#bisexual men in culture and society

[baravaggio]

"Bisexuals Who Kill: Hollywood's Bisexual Crimewave, 1985-1998" by Jonathan David White (Bisexual Men in Culture and Society, p. 47)

[genderqueerdykes]

"Why is it called coming out?"

George Chauncey, a renowned professor of American queer history at Columbia University who has worked as an expert witness on many key US gay rights cases explains that in the period before World War II, gay people "did not speak of coming out what we call 'the gay closet' but rather of coming out into what they called homosexual society or the gay world, a world neither so small nor so isolated, often so hidden as the closet implies."

Chauncey draws on an example from a 1931 headline in the newspaper the Baltimore Afro-American, which announced the "coming out of new debutantes into homosexual society" at a ball referred to as a "frolic of the pansies." Apparently large drag balls were popular at the time and were a classic place for men to come out into gay society in America. These were not underground affairs; instead some drew thousands of spectators. Chauncey writes that, by 1931, "this aspect of gay culture was entering mainstream parlance."

-- "Bi: The hidden culture, history, and science of bisexuality" by Dr. Julia Shaw.

[crazy-pages]

Blue Eyed Samurai and Queer Gender

There's a reason so many trans people keep reading trans identity into Mizu.

Because even if she's cis, her gender is still queer.

Lemme back up for a second. Queer identity is deeply intertwined with experiencing sex and gender in ways which are fundamentally non-normative and non-conformative for the societies we live in. It is about being "other" to what society's default is. There are reasons that queer liberation movements have historically often allied with kink communities, with polyamorous circles, and with feminist movements. There's overlap there, in being outside a tightly constrained norm and demanding equality and recognition. And this also means that what queer is, is defined in part by the society it stands in opposition to.

Because for contrast there have been societies, historically, which have been fully accepting of trans people or even had specific social norms and customs around nonbinary gender. The colonizing Spaniards found and recorded interactions (typically violent, sadly) with trans people in what's now Mexico who lived, married, and were recognized in their societies without regard for their genitals. There are entire fields of study around various historical recognition of nonbinary identities. None of these people existed in opposition to the societies they lived in. Heck if we look at sexuality, the ancient Greeks would certainly not have seen men having sex with men as queer (though they would have judged and demeaned the bottom), but some of them certainly pathologized women who had sex with women. In such a society bisexual men would not be queer, while bisexual women would be.

Queer is contextual. Someone who lives in a fully accepting society as a trans person, who never has contact with a culture where that acceptance isn't the norm? I'm not sure I would call them queer. At the very least, there's a definition of queer as the embrace of one's sexual and/or gender non-normativity which such a person might very well not opt into. That person might not feel queer. We might not share that emotional experience.

And where this comes back to Blue Eyed Samurai is that it's possible to be cis and to be marked unavoidably and unalterably queer by one's society. A cis woman living in the US today who feels absolutely cis but cannot, for whatever reason, stand wearing dresses and must wear pants? Might experience some gender non-conforming experiences, but not necessarily be queer. That same woman in 1890s US? Her gender expression would be outright illegal as a form of crossdressing. She would be seen with the same lens as a trans man and their experiences of gender would both be queer, despite one being cis and one being trans. If such a woman, despite being cis and straight and allosexual and alloromantic and all the rest, told me she felt queer? It would not surprise me in the least.

So if you define queer as any kind of experience or internal feeling, as a state of othered existence rather than a specific set of prescriptive definitional boxes that fit our specific societal norms and practices? Mizu is queer. Mizu might or might not be queer if you transplanted her into the 2020s US where I live. But to define her by how she would fit in our society's boxes is fundamentally missing the point of both the queer experience and the story of Blue Eyed Samurai. (And she might not be cis here, he might be a trans man, or they might be nonbinary. It's hard to say ... and this is why queer history scholars step carefully around modern definitions, by the by.)

What we can say is that who Mizu is, in the context of Edo period Japan, is queer. Whether Mizu is genderfluid, or a trans man, or a cis woman who hates having to be undercover, or a cis woman who thrives being undercover, or a cis woman performing drag, or a trans man who thinks of himself as a woman in drag because he lacks context for being transgender? It's all queer gender. There is no framing in which Mizu wouldn't relate to the experience of queer gender.

Mizu doesn't get to experience gender in a normative way. That's both because of who she is at her core, and something that's defined by society without her consent. She is queer, innately born so and structurally made so at the same time, and that's not a contradiction.

[shoujoboy-restart]

I (cis male) feel a bit alienated by the narrative of "young are disenfranchised and that's why the far-right is able to recruit them" not because it's wrong or it's not a true statement by most part but the thing is: the disenfranchisement is mostly caused by right wing and conservative narratives within our culture, and left wingers aren't responsible for creating it but they haven't been able to provide too decent of a remedy for it and are too focused on solely scolding cis het men for having been convinced by these right wing narratives into going against their self interest.

In reality, right wingers convince people the cause the disenfranchisement and male abandonent is actually at fault of progressive ideals within society.

For example the whole "male loneliness" debacle, yeah, cis het men are struggling a lot with loneliness, isolation and lack of connections, but that is mostly platonic and also with their family and relatives, however red pillers are able to convince men that Acshually™ they should focus solely on romantic and sexual connections with women ("no you are not gay or bisexual, that's leftist propaganda made gender theory marxist post modernism so stop being a fag") and that in fact this is the fault of feminism and leftism because women now don't have to rely on random men to function within a misogynistic society where a woman can't get a education or a house without a husband's permission.

Yes, leftism needs to abandon the whole shitting on men and the whole quirky misandry shit if they want to convince young males to just not be horrible people.

However, comma, in addition. Realistically speaking, even if you were doing the most mollycoddling towards men and became a an actual pick-me, no, many of these dudes wouldn't become normal because misogynistic and sexist ideologies would still be in effect, profitable and socially dominant. So yeah throw out the "kill all men" mentality but also don't be fucking mollycoddling mysoginy and sexism mindsets "cuz different opinions".

[lostryu]

Jasmine Sherman's Policy on protection for Transgender Individuals:

I am just going to start posting Jasmine Sherman's policies cause I know a good portion of the people engaging with my posts aren't seeing the bigger picture. Please be aware that Jasmine uses they/them pronouns. no cut because this is revolutionary for the political climate in the US.

Introduction:

The United States government, under the Sherman administration, is committed to ensuring equal rights, protections, and opportunities for all individuals; including transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals. This federal policy seeks to promote equity, eliminate discrimination, and protect the rights of transgender people in various aspects of public life, including education, employment, healthcare, and public accommodations.

Section 1: Definitions

1.1 LGBTQIA2S+: Stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual, Two-Spirit, and more. This acronym is used to describe the community of people whose sexual orientations or gender identities differ from the majority of the population.

1.2 Transgender Individual: A person whose gender identity differs from the sex assigned to them at birth. This term is inclusive of individuals who identify as transgender men, transgender women, and non-binary or as a genderqueer individual.

1.3 Gender Identity: A person’s innate sense of their own gender, which may be different from their sex assigned at birth. It encompasses a range of identities, expressions, and roles that may or may not align with an individual’s physical appearance or sex assigned at birth.

1.4 Sex: A set of biological attributes in humans and animals associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, hormone levels, and reproductive/sexual anatomy, typically categorized as male, female, or intersex.

1.5 Gender: Both a social and cultural construct related to behaviors, roles, expectations, and activities in society, and the behavioral, cultural, and/or psychological ideas associated with a particular gender identity. Gender can be fluid and varies across different societies and cultures.

1.6 Transgender: A shorthand medical term used to describe individuals whose gender identity or expression differs from what is traditionally associated with the sex assigned to them at birth. It serves as an umbrella term for various gender identities.

Trans: means on the opposite side of, or across

1.7 Cisgender: Refers to individuals whose gender identity matches the sex assigned to them at birth. The term highlights the congruence between an individual’s self-perception of their gender and their birth-assigned sex.

Cis: Latin term meaning on the same side of

1.8 Gender Binary: The classification of gender into two distinct, opposite forms of masculine and feminine, often based on one’s anatomy at birth.

1.9 Nonbinary: Describes a person whose gender identity does not fit within the traditional gender binary of male and female. Nonbinary individuals may identify as having no gender, both genders, or a different gender.

1.10 Agender: An adjective used to describe individuals who do not identify with any gender, or see their gender as irrelevant to their identity and experiences.

1.11 Bigender: Describes a person whose identity encompasses two genders, either simultaneously or varying between them over time.

1.12 Queer: An umbrella term used to describe individuals whose sexual orientation or gender identity does not conform to societal norms. While once pejorative, “queer” has been reclaimed by many in the LGBTQIA2S+ community as a term of empowerment.

1.13 Gender Expression: The external manifestation of an individual’s gender identity, through clothing, hairstyles, behavior, voice, and body characteristics. Gender expression can vary widely and may not necessarily correspond to societal expectations based on the individual’s sex assigned at birth.

1.14 Gender Affirmation: The process by which individuals recognize, accept, and express their gender identity, potentially through social, legal, and medical changes. This can include lifestyle changes, hormone therapy, surgery, and altering legal documents to reflect one’s gender identity.

1.15 Deadnaming: Referring to a transgender or non-binary person by a name they used before they transitioned. It is considered disrespectful and can be harmful, emphasizing the importance of using the name and pronouns that someone has chosen for themselves.

1.16 Two-Spirit: Refers to a person who identifies as having both a masculine and a feminine spirit, and is used by some Indigenous people to describe their sexual, gender and/or spiritual identity.

