically between straight men & queer men is incredibly underrepresented, and if it were something more normalized in our society I think that we'd all be better off for it. So I wanted to showcase that w/my Misha- it also felt true to my interpretation of the character.

TL;DR- Misha can be queer, Misha can be hetero, it just comes down to your personal interpretation! Mine was not, for several reasons, but that doesn't make someone else's interpretation any less valid.

[butchfortress]

heavy backstory / headcanon dump because he's my babygirl and i thought about him so much a few days ago that i almost threw up

- always had a need to help make money for his family since his was a kid. did a lot of running around in the town beneath him to sell stuff. his folks had no idea of it, nor that he was bringing his sisters when he had to watch them. admittably this haunts heavy even though he was like 6

- definitely his dad's kid, basically kickstarted his love for weapons and machinery. really beat himself up about when his dad died when he was 20

- his dad also had ties with the bratva (russian mafia) who sold him out near the end of his life. heavy hasn't gone down this path but post-cloning for work his blu counterpart definitely has

- got by with boxing for a long time. he took classes when he was a kid but it was viable enough post-breakout for work where he was the undefeated heavyweight champion for a local russian circuit until mann co recruited him

- probably a gay guy? its complicated, does prefer male romantic partners but seems to have a fem romantic preference for his guns (also objectum but you already knew) also open to polygamy

- he's a bit of a poet, a romantic type, but hadn't even started fooling around until arriving at tuefort. he had no idea he had game!

- ftm, knew he was a boy since he was very little. was able to socially transition but hadn't physically for most of his life since he always assumed he had bigger priorites to deal with. he's not terribly dysphoric about it but able to feel better about it now thanks to recent easy access to medical stuff from work

- accidentally taught himself that if he isn't doing something for anyone else's sake than himself than he's inherently being selfish. has trouble being self-indulgent or thinking about himself

- loves cooking, especially for other people

- also loves making people laugh, his huge scary demenour doesn't do any favors but all things considered he's pretty jovial and makes sure that he isn't living super seriously all the time

- the entire defense group are tied super close together, they share a lot of the same goals and get along super well. they all probably shout songs on the radio during road trips

- loves chickens

- post-comics, would be interested in showing his sisters, especially zhanna, how his miniguns work like his dad did

and speaking of,

[mswyrr]

People are very confused by femmes, aren't they? A femme girl who dreams of being another girl's wife is being very queer. Her femininity and desire to act as a lady wife isn't an object for anyone's use (as Otto and Viserys treated it), it's an expression of herself and her desire. It ought to be a source of pleasure for her, with the girl (or person of another gender) she loves, not a duty or obligation where she has to pour that out for just anyone. (Like Otto and Viserys treated it).

It is the difference between singing because you're happy and singing because someone is pointing a gun at you. "But you're a singer, you can do it and even like it, so why does it matter if you're being forced to or not?" Of course it matters! The context is everything. A woman who can enjoy being feminine and loving in a wifely way doesn't owe that to everyone; she should have the freedom to do it in ways that give her pleasure and satisfaction. Forcing her to do it when she doesn't want to--to be the lady wife of a gross old man when she wanted to be his daughter's wife--is a violation.

When thinking about queer women, people need to dismantle a whole lot of baggage heteropatriarchy has given them about what these feelings and roles have to mean - dismantle the rigidity and the idea that femininity is an object for use vs. a form of personal *expression*. This dismantling is something that needs to be done re: feminine straight women too, of course. (And the idea that straight women owe people femininity is nonsense: sexuality, gender, and gender expression are distinct things in a Venn diagram with each other).

A femme queer girl is just as radically queer (and whenever women do not accept their interpersonal femininity, feminine ways of loving, and their bodies as an object of use vs a cite of their own pleasure and expression that is inherently radical) as a futch or butch or etc queer girl.

Sure, a homophobe like Criston can look at Alicent and see a "normal woman" because she's feminine and assume that her love for Rhaenyra is due to Rhaenyra being the "unnatural woman" who "intoxicated" her... but that's because he's a homophobe who doesn't know wtf he's saying. His entire culture has trained him to be completely incapable of seeing what is right in front of his eyes.

The fact that huge swaths of modern day fandom truly aren't capable of comprehending queerness better than Criston Cole really makes me think about how shallow acceptance for queer people actually is. It's disheartening, to say the least.

People seem completely unaware, for example, of the "queer second adolescence" and how young and immature parts of a person can be until they get to come out and actually live as who they truly are vs who they've been forced to pretend to be? Which is why Alicent and Rhaenyra both act so young around each other in the Sept scene and finale scene...

There's also imo "split attraction" model at work here, where there's questions around what exactly their canon genders and sexualities are (beyond the fact that both are clearly queer!). But it's achingly obvious that they wanted each other desperately as girls and that Rhaenyra, in particular, has a special place in her heart for a homoromantic love of femme women like Alicent and Mysaria.

The whole season--from Criston and Aemond's conversation about how Alicent "holds love for the enemy" [where Criston plainly says Rhaenyra "intoxicated" Alicent!!] on to all the symbolism between them and the explicit (gay kiss with Mysaria!) and implicit (complex gender feels) stuff with Rhaenyra--is about how queer they are - canonically - and it all leads up to their final scene. People can disagree on how well that was executed. But it is a clear arc, developed throughout the season, and a valid artistic choice. And part of the problem with how a lot of people are "reading" the season is that they blankly refuse to see it. And once they do see it, they hate it and think it's an invalid artistic choice! But it's really not inherently invalid. It's simply not to some peoples' taste. Those are different things.

