#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.

[genderqueerdykes]

One of my friends who previously identified as gay is now in the process of realizing it's bisexual, and honestly I'm proud of it for being open to changing labels when it realizes something new. However, some of its other friends have made jokes about how it's "regressing" or how it's "letting the comphet get to it" which, as a bi person myself, is kind of making me side-eye them a bit. I'm honestly so tired of bisexuality being treated as "less queer" than being gay.

i really, really am, too, you're not alone in this.

first of all, i'm so sorry your friends are saying that, because that is literal queerphobia. like i'm sick of this too, because this is exactly what kept me from identifying as bisexual even though i knew i was. i was forced to identify as gay because if i didn't, people around me would call me straight. there was literally a period in time where i was dating a man and woman at the same time and people still would call me straight whenever it benefitted them

i haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate when people use "comphet" when talking about bisexuals. comphet is a difficult subject and it has a lot very questionable talking points. generally, i see compulsive heterosexuality as what people do before they realize they're queer, while they're questioning, if they're in denial, or if they live somewhere where they just can't come out as queer so they force themselves to be straight. like that's not what comphet is or means

people have to get over themselves and accept that all modes of attraction a bisexual experiences is queer. unless someone explicity considers their bisexuality to be half gay/queer, half straight... it's best to recognize that all of their modes of attraction are queer. a bisexual man attracted to women is experiencing queer attraction. they are bisexual. unless this is explicitly how they state so, they are experiencing bisexual, not heterosexual attraction toward women.

bisexual women experience queer attraction to men. they experience bisexual attraction toward men. unless explicitly stated that they personally see that attraction as straight, it's queer. it's inherently queer because it is a bisexual person experiencing it. i don't understand why it's so hard for people to wrap their heads around.

i'm not suddenly straight because im a man who's attracted to both women and men. i'm not suddenly straight because i'm a woman who's attracted to both men and women. this is literally queer attraction, i'm experiencing multiple modes of attraction at once. "straight" attraction doesn't "cancel out" gay attraction. they exist alongside one another. they're both happening at once. you can't take 1 experience out of BIsexuality and focus on it. there are TWO OR MORE experiences happening, all at once. isolating one of them is a disservice to the bisexual.

bisexuality is queer. always. 100% of the time, unless defined otherwise. bisexuality challenges the binary of cisheternormative society by saying that gender doesn't matter when it comes to attraction. we show that the line between queer and straight isn't as defined as people think it is. we show that being attracted to any variety of genders can be queer. bisexual people completely break the "straight/gay" attraction binary, and if that scares you, get out of our way, because we're not leaving.

if it's genuinely scary to people that bisexual people literally challenge the straight/gay attraction binary... why are they here? wouldn't you be much more comfortable in the cisheteronormative society you love to suck up to? like genuine question there. if people breaking boundaries threatens you, why are you even here?

i hope things get better for it, and yourself. that's just so shitty of your friends. they need to care about biphobia, because they're making it harder on your friend to accept itself, and that's not what queer community is about. we don't do that here.

[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.

[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!

[licncourt]

Ohhhh can we get into it? That post about Louis San Fran bender. Going after people who look like lestat. Maybe Louis doesn’t sleep with all of them, maybe a few but he feeds on the rest and drains them. Lestat realizing he’s made his own little magnus in a way…

San Francisco era Louis being an utter and total freak is something that is so important to me, I really cannot stop talking about it. The psychosexual aspect of the gay serial killer phenomenon as it relates to Louis is something I've discussed a lot (on here and in my fic about that) because I think it explains so much about how he looks at sex and desire. Sex and violence can't really be separated in his head (Catholic freak), especially when he's at a serious low point, so when he engages with them they are often enacted together.

When he's alone in San Francisco, he seems to be in a weird place mentally where he's in a state of obvious apathy, but also more prone to gratuitous violence. I think it does make sense, even though it seems contradictory. Vampirism is inherently violent, so those outbursts are coming from a lack of will to restrain his nature rather than real passion and the release of built up pressure the way they did before. It's exceptionally chilling and predatory. There's something very human about losing control, but the way Louis seems to approach killing in the pre-TVL era is distinctly monstrous and inhuman.