Section 2: Non-Discrimination

2.1 Equal Treatment: It is the policy of all organizations, corporations, schools, agencies, contractors, and programs receiving or not receiving federal funds to ensure the equal treatment of transgender individuals. This policy mandates that transgender individuals shall not be discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity or expression. Compliance with this policy is mandatory for all entities that engage with the public. This includes, but is not limited to, the provision of services, employment practices, and interactions within these entities. The objective is to foster an inclusive environment that respects and acknowledges the gender identity and expression of all individuals.

2.2 Employment: All employers shall enact and enforce policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity in employment and in the hiring practices of contractors. Employees are no longer granted religious exemptions to be bigots. If an employee wishes to use their religious beliefs as a way to harm or discriminate against a transgender individual, they will face disciplinary action, up to termination.

2.3 Education: Educational institutions and federally-funded educational programs shall ensure that transgender students have access to safe and supportive educational environments, including the use of facilities and participation in sports teams consistent with their gender identity.

2.4 Healthcare: Transgender individuals shall have access to healthcare services that are free from discrimination, including access to gender-affirming care, without barriers based on gender identity. Also, anyone who’s unsure of their gender or is questioning their identity can join support groups or get therapy from a professional, as part of our healthcare policy.

Section 3: Privacy and Identity Documents

3.1 Identification Documents: All organizations, corporations, schools, and agencies shall provide a streamlined and accessible process for transgender individuals to change the gender marker on their identification documents. This includes passports, identification cards, and driver’s licenses, consistent with their gender identity.

3.2 Privacy: All organizations, corporations, schools, and agencies shall respect the privacy and confidentiality of transgender individuals, of all ages, and shall not disclose information about an individual’s transgender status without their explicit consent.

Section 4: Hate Crimes and Violence

4.1 Hate Crimes: In connection with our Abolish the Police policy; all crimes committed against transgender individuals will be vigorously investigated and prosecuted to prevent and address bias-motivated violence. If a transgender individual is subjected to this, a provision will be made to provide legal recourse and financial resources to the individual until they have received resolution. We recognize the cost and time associated and feel the trans community deserves restorative justice for the trauma they have experienced.

4.2 Anti-Bullying: Federal educational institutions and programs shall develop and implement anti-bullying policies that specifically address bullying and harassment based on gender identity.

Section 5: Public Accommodations

5.1 Access to Facilities: Public accommodations, such as restrooms and locker rooms, are required to grant access to facilities in alignment with an individual’s gender identity. This provision mandates that public schools permit transgender students to use bathrooms and participate in sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.

Section 6: Training and Education

6.1 Training: Federal agencies shall provide training and education to their employees and contractors to ensure understanding and compliance with this policy.

Section 7: Enforcement

7.1 Enforcement Mechanisms: Federal agencies shall have mechanisms in place to enforce compliance with this policy, including investigation and sanctions for violations.

7.2 Reporting: Transgender individuals who believe they have experienced discrimination may report such incidents to the appropriate federal agency for investigation and resolution.

Section 8: Review and Updates

8.1 Periodic Review: This policy shall be periodically reviewed and updated to ensure its effectiveness and relevance.

This federal policy on transgender rights and protections shall be implemented across all federal agencies, departments, and programs, and shall serve as a framework to promote equality, equity, inclusivity, and the protection of the rights of transgender individuals across the United States. The definitions mentioned in this policy are intended to foster understanding and respect for the diverse experiences and identities within the LGBTQIA2S+ community, emphasizing the complexity and fluidity of gender and sexuality. At the end of the day no one community is a monolith; if you have questions be respectful and ask them. These policies will be updated as needed, as new information or feedback is received.

[gatheringbones]

amanda udis-kessler, from present tense: biphobia as a crisis of meaning, from bi any other name: bisexual people speak out, edited by Lorraine Hutchins and Lani Kaahumanu, 1991

["Before 1869, everyone was heterosexual and no one was heterosexual. By this I mean that all people were believed to be biologically oriented toward people of the opposite sex, there was no need for a word or category "heterosexual" since there was no opposite or conflicting category "homosexual." Certainly there were homosexual acts, homosexual behavior, but no homosexual people and no word "homosexuality." The fact that there could be behavior contrary to what was understood as natural did not cause anyone to rethink their concepts of the natural; rather, they simply labeled same-sex acts unnatural. Biblical injunctions against homosexual behavior must be seen in this light.

In 1869, the word "homosexuality" was coined and the concept— and category— of "the homosexual" came into existence, requiring the "discovery" of the heterosexual as well. I don't mean to suggest that heterosexuality was thought of as anything other than normative, or that homosexuality was taken seriously as a biological entity at that point. Physical and psychological understandings of homosexuality competed, but the constant which is of interest to us here is the depth of the homosexual identity which was brought to light. Sexuality was not simply a matter of acts. It involved an essence which did not change easily if at all. At the end of the nineteenth century, there were two identities to match sexual acts where none had been before, two categories of person: heterosexual and homosexual.

If we jump ahead a century to Stonewall, we notice a dramatic change in the meaning of the homosexual identity. The early gay liberation movement, revolting from decades of assimilationism a la Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis, took on an ethnic model of oppression and counterculture. In doing so, it maintained pre-Stonewall essentialism while adding a separatist politics. In this model, lesbians and gay men, drawing on the civil rights movement, defined themselves as an ethnic minority with sexuality rather than skin color the determining factor and with homophobia rather than racism as the oppression.

Lesbian and gay activists had long taken the insight of experiencing sexuality as beyond choice and considering this proof that it was a natural part of their sex drive. Interestingly enough, while this approach would seem to require a straightforward correlation between sexual behavior and core identity, such a correlation was not made. Many lesbians and gay men came out after being heterosexually active, and some of these people had enjoyed their heterosexuality; they simply enjoyed homosexuality more. Lesbian and gay essentialists simply switched the heterosexual assumption of prior ages and claimed that these people were essentially gay, regardless of their sexual behavior. Thus, a woman who came out as forty had really been a lesbian all along but had not been in touch with her true sexuality.

The acceptance of essentialism was not universal, however. Some psychologists and sexologists raised troubling questions about this conception which could invalidate forty years of a woman's life. They asked whether the experience of sexuality as beyond chosenness necessarily meant that it was biologically grounded. They asked why sexual identity appeared in such different forms in different cultures, and whether essentialism didn't carry with it a certain cultural imperialism. These constructions posited that the categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality were constructed rather than discovered a hundred years ago, created because changing social circumstances dictated a need for such categories. Without denying the place of nature in our lives, they pointed out that socialization affects us tremendously, including the extent to which we think nature shapes us.They argued that sexuality is not simply the unfolding of one's natural essence. Rather, sexuality is learned, relational, contingent, and unpredictable; sexuality is as sexuality does. There are sexual scripts within every society and there are variations on those scripts in every society.

As we may imagine, the constructionist view of sexuality, with its fluidity and its connotation of choice, threatened lesbians and gay men as soon as it was proposed. Constructionism challenged the "oppressed ethnic minority" approach by arguing that sexuality could not be compared to skin color as a natural phenomenon. The response of lesbian and gay communities was understandably fierce; as Steven Epstein notes, "people who base their claims to social rights on the basis of a group identity will not appreciate being told identity is just a social construct. Constructionism could not offer a sound political replacement for essentialism. "[O]nce we have deconstructed identity," so the fear went, "we will have nothing.... which is stable and secure upon which to base a politics." The upshot of this thinking was that sexual theorists continued the essentialist versus constructionist debate in academic journals and other settings, but it had little impact upon community members and their separatist culture and politics. This has remained true since the early days of gay liberation, with Steven Epstein noting in 1987 that "while constructionist theorists have been preaching the gospel that the hetero-homosexual distinction is a social fiction, gays and lesbians in everyday life and in political action, have been busy hardening the categories."

What does this have to do with bisexuality? Consider a lesbian who has gone through a traumatic coming-out process with loss of family and friends, but who is finally secure with a lesbian identity in a supportive community. Or consider a gay man who has spent his life being harrassed and hurt for being gay, who knows personally that oppression means having one's choices removed but who has been able to rebuild his sense of having choices and his sense of humor within an urban gay male culture. Sexual essentialists are secure in their assertion that these two people may have had to suffer but that now they are home and able to build and love and fight back. But what if this man or this woman falls in love with someone of the opposite sex? What, then, was their pain and suffering about? Do the experiences which shaped them mean nothing? Was there an easier way? And should they have taken it? What is the connection of their pasts to a new and surprising present? Both of these people have come through tremendous soul-searching to reach their gay and lesbian identities, which provide them with a myth by which to structure their lives, offering social and political meaning to their personal histories. Is the myth that fragile? Is their sexuality that fragile? How are they to be true to themselves and what does being true to themselves mean in this situation?

The larger lesbian and gay community carries a great deal of shared pain; indeed it is built on it. Stonewall would not have happened without a bunch of drag queens and some diesel dykes being so sick and tired of being sick and tired. When lesbians and gay men who are deeply connected to their communities ask the questions above, the whole community feels the effect. If enough people ask them, the collective myth— and the community— are in danger. For both can only remain intact if the pain which built the community was in some way the inevitable product of being oneself in a heterosexist society. This brings us back to the essentialist versus constructionist debate, but with a clearer sense of the urgency behind the response to constructionism. Just as bisexuality would threaten the gay man and lesbian described above, the fluidity and connotation of choice within constructionism would seem to challenge both the history and the future of lesbian and gay communities.

Now we are in a position to see the leap of logic which has accounted for so much lesbian and gay biphobia; it is a leap which connects bisexuality and bisexuals to sexual constructionism and both to a crisis of meaning which may be both personal and communal. Lesbians and gay men, protective of the essentialist view of sexuality, equate the fluidity and apparent choice-making of bisexuality with that of constructionism and feel a tremor in the structure underlying their lives and identities. No matter if, unlike the examples above, they do not experience bisexual feelings themselves, constructionism claims that the potential is always there, and that is enough of a threat.

