#but if women are single then they must be gay

[factual-flittermouse]

100%

I mean, I do think they were romantically involved but not because of the vengeful murder spree. (More to do with some of the original wording about sharing a tent and such)

I would commit many crimes for those I care about, but I’m not in love with them. The whole “they’re too close to be /just/ friends” perspective annoys the heck out of me.

Additionally (albeit somewhat unrelated), can we stop saying that characters in media who aren’t in a romantic relationship by the end of the story are gay? Especially when it comes to female characters? I’m not saying it’s not a possibility, but at least base the argument on something other than their being single. I saw someone (multiple someones, actually) say that Merida from Brave was a lesbian because she didn’t want to marry a man and stayed single throughout the film and I was very sad. She’s an arrow ace. (Get it?) I know that, in theory, she could be straight or a lesbian, but she’s seen as kind of one of the only bits of aro/ace representation in media so it felt a little like erasure. (I know that no harm was meant, but still)

TL;DR people can be close without being romantically involved and being single doesn’t automatically mean being gay

Obviously I'm all for gay rights and stuff but as an aroace person I really wish we would stop acting like certain things are automatically romantic. One example I can think of is with Patroclus and Achilles, people often say that Achilles wouldn't have been so incensed with rage and killed so many Trojans after Patroclus' death if they weren't lovers. And I'm not saying they weren't, but can we not pretend that there aren't people who would do that for their friends? Because there absolutely are. I'm so fucking tired of people who claim that romantic love is inherently stronger or deeper than platonic love because it's NOT.

[here-there-were-dragons]

my mother is absolutely convinced of some nonsense conspiracy theory that (in her words) "originally humanity lived in peaceful all-woman societies of goddess worshippers who took care of eachother and lived in harmony, while males were roving loners that had no society and never cooperated. that changed when the men banded together and overthrew the peaceful woman-dominated societies, and enslaved us all." and, according to her, this is proof that a woman-dominated world would be innately more peaceful, and that men are innately violent and evil and should be either barred from holding any legal power or leadership roles or at least should be (again in her words) "gelded like bulls" to remove their testosterone before even being considered for such a thing.

she also evidently believes that the problem with all religions today is primarily that they aren't "goddess worshippers", because she seems to think goddess religions are inherently peaceful and pure too and seems to be especially obsessed with "Isis" in particular. the very very few times she's openly considered it unambiguously bad for some population or another to have been exterminated (she's got a bad case of devil's advocating genocide brain), she's gone out of her way to make up some crap about how said people were a peaceful society of goddess-worshippers, almost always of isis. delusions of isis-worship seem to be the only thing that ever causes her to consider any arab or middle-eastern culture, society, or ethnicity to be relatively uncomplicatedly undeserving of extermination, in fact, because every fucking time she doesn't immediately start devils-advocating it and making remarks about how "the rest of the world should box them in and let them blow eachother up" it's when she's whinging on about how whatever specific micro-ethnicity she's thinking about are or were traditional persecuted isis-worshippers.

the sole major exception to her weird fixation on isis worship justifying worthiness of life is the whole israel thing going on, in which she has consistently made very obvious that literally the only reason she's against the genocide of palestine is because it gives her an excuse to even more openly hate jewish people than she already did. and honestly i'm not sure even that's true because i think she's made some offhand remarks about palestinians having probably been peaceful isis worshipers before the jews infected them with christianity or something anyway.

so for the last, however fucking long it's been i've been constantly having to listen to her go off about how this behavior is in the jew's blood or whatever and that they literally invented all genocide because somehow the concept didn't exist before them and wouldn't have ever been invented by the rest of humanity without those jewish aliens dropping it in i fucking guess apparently and she furthermore goes on about how every single genocide and mass-oppression movement in history is directly inspired by them, ESPECIALLY the nazis, and THEN i have to listen to her rant about how, basically, wwii was something they entirely brought on themselves by "dominating the economy and treating everyone not them like shit" and the nazis were just "using their own tactics back at them". and then she goes on a rant about how the people the original jews exterminated back in the day (aka the first ever genocide, which they invented, because jews invented genocide and hate according to her) in the middle east region were peaceful matriarchal isis-worshipers.

and then she starts making comments about arabs being backwards and palestinians either being mysogynist muslims that should be boxed in to blow eachother up with everyone else or secret peaceful isis worshippers corrupted by men's cruel hand, sometimes in the same sentence, entirely dependent on which group she's more in the mood to hate at the time.

it's exhausting. beyond exhausting. her sole purpose in existence seems to be to have the singularly most exhausting set of politics physically possible to fit into one person.

just, sometimes i think, if there really is anything at all to the incredibly stupid and inexplicably popular idea that anyone or anything has a Purpose tm to exist for, i feel like my mother's purpose is to be walking proof to me of a Type Of Guy That Is Real, cause i sure as fuck would have trouble inventing this mess if it wasn't standing right in front of me spewing confusingly bipartisan hate. all of her thoughts and opinions are these long winding nonsense chains that feel like if that man carrying thing sketch about the friend with confusing politics was a person. on meth.

[genderqueerdykes]

if you genuinely believe that trans men and cis men are enemies and need to be pitted against each other: you drank the terf juice.

if you believe that pre transition or never transition transfems "look too threatening" or "too cishet" or "unsafe for other queers to be around": you drank the terf juice.

if you misgender butch trans women and multigender transfem lesbians and remove them from lesbian spaces: you drank the terf juice.

if you police transfems and call them "loud," "aggressive," "mean," or "rude," just because they have deep voices or high testosterone bodies: you drank the terf juice.

if you genuinely believe that all men and mascs need to be barred from entry into non binary, lesbian, and other queer spaces: you drank the terf juice.

if you genuinely believe all cishet men are inherently queerphobic, evil, and dangerous to be around: you drank the terf juice.

if you genuinely believe trans and cis men are inherently violent and dangerous because they're men: you drank the terf juice.