[prince-liest]

I’m a sex-repulsed ace, and reading the latest chapter of 666 (as well as your analysis here on Tumblr) made me realize that I have been subconsciously thinking about MY OWN sexuality from an allo perspective? And that it has kinda been messing me up?? Like, ever since I learned that sexual attraction was actually a Thing and that it’s Important To People, I had been carrying around a fear of being deficient in some way and not being able to love to the same extent as allos. (1)

Even though I know logically that’s complete garbage and totally untrue, I felt left out of the loop because people seemed to care strongly about this thing I couldn’t even imagine. Whenever it looked like a relationship might happen I panicked for a reason that I couldn’t understand. But now I’m starting to realize that it’s because I was subconsciously terrified of an ‘ulterior motive’ behind the other person’s reasons for wanting to be with me. (2) That part of the reason they even cared was because of something I don’t experience. So thank you, because this realization just clicked into place while reading your work. The thing is, this way of thinking was just internalized in such a way that I didn’t even realize it was there until literally this week. And I think you’re right; one of the main reasons behind that is because I’ve always consumed media written from an allo perspective. (3) If ace/aros are shown at all, they’re depicted as “lacking” and their character development usually revolves around being “fixed” by the story. When I was ~10 years old my mom sometimes let me watch the Big Bang Theory with her (looking back, maybe not the best decision). Anyways, there was one episode deep into the series where Sheldon (who for the past nineish seasons was probably the closest thing to mainstream ace rep) has sex with his girlfriend for the first time. (4) Afterwards, he says something along the lines of “that was better than I thought it would be”, and it’s presented as a Very Good Thing and a big step in their relationship. I think a lifetime of stuff like that makes it very easy to internalize aphobia and feel like the lesser part of the relationship. Or to feel like the other partner is making a huge sacrifice to be with you. That got wayy too long, sorry. All that was just a lot of words to say that I appreciate you. Take care of yourself!(5)

The portrayal of asexuality that you see in media being almost exclusively as you described is very tedious to me because it presumes that something is inherently lacking in aro/aceness rather than that feeling of "lacking" being something that is induced by societal norms. Actually, one of the things that I find additionally alienating is that fandom spaces specifically have been getting better and better about ace characters - but got damn does fandom not jive with aromanticism. Like, a character doesn't want to fuck? That's becoming a liiiittle more fine, it's 2024, we stan consent. But not shipping someone romantically?? Not so easy, now.

I'm glad that my work has been something that resonated with you in this respect! Alastor cares a lot about his reputation as a demon but is pretty blatantly a person who could not possibly give less of a shit about being "wrong" for not being experiencing romantic or sexual attraction. The explanation Viv gave at one point for his own understanding of himself (that he thinks he's just "waiting for the right woman") actually stuck out to me a lot because it's a very "well, nothing is wrong with me for not feeling anything, it's the world that's failed to produce a suitable person" perspective.

But having that kind of confident perspective of your own rightness in the world is really not often portrayed in media, or even in fandom, which even ten years ago was still in the throes of standardizing "Oh, no! Me, gay? These feelings are so wrong!" style m/m content and is honestly not that far off from essentially that for aro/ace characters.

Anyway, all of that is to say that there's not yet much out there that doesn't frame allo/amatonormative values as the default that "even aro/ace people can (and should want to) achieve," and that it's really fun to write a fic that is unequivocally from the perspective of a character who is aroace and doesn't see it as even remotely a fault in himself. Does he have moments where he's a little confused and trying to process how things fit for him? Absolutely. But he just doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who thinks he owes romance to Vox of all people, hahaha. I've written him trying to conform to allo/amatonormativity more with Mimzy, because I think the social standards of their time could push him into it, but Vox? Absolutely not, he does not respect Vox enough for it to even enter his mind.

And then, on the other hand, writing it from an aroace perspective centers the way that romantic and sexual interest can feel like a betrayal of a good thing. With a character like Alastor, it frames romantic and sexual attraction the same alien way that we usually see aromanticism and asexuality framed as.

In the end, this is just one of a plethora of different experiences that aro/ace people can have, but it's one that I really wanted to see represented more, so I'm very happy to write it. I'm glad that you're enjoying it!

[heybank]

DENY PART TWO

ok i think i might make a series about my jj x reader x pope fic

also kind of dedicated to @starfxkr bc their blog gets me through the jj pope drought that is on tumblr (if you don't wanna be tagged i'll totally delete but i luv you even tho i don't know you

this isn't technically a part two but it's inspired by my previous fic deny

i'm hoping to maybe fully flesh out a whole mini story about them bc i love jj and pope so bad and i wanna kiss them both and have them kiss each other.

please send me prompts or if you have any ideas or you just wanna gush about jj and pope 💜

i'm a cancer, ok

you've always felt your emotions more deeply than others. you have a lot of feelings and it's not uncommon for you to start tearing up at random times throughout the day when you see something that elicits a strong feeling from you.