When bisexuality equals constructionism, bisexuals become walking reminds of the potential crisis of meaning for lesbians and gay men, posing a threat to identity and community far greater than the one posed by heterosexuals. Lesbians and gay men have been able to define themselves as other than heterosexual; bisexuals challenge that definition regardless of our intention to do so. Behind the painful lesbian and gay biphobia which we have experienced is a poignant cry for a self: "you don't exist" means "I do exist." And, too, the rejection of a group ("go form your own communities; you're not welcome in ours") is a way for lesbians and gay men to claim a group identity, to say "we exist, not just as individuals but as a community." This fragility may be hidden beneath flippancy, sarcasm, culture, and camp, but any bisexuality education which does not keep it in mind will not open barriers where it counts: in the heart.

What, then, about heterosexual biphobia? Is there, strictly speaking, such a thing? And if so, from whence does it come? Taking these questions seriously requires looking at some of the sexually problematic messages heterosexuals have internalized without having to challenge them as lesbians and gay men do. These messages basically revolve around the interface of sex negativity and dualistic thinking that permeates our culture."]

[she-is-ovarit]

I feel like not nearly enough education and awareness is provided for people and especially kids to recognize pedophile culture and grooming behavior.

Pedophiles view and treat children and teens as equals, and grooming often happens very slowly over time through the pedophile devoting quality time to the child or teenager. The actually grooming piece can take years. They also only rarely force or coerce a child into sexual contact - instead, touching is gradual. Pedophiles take the perspective that children and teens are capable of consent. People should genuinely be cautious of someone who seem to hyperfocus on and operate from the perspective of children and teens being psychologically developed enough to consent to what are normally adult responsibilities and decisions - especially pertaining to sex, sexuality, and the kids' sex-based characteristics.

A bullet list of common characteristics:

Popular with both children and adults.

Appears to be trustworthy and respectable. Has good standing in the community.

Prefers the company of children. Feels more comfortable with children than adults. Is mainly attracted to prepubescent boys and girls. Can be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.

“Grooms” children with quality time, video games, parties, candy, toys, gifts, money.

Singles out children who seem troubled and in need of attention or affection.

Often dates or marries women with children that are the age of his preferred victims.

Rarely forces or coerces a child into sexual contact. Usually through trust and friendship. Physical contact is gradual, from touching, to picking up, to holding on lap, to kissing, etc.

Derives gratification in a number of ways. For some, looking is enough. For others, taking pictures or watching children undress is enough. Still others require more contact.

Finds different ways and places to be alone with children.

Are primarily (but not always) male, masculine, better-educated, more religious than average, in their thirties, and choose jobs allowing them greater access to children.

Are usually family men, have no criminal record, and deny that they abuse children, even after caught, convicted, incarcerated, and court-ordered into a sex offender program. The marriage is often troubled by sexual dysfunction, and serves as a smokescreen for the pedophile’s true preferences and practices.

Are often, but not always, themselves victims of some form of childhood sexual abuse.

Even if the pedophile has no children, his home is usually child-friendly, with toys, books, video games, computers, bikes, swing sets, skateboards, rec room, pool, snacks – things to attract children to his home and keep them coming back. Usually the items reflect the preferred age of his victims.

A female pedophile usually abuses a child when partnered with an adult male pedophile, and is often herself a victim of chronic sexual abuse.

A pedophile can act independently, or be involved in an organized ring, including the Internet, NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), and other pro-pedophilia groups. Some pedophiles recognize that their behavior is criminal, immoral, and unacceptable by society, and operate in secrecy. Some are quite open and militant about their practices and advocate the normalization of pedophilia under the guise of freedom of speech and press, and uses innocuous language like “intergenerational intimacy.”

Here is another source:

Generally, pedophiles do not use force to have children engage in these activities but instead rely on various forms of psychic manipulation and desensitization (eg, progression from innocuous touching to inappropriate touching, showing pornography to children) (1, 5, 17, 21). When confronted about engaging in such activities, pedophiles commonly justify and minimize their actions by stating that the acts “had educational value,” that the child derived pleasure from the acts or attention, or that the child was provocative and encouraged the acts in some way (1, 3, 9, 22–24).

Many, many pedophiles use the trans rights movement and the gay movement to be able to access child victims or normalize pedophile culture by justifying certain behaviors and actions as having educational value.

A popular thing I see on here are comics or graphic design art that seemed to be aimed at children or teens to "educate them" about sexuality, trans identity, etc. This is not appropriate and is a red flag.

"The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality of 2%–4%) (5, 7, 10, 19, 29, 30). This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children (19)."

Fifty percent to 70% of pedophiles can be diagnosed as having another paraphilia, such as frotteurism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, or sadism (7, 12, 25).

In general, most individuals who engage in pedophilia or paraphilias are male (2–7, 9, 10).

Pedophilic women tend to be young (22–33 years old); have poor coping skills; may meet criteria for the presence of a psychiatric disorder, particularly depression or substance abuse; and frequently also meet criteria for being personality disordered (antisocial, borderline, narcissistic, dependent) (27) (Table 1). In incidents in which women are identified as being involved in sexually inappropriate acts with children, there is an increased chance of a male pedophile being involved as well (7).

In a study by Abel and Harlow (15) of 2429 adult male pedophiles, only 7% identified themselves as exclusively sexually attracted to children, which confirms the general view that most pedophiles are part of the nonexclusive group (attracted to both adults and children).

Federal data show that 27% of all sexual offenders assaulted family members.

The study by Abel and Harlow (15) found that 68% of “child molesters” had molested a family member; 30% had molested a stepchild, a foster child, or an adopted child; 19% had molested 1 or more of their biologic children; 18% had molested a niece or nephew; and 5% had molested a grandchild.

[crooked-wasteland]

Something that always irked me a little was seeing fans say HB/HH have good queer rep. There’s been other adult/children animated shows that done it better. I think the reason fans say that it has good queer rep is it because they get to see the characters have sex, instead of characters having actual chemistry and good interactions.

No one in HB or HH had good chemistry. Charlie and Vaggie are just nonexistent or they should’ve been a slow burn from friends to lovers and blitz and stolas is the worst mlm ship because they don’t have anything they just have sex, they’re just meaning less sex that have to be a couple.

Husk is an asshole to Angel, he just shits on sex work and guilt trips Angel so he doesn’t take drugs but because Cherri is meant to be seen as the negative influence we’re suppose to take husk side and say no to drugs.

I don’t even consider fizz and Ozzie a relationship because they’re just sugaring, but fizz has a unhealthy codependency on Ozzie who kinda goes along because he gets to have sex with fizz and that too to me sounds like the spirit of lust. Doing immoral actions for you’re own selfish wants and desires. If fizz and Ozzie was rewritten and in the hands of a better writer this could’ve been a thrilling toxic story about a powerful prince of lust manipulating his insecure vulnerable lower class imp plaything and hundreds like him, in the spirit of lust

One of my unpopular opinions is that Elemental had the best examples of queer representation in Ember and Wade. And I am aware Ember and Wade are cis gendered and in a heterosexual dynamic. My point being that representation does not always have to be explicit to be profound or accurate. The movie gives Wade an unconventional form of masculinity that validates a nurturing expression that is stereotyped as inherently queer. Additionally, Ember's lack of identity due to the expectations of her family, father, and culture mirrors the existence of many queer individuals who fail to recognize they are bisexual or even gay due to the implicit pressure placed on them to fulfill the typical roles of their society.

Many people take the story in face value, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with seeing it as a story solely based on race, discrimination, the complexities of coexistence, and interracial love.

However, representation does not have to be explicit. There is absolutely plenty to be argued that by having an openly queer relationship moves to normalize the concept socially, but the unfortunate reality exists that (1) queerness is still inherently othering and you will not be able to normalize the existence of queer people just by shoving them front and centre. If anything, it is interpreted as a threat to the dominating social norm that causes people to reject the concept outright compared to subliminally connecting the ideas and experience of queerness to a more universal norm, building on tools and experiences to help others relate to our existence despite them never being able to truly live it.

And (2) movie-making and media is a business. A very expensive one. So risking hundreds of millions of dollars on explicit queerness that is still extremely fringe in most societies is, frankly, bad business.

The issues in representation for HH and HB comes down to what you said here: weak chemistry and toxic dynamics. These aren't good representations, not because they have these problems, but because these problems are overtly ignored or seen as not issues at all. There are a ton of harmful stereotypes that work in our society to keep queerness from being seen as normal or valid.

"Lesbians aren't real because how can two women ever love each other the way a man can love a woman and vice versa."

"Gay men just think about sex all the time. There is no love in their relationships."

"Bi/Pansexual will just have sex with anything."

"Sex is the highest form of romance and so any deviation from the strictly acceptable expressions of sexuality in society is a threat to love and relationships as a whole."

"Queer people are the result of brain damage through drug abuse."

"Queer people are the result of childhood trauma and/or sexual abuse."

"Who's the woman/wears the pants in the relationship?"

All of these statements are real social perceptions and stereotypes of the queer community which Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss directly contribute to. The narrative and characters adhere to every single one of these ideas at some point or another without ever challenging them and oftentimes reinforces them.

I understand and respect people who don't see Elemental as queer representation just because the characters do conform superficially to heteronormative standards. But just making a character gay doesn't make the story or series queer representation, and these shows definitely don't have good representation.

[homunculus-argument]

Random worldbuilding from The Unfinished Book:

While there is no unified, clearly defined LGBT community, the people who would by our definition fall under that umbrella are heavily associated with religion. While the general cultural assumption is that everyone is at least a little bit bisexual - the idea that almost everyone hypothetically could encounter a woman so handsome or a man so beautiful that they'd go gay for them is aknowledged well enough to be a common theme in poetry and literature - being queer is more or less considered a way in which various gods "earmark" their own.