if you genuinely believe that cis-passing trans men aren't queer and/or don't belong in queer spaces because they look and sound "too cis" or 'threatening': you drank the terf juice.

if you genuinely believe that anyone who is AMAB and/or has a penis is inherently violent: you drank the terf juice.

if you genuinely believe it's okay to profile strangers to assume they're cis or het (or ANYTHING): you drank the terf juice.

literally ALL of these things are terf ideologies and actions. in order to accept ourselves and be accepted, we must accept that just like how our identities are not inherently violent- neither are cis and het folks'.

blaming cis mens' gender instead of their actions and behaviors for their dangerous and queerphobic actions removes the responsibility from the individual man. that was one man who did something wrong.

hold that individual person accountable for their actions and leave their gender and/or birth sex out of it- they're irrelevant to the situation.

making trans women, intersex trans women, transfems, nonbinary people, genderqueer people, etc. uncomfortable by policing how they look and sound is not the way to go. policing transfems and preventing them from queer spaces is not the way to go. policing trans men and mascs and preventing them from entering spaces they belong in is not the way to go.

excluding queer men and mascs from the communities they rightfully belong in isn't helping anyone. cis gay men need community. cis asexual men need community. cis aromantic men need community. cis polyamorous men need community. genderqueer, non binary, and gnc cis men need community. cis bisexual/mspec men need community. trans women who are also men need community. trans men need community. intersex men need community. the list goes on.

community means working together, not fragmenting ourselves off into the tiniest micro pockets imaginable for the sake of "Safety". running afraid from every. single. man and masc you encounter will not keep you safe- femmes and women are capable of abuse. we cannot fall into this "woman good man bad" trap. being afraid of a group of people wholesale doesn't help you heal from whatever trauma you have. it's going to keep you scared for the rest of your life. it's best to move on and stop judging strangers for features they can't help or didn't ask for.

[inkskinned]

you're grabbing lunch with a nice man and he gives you that strange grimace-smile that's popular right now; an almost sardonic "twist" of his mouth while he looks literally down on you. it looks like he practiced the move as he leans back, arms folded. he just finished reciting the details of NFTs to you and explaining Oppenheimer even though he only watched a youtube about it and hasn't actually seen it. you are at the bottom of your wine glass.

you ask the man across from you if he has siblings, desperately looking for a topic. literally anything else.

he says i don't like small talk. and then he smiles again, watching you.

a few years ago, you probably would have said you're above celebrity gossip, but honestly, you've been kind of enjoying the dumb shit of it these days. with the rest of the earth burning, there's something familiar and banal about dragging ariana grande through the mud. you think about jeanette mccurdy, who has often times gently warned the world she's not as nice as she appears. you liked i'm glad my mom died but it made you cry a lot.

he doesn't like small talk, figure out something to say.

you want to talk about responsibility, and how ariana grande is only like 6 days older than you are - which means she just turned 30 and still dresses and acts like a 13 year old, but like sexy. there's something in there about the whole thing - about insecurity, and never growing up, and being sexualized from a young age.

people have been saying that gay people are groomers. like, that's something that's come back into the public. you have even said yourself that it's just ... easier to date men sometimes. you would identify as whatever the opposite of "heteroflexible" is, but here you are again, across from a man. you like every woman, and 3 people on tv. and not this guy. but you're trying. your mother is worried about you. she thinks it's not okay you're single. and honestly this guy was better before you met, back when you were just texting.

wait, shit. are you doing the same thing as ariana grande? are you looking for male validation in order to appease some internalized promise of heteronormativity? do you conform to the idea that your happiness must result in heterosexuality? do you believe that you can resolve your internal loneliness by being accepted into the patriarchy? is there a reason dating men is easier? why are you so scared of fucking it up with women? why don't you reach out to more of them? you have a good sense of humor and a big ol' brain, you could have done a better job at online dating.

also. jesus christ. why can't you just get a drink with somebody without your internal feminism meter pinging. although - in your favor (and judgement aside) in the case of your ariana grande deposition: you have been in enough therapy you probably wouldn't date anyone who had just broken up with their wife of many years (and who has a young child). you'd be like - maybe take some personal time before you begin this journey. like, grande has been on broadway, you'd think she would have heard of the plot of hamlet.

he leans forward and taps two fingers to the table. "i'm not, like an andrew tate guy," he's saying, "but i do think partnership is about two people knowing their place. i like order."

you knew it was going to be hard. being non-straight in any particular way is like, always hard. these days you kind of like answering the question what's your sexuality? with a shrug and a smile - it's fine - is your most common response. like they asked you how your life is going and not to reveal your identity. you like not being straight. you like kissing girls. some days you know you're into men, and sometimes you're sitting across from a man, and you're thinking about the power of compulsory heterosexuality. are you into men, or are you just into the safety that comes from being seen with them? after all, everyone knows you're failing in life unless you have a husband. it almost feels like a gradebook - people see "straight married" as being "all A's", and anything else even vaguely noncompliant as being ... like you dropped out of the school system. you cannot just ignore years of that kind of conditioning, of course you like attention from men.

"so let's talk boundaries." he orders more wine for you, gesturing with one hand like he's rousing an orchestra. sir, this is a fucking chain restaurant. "I am not gonna date someone who still has male friends. also, i don't care about your little friends, i care about me. whatever stupid girls night things - those are lower priority. if i want you there, you're there."

he wasn't like this over text, right? you wouldn't have been even in the building if he was like this. you squint at him. in another version of yourself, you'd be running. you'd just get up and go. that's what happens on the internet - people get annoyed, and they just leave. you are locked in place, almost frozen. you need to go to the bathroom and text someone to call you so you have an excuse, like it's rude to just-leave. like he already kind of owns you. rudeness implies a power paradigm, though. see, even your social anxiety allows the patriarchy to get to you.

you take a sip of the new glass of wine. maybe this will be a funny story. maybe you can write about it on your blog. maybe you can meet ariana grande and ask her if she just maybe needs to take some time to sit and think about her happiness and how she measures her own success.

is this settling down? is this all that's left in your dating pool? just accepting that someone will eventually love you, and you have to stop being picky about who "makes" you a wife?

you look down to your hand, clutching the knife.