I think it's in QotD that we find out Louis initially chose Daniel as a potential victim because of his resemblance to Lestat, so this is canonically where his mind is at the time of the interview. It also shows that he's was probably cognizant of what was going on even at the time and it doesn't even seem like it bothered him that much that he was doing it. That's what makes San Francisco Louis so scary imo, just that small acknowledgment shows us that his violence is honing in on something and the obsession is either setting in or already there.

The implication in the book (AND the original short story) that the place Louis met Daniel was a gay bar adds a layer to it as well in a very human and sexual sense. Not only did he choose a Lestat lookalike, but it seems like he chose to hunt in a (homo)sexually charged environment on purpose. His whole vibe reminds me of an addict who's been using for so long that there's no dopamine rush anymore and is getting more extreme in chasing a very particular high. The allegory of addiction is always very strong in Louis, but the way it presents during this period is kind of a continuation of that narrative.

I think if Lestat hadn't woken up, Louis could have easily devolved into what Magnus became. He has that incredibly addictive personality and he's prone to obsession and pathological rumination anyway. By 1973, we can see how detached he was from humanity already. Imagine him in 300 or 500 years, after so much death and isolation. Nothing in there except hunger and memories that he's clung to for so long that they're horrifically distorted, maybe unrecognizable except for blue eyes and blonde hair.

@nasnyys is the beautiful mind behind the Lestat POV aspect of this so I can't speak on that a ton, but I love it SO much. A huge part of Lestat's story is how he can't seem to break out of existing cycles and he's often the catalyst for that continuation against his will. It seems to disturb him the most when he sees those cycles repeating in Louis (to the point where I would say he imagines them at times), so I think this would absolutely not be lost on him. Maybe he would perceive it as Magnus "tainting" him to the point where whatever Lestat creates has some essence of his maker/abuser, like it's intrinsically a part of him somehow. It's very sad, I would love to think on it more and come back with something better to say!

[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 💜

[matrixbearer2024]

Somebody asked about LGBTQIA+ on the modernity blog and I just want to clear something up on Fordsy's end to avoid accidentally offending people or making room for misinterpretation on my end. I'm not perfect and frankly I'm still figuring my way around the community as well so please forgive me if I make a mistake or need correcting.

Actually, if you guys could help me better shape things for this AU regarding such topics feel free to drop me an interaction on this post so we could talk because I would genuinely appreciate it.

Anyhow, as far as I'm concerned, in this AU Ford is closest to the AroAce label. I say closest because he doesn't exactly experience romance or that kind of attraction but he feel a distinction towards somebody who he's friendly with(i.e. Fiddleford) vs somebody who he is very very close with(Bill). It almost borders romantic but at the same time not inherently, but it's still not 100% platonic if you squint.

I wouldn't pin him as flux, because it's not like the attraction switches on and off. There's just different levels of that "closeness". I wouldn't say he's pan or bi either because his attraction to people isn't necessarily romantic in nature either. I know there's a lot more but generally this is just how I've condensed things based on my own understanding(which I'm very sure is LACKING HELP-). Also, I get this thing isn't all black and white but again I do not know what I'm entirely doing I just consult google and Reddit and hopefully I'm not being a dummy.

As it stands, Ford himself doesn't really see the point in most labels so he generally doesn't care for them. A part of him takes solace in the fact that he is his own strain of weird and that makes him hard to replicate/replace. Hence why he doesn't bother with the labels either, just that he uses he/him pronouns. So if asked he'd probably genuinely just be like: "Idk" mans never actually checked and he's just vibing.

It's that kind of "Tralse" answer you'd put on a test when the question is neither true or false LOL

And imma be fr, the only reason why he'd even only be aware about most of these things is because Stanley had that point in his life where he was like: "omfg am I gay??? No wait I still like girls though???" In highschool because ya know, crushes are a huge thing and Ford also never genuinely having one was also an odd point for him.