This is considered a matter beyond obvious - there are whole creation myths of how the gods who created the world grew annoyed about how all the humans they made were too busy having and raising their own children to properly focus on worshipping their gods or caring for society at large, so the gods saw fit to create people who would rather love their own sex, or not desire marriage or children at all, to ensure there are some whose hands and minds are free to focus more on the gods.

The Empire tolerates any and every religious practice that doesn't threaten the state, break other laws or cause public disturbance, so while there are some major gods whose temples are in almost every city, the pantheon of gods whose existence is aknowledged is essentially infinite. The churches, temple organisations and schools of various major gods, goddesses and ambiguous divine entities and their devoted priests and servants aren't simply there, but play a part in society and politics, as bankers, historians, librarians, curators, doctors and educators. Some run orphanages.

One big, major player in the field is the order of the Moon Goddess. They don't literally worship the moon, the moon is simply the symbol of the Goddess, whose realm is the perfect logic and structure of the universe, which cannot be touched or even properly comprehended by the fallible and imperfect human mind. Their philosophy is that there is no such thing as a question without an answer or a thing without purpose, and anything that appears so is simply beyond human grasp. While there are Moon Priestesses who aren't trans women, they are few and far between, and still less rare than trans women who aren't priestesses.

This is considered an example of how clear and logical the Moon Goddess is - the dysphoria of AMAB people is culturally regarded as them feeling a calling, a call that cannot be mistaken for anything else, a puzzle with one logical answer that they must personally find and embrace, which cannot be disputed by any mortal force, and can only be denied and repressed for so long by the Chosen Subject before they accept it. Becoming a Moon Priestess isn't an "I don't know what to do with my life so I might as well do this" choice in life, it was a choice that was made for you before you were born.

In the book, the protagonist encounters a trans man on his journey and they travel together for a while. After discovering the nature of how Terrel is, the protagonist isn't baffled by the idea that trans men exist at all - mainly he is unfathomably relieved that this small and boyish youth who drinks, gambles, fights, fucks and commits murder like a grown man is actually older than himself and not, like, thirteen - but astonished that Terrel isn't religious, and doesn't consider himself "chosen" by any god. He just is, and as far as he's concerned, the gods have nothing to do with it.

Also it suddenly makes a lot more sense that his name translates to "son of a hyena bitch", something that no woman would name her own child. He named himself, and his mother is a huge bitch.

[devotioncrater]

The Tedependent Tinhat Thesis

Welcome! Welcome to The Tedependent Tinhat Thesis.

As of writing this, only Episode 1 of Season 3 has been released so far. If you feel the need to send me an anon about how Ted/Trent won’t happen, I implore you to remember when fandom culture used to encourage people to ship characters freely — even when those characters never interacted. This is all written in good fun, and to critically analyze Ted Lasso through a queer lens.

Disclaimer: This meta compiles various topics discussed by people in the Tedependent camp. I cannot take credit for everything. If anything, this is a love letter to them. 

To make this a bit easier to digest (and write), I’ve divided this meta into the following sections:

Queerness in the Media. Ted Lasso and His Subtextual Bisexuality. Trent Crimm, Independent. Tedependent Evidence. Rom-com Tropes and Structure. Narratives and Storytelling. Unexpected Ending.

So let’s begin on a base level of understanding about queerness in the media and how that history does and doesn’t tie into Ted Lasso.

Queerness in the Media

The presence of queer people in film has been a contentious topic since the enactment of the Hays Code in 1934. The Hays Code sanitized/censored what could be shown on-screen, and catered to an audience of white, straight men. This sanitization/censorship of media went hand in hand with the American societal shift into conservatism at the end of the Great Depression and WWI.

The Hays Code remained in effect until 1968, when the political landscape of America once again shifted — this time into a more progressive light. Until 1968, filmmakers and creatives within the industry sought out ways to bend and push the Code’s rules. The invention of television helped play a role in the dissolution of the Code, as did the growing number of foreign films which depicted things like queerness and women’s sexuality. 

Why is this relevant to Ted Lasso, a television show made in 2020?

30 years of conservative censorship and catering to straight, white men does a number on what people deem “acceptable” to show in film. This thinking extends into the world of television. The Hays Code was rooted in conservative ideology and created a system in Hollywood that prioritized white, straight men’s stories — to the point where there was little representation of anyone else. Its effects are still felt today, 55 years on from dissolution. There still is a terrible underrepresentation problem in Hollywood that runs from POC stories to women’s stories to queer stories. Even worse if any of those stories intersect with each other.

Before we dive into the topic of queer-coding in television, we need to understand the history of queer signaling. Queer signaling emerged so that queer people could identify themselves to other queer people without outing themselves to danger. It is by nature subtle to ensure safety within a homophobic society. Men wearing green carnations on their lapels, women giving other women violets, and the use of lavender are all queer signals that were used back in the day. Fashion choices are another signal (the old hanky code), as are certain phrases (“Are you a friend of Dorothy?”).

When you leave things to be subtle, it allows for people on the outside to interpret the information in a way that is easiest for them to digest. That has ramifications on queer history to be erased or explained away or rewritten to better push a heterosexual "default". You see it time and time again when historians call women who lived together for decades "good friends" or when historians laugh at the possibility of someone like Abe Lincoln being queer. There's this homophobic undercurrent of: How can this beloved, well-known person be queer? Why would you even imply something like that?

The same thing happens to queer characters on-screen. Queerness in television, specifically, has a history of being coded. Queer-coded characters are characters who are not explicitly queer — sometimes even are mentioned as straight —, but through their mannerisms and traits can be perceived as queer to the audience. Well known queer signals help aid in queer-coding. Harmful stereotypes also are utilizied to code a character. Therefore it is important to discern the intent and the use of these signals and/or stereotypes. 

(Please note: Queer-coding is different than Queer-baiting. To code a character as queer is inherently neutral, while to bait a character as queer is almost always negative.)

The ambiguity of coding allows for the show/studio to not have to present overt representation at the risk of alienating its audience. Hello, Hays Code.

Queer-coding is a reflection on society's stance on queer people at the time the character is written. In the 1980’s, when the AIDS Crisis was labeled a “Gay Cancer”, Disney films queer-coded their villains (notable ones include Ursula and Scar). In the 1990’s, Chandler Bing in Friends became a queer-coded character, but instead of villainizing him, it served to ridicule him. Even jumping forward to today, characters (such as Deborah in Hacks) still remain coded despite other characters within the same show being explicitly queer. 

And while the queer-coded characters of today are not targets of outright villainization, there lies an undercurrent rationalization to their subtextual queerness. For example, characters like Wednesday and Enid Sinclair from Wednesday are explained away as: “Well they’re just friends”. 

Characters like Ted in Ted Lasso can be explained away as: “Well he isn’t toxically masculine”.

Ted Lasso and His Subtextual Bisexuality

Ted? A queer-coded character? Afraid so, bucko. 

He isn’t the only one in the show, either. Keeley, Colin, and Trent are also queer-coded for their own reasons. Colin most notably for his Grindr comment; Keeley most notably for her various sapphic comments. Trent…we will get to later on. 

(It is worth noting that as of writing this, there are still no explicitly confirmed queer characters in the show. Although the case can be made that Keeley is confirmed bisexual already).

Focusing back on Ted, there is a good amount of evidence for bisexuality that can admittingly be explained away. People can point out that he’s secure in his heterosexuality, that he isn’t toxically masculine, that that is just how his character is. And yes, those viewpoints are all true and well and good, but I want to pose a question: 

Why are we so adamant that Ted Lasso isn’t queer?

Explaining away a queer-coded character’s subtextual queerness is perhaps the easiest route fans can take. Whether there is (implicit) homophobia attached or simply because of the fan’s strict adherence to what’s been canonically established so far, quite a few people’s knee-jerk reaction to reading a theory their beloved main character could be queer is: “Nope! No way, José!” 

Let’s challenge that reaction for a second. Let’s put down the explanations. Let’s take a look into what, exactly, I am talking about when I say that Ted can be read as a bisexual man.

“Rugby. What a game. It’s like if American football and sumo wrestling gave birth to a baby with huge muscular thighs all caked in mud.” — Season 3, Episode 1.

This is a peek into how Ted views the sport of Rugby, and it sure is telling to what he pays attention to. It’s also said in the context of asking if Sharon is seeing anyone. The phrase “huge muscular thighs all caked in mud” draws up quite the image, which when paired up with the direct conversation context, lends itself into an erotic visual. Rugby is known to be a homoerotic sport, too. 

(Please note: The “baby" in this sentence is Rugby personified to help segue the listener from imagining the sport as an abstract to imagining the sport as tangible. “It’s like if ___ and ___ gave birth to a baby” is a common figure of speech used to mean the combination of two things. The focus in this sentence is not the baby, but rather the muscular thighs.)

Ted could have said anything else about Rugby. But he didn’t. The first association he has with the sport is “muscular thighs caked in mud”. Why is that?

“Guys have underestimated me my entire life. And for years, I never understood why. It used to really bother me. But then one day, I was driving my little boy to school, and I saw this quote by Walt Whitman, and it was painted on the wall there. It said, ‘Be curious, not judgmental.’ I like that.” — Season 1, Episode 8

Walt Whitman was an openly gay poet in the 1800’s. His famous body of work Leaves of Grass has clear homoeroticism within it. The quote Ted references, though, isn’t a Whitman quote. But Ted believes it to be. “Be curious, not judgmental” is an aspired quote that reminds us to be more open-minded. 