[ansburg]

see also:

would you date a bisexual man? unpacking the "downlow" paradox by khadija mbowe (video)

why we hate bi men by verilybitchie (video)

bisexual men’s experiences with discrimination, internalized binegativity, and identity affirmation: differences by partner gender (sarno et al., 2020)

between a gay and a straight place: bisexual individuals’ experiences with monosexism (roberts et al., 2015)

gonna be honest i don´t like playersexual characters because it makes them feel less like actual characters and more like dolls. what i mean is there´s no way astarion is sexually attracted to women i dont buy it

[cardentist]

people fixate on bi-lesbians as being problematic despite bi-gay men existing (as well as any and every combination of sexuality and romantic attraction you can think of) because terfs and radfems deliberately don't want bi women to associate with lesbians and are deeply invested with framing attraction to men As Bad. a sentiment which has invaded queer culture inside and out, intentionally And incidentally.

people fixate on straight cis aromantic men when straight cis aromantic women exist because framing aromantic people as inherently predatory and dangerous by the simple nature of existing is easier to do when you intentionally force the association with predatory dangerous behavior displayed by (and associated with) misogynistic men.

people are still bigoted against bi-gay men and woman aromatics (and any flavor of trans within these groups), but pay attention to the way these conversations are Framed and it's clear the way gender essentialism is being used as a tool to control the narrative.

radfems' gender essentialism says you're supposed to think men are inherently scary, inherently take advantage of women, so Naturally (it is assumed) a man who is sexually attracted to women but not romantically attracted them Must Inherently be predatory and scary. and now you're being asked to take that feeling of unease you've been manipulated into feeling and associate it with the entirety of a sexuality.

bi-lesbians are threatening to radfems because they want to draw inherent lines between these two groups. insist that attraction to and with a man is inherently dirty and dangerous. the same reason why "gold star lesbian" is a radfem concept. if it turns out that the lines between sexualities, between identity as a whole, is blurrier than they want it to be then that Must be framed as inherently dangerous.

if a single Kind of a marginalized group is being singled out to convince you that this group is dangerous or that they don't belong It's For A Reason. they're trying to manipulate you based on Biases (their biases and the ones they hope you have). the reaction to this isn't to abandon the type of person they're convinced are the worst of these groups, it's in solidarity.

aromantics who are men aren't any different from aromantics who are women, bi-lesbians deserve to live in peace just as much as bi-gay men. don't let people control the narrative Either by cutting down vast array of experiences that exist within any given identity, Or by convincing you that particular kinds of people within your communities are lesser than.

[reddbuster]

I forget who made it but I saw a post the other day talking about how a lot of trans women come out much later in life than trans men tend to (and hence why “egg culture” tends to be mostly centred around transfemininity) and it really made me reflect on my experiences with queer spaces and how things have visibly changed as I got older. I’ve been pretty heavily involved in queer and especially trans spaces, both in-person and online, since I was a preteen. While spaces and events for people my age were much more sparse (and harder to attend while closeted) as a kid, they did exist. But one thing that always stuck out to me was the complete absence of trans girls even at events mainly aimed at trans youth. I met a good few other trans and gnc kids at these events, but all, literally every single one of these people were perisex and assigned female at birth. Not a single transfeminine person to be found. This changed as I got older. I started high school. Slowly but surely the circles I hung around in became more diverse. I met trans women. I met and befriended gay and gnc “boys” who would later come out as trans girls. Now, as a young adult, the ratio of transmasculine to transfeminine folks in my life is near equal. But even now, the demographic of trans girls in my life generally skews older than the guys. And of course this trend is very reflective of the effects of transmisogyny in general, how the media targets trans women as the scapegoat for their hatred, painting ‘trans girl’ as a shameful and deviant thing to be. It is reflective, more than anything, of how we all need to be more steadfast in our support of trans women both in our activism and in our day-to-day lives. But I also think that everyone needs to make more of an effort specifically to support young trans girls. Transfeminine kids, teenagers, even young adults. Because I have met so many women that I know for a fact would have enjoyed their teenage years so much more if someone, anyone had been there to tell them when they were young that it was alright to be trans. The first friend I ever lost to suicide as a teenager was a trans girl. And I live every day of my life with the knowledge that if I hadn’t been her one and only source of support, she probably still would have been here today. Believe me when I say that I understand the importance of respecting people’s boundaries. I do think that insisting every gnc person must be trans is a bad and counterproductive thing to do. But I’ve also seen firsthand what happens when trans girlhood is treated like it’s a downgrade, it’s very suggestion a taboo. When nobody is willing to be the one to say “hey, it’s okay if you want to be a girl”. I believe with everything I am that the life and happiness of a single trans girl is more than worth the discomfort of a million cis men. And if you disagree with that sentiment I think you either need to fix your heart, or you need to make peace with the fact that you are a thoroughly vile person and endeavour to shut your mouth about transgender issues forever.

[evertomorrowart]

Best of YouTube 2023

Yes, I did spend the first week and change of January on this. I wish I could have had it done for New Years, but too many people came out with incredible work in December, so waiting turned out for the best.

What these creators do are a huge influence on my life, I would honestly have difficulty doing what I do without them. That isn't to say that my favorites of the year are *only* on this image--It was almost impossible to narrow down my favorites. Many creators I wanted to include couldn't fit on a single page, and too many of them made more than one video I wished I could draw too!

But, to all of you, thank you for what you do. You're an inspiration.

For those who don't know, further is an explanation.

At the bottom center is an artistic masterpiece by Defunctland: "Journey to EPCOT Center: A Symphonic History." Over the last several years, Defunctland has risen from delightfully-entertaining commentary on decommissioned theme park attractions to occasionally dropping profound statements on the creation of art itself. "Journey to EPCOT Center: A Symphonic History" is worth treating like the cinematic experience it is: No second screen, you sit your ass down in front of a TV, set down the phone, and then you *watch it.* Any Disney, theme park, or independent film fan needs to pay attention to this one.