The household they lived in during that time didn't really help things on this front either.

So yeah, Ford is in that space of where he doesn't really care to have a label but is inherently aware that he doesn't fit the cishet mold. It doesn't bother him for the most part, but he is generally very confused by all of this because of he doesn't typically feel like he "fits" anywhere.

This isn't to say he's indecisive, just very painfully unsure. Stanley on the flip side is very much: "I have two hands I can like both men and women fuck you guys I'm greedy-" which I think is hilarious.

Caryn and Shermie are generally also just: "You like who you wanna like, who are we to judge?" So they pretty much just vibe too LOL

[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.

[pinkeoni]

genuine question: what do you even like about mike? like honestly every time i go through your blog there is a new post about how people mischaracterize him so it makes me wonder, what do you like about him if all you see is some plain ass dude who has nothing going for him? or hell, do you even like mike at all?

i agree with you on a lot of things: i think will is gnc and is based on female horror tropes. and i don't think that mike is an incompetent clockable gay who gets bullied for nail polish and gets swept off his feet by big buff hero will. etc etc. like i get that, and i get that it's annoying people turn mike into something he's not.

but then i see some of your other posts, like the fact that you seem dismissive of theories suggesting mike may have mental health issues. or that he's self-sacrifical. or he has issues with his family (and ofc, disclaimer that i don't think the wheelers are abusive people). and it confuses me, because the concept of mike struggling with stuff is not inherently "babygirl"—yes people can make it annoyingly babygirl, but it just seems like you're against any struggles that mike has if they overlap with will's. this is different from people giving mike will's story (having an abusive alcoholic dad, being bullied for outward gayness, etc.) these are just broad concepts that these two can share.

so i guess that aside from my original question of what do you like abt mike/if you even like mike, i wanted to ask what you seem to think mike's struggles/conflicts are. or i guess if your answer is that he has little to no struggles, i can see why you treat him as though he is the character equivalent of white bread — which i will have to agree to disagree with, i guess.

Hello anon,

I do like how devoted Mike is to his friends, especially in the early seasons, although we see him starting to slip away from that later on, especially in season 3. I do think he has trauma from losing El in season one and his fear of losing her is so great that + societal expectations of the 80s that I think part of his struggle is learning to let El go so he can get back to what made him a strong friend in the early seasons, and of course finally reckon with his feelings for Will.

Yes, Mike is a main character, but I feel that his strengths come from when he is supporting others. We see how sweet he is when he is taking care of El in seaosn one or how dedicated he is to Will on season two. I think that his strongest moments come out when he is fighting for someone else.

I don't entirely agree with many of the analyses on here that focus on Mike's mental health and family struggles. By all means, I don't want to discourage people from analyzing him, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Like you said anon, agree to disagree.

It's interesting you say "it just seems that like you're against any struggles that mike has if they overlap with will's" because back in my day (2022) it seemed to me that the perogative of Mike stans in the fandom was the make Mike the paragon of trauma and mental illness, even if it meant taking aspects of other characters arcs and then barring said character from their own story.

Patrick wasn't actually meant to be a Vecna victim, it was Mike. Will can't be Vecna'd next season (despite having a pre-existing connection to him) because Mike has to be Vecna'd. Will can't have internalized homophobia because Mike does. The Byers have a better home life than the Wheelers despite the actions of Lonnie Byers leaving their household financially and emotionally dependent on their oldest child. I think a lot of these Mike stans are no longer super active in the fandom (or I blocked them) although I do sometimes see this type of thinking slipping through the cracks here and there.

I'm going to answer your question "do you even like mike at all?" I'm going to propose a question back to you: "Why do I need to?"

I like Mike enough. Like I said I like his devotion to his friends in earlier seasons. There are plenty of characters that I enjoy more than him. I also make it pretty clear on my blog that Will is my #1 fav. There are definitely plenty of people in the byler fandom who prefer Mike to Will or even don't like Will, and honestly that's fine.

[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.

[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.