kie says it's because you're a cancer and while she's so true because you are the stereotypical emotional water sign, you're not sure how much of your mental state is because of your astrological sign or if you're genuinely a few screws loose in the head.

you remember hiccuping and sobbing into jjs shirt for the better part of half an hour- staining his sleeveless tee with your tears all because you saw a seagull missing a foot and he seemed to be running slower than his other seagull friends. your only relief from the obvious heartbreaking situation was jj softly murmuring comforting words in your ear, his strong arms around circled around your waist, your body snuggled onto his lap. the scene isn't uncommon for the pogues to see. the two of you have always been more affectionate than most.

all of this leads you to where you are now, curled up on your bed sobbing. soft sad music playing in the background making you sob even more. you put on a brave face with your friends but in the sanctuary of your own bed is where you can finally let your feelings free.

seeing pope and jj kiss hurt you more than you originally thought. your mind keeps replaying the scene of the two boys kiss, their lips moving together sensually, saliva being shared. you're sure that if you hadn't interrupted them, the kiss would lead to something more and involving less clothes.

hey google, play "that should be me" by justin bieber.

what if when they start dating they drop you? what if pope isn't comfortable with how touchy or affectionate you are with jj and he stops your cuddles or what if jj doesn't want you to hang out alone with pope because he knows you two kissed. what if they stop needing you because they have each other?

the thought makes a sob crawl up your throat and fat tears roll down your cheeks. you feel like your head is going to explode from how hard your crying. you need them like air, you felt like that even before you and pope kissed and before you realized you're in love with jj. you need them because they're your closest friends- they're the family you so desperately crave because your own doesn't care much for you and you're so scared if they start dating each other then they won't need you.

it's why you give out your love so freely, the feeling of being needed by people is something that is so deeply and inherently buried in your bones. when someone needs you and you can help them, it feels euphoric. a psychologist would probably have a field day with you because if you're not needed, what good are you?

----

"i'm really confused after our kiss" pope mumbles, nervous to look at jj in the eyes.

"good or bad confused" jj responds.

"is there such thing as good confusion?" pope asks, eyebrows furrowed and lips pursed. "i didn't think i was gay or bi or whatever and yeah i think some dudes are hot but like i've never wanted to kiss them but i wanted to kiss you!! and then we kissed and it was like... nice but different and i couldn't help but think about gracie and how she and i kissed and how good that also felt and then i felt guilty and-"

"pope, take a breath" the maybank boy utters, effectively cutting off popes rambles.

"i liked kissing you pope. i never let myself be attracted to dudes but it's you, ya know?" jj continues.

"but i also understand wanting to kiss grace. i... well i want to kiss her too." he finally confesses. he's never said his feelings for his grace out loud before.

pope gently stumbles over to where the maybank boy is perched on his bed, he leans in to grab jjs fidgeting hands, grasping them in what he hopes is a comforting hold.

he leans forward so he can give jj a small peck on the cheek. reassuring him that they're ok, that they'll make it through whatever turmoil they're feeling right now.

jj grabs popes face and brings him in for a deeper kiss, lips and tongues touching. it makes jjs stomach burn with desire. after several minutes or maybe hours of kissing, he's not sure, pope reaches up and pulls on jjs soft blond tresses, tugging on the boys hair a little to pull him away from popes lips. they both let out little gasps when they disconnect.

"have you heard of polyamory?" pope asks jj... a shit eating grin on his lips.

---

giggling and kicking my feet. i love them 💜

[cosmicjoke]

Okay, this is a bit of a call-out post, which I don't like to engage in, but some of the stuff that's been brought to my attention, that's apparently been being said about me and, by extension, people who share my views, isn't really something I can let stand.

So apparently there's some blogs going around vague posting about Levi fans who dare (oh the horror) to call Levi a good man and a hero, saying stuff like doing so is how one treads down the path toward Nazism, because it's a "denial" of Levi's faults, and if we don't condemn his violence as outright bad or wrong, then we're liable to start making excuses for and justifying all forms of violence.

Do I even need to lay out why this argument is absurd and absolutely childish at its core? I don't think so, but I will anyway.

One of the overarching and main themes of AoT is that we shouldn't flatly condemn people for their actions without first understanding the context of those actions. That nothing is ever so simple as being flatly right or wrong, good or bad. That there can be and are complicating factors that might lead to any, given person's actions or behavior.

Levi himself is a prime example of this, and we see the error of flatly condemning and writing him off as "bad" in the form of Jean's and Mikasa's judgmental and dismissive attitude toward him after seeing him engage in acts of violence, only to themselves be forced into similar acts moments later.

The stupidity inherent to uniformly condemning all violence as bad or wrong lies in its total failure to consider any mitigating circumstances that might have lead to the violence in the first place, and, ironically, it's THAT sort of basic and simplistic thinking that leads toward the kind of fanatical, ideological foundations of Nazism and other, similar movements. Nuanced thought, consideration, empathy and critical thinking are never the things that lead down that road. Moralistic and generalized view points are what do that. To call Levi a "morally grey" character is to fundamentally misunderstand that morality itself is a "grey" concept. There's no such thing a black and white morality. Almost nothing is always right and always wrong, including violence. Very few things, if anything, can be definitely categorized as right and wrong in and of itself. The argument that some things need to be wholly condemned or eradicated is, for example, the same sort of logic that people who advocate for censorship apply. All pornography is bad or wrong? Better to just flatly condemn and ban all of it, then. Oh my, you're going to let two men marry each other? What if someone wants to marry an animal next? Better just make gay marriage illegal then, I guess. Many Jews are bankers, and banking is a corrupt business that preys on people's vulnerabilities, thus, all Jews are really just money launders and loan sharks and need to be stopped. Killing and violence is always wrong, and so people who kill or commit acts of violence are always criminals and bad people with malicious intent or who reveal in other people's pain. See how that works? All generalizations like that lead to is mass persecution, either of a concept or of a person/group of people, without taking into consideration the actual complexity or nuanced reasoning for why something or someone might be a certain way or do a certain thing. That's what's dangerous.