Bottom left is Caelan Conrad with their piece "Drop the T - The Deadly Consequences of Gay Respectability Politics." While I do think they've done more visually or artistically-daring pieces before, "Drop the T" is one of the most important videos released on YouTube in today's current climate of hate. We as queer folk (and our allies) need to understand how integral every identity of the queer experience has been since the start of the Civil Rights movement (and before!). While we are not identical, we *are* inseparable, and we deserve having our real history easily accessible.

TERFs and other conservative mouthpieces need not reply. Your opinions are trash. 😘

I cannot stop watching and rewatching this video by @patricia-taxxon, "On the Ethics of Boinking Animal People." It's not just a defense of furry fandom and its eccentricities, it's a thoughtful and passionate analysis of what the artform achieves that purely human representation can't. Patricia goes outside of her usual essay format to directly speak to the viewer about the elements that define furry media (the most succinct definition I've ever heard) and just how *human* an act loving animal cartoons really is.

As an artist who can draw furry characters, but never really got into erotic furry art, this video is a treasure. Why did I choose to have her drawn as a Ghibli character, hanging out with one of the tanukis from "Pom Poko?" Guess you'll have to watch, bruh.

Philosophy Tube continuously puts out videos that I would put on this list--I'm not even sure that "A Man Plagiarised my Work: Women, Money, and the Nation" is the best work she released in 2023. However, this video got many conversations going between myself and my partner, and the twist on the tail end of the video shocked us both to such a degree that I had no choice.

At the very tail end of the year, Big Joel released "Fear of Death." On his Little Joel channel, he described it as the singularly best video he's ever done, and I'm inclined to agree. However, for this illustration, I ended up repeatedly going back to a mini-series he did earlier in the year: "Three Stories at the End of the World." All three videos are deeply moving and haunting, and I was brought to tears by "We Must Destroy What the Bomb Cannot." While it may be relatively-common knowledge that the original Gojira (Godzilla) film is horror grappling with the devastation America's rush to atomic dominance inflicted on Japan, Big Joel still manages to bring new words to the discussion. Please watch all three of the videos, but if, for some reason, you must have only one, let it be "We Must Destroy What the Bomb Cannot."

Y'all. Let me confess something. I hate football. I hate watching it, I associate seeing it from the stadiums with some of my worst childhood experiences, I despise collegiate and professional football (as institutions that destroy bodies and offer up children at the feet of its alter as a pillar of American culture)--

I. L o a t h e. Football.

But.

F.D. Signifier could get me to watch an entire hour-plus essay on why I should at least give a passing care. AND HE DID IT. I might think "F*ck the Police," the two-parter on Black conservatism, or his essay on Black men's connection to anime might be "better" videos, but this writer did the impossible and held my limited attention span towards football long enough to make a sincere case for NFL players--and reminds us that millionaires can *in fact* be workers. That alone is testament to his skill.

Sit down and watch "The REAL Reason NFL Running Backs Aren't Getting Paid." Any good anti-capitalist owes it to themselves.

CJ the X continuously puts out stunning, emotional videos, and can do it with the most seemingly-inconsequential starting points. A 30 second song? An incestuous commercial? Five minutes of Tangled? Sure, why not. Go destroy yourself emotionally by watching them. I'm serious. Do it.

Their video Stranger Things and the Meaning of Life manages to to remind us all why the way we react to media does, in fact, matter. Yes, even nostalgia-driven, mass-media schlock. Yes, how we interact with media matters, what it says about us matters, and we all deserve to seek out the whys.

Folding Ideas has spent the last few years articulating exactly why so much of our modern world feels broken, and because of that his voice continuously lives rent-free in my brain. While the tricks that scam artists and grifters use to try to swindle us are never new, the advancement of technology changes the aesthetics of their performances. Portions of Folding Ideas' explanations might seem dry when going into detail of how stocks work in This is Financial Advice, but every bit of it is necessary to peel back the layers of techno-babble and jargon and make sense of the results of "Meme Stocks."

Jessie Gender puts out nothing but bangers, her absolute unit of a video about Star Wars might be my new favorite thing ever, but none of her work hit so profoundly in 2023 than the two-parter "The Myth of 'Male Socialization'" and "The Trauma of Masculinity." There's so much about modern life that isolates and traumatizes us, and so much of it is just shrugged off as "normal." We owe it to ourselves to see the world in more vivid a color palette than we're initially given.

Panels drawn after Kate Beaton and "Ducks: Two Years in the Oil Sands."

"This is Not a Video Essay" is one of the most intense and beautiful pieces of art I've ever put into my eyeballs. Why do we create? What drives us to connect?

I don't even know what else to say about the Leftist Cooks' work, it repeatedly transcends the medium and platform. Watch every single one of their videos, but especially this one.

The likelihood you are terminally online and yet haven't heard of Hbomberguy's yearly forrays into destroying the careers of awful people is pretty slim. Just because it has millions of views doesn't mean that Hbomberguy's "Plagiarism and You(Tube)" isn't worth the hype. Too long? Shut up, it has chapters and YouTube holds your place, anyway. You think a deep dive into a handful of creators is only meaningless drama? Well, you're wrong, you wrong-opinion-haver. Plagiarism is an *everyone* problem because of the actual harm it creates--the history it erases, the labor it devalues, the art it marginalizes--which you would know if you watched "Plagiarism and You(Tube)".

Watch. The damn. Video.

In fact, watch all of them!

Thanks for reading this if you did.