Added layer: Not understanding why peers underestimate you or treat you different is a common experience in the queer community.

“That’s funny, when it comes to small talk I often ask myself what would Dolly Parton do? Start with the 9 to 5 and end with God Only Knows” — Official Twitter. Sept 28, 2021

“And next week is, if I remember correctly, Shania Twain.” — Season 2, Episode 1

Dolly Parton and Shania Twain are gay icons, especially to country folk.

“Shoot, I know I got goosebumps. I remember being a little kid, sitting in front of the television and watching Queen perform right over there during Live Aid.” — Season 2, Episode 8

Queen is not only an iconic band, but interwoven with queer culture. Freddie Mercury was bisexual.

“Last time I saw equipment this impressive, I was about 20 minutes into Boogie Nights.” — Official Twitter. Aug 30, 2022.

Boogie Nights is a 1997 film about a man becoming an adult-film sensation in the 1970’s. Twenty minutes in, there is a scene referencing the main character’s dick.

Boogie Nights also draws heavily from the disco genre for it’s soundtrack. Disco is a staple in queer culture as it allowed people freedom to express their identities in the nightlife scene. It didn’t matter who danced with who in the clubs.

“I feel like you two [Beard and Nate] are about to do some improv comedy or tell me that you’re dating each other. Either one’s cool with me. ‘Cause your suggestion is: ally.” — Season 1, Episode 9

Ted is supportive of queer relationships. An ally, as he says. But maybe he isn’t just an ally.

He repeatedly calls members of the Diamond Dogs pet names/terms of endearment. “Sweetie” “Baby” “Honey”, the list goes on. When this began in Season 1, Episode 6, Beard found it out of character for Ted to do so. (Nate asking him if Ted’s alright and Beard laughing, “No!”). What makes me pause on this is that the origin of Ted’s terms of endearment stem from Michelle leaving him. Ted’s looking for emotional comfort or familiarity in other men that he can no longer give to or receive from his ex-wife.

Other straight men in the show (like Roy) don’t engage in this behavior.

Ted also really enjoys musical theatre. He references musicals a lot. I mention this information now because it is important later.

There are more examples in the show, but I hope I’ve laid out enough to get you to at least see the repeated mentions of queer culture. They’re spinkled in, sure, but they are there. And they’re given in a way that gives an impression that maybe, maybe Ted isn’t as straight as we’re led to believe.

Keep in mind that sexuality is fluid, bisexuality exists, and characters evolve over the course of their stories. Is it really so out there to imagine Ted developing into his own?

Let’s move on to Trent.

Trent Crimm, Independent

We do not know much of Trent’s backstory. Yet. James Lance has said in interviews that Jason Sudeikis brought it up to him early on. Interesting, as Trent hadn’t yet become a series regular. Was there always a plan in store for his character?

Well what do we know of Trent? From other character’s reactions and comments about him, we know he is someone who writes scathing exposés as a journalist. We know he’s highly obervant, blunt, and at times aloof. He takes his job seriously and he loves the sport of football. A “tough cookie” as Ted put it. People listen to what he writes about, as Rebecca mentions in Season 1 Episode 3. He’s established in his profession.

We also come to discover that he’s grown dissatisfied with his career. He’s “looking for something deeper”. He goes from disliking Ted (“Is this a fucking joke?”) to burning his source out of personal respect for Ted (“My source was Nate”). This shift in character is pretty drastic, though believable if you pay attention to how he acts in the press room and the questions he asks throughout Seasons 1 & 2.

He has a je ne sais quoi about him that queer fans of Ted Lasso have picked up on. Perhaps it’s the way he dresses, his hair, or his overall vibe. Perhaps it’s the way he looks at Ted like he’s endlessly fascinated by him. Trent Crimm, Independent inexplicably reads as gay.

Tedependent Evidence and Speculation

Keeping everything we’ve established so far in mind, let’s go through some of their scenes together. Keyword: some. This meta is long enough as is.

Lasting First Impressions

In the Pilot episode, one of the first things Ted says to Trent is, “I like your glasses.”  To which Trent takes them off, looks at them, and replies, “Oh, thank you.” And then it becomes a recurring move he does nearly every time he talks to Ted.

In Season 1 Episode 3, Trent greets Ted, “Hello Coach Ted Lasso from America.” to which Ted replies, “Hello Trent Crimm from the Independent.” And then that becomes a recurring joke between them.

Speaking of Season 1 Episode 3, if you jump to 18:29, you’ll catch Trent giving Ted a full body check as Ted finishes getting ready. 

Bring It On!

“Make like Dunst and Union and Bring It On, baby!” Ted says to Trent in Season 2, Episode 3.

The 2000 film Bring It On! includes a storyline about a gay cheerleader who is comfortable in his sexuality. The movie addresses issues of racism, appropriation, and systemic inequality. It’s become a beloved cult classic.

It is also the first time Ted uses a term of endearment on Trent. He doesn’t do that to any of the other journalists, indicating that they’re on personal friendly terms. Most of their interactions seem to happen off-screen. Ted baked birthday biscuits (and decorated them) for Trent’s daughter. Trent and Ted may have swapped phone numbers somewhere along the way too, seeing as Trent’s able to text him about Nate later on in the season.

The Tie Between Oklahoma! and Casablanca

When Ted references Oklahoma! in Season 1, Episode 5, it’s to specify that the musical is ruined for him due to it becoming a safeword in his marriage with Michelle. The direct quote is:

“So if either of us says ‘Oklahoma,’ the other one has to tell the God’s honest truth… Did ruin the musical for me though. So now every time I hear, ‘Oh, What a Beautiful Mornin’,’ or, uh… what… ‘Surrey with the Fringe on Top,’…”

“Surrey with the Fringe on Top” makes an appearance in the 1989 rom-com film When Harry Met Sally. Harry and Sally sing it together impromptu on a karaoke machine in an electronics store. Sally’s profession in the film is in journalism.

What else is referenced in When Harry Met Sally…? So glad you asked. Casablanca is referenced in the film a couple times. In the beginning and in the middle. It serves the narrative purpose to indicate how Harry and Sally’s outlook on love has developed over the years.

Casablanca is a hallmark of the romance genre. And it’s also been referenced in Ted Lasso. In Season 2 Episode 7, when Trent leaves his date to go over to talk to Ted, he says, “Of all the pub joints!”

The Casablanca quote is: “Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine.” It is said by Rick about meeting Ilsa again.

Season 3 Episode 8 is allegedly titled “We’ll Never Have Paris”, which is a subversion of the Casablanca quote “We’ll always have Paris”. 

Now for the absolutely insane bonkers speculation. That quote is said in the final scene of the film right after Ilsa asks Rick, “What about us?”. Rick isn’t getting on the plane with her, they’re separating, this is the end of their story. “We’ll always have Paris” is a reassurance that they’ll always be together in their memories. 

So if “We’ll always have Paris” is a signifier to the end of a romance, it is possible that “We’ll Never Have Paris” is a signifier to the start of a romance. And who else in Ted Lasso has referenced Casablanca? No one. The only reference in the entire show so far has been said by Trent to Ted.

Twelfth Night

Want to get even more insane in the membrane? Of course you do.

Before Trent walks over to where Ted sits at the bar, Mae makes a reference to the Shakespearan play Twelfth Night. Her direct quote is: “If music be the food of love, play on. Give me excess of it.” 

To which Ted replies: “If that's your fancy way of asking if I want another one, you guessed right.”

Sidebar here — because I love connecting the dots even if it turns out I haven’t connected jackshit — Ted’s reply could be a double entendre. He doesn’t say “if I want another drink”, he says “if I want another one”. Another one of what? It’s clear in the context of the bar it’s another one (beer), but it could also foreshadow to mean another one (love). The latter makes sense when combined with Mae’s reference.

Because Twelfth Night is a love story. It’s a romantic comedy. It’s a queer romantic comedy.

So Mae makes a cryptic reference — unprompted — to the opening of a queer love story, and then immediately afterwards we get Trent greeting Ted with a reference to another famous love story. 

Remember how Trent did a full body check on Ted in Season 1 Episode 3? Well now it’s Ted’s turn. He does a full body check on Trent around the 31:50 mark in this episode. And he seems genuinely happy to see Trent until Trent puts his journalist cap on. 

This happiness is also short-lived if we jump forward to Season 2 Episode 12. When Trent texts Ted initially, Ted smiles at his phone. The smile goes away as soon as Trent sends him the article he wrote.

Burning A Source

Trent burned his source for Ted. This serious, established journalist burned his source.

The Carpark

“Hey! There he is. I was worried about you. I thought you might’ve been in a bike accident or something.”

“Actually, I don’t know how to ride a bicycle.”

“Really? That surprises me.”

“Why? Cause of the hair and the whole vibe?”

“Yeah, I guess so.”

— Season 2, Episode 12

Let’s break this down. 

Remember how I said certain phrases are used as queer signaling? Bicycle is one of them. Bi-cycle used to be slang for bisexual (an example of this in pop culture is Queen’s song “Bicycle Race”). Trent saying he doesn’t know how to ride a bicycle could be a double entendre, with the hidden meaning that he isn’t bisexual. He then goes on to ask Ted about “the hair and the whole vibe”, which could be another double entendre. This time with the hidden meaning to ask if Ted’s got a gaydar. The pause at the end of his question and the way he asks it is equally important. He’s testing the waters with Ted. 

And Ted passes the test with, “Yeah, I guess so.”

They are also in a carpark, which is a callback and parallel to not just Ted and Michelle, but also to Roy and Keeley. 

This entire scene is coded and contains heavy foreshadowing. There’s a lot to unpack. From Trent’s choice of words to locking himself out of his car to Ted saying, “Do what The Man says and try to follow your bliss.”