To deny Levi is a good man or a hero because he commits acts of violence is to totaly deny and strip him of all the many aspects and characteristics of his personality that makes him who he actually is. Levi's violence doesn't define him. It isn't who he is. Rather, it's a product of the world he lives in and the circumstances of his upbringing and life. It doesn't signify the person he is at his core. It doesn't negate the immense compassion, kindness, empathy and sensitivity with which he regards and treats other people. It doesn't render his heroism worthless or questionable. It doesn't undermine his intentions or motivations. It doesn't rob his many sacrifices of their selflessness. That's why I say Levi is a good man. Not because he's on the "good guy side" or because he holds a certain set of ideological beliefs, but because of those inherent qualities which define him as a good man. Compassion, kindness, empathy, emotional intelligence, and a genuine desire to help others for others sake. He's a good person because he actually, truly cares about other people. Is that assessment of him supposed to somehow lead down the road to fanaticism? How absurd.

That's not to say Levi doesn't have flaws. Of course he does. He's a human being, and all human's are flawed. Nobody ever said Levi was a "perfect" hero, just that he is a hero. Understanding Levi's violence and where it comes from and why he engages in it doesn't mean we're excusing it or calling it "good". It's simply an attempt to understand and acknowledge one of the main themes of AoT, which is that a person committing a "bad act" doesn't in and of itself make them a "bad person", and that certain actions and behaviors that are deemed "bad" by society can and often do have reasonable and justifiable explanations at their root. Does Levi resort to violence too often and too easily? Sure. I've said that and acknowledged it on multiple occasions. I've dedicated entire, long-winded analysis posts to exploring the duality of Levi's compassionate and empathetic nature with the fact that he's one of the most violent characters in AoT. His knee-jerk reaction and response to most situations is to apply physical force of one kind or another. Levi is also an extremely emotional character, and is given at times to bouts of emotionally excessive response. When he kicks Eren and Jean after his conversation with Erwin. When he manhandles Historia for her initial, flat refusal to take the throne. When he kicks Eren's teeth in during the RtS arc, or on the airship in Liberio. When he tortures Zeke in the cart on the way to the capital. These are all instances of Levi giving in to his emotion and responding violently. And no, it's not good, but it also doesn't make Levi bad. It doesn't make his intentions malicious or cruel in nature. In all of these instances of violence on Levi's part, it's driven by an intense emotional response, generally in regard to some traumatic event. Levi learning Erwin might not be the good man he thought he was. Levi having to torture a man for specific information, only to have the point of it threatened by Historia's self-pity. Eren interfering with Levi's direct command during a situation in which time was severely limited in making a decision. Eren slaughtering countless innocent people. Zeke forcing Levi to kill more than two dozen of his own soldiers. All of the examples one could point to of Levi being "unnecessarily" violent, meaning in a way that didn't further some larger goal or cause, were all moments of emotional reaction linked either to trauma or urgency or both. Most of these responses from Levi, in fact, came about because he was upset about someone else getting hurt, or at the possibility of people getting hurt. They're rooted, at their core, in Levi's compassion for others. They're emotional responses triggered by Levi's empathy and care. He gets angry because he's scared or grief stricken over someone else' suffering. And that's my and other fans' only point. Levi's violence might be considered bad by some, but the underlying reasons for it almost always prove Levi's goodness. He responds so strongly because he cares. So to refuse to acknowledge the circumstances and context surrounding those acts of violence and to refuse to acknowledge the influence of his upbringing in his inclination to respond with violence is grossly unjust and unfair to who Levi is as a person. To pretend that his very nature can't be contradictory to his actions and behavior is to deny, not just Levi's complexity as a person, but the complexity of people overall. Because Levi's nature is, much of the time, contradictory to his actions, especially when one only looks at his actions in a vacuum instead of in context. He's a violent man who also holds more kindness and compassion in his heart for people than any other character in the story. That's a contradiction. But it's true, nonetheless. You can be a good person who does bad things, or things deemed wrong by others and society.