[stormsbourne]

alright listen

I know we're all having an evaluation of how eagerly we believe people who present with even the slightest air of authority and frankly good! we all need to be less credulous of people on the internet who tell lies.

but I think there are also other lessons to learn from james somerton. namely about his raging and blatant misogyny, which I've often seen similar forms of in fandom and on this specific site. to paraphrase bombs himself in the ctrl alt del video, if you see shitty behavior within your sphere, it's important to recognize it and try to fix it instead of rejecting it and asserting that no REAL members of the ingroup are like that. and nerds have a misogyny problem. including tumblr. so let's reckon with it.

do you append "white" or "straight" to your comments about women even when those things have little to do with the topic being discussed, just to make your comments seem more legit? (and no, m/m shipping discourse does not give you a ticket to say it's all straight women -- it's fictional characters, james.) do you often theorize about how (hurriedly appended "straight/white/cis") women are responsible for a problem in fandom, nay, all problems in fandom? have you made up a guy based on a single post that annoyed you and extrapolated to say that all (appended signifier to make it ok) women in fandom are like that? do you see women as uniquely fetishizing, uniquely stupid about politics or social issues, uniquely annoying to talk to? do you assume when there's an issue, even a real one and not the fake ones james made up, that a woman is probably at the root of it?

all of this still applies to you if you're a woman. it also applies if you're gay or a person of color or trans. being an oppressed group doesn't mean you are immune from sexism, and sexism is still rampant in everyday life for pretty much everyone.

your shipping and fandom discourse isn't immune from this. no, I'm not talking about how not enough people like yuri. I'm talking about how women who like "bad" ships like r*ylo or whatever are seen as open targets for harassment. how women who are into "bad/problematic" fandoms are seen as idiots and enablers who deserve what they get. how there's an attitude that women who like shitty bad porn must think it's good, must be too stupid to know better, and must need to be handheld and taught about good, acceptable fiction. I've already talked a lot about tumblr's complete refusal to admit that fujoshi wasn't a term coined by delicate japanese mlm to complain about evil women (and I wonder if james contributed to that idiotic concept), but the way I've seen people assert that women into m/m must be straight, must be stupid, must be lying about their identities, must be hurting gay men in real life in addition to wanting some anime boys to kiss ...

I've seen how some of you people talk about amb*r h*ard, is all I'm saying, and I've seen what you've tried to do to dozens of female creatives that, for some reason, you've decided deserve to be taken down or taught a lesson. I've seen the descriptions you use. shrieking, bitchy, whiny, uppity, shrewish, karen (don't get me started on how karen has been turned into an easy excuse for misogyny). you're not bystanders to what james did and is doing, you're a part of it. sure, you might not have the nazi fetish, but you've said things about women that put somerton to shame.

just a thing to keep in mind while the plagiarism discourse is ongoing. somerton is a shithead for many reasons but this is one that's important to remember because I think people often treat misogyny like a lesser crime, a smaller concern, and it's not. just think of what laws are passing and what views popular movements have of women and then, for one moment, consider that maybe your reflexive need to blame women or pick them apart might have been influenced by the Society In Which We Live.

[osterby]

Part of the problem comes from the audience's assumption of what the author's intent is.

When I write an ace character, my goal is not to create a wholesome and aspirational role model for baby aces, nor is my goal to educate straight folks about what it's like to be ace. My goal is to write something interesting. I might draw heavily from my own experiences as an ace man or on what I've observed from my various ace friends, but the purpose of writing an ace character is always only ever to tell a good story, and any "this is an example of how you should behave as an ace person" or "this is a window into what it's like to be ace" that a reader brings in all on them.

I refuse to be "bad representation" (and I am very very bad ace representation, I 'm traditionally masculine, in my 30s, have nonsexual kinks, and don't even like cute clothes! [among other things, but those are the funniest]). I'm just some ace guy, and my characters are just characters to be enjoyed as part of a fictional story.

Being part of a very diverse environment made me realize.... Me and my friends are bad representation

Before anyone jumps on the " touch grass" train, hold your horses, that's not what i meant. I'm not holding my real life relationships to the standards of twitter drama.

But at the same time, if you were to copy and post our conversations on twitter as charactes in a book, we would get so cancelled for spreading harmful stereotypes

Like

Half of the Muslims in my group are the very religious and modest kind, the other half are super promiscuous and do one night stands

Jokes Like " of course you're [ insert stereotype], you're [ ethnicity]"

We have one gay guy who acts like every gay guy in a 90' movie.

But we also plan events to accommodate ramadan, we share culture with each other and songs and are having fun.

But if we were on twitter, we'd be bad representation

--

[odessa-2]

HUBLANDER MELBOURNE ☀️

OK ladies, so I ended up going. Long story short, I was given a spare ticket and decided to seize the moment. It was stinking hot, and a terribly organised event (it was literally in a shed). Despite this, I am glad I did go. My long held observations/beliefs of Sam's character, who he really is as a man, and the fantasy man, single Sam push, were proven correct. I did get a photo with Sam, and I must confess he really is incredibly good-looking. Even better in the flesh. A doll. He's hyper vigilant, astutely aware of his surrounds (eyes darting everywhere) , very polite and gentlemanly and professional.

He looked tanned and fresh and endured hoards of horny grannies fawning over him for hours on end and was attentive to everyone. The organisers of the event stuck Sam, Duncan, Charles and John in a small tin shed that had no air con, that must've been about 50 degrees celsius inside ,where they stood and posed with frenzied women for over 3 hours. They looked visibly overheated (shame on the organisers). Sam didn't faulter. Polite to a tee.

Would you believe that Sam had to use the same toilets as the plebs?! Yep, you heard correctly. Shocking work by the organisers. I actually had to desperately pee at one point but waited until I saw Sam come out of the toilets. In-between panels, the actors were staying upstairs in the loft level, and I saw the uber eats delivery man run upstairs to bring them food. The organisers didn't even feed their guests!

Sam is Jamie to these women and he knows it. Starz knows it. I saw the crazed obsession with my own eyes. I saw how his people; his team have shaped him and moulded him(for his public persona) to appeal to these women and this fantasy notion. They want their Jamie. They want single Sam, and that's what they (starz) give them. There is no room for anything else but Single Sam. And Sam professionally obliges. What he puts out to the public at the conventions is scripted and measured. He is very guarded. I could see it unfold in front of me with great clarity. There were women there who didn't want him with Caitriona (they weren't interested in the Caitriona titbits Sam gave), 50 and 60 year old women who actually think they stand a chance. Tragic. Sam is gorgeous and charming and Starz has used that to sell. And quite frankly, after witnessing this display, I can see why he has a fascade going on. I can see why he would want the public completely removed from his personal life and family. I get it.