Speaking of Ted, this is the last scene we see of him in Season 2.

Rom-com Tropes and Structure

So how does that evidence fit in with the story structure? We all know Ted Lasso is a rom-com. So let’s dissect the genre’s tropes and how its typically set-up.

Perhaps one of the most common rom-com tropes is the journalist falling in love (sometimes with who they’re writing about). Sleepless in Seattle, When Harry Met Sally, He’s Just Not That Into You, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, etc. This profession is popular.

There are also the friends of the romantic leads who help guide them. Diamond Dogs, anyone? 

The anatomy of a rom-com is typically done in three acts.

ACT ONE: Meet-Cute

Every rom-com has a meet-cute. It’s integral to the structure. And oftentimes — if the rom-com includes someone who is a journalist — that meet-cute happens in the workplace. During this act, the two characters get to know one another and start to fall in love.

ACT TWO: Lose

This stage typically happens two-thirds of the way through. There’s a dissolution of some sort. One character betrays another or they argue or something gets in between them. Either way, one of them leaves.

ACT THREE: Declaration

Whoever left realizes “Wait a minute…I’m in love.” and then the rest of the film leads up to an iconic declaration of love. The characters reconcile and it’s — generally speaking — a happy ending.

It would make sense for Ted Lasso — which references rom-coms and rom-communism out the wazoo — to incorporate this structure. And I think that it already has somewhat in regards to Ted and Trent’s storyline, if you view each act as a corresponding season.

Narratives and Storytelling

Before we saw Ted’s panic attacks and now chronic depression, we got inklings of it. The writers consistently sprinkle foreshadowing into every major plot point in Ted Lasso. The situations in the show feel plausible and real because they’re given the space and the time to breathe, grow, and develop. Pacing is integral to this.

For a show to be so progressive yet not have an explicitly queer character seems strange to me. It feels off. We are given hints, though, which lead me to believe that sexuality will be a major plot point in Season 3. For it being the last season, it’s not going to be enough to potentially only have Colin be the One Gay in the entire cast of characters. That would feel uncharacteristically dismissive from the writers on a show about inclusion and found family.

It would also completely throw out a chance to further enrich the story and deepen the characters. Think about the wasted comedic potential of Trent becoming an accidental gay mentor to Colin. Or the wasted dramatic potential of the Richmond team banding together against homophobia. Or, I don’t know, the wasted dramedy in Ted talking to the Diamond Dogs about how he’s realizing he’s got feelings for men, and there’s a moment where they’re like, “No shit.”

Beyond foreshadowing, another common style the Ted Lasso writers love to utilize is the red herring. A red herring is a misleading bit of information used to distract the audience from the relevant information. We saw it in Season 2 between Ted and Rebecca and Sam. Some people didn’t connect the dots between Sam’s Bantr storyline and Rebecca’s Bantr storyline because Ted — the red herring in this example — was shown also texting on his phone. Editing played a part in this too, as some shots cut to Ted directly after Rebecca had a Bantr Moment.

I honestly think we’re going to get a subversion of this in Season 3. Only this time Rebecca will be the red herring to distract from Ted and Trent. Here’s why:

There are multiple parallels between scenes where Ted interacts with Rebecca and with Trent. This gifset captures those parallels. He gets through both of their barriers (hopping over Rebecca’s “fence” and softening Trent’s “tough cookie” exterior). It’s the Lasso Effect, baby!

What’s more, a larger portion of the audience watching Ted Lasso are primed to expect Ted and Rebecca as endgame. It’s what happens in shows between two main characters of the opposite gender, right? They get together, live happily ever after. Especially if they’re good friends. 

Anyone expecting the Ted and Rebecca ending will probably disregard anything developing between Ted and Trent even if its right in front of them. Because historically two men don’t end up together on-screen. Especially not in a show as big as Ted Lasso.

But what if a queer endgame is what Jason Sudeikis means when he says in interviews that the ending is not what we’ll expect?

Unexpected Ending

Before we look at the ending, we must look at the beginning.

The first shot of the season is of Ted’s depressed face in an airport. Since Ted Lasso has so far began and ended each season with a juxtaposition shot, it would make sense for the last shot in Season 3 to be of Ted’s happy face. Whether or not that’s in an airport remains to be seen.

The teaser trailer for this season dropped on Valentine’s Day, which was our first look into Season 3. Season 3 ends on May 31, 2023, one day before June. Or, in other words, one day before Pride Month. The combination here of Valentine’s Day and Pride Month lends itself to an interesting choice.

The official Season 3 playlist dropped on Apple Music. So far all the song’s have been in order, and as there are 56 songs on the playlist, I’m inclined to believe that it’s the entire season. 

“Wigwam” by Bob Dylan is the first song of the season. It’s got a melancholic, drifting feel to it, with no real lyrics. If it still stands that the songs are in order, then the last song on the show is “I Am What I Am” by Donald Pippin & George Hearn from the 1983 Broadway musical La Cage aux Folles. It’s got a purposeful, proud feel to it, with meaningful lyrics.

Remember how I said that Ted is a huge musical theatre nerd? La Cage aux Folles is an insane pick — in the best way — to end the show. It’s cultural impact was huge when it came out, as it was the first hit Broadway show that centered on a gay couple, Albin and Georges. “I Am What I Am” quickly became a gay anthem. I can’t give notable lyrics because the entire song is a love letter to being out and proud of who you are. It’s also worth noting that Albin and Georges are fathers to a son.

But why would they pick this particular song from this particular musical? Why choose a gay anthem? 

I cannot say for certain that Ted and Trent will end up together by the end of Season 3. All I can say is that it would make sense if they do. From the set-up to the Rom-com tropes to the unexpected ending. And if it doesn’t, if all this ends up being wrong, that’s okay too. 

Still, though, I can’t help but root for them.

[hellomynameisbisexual]

Bisexual Basics

— Karin Baker

THE MOST BASIC thing about bisexuality is that it unlinks what most cultures see as a fundamental connection: sex and gender. If you can understand that for some people sexual attraction is not tied to a specific gender, then you understand the most important thing about bisexuality.

At least in the United States, separating sexuality and gender is difficult. While public attention—negative and positive—has recently been focused on homosexuality, the idea that it is not the only alternative to heterosexuality is less often recognized. This is not surprising, given that here as in most western cultures, there is a tendency to organize concepts dualistically, to see only opposites.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality as related ideas are one example. Thus, even while homosexuality is not an acceptable alternative to heterosexuality for many people, it is clearly fixed in their minds as the other option. Few conceive that there could be a third option, or even a continuum of possibilities.

This or That

Bisexuals sometimes refer to society’s tendency to dichotomize as an “either/or” approach. You must be attracted to either women or men, be either heterosexual or homosexual—what bisexuals sometimes lump together and call “monosexual.” Similarly, in our society, no matter what your actual racial background, you are seen as either white, or a person of color.

In contrast, some of us see bisexuals as having an approach to sexuality that could be called “both/and.” We are heterosexual and homosexual, both at the same time—which actually adds up to something completely different.

The woman whose parents are respectively white and African American is not racially or culturally half one and half the other. She is a blending of the two, in which neither aspect can be separated out. Similarly, bisexuals are not “part” queer, or “part” straight—we are what we are.

The Continuum of Sexuality

Maybe the idea that sexual attraction actually falls on a continuum, rather than clumping around homosexuality and heterosexuality, seems obvious. As a bisexual person, it is certainly obvious to me. However, I have come to realize that some are confounded by the idea.

This inability to imagine that someone could truly be attracted to more than one gender is probably the origin of myths such as “bisexuals don’t really exist,” and “bisexuals just haven’t made up their minds yet.” For some, sex means desire for women or men, but never both.

In a recent example, a bisexual friend of mine overheard a conversation between a lesbian and a gay man in which both commented on how confused bisexuals were. One of them said, “sooner or later bisexuals have to make up their minds!”

I wish I’d been there to ask them, why? Can you explain the basis for your reasoning? Why can’t we have already made up our minds—to be bisexual?

It seems to be hard to escape the assumption that there are only two choices, and everyone must ultimately settle for one of them. I have never heard a logical argument, or any biological law that explains why this choice is so unavoidable.

I have an easier time with this when I think about how hard it is for me to grasp attraction to one gender only, whether gay/lesbian or straight attraction. Because sexuality and gender aren’t linked for me, I’m surprised when I hear about people who are only attracted to women, or only attracted to men.

As a feminist I can understand why some women would choose not to be with men. I can also see that a person might want something in a sexual relationship that is more typically found with one gender or the other. But how could one gender always fall outside the boundaries of sexual possibility?

I believe that it happens, because people tell me that it’s true for them. It’s just extremely hard to imagine.

In fact, we bisexuals have a tendency (which I resist in myself) to think that all people are potentially bisexual. If they haven’t acted on it yet, monosexuals must either be repressed, or they just haven’t found the “right man”/“right woman” yet.

I suppose this is the bisexual equivalent of the monosexual perception that bisexuals are just going through a phase and haven’t made up our minds yet.

Gender in Bisexual Attraction

Although gender is not a limiting factor for bisexuals, it does sometimes play a role in bisexual attraction.

Some bisexuals that I know are attracted to women and men for gender-specific reasons. For instance, they like women because they see them as: easy to talk to, or nurturing, or soft and curvy; and they like men because they find them: straightforward, or more assertive, or hard and muscular (or some such gendered reasons).

So in this case, gender is part of the formula, but not a limiting factor.

Other bisexuals I have spoken with are also attracted to women and men differently, but they turn the previous specifications upside down. These bis say they find they like butch women and effeminate men. In a way this comes down to appreciating people to the extent that they escape genderedness.