Levi doesn't enjoy violence, and anyone who says he does or tries to claim he does is flatly wrong. To say, just because Levi is good at violence, that must mean he's somehow born to it, or that it's in his nature to want to commit it, is equally unjust and unfair in the way it dismisses the circumstances of his life and upbringing. A person can be forced into doing something that goes against their core temperament and personality due to forces outside of their control, and acknowledging that about Levi and his violence isn't the same as claiming him to be a "perfect hero". He's not perfect, but he is a hero. He's a hero because he's inherently selfless and kind and empathetic toward other people and their suffering, because he's willing to do all he can to help other people, despite an upbringing which forced violence and a familiarity with violence into his life, despite a childhood and young adulthood filled with deprivation and poverty. He wasn't born with a violent temperament, he was raised in an environment that necessitated a reliance on violence in order to survive, and so we see that manifest in Levi as an adult. A reliance on violence to survive. Again, to not acknowledge that and the impact it had on Levi's behavior and actions is unjust and unfair to him as a person. A stupid oversimplification of not just Levi as a character, but of people in general, and of the concept of justifiable violence too. Pacifism is an ideal, but one which doesn't and can't always coexist with reality. To judge someone and condemn then for engaging in violence, no matter the circumstances surrounding that violence, when nature itself is predicated on violence, is absurd.

Context matters. Circumstances matter. Intent matters. Levi's violence was never ideological in its reasoning. He never committed acts of violence in service to some abstract school of thought or philosophy. He never killed anyone because he thought they represented or symbolized some great evil or threat to the world and needed to be eradicated as a result. Levi's acts of violence have always been practical in nature. Defense of himself and others against people directly threatening their well being. And further, Levi has never, not once, tried to impose his way of thinking or doing on a single, other person. He's always, always, allowed everyone to decide for themselves. To come to their own conclusions of what they believe is right and wrong, good or bad. He's always allowed everyone their own agency. He's never manipulated or badgered or bullied anyone into agreeing with him or tried to brainwash anyone into a certain set of ideological beliefs. He's only ever wanted and tried to ensure people the freedom to make those decisions for themselves, and he's only ever tried to protect people, more often than not at great cost to himself.

He's the very definition of a hero, and to accuse people who call him that of exhibiting the kind of ideological thinking that leads to Nazism is not only absurd, but a massive insult, both to Levi's character and to the intelligence of his fans. As if they're incapable of understanding the nature of violence because they differentiate between acts of violence by applying critical thought to outside factors and mitigating circumstances. I guess our justice system is similarly incapable of understanding the nature of violence too, then, because it also dares to weigh outside factors and mitigating circumstances when judging a person's "crimes" or "guilt". It isn't the people who apply nuanced thought and consideration to Levi's actions who are susceptible to fanaticism, it's the people making those sorts of accusations who are, in exposing their total inability to divorce themselves from their black and white view of reality.

[absolutebl]

I have a few questions that popped in my head recently and wanted your opinion. I noticed that a lot of GLs that get announced have more openly queer actress then any BL I have ever seen. Do you know why that is? Do you think we will ever get to see Cooheart being properly femme in a BL? Or Fluke Natouch ever had another darker role like in the movie he once did?

Hum well there are so few GL that I think we can't draw any kind of statistical conclusion on this matter, not enough case studies yet.

Hypothetically?

I think GL struggles for many reasons to be made at all and the ones motivated to see them made are queer, so they are more likely to tap their own community for talent. These are passion projects, not cash cows. Also the target audience is more likely to be queer and supportive of this decision, including with their money.

Baldly put? GL just inherently is more likely to have a queer lens and queer agenda because it can afford it, because it's so much less popular with mainstream consumers. Everything is less risky because there is less of a reward.

Oddly, what Asian GL doesn't realize (and hasn't capitalized on) is that GL actually stands a much greater chance of hitting big with a mainstream Western audience, who, (especially in any SF/F tangential genres) find sapphic more palatable (and less threatening) than gay.

If The Sign had been girls? OMG. It might actually have won a Hugo Award.

Do you think we will ever get to see Cooheart being properly femme in a BL?

Only if he moves to Saint's enterprise (Idol Factory). Or something crazy happens with the industry.

Maybe as a side character?

Oooo, how about in a historical!!!

How about Thailand options The Flower the Seems to Truly Dance?

There, I gave you an answer.

*waves hand* MAKE IT SO BL GODS

I think it's much more likely Fluke will get a darker or more gender bending and boundary pushing parts.

He seems to bounce btw production houses a lot and I know for a fact directors really enjoy working with him. Give him something chewy and interesting Thailand.

Honestly, you know what I want. A super corrupt and kind taboo and little fuzzy professor/student thing. You know like My Bromance but better and with a good ending.

We can but dream.

[captain-sodapop]

"Skin" is one of those episodes that gets at the question of what really makes a monster. Like, the fact that it's a shapeshifter is not what truly makes it a monster; it's that fact that he is targeting women that he presumably finds attractive, disguising himself as their partners in order to attempt to sexually assault them, and then being brutally violent towards them - even killing one of them. That is what makes the monster a monster, not its ability to shapeshift.

But one of the more horrifying things - besides the actual actions of the monster - is what we see throughout the show, which is the idea that a monster should be put down not for what it has done or what they anticipate they will do, but for what it is, inherently.

I don't know, I know it's been talked about so many times, but the fact that Dean holds this idea of someone inherently being worthy of death simply because of their status as something "unnatural", and his brother being one of those unnatural beings? It boggles my mind. It really is just bigotry. And I could get into how Sam being told to never come back when he leaves for Stanford, how he was ridiculed growing up for being different, how Dean called him a freak for years, is just an allegory for families throwing a kid out for being gay/leaving the faith/asking questions.