Another observation of mine, I know this goes without saying, but he is definitely not gay for those who are insistent. He gives off zero gay vibes. He is not effeminate in the slightest, and I found him to be quite more masculine than I'd imagined. He reads people well and can't keep still. What else can I tell you? He has nice skin, piercing blue eyes (like really crystal blue) and exceptionally tall. He does his job very well and has high emotional intelligence. Starz uses his good looks and they pimp him out to the fan base.

Now don't get me wrong, i met lots of lovely women there today who were sweet and kind and exited. But hearing women's conversations at the event; he really is their fantasy. They were squealing and many saying how they wished they could grab his bum or 💋 him. There's no room for Caitriona. Just fantasy Sam.

Odessa says hi Sam 👋...you were a real trooper.

I'll share some more titbits from the panel tomorrow when my splitting headache hopefully dissipates.

[cobragardens]

Aziraphale's Ring Is a Queer Symbol

In a previous post I hold forth about the symbolism of the lion rampant on the escutcheon of Aziraphale's signet ring. The upshot is that the golden lion is used by Heaven as a symbol of its threat and its merciless, murderous corporate culture, and I argue that in S3 Aziraphale must subvert this stamp of Heavenly ownership and symbolically redefine the golden lion by summoning the courage to be soft.

Now I've learned some new stuff about how signet rings are worn. Come, sistren, and get nerdy with me.

Aziraphale's ring is one of several we see angels wearing in Good Omens. Here in an indispensably useful post, @indigovigilance lists the known rings of Show Omens angels and those rings' qualities and placement. Note how of the angels who have rings, everyone except Saraqael and Aziraphale wear their rings on their LEFT pinky fingers. There's a reason for this.

Since the medieval period in Britain and Germany, and from there in the U.S., signet rings have been bestowed by professional associations as a sign of membership, particularly at the upper end of society: trade guilds, colleges, hospitals, the Church(es), noble families, and societies like the Freemasons all issue(d) signet rings to some of their members. The traditional placement for signet rings of show professional affiliation is the left pinky finger.

In fact, as it was not socially acceptable in or past the Victorian era for men to wear rings on more than one finger, men who wore signet rings and wedding rings both would have their wedding rings sized to fit the pinky finger below the signet. If a ring had to be moved to preserve masculinity, it wasn't the pinky ring that was going anywhere. Family signets can be worn on any of a number of fingers, but since the Victorian period the men of the British Royal Family (who are from Germany) have been especial sticklers about wearing their signets on their left pinky fingers as well.

So. If you're British and you have a signet ring that's meant to indicate professional affiliation, you wear it on your left pinky.

But Aziraphale wears his signet ring on his RIGHT hand.

Before I offer my opinion on what that means, here's some more fun background on the history and significance of pinky rings in Anglo-American culture:

The Victorian period was when pinky rings started to become associated with queerness.

As fellow members of the Hundred Guineas Club, Oscar Wilde and Aziraphale would likely have been acquaintances.

According to Wikipedia (ibid.):

"During the Victorian era, both single men and women uninterested in pursuing marriage could wear a ring on the little finger of their left hand."

This quickly expanded to a pinky ring on either hand. Here's Wikipedia's picture of farmer and philanthropist Caroline Rose Foster in 1917, the Edwardian era, wearing a pinky ring on her right hand:

Do you smell a euphemism in "uninterested in pursuing marriage"? I do!

By midcentury--so only 30 years after Ms Foster up there--American and British queers, both men and women, were using signet pinky rings specifically to signal queerness to each other.

"For gay men in the 1950’s and 60’s, a way of signaling to others was through the wearing of a signet ring on the pinkie finger."

"During the 1950’s and 60’s signet rings were worn to signify membership of the gay community; both lesbians and homosexual men wore such rings."

The pinky rings @indigovigilance points out Maggie wears may mean she's an angel; they also match her midcentury lesbian style. Devious of the costumers to give her pinky rings on both hands rather than commit to one or the other.

Screenshot by @indigovigilance

To review, there are three reasons a person in Anglo-American culture might wear a pinky ring:

They just feel like it--This can be any kind of ring and can be worn on either hand or both

Professional affiliation--This is a signet ring worn on the left pinky finger

To signal queerness--This is a signet ring and can be worn on either pinky finger

Aziraphale has worn a signet ring on his RIGHT pinky finger at least since he repaired the Eastern "Gate" in the Wall of Eden, so I'm not suggesting that he adopted the 20th-century pinky signet trend to signal his queerness (although as a clockably 'gay' 'man,' Soho fixture, and member of the Hundred Guineas Club, he may well have started it). What I am suggesting is that Aziraphale has been given a ring by Heaven that Heaven intends him to use to show his professional affiliation, but as with the flaming sword he gives away, Aziraphale doesn't use the ring for its intended purpose. By wearing the ring on his right hand, Aziraphale removes the option of interpreting it as a symbol of his professional affiliation with Heaven and renders it strictly a personal ornament. He subverts a symbol of Heavenly menace into an object of beauty and queerness.

I mean queerness in both senses. If a human takes any symbolic notice of his ring, they'll note the signet is on his right hand and conclude Aziraphale is gay. If another angel takes any notice of it, they'll conclude Aziraphale is a bit odd--that he doesn't pay attention to the finer points of how to fit in with the archangels, doesn't do things like other angels do.

In conclusion, pinky signet rings as a queer signal are just the fucking coolest and I vote we bring them back immediately.