But there are also many bis, such as myself, for whom gender has no place in the list of things that attract them to a person. For instance, I like people who are good listeners, who understand me and have interests similar to mine, and I am attracted to people with a little padding here and there, who have fair skin and dark hair (although I’m pretty flexible when it comes to looks).

“Male” or “female” are not anywhere to be found in the list of qualities I find attractive.

Monosexual Misconceptions

Bisexuals in the United States often experience hostility from lesbians and gay men, as in the incident described above. Lesbians and gay men, like heterosexuals, are often uncomfortable with breaking out of a dualistic way of looking at things.

Bisexuals blur boundaries thought to be fixed in stone, and this is disturbing.

Actually, bisexuals may appear to pose a more direct threat for lesbians and gay men than this general social disturbance. Lesbians and gay men who a in our society have almost always gone through a long process of leaving their family and heterosexual friends, as they leave the closet.

The community that rejected them is replaced by the one they join when they come out; the lesbian and gay community becomes their new family and friends, the place where they feel security and belonging.

Bisexuals who pop up in their new community blur its boundaries, making it feel less safe, less apart from the rejecting heterosexual community. Especially for those who believe that a bisexual has a fifty-fifty chance of finally choosing heterosexuality, a bisexual may well appear as the enemy within their midst.

Bisexuals often face misconceptions shared by lesbians, gay men, and heterosexual people. One of these is mentioned above: that bisexuals are confused people who havent made up their minds yet.

Undoubtedly some bisexuals are in a transitional phase between heterosexuality and homosexuality, but this is not necessarily so. And even when it is true, why should transition be seen as problematic?

Another common myth is that bisexuals are not committed to the struggle against queer oppression. Like many stereotypes, this may have some basis in reality. There are bisexuals who stay in the closet, who gravitate toward opposite gender relationships, marriage, and whatever else it takes to fit in.

Of course, many gay men and lesbians also never make it out of the closet. In fact, the lesbian and gay movement has always included bisexuals. Some have been openly bi, while others haven’t felt it worth the struggle to be open in the face of disapproval from the community that is so important to them.

Today, some bisexuals, like some gay men and lesbians, are not interested in getting involved in political struggle, but many others are very active within the queer community.

Another misconception is the idea that to be bisexual you must be sleeping with both women and men, and along with this, probably cheating on your partner. This is like saying that you cannot call yourself a lesbian (or gay, or straight) if you are single and celibate.

I believe that you’re bisexual (homosexual, heterosexual) if that’s what you call yourself. Your orientation stays the same, you still feel attraction, whatever your current actions.

Now it’s true, there are bisexuals who feel more fulfilled if they have relationships with a woman and a man. Some of these may have an agreement with their partner(s), and some not, but bisexuals are not the only sexual orientation where unorthodox relationships can be found, or where some cheat on their partners.

Bisexual Oppression?

A lesbian once told me that bisexuals experience oppression only to the extent that we “are homosexual.” She used this as an argument for leaving the name “bisexual” off titles of marches, community centers, newspapers, etc.

Who is included in group names has been a controversy for years (going back at least to the time when including the word “lesbian” was controversial because “gay” could supposedly count for both).

I don’t agree that bisexuals face only homosexual oppression. It’s true that when we are in same-sex relationships, one of the things we experience is heterosexism (and also, in our opposite sex relationships we do not as directly face the oppression gay men and lesbians face, although if we are openly bisexual we never completely escape heterosexism).

However, bisexuals confront forms of oppression that lesbians and gay men do not. Bisexual oppression includes compulsory monosexuality and the invisibility that is a result of monosexism. We are made invisible when people can’t conceive of sexual attraction that isn’t tied to one gender or the other, thereby denying our existence.

Even face to face, there is nothing about us that says we’re bisexual—if we’re with the same gender it’s assumed we’re lesbian/gay, and we must be straight if our partner is of the opposite gender.

Unless we happen to be holding hands and kissing a woman and a man simultaneously, an either/or way of seeing things means most people will automatically categorize us as either homosexual or heterosexual. This is monosexism at work.

In recent years some things have changed for bisexuals in the United States. We have started to find each other and form organizations and small communities. Conferences happen regularly in different parts of the country, and a national network exists.

Books about bisexuals multiply, as we tell our stories and develop theories about how we fit in. Much to the discomfort of some lesbians and gay men, we have been increasing the pressure to have our presence within the queer community acknowledged.

It seems inevitable that we will have an impact on how the people of this country view sexuality. Will this go further and affect the fundamental tendency toward dualistic categorizing, the either/or mindset?

[earlofbats]

Okay so because this post about Harry being a bottom I'm going to give a genuine dissertation on the thematic relevance of sub Harry and maybe a little bit about dom Kim.

First I wanna establish the "Harry is definitely a subby little bottom boy" and is also definitely Bi and probably has some sorta fucking complex about it.

Evidence A. Contact Mike, Guillaume Le Million, Measurehead (when fascist).

Harry tends to idolize and gravitate towards extremely masculine figures.

This is probably due to a reflexive need to feel masculine and have masculine role models in the face of elements of identity that are seen as unmasculine by society and have become exacerbated by the breakup which had to be pretty emasculating for Harry.

Also :

Imma start a Harry's Kink counter here +1 light bondage.

+1 auto-erotic asphyxiation.

Uhm +1 uhh,Spanking? Additional +1 for being what I think is most possibly the horniest thought you have in the game also:

+1 Kim is a Dom.

I think Harry has kept his attraction to men or his desires about men fairly low key for his entire life. The way he conceptualizes Homosexuality in general as an "underground" society filled with whispering rooms and forbidden secrets is likely more of a reflection of how Harry views his own sexuality than how Queer culture is manifest in Revachol. (In reference to the way both Kim and The Smoker kinda laugh Harry about it)

The organizational element of the idea being likely reflective of the way internalization is akin to paranoia.

Harry is also extremely intimacy starved and I think part of that is due to an unmet need for affection and the desire to be taken care of. That masculinity and status as both a survivor and an oppressor was sorta thrust onto Harry, he was born the last year of the war on a hospital floor, given a name associated with war time and survival, grew up probably in a little street urchin gang, got into *Disco* (man I'm sure Harry brushed elbows with the underground then.) Was a gym teacher a good balance between masculinity and caretaker and guardian something that harry clearly excels at and enjoys. Then Dora encouraged him to be a cop for unknown reasons perhaps prestige, money, because Harry has a bleeding heart.

Engage Heterosexual Cop hell for 12 years then an additional 6 single Cop hell years.

And now you're like :

Another element is Harry's tendency to worship and diefy his partners which like man that's gotta be the subbiest fucking thing you can do. I honestly can't articulate all of the reasons why that's just extreme bottom behavior.

Harry is an empathic jelly creature who is forced to handle a job with dead people in it all day and has created this reflexive hyper masculine obsession to compensate for his perceived inadequacy in not living up to the patriarchal capitalist ideal of what's supposed to be his birthright as a well off, able bodied, 'straight', occidental, man.

Except the actual issue is that Harry is mostly perceived or perceiving himself as that, when in reality he's in clear conflict with his actual identity as a Poor, mentally Ill, bisexual, occidental, man.

And it's those last two that end up kind of making this smoke screen to Harrys deficiency in privilege. He can mask or hide behind being an Occidental Man.

Can buddy buddy with patriarchy and take up the idea of a Big Strong Manly Cop.

Something that Kim also seems to be doing by seeking out positions of authority he can compensate for the disrespect he gets as a Poor, blind, gay, seolite, man.

Last of which probably won't get him far because of how "juvenile" his body type is.

Kim can't really coast on patriarchy much the way Harry can. He has to work twice as hard cuz there's not a lot he can hide behind.

Pursuit for control in the face of denial

Vs

Shielding ones self behind control as a means of denial.

Dom/Sub dichotomy.

[iwanthermidnightz]

“Anyone considering the whole of Ms. Swift’s artistry — the way that her brilliantly calculated celebrity mixes with her soul-baring art — can find discrepancies between the story that underpins her celebrity and the one captured by her songs. One such gap can be found in her “Lover” era. Others appear alongside “dropped hairpins,” or the covert ways someone can signal queer identity to those in the know while leaving others comfortable in their ignorance. Ms. Swift dropped hairpins before “Lover” and has continued to do so since.

Sometimes, Ms. Swift communicates through explicit sartorial choices — hair the colors of the bisexual pride flag or a recurring motif of rainbow dresses. She frequently depicts herself as trapped in glass closets or, well, in regular closets. She drops hairpins on tour as well, paying tribute to the Serpentine Dance of the lesbian artist Loie Fuller during the Reputation Tour or referencing “The Ladder,” one of the earliest lesbian publications in the United States, in her Eras Tour visuals.

Dropped hairpins also appear in Ms. Swift’s songwriting. Sometimes, the description of a muse — the subject of her song, or to whom she sings — seems to fit only a woman, as it does in “It’s Nice to Have a Friend,” “Maroon” or “Hits Different.” Sometimes she suggests a female muse through unfulfilled rhyme schemes, as she does in “The Very First Night,” when she sings “didn’t read the note on the Polaroid picture / they don’t know how much I miss you” (“her,” instead of that pesky little “you,” would rhyme). Her songwriting also noticeably alludes to poets whose muses the historical record incorrectly cast as men — Emily Dickinson chief among them — as if to suggest the same fate awaits her art. Stunningly, she even explicitly refers to dropping hairpins, not once, but twice, on two separate albums.

In isolation, a single dropped hairpin is perhaps meaningless or accidental, but considered together, they’re the unfurling of a ballerina bun after a long performance. Those dropped hairpins began to appear in Ms. Swift’s artistry long before queer identity was undeniably marketable to mainstream America. They suggest to queer people that she is one of us. They also suggest that her art may be far more complex than the eclipsing nature of her celebrity may allow, even now.