Sam is Dean's exception. For the majority of the show, he is the only supernatural being that Dean will "accept" because they're family and he does love him, yes, but it's a love that exists for Dean in spite of this bigotry. And while that love is real, I don't know if we can really give him much credit because he doesn't make many exceptions as the show goes on, unless forced or in special situations. (Like Garth and Benny, and even with Benny, Sam was right to call out the double standard there.)

This is very disjointed, and I'm sure people could put it better than I am right now, but that's what I'm thinking.

[idolomantises]

talking abt that one thing in velma thats on my mind a lot for the past few days (that turned into a big incoherent rambling about gay rep in media)

i'm seeing jokes about how the queer representation in mystery inc being so much better than the queer representation in velma and honestly it makes me want to go on a whole tangent about my thoughts on queer representation nowadays vs the more subtle examples decades prior.

There's this weird debate that goes on online about what is "good" queer representation, and one of the most notable and honestly annoying examples is that queer representation has to be so subtle that you could easily miss it/ignore it. i've always hated that take because its a claim mostly said by straight people who are uncomfortable with seeing characters who are openly queer and/or state their identity, but they present it as some sort of push for subtle and nuanced writing. personally i do prefer it when a character just, identifies as how they are without explaining their identity, but that doesn't mean flat out explaining your orientation is inherently bad representation. its why i will always defend the very clunky and awkward high guardian spice scene. it is absolutely poorly directed and written, but that doesn't make it "bad representation". however, I do consider the character who explains that he's trans bad representation because he is flat, uninteresting and very clearly a creator self insert. he doesn't feel like a well rounded character who's also a trans man, but just an incredibly sanitized example of trans representation.

i have many, many issues with helluva boss/hazbin hotel and i do genuinely find some depictions of queer characters just flat out offensive (you can argue with me about how angel dust being written like your average 90s gay stereotype is woke actually because he has trauma, i dont care), but i do admire and appreciate that the series doesn't want to sanitize its queer characters, even if its done poorly. though i could go into a whole rant about how i find it very telling that female characters that are queer are far less sexualized or allowed to be problematic compared to their queer male counterparts.

anyways back to velma. that show does something that i've always found pretty irritating in queer representation which is just this weird lack of faith in its audience. characters can't have a slow burn anymore. internalized thoughts, anger, frustration, longing. you have to immediately know that two characters are gay for each other, even if they're lifelong enemies. its like when modern horror movies open with the gore because they're scared people are going to be bored or leave early. there's no subtlety or chemistry between daphne and velma, they're just lovers because idk, its two girls who hate each other and who doesn't love that.

then i think about how mystery inc handled velma and her sexuality, how she was allowed to be well rounded and nuanced before you slowly realize that "oh, she doesn't like boys". i know her whole thing with shaggy is controversial among fans but i always loved how she does do something pretty unlikable but not immoral. yeah, it is shitty to force shaggy to choose between her and his dog, but i can understand her line of thinking and empathize with her. and i do like how they become friends in the end despite their awkward break up. It's always fun rewatching it and realizing that their incredibly awkward and cringe relationship was meant to be awkward and cringe. it was supposed to be weird and difficult to watch, because those two weren't meant to date each other. you could see how hard velma was trying to make the relationship work despite the fact that you never get the vibe that either character was full invested in it, unlike daphne and fred's relationship.

then you had velma and her relationship with marcie, which started off as sort of a catty rivalry (not full on attempted murder, i mean holy shit hbo velma) that slowly grows to where you're completely convinced that these two did gradually like each other. and i do really enjoy stuff like that, more subtle writing like that. which doesn't just apply to queer rep btw, my favorite ships are relationships that feel understated, something you have to really dig for and pay attention to. its why i consider bubbline the best f/f representation in cartoon. because its subtle, but not too subtle where it feels out of no where when they kiss, and nuanced in ways that enhances the relationship AND characters.

there's a good amount of relationships i see in cartoons where the creator, who is usually queer themselves, often wants to depict queer relationships, but is weirdly adverse to depicting the uglier aspects of that character, and refuses to add subtlety to it. steven universe is a show i've always felt conflicted on its handling of queer representation because on the one hand i appreciate writing lesbians that are messy, traumatized and make constant mistakes. but on the other hand, the show goes out of its way to ignore these issues and/or make excuses for it, making the decision to make these characters messy and complicated genuinely baffling (this is also one of the big issues i have with catradora and stolitz).

it makes me think back to my own work too. i really enjoy making fluffy, easily digestible gay content for my followers and myself because it puts me in a good headspace. But even now and then i like exploring those little nuances too, because i don't really enjoy stories with little conflict. Because of that acknowledgement of how satisfying it is to write fluffy, queer rep, you end up putting yourself in other creator's shoes. you're so used to media that either dehumanizes gay people or tells people that they don't exist that you push yourself to make the most in your face queer rep you can but its at the cost of an interesting and subtle characters. characters that don't really have arcs or places to learn and grow.