[lintwriting]

How to Write a M/M Romance: Scum Villain's Bingqiu

Where Masculinity and Teacher/Student Intersect

Teacher Student Romance is the APPEAL, NOT a Plot Convenience

Easily the most problematic part about Scum Villain (beyond the dubcon papapa to save the world) is the teacher/student relationship baked into the main romance of the work—the one between Shen Qingqiu and Luo Binghe. Not only is it pervasive, it's not even brushed aside for the reader to forget about, the way the problematic aspects of other medias often are.

In fact, unlike the way age is brushed aside in fantasy dramas that have "teenage protagonists" for marketing reasons, such as The Vampire Diaries or Re:Zero, where the age is only there to draw in a teenage audience and otherwise the characters act like young adults, Scum Villain's Teacher x Student is purposely highlighted in a way that makes it clear that the dynamic is part of its main appeal.

For one, Luo Binghe's main form of address for his romantic partner is "Shizun," calling him teacher in a super respectful, almost worshipful way. This is the opposite of weakening the unbalanced dynamic. It's elevating the Teacher/Student power imbalance (in ways that make the reader suspect it's a kink thing for Luo Binghe LMAO).

For two, Shen Qingqiu is cognizant of how bad it looks to be called Shizun in a romantic context, feeling textually weirded out when it happens during romantic relations. Despite this, most of the ways he shows affection to Luo Binghe are very paternalistic (milf-coded), such as scolding him in fond exasperation or kissing him on the forehead like a father. In addition, Luo Binghe is specifically noted for not having older male authority figures in his life other than Shen Qingqiu, as his adopted mother was a single woman and his bio father could not care less about the son his late wife gave up her life for (seemingly for no reason, BUT I'll get to that in a different meta) (AND despite ample evidence that he CAN be a good father to Luo Binghe's cousin).

And while one aspect of it is that the Shizun/disciple dynamic is a genre-wide trope thanks to the influence of the early work, The Return of the Condor Heroes, wherein the Confucian taboo of the teacher/student romance is a source of tension and excitement within the novel, I wouldn't say that that's the whole of why Scum Villain (SVSSS) emphasizes the teacher/student romance.

Why are We Hot For Teacher: Return of the Condor Heroes vs Scum Villain

For one, within Return of the Condor Heroes, the romance is between a male student and a female teacher (because it's a het novel, lol), but SVSSS is a BL novel and wouldn't necessarily need to play into such tropes to create this "taboo"-evoking tension.

A lot of BL novels already play into the way being gay is marginalized or frowned upon to accomplish this, for instance, SVSSS's author's latter work, Mo Dao Zu Shi (MDZS) (The Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation), wherein the main character has compulsory heterosexuality.

For two, the dynamics of the Return of the Condor Heroes is playing with heteronormative ideas about the roles of men and women in romance. It's notable that the student is the male lover, and the master is the female lover in this relationship, playing with non-traditional ideas about who is submissive and who is dominant—while simultaneously using it to reaffirm traditional pursuer/pursued dynamics.

This male pursuer/female pursued dichotomy is not usually explicitly stated within media as that can seem sexist and clunky, rather it is usually implicit and portrayed through various contrivances. Xiaolongnu is a "cold beauty" who therefore must remain pure/aloof, which is accentuated by her role as a teacher, and while she is "dominant" as the teacher setting the terms for their relationship, it's mostly to emphasize the lengths that Yang Guo, the student, would go to pursue her. He becomes extra romantic for pursuing her while accepting her lead on choices like separating for 16 years.

In addition, the teacher/student relationship is a contrivance that affirms society's implicit bias about gender by giving textual, non-gendered excuses for the man to pursue. In this case, it would be an abuse of a teacher's power for Xiaolongnu to make the first move. Thus, traditional gender dynamics where men are the ones pursuing women are reaffirmed without making clunky statements about gender, even through nontraditional dynamics like a teacher/student relationship where the woman is dominant.

But, again, SVSSS is a BL, so the two main characters are both men, meaning there is no societal answer on who should be pursuer and the pursued. However, it is notable that SVSSS does play with this same dynamic of "cold, aloof teacher" and student who would go to extreme lengths to pursue them, while also purposely describing Luo Binghe as the "peak of masculinity."

This is where we start getting into SVSSS's intersection between Masculinity and the teacher/student relationship.

Because while although Condor Heroes uses the teacher/student relationship to affirm the heteronormative dichotomy of the male pursuer/female pursued, SVSSS's usage of this dynamic is in service of satirically demonstrating the "acceptable" avenues of affection when living as a man (since there's no women, and they're both men lol).

Teacher/Student Romance as a Way to Escape Restrictive Masculine Gender Roles

Teacher/student dynamic is a huge aspect to SVSSS because it’s a way to escape the masculine gender roles critiqued within the work. This is on the face of it obvious. Shen Qingqiu lets Binghe act bizarrely clingy under the assumption that he’s merely taking care of a filial or needy child. The understanding that "masculine men have to be straight" and the understanding that "Binghe is the most manly person within the novel as the stallion protagonist" intersect to ensure that any affection between them is strictly platonic, which is a double edged sword.

Because Shen Qingqiu allows Binghe close to him with the reassurance that Binghe HAS to be straight (a surprisingly common way for straight men to interact), that means that as Binghe ages, his access to affection will also get cut off, since he's supposed to be aging out of the role of a clingy student and into the role of stallion protagonist.

This is even grafted onto the scum villain/protagonist dynamic, as exactly at the point where Binghe's on the cusp of becoming an adult, Shen Qingqiu is forced to be the opposite of affectionate and become the villain by throwing him down into Xianxia hell. Which, to him, means that he's killed his baby student and replaced him with a stallion protagonist out to take him out.

So when Binghe becomes an adult, he loses access to affection along two axises within Shen Qingqiu's mind. The first being that he's now vengeful stallion protagonist out to get him throwing him away, which is the explicit reason Shen Qingqiu rebuffs him. And the second being that he's now a straight adult man who isn't supposed to get affection from his old teacher, which is also a factor.