Since at least her “Lover” era, Ms. Swift has explicitly encouraged her fans to read into the coded messages (which she calls “Easter eggs”) she leaves in music videos, social media posts and interviews with traditional media outlets, but a majority of those fans largely ignore or discount the dropped hairpins that might hint at queer identity. For them, acknowledging even the possibility that Ms. Swift could be queer would irrevocably alter the way they connect with her celebrity, the true product they’re consuming.

There is such public devotion to the traditional narrative Ms. Swift embodies because American culture enshrines male power. In her sweeping essay, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” the lesbian feminist poet Adrienne Rich identified the way that male power cramps, hinders or devalues women’s creativity. All of the sexist undertones with which Ms. Swift’s work can be discussed (often, even, by fans) flow from compulsory heterosexuality, or the way patriarchy draws power from the presumption that women naturally desire men. She must write about men she surely loves or be unbankable; she must marry and bear children or remain a child herself; she must look like, in her words, a “sexy baby” or be undesirable, “a monster on the hill.”

A woman who loves women is most certainly a monster to a society that prizes male power. She can fulfill none of the functions that a traditional culture imagines — wife, mother, maid, mistress, whore — so she has few places in the historical record. The Sapphic possibility of her work is ignored, censored or lost to time. If there is queerness earnestly implied in Ms. Swift’s work, then it’s no wonder that it, like that of so many other artists before her, is so often rendered invisible in the public imagination.”

— NYT OPINION: Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do

[iamsherlocked-1998]

𝔽𝕆ℝ𝕄𝔸 𝔹𝕆ℕ𝕌𝕄 𝔽ℝ𝔸𝔾𝕀𝕃𝔼 𝔼𝕊𝕋.

SUMMARY: Beauty standards are difficult.

WORDS: 700

WARNING! ⚠️: SEXUALLY SUGESTIVE TOPICS. Male x Male. Body insecurity, Old Rome customs. Bisexuality.

Marcus Acacius was a formidable army general, known for his strategic brilliance and unwavering courage on the battlefield. Tall and imposing, he earned the respect of soldiers and struck fear into the hearts of his enemies. He had always considered himself a man of self-reliance and self-assurance, but lamented that time did not pass in vain.

His chest bore a scar that ran across the left pectoral, a vestige of a fierce battle that had nearly cost his life. To Marcus, the scar was a testament to his survival and resilience in the face of adversity. But to others, it was a mark of imperfection, a deviation from the flawless body that was idolized in Roman culture.

That was nothing new, beneath the armor and the aura of dominance, Marcus carried a burden that few knew about: The scarcely healed wounds that witnessed the battles won were no longer an honor but a cargo, his joints were heavier with age, but there was a specific physical characteristic that completely set him apart from the ideal of Roman beauty dictated by society's standards. What he was proud of, what made him a man, did not seem the same. His intimate area was…too big, it drew too much attention, he had the feeling that because of it was considered a barbarian or an animal that could attack or destroy with a stab. Certain spheres of pleasure and sex were eclipsed by the discomfort that would accompany the act.

Despite his external confidence and strength, after all his previous bedmates seemed more than satisfied, Marcus could not escape the constant whispers and glances of those who judged him based on his appearance. What had once been of no importance due to his status, when he was relegated to a simple gladiator everything took on a different color. People did not look at him in the same way nor did they have any qualms about speaking, something that went away with his freedom.

Men gave him malicious glances, their words loaded with veiled insults and barely concealed mockery. But between the jokes and grimaces, Marcus found comfort in the surprising admiration that came from an unexpected source.

Every time Marcus visited the hot springs to recover after long campaigns, he could not help but notice the way women and even some young and inexperienced men would sneak glances at him. Their eyes would linger subtly below his waist, where dark, curly hair gave way to something else, but instead of disdain, Marcus saw a different kind of gaze: one filled with curiosity, admiration, and even a hint of attraction.

Confirmation came from someone who had once been a soldier in his service, many years and less charged confrontations behind him that he showed as a reward when he ride the general's cock in the new intimacy passed to the bedroom, his moans could have alerted the gods themselves as his straight golden hair moved uncontrollably, with rosy cheeks and hands resting on the generous shoulders of his older lover, emboldened by the ecstasy of being reached in all the right places.

In the whispers of the women and the shy smiles of the boys, Marcus found a sense of acceptance and appreciation that transcended the superficial standards imposed by society. Their genuine interest reminded Marcus that true beauty did not lie in perfect features, but in what you could do with them, the strength of character and the resilience of the spirit.

And so, Marcus Acacius, the Roman army general with a singular characteristic, learned to accept his initially imperfections and to wear his differences as a badge of honor. Because in the eyes of those who saw him as he was, not defined by his appearance, but by the courage and valor that burned within him, a flame that nothing could extinguish. And as more than just his bearing stood tall and unwavering in the hot springs, basking in the warmth of acceptance and admiration, Marcus knew that true beauty lay not in conformity to society's standards, but in the authenticity of being unapologetically yourself.

NOTE: The story is based in this post, the comments are gold 🤗💕

[paletigers]

DAI and My Questions as a Trans Guy

So, I recently got into Dragon Age again (thanks @/fullgoob) and I've been sitting here with a thumb up my ass because I really would love to write a fanfic about Solas but I feel like I'm not there yet.

To any DAI fans, or DA fans in general, do we know how Elven and Dalish culture view trans people?

(Long thoughts ahead and very sleep deprived thoughts:)

We obviously only see transness through the lens of the Qun and Krem. (Only speaking to DAI, I haven't played the other games yet.) In the Qun, people are put into gender based on their role in society. In a conversation with Cassandra and Iron Bull, Iron bull states that women who are warriors are considered "men" under the Qun solely based on their role. He also sees Krem as a, for all intents and purposes, as a man not because of his role but because of who he is as a person and because he's just a great guy and cares (poor wording on my part, sorry). Now whether or not the Qun is "progressive" for this isn't what I'm curious about.

I'm curious on the rest of the party. We don't get to see or hear reactions of Krem's gender from anyone else besides Cassandra and Bull, but it's more about Qunari society and less about Krem, and Cassandra makes neither a positive nor negative remark.

So, to make a long story short and get to the point: How would Solas feel about a trans inquisitor? And adding onto that, how do the Dalish treat transgendered people/transexuals? Homosexuality is more "accepted" in Southern Thedas, but the Dalish are really keen on keeping tradition alive and passing down their lore, so I would assume that 'bonding' and child bearing is important one way or another. The acceptance of homosexuality would be on a case to case basis.

I really don't know how the Dalish would treat transgender people, however. I would assume that for the most part, as long as you are fufilling your duty (whether you are to be a keeper, hunter, mage, etc.) it wouldn't bare any issue. The issue of child bearing and keeping up the population and passing down the gift of magic would pose a question, but so would it in the case of homosexuality. I assume that as long as population numbers are steady and there is no active threats against this, trans people and gay people are fine. It would varey from clan to clan.

Now, Solas. I really can't get a read on this guy. I would like to believe he would be accepting (just cause I, unfortunately, love him) but I don't really have any justifications for this (I also don't have justifications for the opposite either, not trying to be negative, lol). Sera, from her point of view, sees the Lavellan/Solas relationship and says Solas probably shouts "Elven glory!" during sex, but that's just from her perspective as a City Elf with her biases towards the Dalish. The most I can gather from my single playthrough of DAI is that Solas would, probably, be super understanding about it. He doesn't have much connection to this world at all, much preferring the Fade, so maybe being transgender is just a new concept to him. Or, maybe it's completely normal, since spirits in the fade just... mimic the lives of mortals. Spirits are completely agender, just encompassing a specific purpose and fufilling that purpose, they have no use for the concept of gender. AND THEN... we know Solas is only straight because Bioware wanted to avoid a negative trope and have him not be bisexual. Because IF Solas lives with agender beings ALL THE TIME then why would he care if the Inquisitor is a woman or not?!

So, as I write this currently, I think I have come to a small conclusion:

I don't think he would "care" in a negative sense. I don't think he would be rude or crass, or even angry about the inquisitor coming out as trans. I don't even think that current canonical straight Solas would care if he was in a relationship with female Lavellan and Lavellan came out as a trans man to him. I think he would probably consider this natural and completely not "odd". Probably would say some shit about how in the fade, a lot of his spirit friends don't have gender either. I feel like he's a guy who just GETS it. He would probably have questions about like, the bodily process of transitioning (I still don't understand how the body magic works. Is it like magical HRT? Do they do like, magical T shots or rub magical T gel? Is there puberty blockers? Do you even have to do voice training? Someone please tell me) and would try his best to understand. If he got rid of your hand could he perform top surgery? Just like rift fade them off your body? Would you trust Solas to do your top surgery? I think I would.

Anyway. Let me know if we got any other opinions or stuff to add onto this. I really want to write some transguy fics with him because there is a SEVERE lack of them on AO3.

[clownboybebop]

bi women get told they’re really straight and looking for attention, bi men get told they’re really gay and trying to hide. With both attitudes, the operative assumption is that if you have the choice between men and women, you will automatically pick men regardless of your own gender or what you actually prefer, because our society views men as inherently preferable. Moreover, its assumed to be a zero sum game, where you can have no dialectical attraction, cannot appreciate one gender while dating another. we see this reproduced in broader social arenas where any headway for women is seen as an active “taking-away” from the nebulous cultural idea of The Man. however this is simply not the case, because men and women are not the inverse of each other, simply two contingent demographics of people existing at the same time. And so, two demographics of people can share the attention of one bisexual without taking away from either and it’s not that fuhcking hard *fades back into the mist*