With bugtopia i made a joke about how i want some of my queer rep to feel like you're being queerbaited. It's not literal, obviously, but mixed in with characters who are already married and in same gender relationships, i really want to write dynamics that feel subtle enough for a bit of a slow burn. even if you know they're going to end up together, to at least value the characters on their own before centering them on their relationships. queerbaiting is something that deserves all the criticism it can get, but it is embarrassing when queerbaiting feels genuinely more interesting than actual queer rep because queerbaiting has that factor of "maybe they won't get together" that adds that bit of intrigue, vs so many shows that repeatedly hammer in your head "don't worry guys, they're gonna be lesbian lovers".

mystery inc (and many other shows) being forced to keep a relationship obvious while subtle to get through censorship really forced creators to be creative with their storytelling and not center characters around their relationship and identity. but nowadays i think shows like to take the easy way out. for me, i always thought the most impactful example of queer representation in steven universe is "Rose's Scabbard". I genuinely don't enjoy that episode because it's a good example of the show thinking that trauma is an excuse for shitty behavior, but i cant deny that an entire episode of pearl breaking down and finally accepting that she wasn't the center of rose's world. it's the crew being forced to be creative and push through censors to telling a compelling story about a traumatized lesbian slowly realizing that she basically deluded herself into thinking she was someone's savior.

I think it's silly to try to place good queer representation in one box. like subtle queer rep is good, but also queer rep where a character flat out states that their gay. where I think it falls apart is when it either reinforces stereotypes without properly deconstructing or expanding on them, makes the characters so overly kind and non-controversial that the relationship is just boring, or try to make your messy and complicated characters but the narrative refuses to hold them accountable or at least acknowledge that they're doing something wrong. and to clarify on that last part, i'm not asking for some hays code nonsense where every bad person goes to prison and/or promises to stop being a bad person again. i mean the narrative doesnt just fucking sugarcoat their behavior. i don't want to see helluva boss ignore the fact that stolas made blitzo call him out for only using him for sex and then pathetically rush to justify their relationship by giving them a bizarrely sanitized and sweet backstory. and i don't want to see catra literally end the fucking universe and only do something good because she's straight up out of options and the show just decides that that was her redemption and she doesn't need to do anything to atone for what she did (including repeatedly abusing and verbally berating adora).

anyways velma has none of those interesting qualities and i'm pretty sure daphne and velma kissed because the creator is a weird pervert who thinks two girls kissing is hot.

[thebirdscomeback]

okay. ode posting i guess.

an ode and its description give us a pretty interesting look at the relationship balth and pedro each have to queerness and their own queer identities at the time. an ode is full on balthazar 'having a crush can be a nice thing' jones. it's a light-hearted song, it's so obviously queer (even with a un-identitied 'you' and even without it being obvious the you is balthazar). it's so natural to balth to be in love with a boy and it's natural to him that other boys would be too. the song is obvious and simple and definitive which seems to be how balthazar feels about being gay, he likes being gay and he likes being into pedro and it's not overly complicated to sing about that even if he can't outright tell pedro at the moment.

for pedro the song is a *lot* more complicated and his response to it is layered in these feelings of nervousness. his awkward about it practically radiates off of the description. he's still in the peak of pedro 'all round great guy' donaldson and we know being bi doesn't fit that image at all for him right now. for him, there isn't anything simple about being queer and there definitely isn't anything light-hearted about it. even by lolilo, queerness is pretty much dead serious to him. there's parts of it he finds liberating but the fact of his bisexuality isn't something he can have fun with. simultaneously, for pedro at the time of an ode, none of his friends are really being serious about anything. ben makes fun of claudio's crush on hero, balth and claudio and him make fun of ben's crush on bea. it's impossible for him to be sincere about a love song like this, it wouldn't be an 'all round great guy' way to react. so he has to laugh but he also has to take it seriously. and of course the whole all round great thing isnt who he really is. at least not all of him. so the song isn't about all of him either. maybe if people saw past the persona, everyone would be less obsessed with him. the queerness inherent to the song - literally everyone being into pedro - would make the song irrelevant if that queerness was applied to pedro himself. if he was queer, the guy who an ode is about wouldn't exist. at least pedro doesn't think it would, balth knows better of course but all these emotions tumbling over each other leave us with the most painfully awkward "good job hahaha" ever written.

[anarcho-catboyism]

// long ramble TLDR just me discussing how I found my politics at the beginning

When I was a baby leftist the final push for me into anarchism wasn't when I learned what anarchy actually was, it was 1 event leading to a culmination of recognizing one of the biggest problems in social and economic systems was people having power over each other.

When I first got into leftism there was nothing on Anarchism when I tried to lookup "beginner leftist books". It was The Communist Manifesto, State and Revolution, The ABCs of Socialism, etc. Nothing about Anarchism though.

I tried to connect to Communism through reading and content creators but it couldn't stick for me. Not to say I'm not a communist now but my communism is different, and more inherent to my Anarchism. A lot of communist creators I watched talk were very intelligent on the system and helped me realize some positives, but they never could talk about the negatives of past communist ideologies.

When people addressed genuinely negative things that communist regimes did, like their treatment of disabled people or the genocide campaigns, they responded with facts about literacy rates going up. Obviously something like literacy rates going up IS a positive that should be addressed, but they could never just say "Yeah that was fucked up, we don't condone that bullshit, here's how we are going to stop that from happening". (Hell a ton of communists idolize and have pfps of some of the dudes that did horrible shit).

Even if I disagree I'll respect a communist who will say "These regimes did xyz fucked up shit, We can do better and learn from this fucked up shit tho", and I have met some that do that, but I couldn't click into the communism being fed to me because it once again felt like blind worship and just redoing the past rather than striving for something that would fit our modern society.

Ironically the first time I thought "Power corrupts people always" was when I found out TST founders were gross and Fascistic. I was getting into Satanism and was excited by the idea of TST fighting for religious freedoms within the system (lib moment), and how they were gay friendly and had posts about respecting lgbt ppl unlike COS who just said summarized "who cares what you feel about them as long as no one tells you you can't do that :)".

But when I found out about Queer Satanic and actually dove into the history of TST it was kinda this Camel Straw moment. I was angry I had supported a shitty organization and I was angry that something that could be good was controlled by shitty people who could just do fuck all bc they had power. It made me realize that as long as there was a person in power over others that there would be problems. It made me think of my childhood and how when parents have complete authority over their children it causes harm more often than not just by the nature of Exploitation that comes with holding power.

I didn't know what Anarchism was yet or that it was a real leftist ideology, I just thought it meant Chaos and Warmonger, but I took the steps into it without knowing just from the realization I had.

When I did find out about Anarchism it clicked for me. A style of communism and workers unions that won't hold power over individuals. And then I just began to learn more and it makes sense for me. It doesn't matter how many times other people told me it was unrealistic, my brain can conceive Anarchism better than systems that call for few people to hold power over entire populations.

Too be fair, I've always had anarchistic tendencies growing up, but once I found it the pieces just fell into place.

* This isn't for debating if you come into my comments with some USSR bullshit I'll just tell you to walk somewhere dangerous and block you *

[heretherebedork]

Alright, let's talk internalized homophobia.

Kawi is the poster child for internalized homophobia and how it can cause you to both avoid your own feelings and to attach yourself more strongly to any ideas that can keep you away from what you might actually desire in an effort to keep yourself safe.

This is a immature man who has never gotten past the kneejerk reaction he has to people assuming he's attracting to men. These are two strangers who think he's dating Max... who he's had a serious falling out with and who is, currently, barely willing to speak to him at all and obviously not in contact with him in the future at all.

Kawi is constantly thinking about how people see, how people view him, what will make people like him and what will lead to him being liked by people. And being gay? That won't do. Neither will being poor but he can't really do anything about that, not directly.

Kawi truly doesn't believe that who he is is something people can like. And it goes past being a messy eater, being a bit of a glutton and into just the very concept of who he is. Of him being poor, of having to work through university, of being awkward, of being bi/gay. None of that is acceptable because none of Kawi is acceptable except for the parts he molds to what he believes people expect from him.

This truly comes back to self-acceptance again and again. Kawi is so certain that if just changes himself enough other people will like him and so he rejects every aspect of himself that doesn't fit into that image. He doesn't eat with Pear, he doesn't talk to Max, he couldn't give or explain a broken gift, he can't admit he doesn't have money because none of those are part of how he thinks he has to be, who he thinks he should be but isn't.

It doesn't help, at all, that Piseang is drunk and upset when he grabs him in the future, a decade or more of pining behind him and facing marrying a woman he doesn't love coming out in a way that only pushes Kawi farther away from anything he might desire. (Not that he does at this point, I will absolutely argue that Kawi does not want anything from Piseang at this point in the narrative and will have to learn about his own feelings over the course of the story. Right now he genuinely and wholeheartedly loves Pear.)

That is disgust and discomfort and it is focused on the kiss.

I do think that a lot of Kawi's issues with internalized homophobia stem from whatever happened with Max but also from his own visceral discomfort with himself. Kawi is filled to the brim with self-hatred and the only real break he's ever had from it has been with Pear. Pear, who took care of him with him having to ask. Pear, who smiles at him. Pear, who represents someone from a 'better' kind of society accepting him. Pear represents who Kawi thinks he is supposed love but also who he thinks he's supposed to be. He is supposed to be a straight, rich man who isn't awkward, who takes care of someone else easily, who can be there for her and marry her, who can make his father proud by being exactly who society says he is supposed to be.

But he also experiences disgust at the thought of Piseang kissing him because he is still caught on the idea that he should marry Pear (he, in this case, meaning frankly either one of them) and that it isn't right not to want to marry Pear. I am unwilling to wipe his disgust under the rug because this moment is important. This is not Kawi's reluctance alone. This is someone who has accepted society's idea that being kissed by the same gender is inherently worse than being kissed by someone of the opposite gender. Which feeds, again, into how Kawi is focused on how society views him and believes everything society says about gay people, poor people, shy people, awkward people, sober people, lonely people, so on and so forth.

Kawi is being faced with a choice right now but it isn't what he thinks it is.

He is facing a choice between himself and the world. Between who he truly is and who he wants to be to fit into society.

And to even begin to face that choice, he is going to have to face his own homophobia and his own views of the world. He is going to have to face Max and Knot and Piseang and Pear. He is going to have to look at everything he has experienced and lived and realized that he has been trying to change a fundamental part of himself, many fundamental parts of himself, for his entire life.

Kawi needs to look past what society says about people, about him, and find out for himself what he thinks.

(I am absolutely terrified of how the show might handle this. There are so many layers and so many complications inherently built into the narrative we're seeing and this is based on Jittirain who does not handle nuance well. At all. And who definitely does not handle low self-esteem well. And characters in Jittirain stories tend to bow to whatever she wants the plot to be so... fear. Intrigue... but fear.)