This loss and transformation into a protagonist causes him to become insane to almost comical proportions, indiscriminately killing people and so distraught that at any point he's liable to self-destruct—all because he's constantly being rebuffed when seeking affection from his teacher, who thinks he wants to take him out for throwing him into hell. It's notable that any time Shen Qingqiu rejects him, Binghe lashes out in an almost stoic anger, rather than with the vulnerable crybaby tears that Binghe used as a kid. All this is highlighting the consequences of toxically masculine gender roles—where a severe lack of emotional vulnerability creates only violence and status as ways to express yourself, leading to severe emotional issues.

Now this is where it gets to the satirical aspects. Because all that before is pretty angsty and not very funny, but Scum Villain is a comedic satire. This is because it's not from the perspective of Luo Binghe—it's from the perspective of Shen Qingqiu.

The Point of Scum Villain's Meta

To all of this, Shen Qingqiu is totally oblivious, as he is still under the impression that everything was platonic. Which I'd argue he SHOULD be, considering that Binghe was a young student in his care that he was only trying to groom into being nice, person not into a sexual relationship 💀💀. Now, the ethics of fiction about raising your spouse is a whole other issue outside of the scope of this discussion, but within the universe of Scum Villain, where we know his intentions, he gets the pass from me!

The reason Shen Qingqiu is oblivious is because one, as the most terminally online hater on the Internet, he's read about stallion protagonist Luo Binghe way before transmigrating into the story. And the Luo Binghe of the original story was a miserable sack of shit who got an unhappy ending despite being the peak of what masculinity "should" be.

A harem of women to show his virility, a stoic facade, and a constant stream of face slapping for hundreds and hundreds of chapters. He's an alpha male to the point of farce because Airplane needed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of teen boys on the internet—Andrew Tate's main demographic. It's not just a satire of YY novels—this, too, is part of Scum Villain's critique of toxic masculinity.

The second reason Shen Qingqiu is oblivious is because he's homophobic, sexist, heteronormative, etc. etc. etc. He was an INTERNET TROLL for a reason. And while people like to joke that he was a feminist king on the forums, I feel like it's more in line with the themes of the story to take him reading this schlock at face value because it's part of Scum Villain's trap! Anytime you feel like complaining about Scum Villain's hack writing, you're one meat bun away from an uno reverse card. The instant you start complaining, the author can hit you with a "Cucumber-bro calm down," and BOOM you're done! Never comment again!

And this is so effective because none of us want to be an un-self-aware, terminally online, trash-reading hater like him.

So, the satire of the novel is taking this kind of guy—both the Andrew Tates of the world and his basement dwelling followers—and wondering "Would gay sex fix them?" And the answer is YES, WHICH is HYSTERICAL to play straight in a romance like this. It's "Fellas, is it gay to like women?" but make it into an actual romance.

On a thematic level, being gay is indeed antithetical to a masculinity that upholds having sex with tons of women as the ideal, so it's doubly poignant for this closeted gay man to realize that the only thing he needed to do to live was to accept himself and the people around him by giving up his need to fit them into boxes—both on a meta "they're not fictional characters to him anymore" level, but also on a "toxic masculinity shouldn't define us" level.

Climaxing

The old Shen Qingqiu is dead. Long live Shen Qingqiu. Gay sex to save the world. Luo Binghe is back to his crybaby self. All is well in the world.

One thing I love about this teacher/student romance that it portrays Bingqiu afterwards as really happy and in love. Logically, nothing about that makes sense — 45 year old stepfather marries 25 year old stepdaughter from a bad home who idolized him, even while he acts like he's embarrassed to be around her and encourages her helplessness—but it makes perfect sense because it's a perfect marriage between all these different layers.

The "bird leaving the nest" conflict

Qingqiu is allowed to be affectionate with a scary adult Binghe because Binghe can be both a clingy student and an adult

2. The scum villain/protagonist conflict

Binghe never wanted to kill Shen Qingqiu, only to be loved by him.

3. The comphet conflict

Binghe never intended to go out and get a harem of women as a sign of masculine status, he just wants to be gay with Shen Qingqiu.

4. The "should I treat them like real people or fictional characters" transmigrator conflict—

Binghe is a real person separate from the character of Luo Binghe because he's no longer that unattainable masculine ideal—he's human and happier for it.

All solved with a student/teacher relationship in service of critiquing toxic masculinity. Now that's economical writing!

(I love the inclusion of the original Luo Binghe meeting them in the Extras, and that Luo Binghe is pretty evenly matched with him. I feel like the idea that someone "is automatically stronger with the power of love, and therefore that's why love is better" is pretty shallow, as it plays into the toxically masculine idea that strength is all that matters. Luo Binghe may not be stronger than the toxically masculine ideal version of himself, but he doesn't feel the need to be because he's happy the way he is. And his ideal self is jealous of him for that—not vice versa.)

On their own, these resolutions would probably still feel as creepy as Lolicon, but in the context of critiquing masculinity, it makes a lot more sense. Masculinity, I think, fascinates as a writing tool because there's a lot of mini tools baked-in its structure, like Shen Qingqiu's comedic plausible deniability thing, as well as assumptions about power.

For instance, since Binghe is quite literally the God-emperor of his world, it feels more like a kink thing for him to call Qingqiu Shizun, and not like he's actually less powerful than Shizun in their dynamic. His bouts of learned helplessness come off as traditionally feminine Sajiao, NOT like the learned behavior of creepy pick-me pedophilia. It's like a cat showing its belly, because we all know it's a murder machine showing its vulnerable side out of trust, not because it feels the need to degrade itself. So, while his behavior emphasizes the Teacher/Student imbalance, the reality is that he's doing it mostly for kinky reasons and that the two of them are on a pretty level playing field. It's extremely funny when people joke that he and Qingqiu are the same age due to all that time Qingqiu spent dead, because they are Not Wrong.

Problematic Kinks

Romance fiction is usually about ways to get certain needs met in ways that would never be possible in real life, which is why a lot of it is problematic. Virginity kink is not about real life virgins, but the idea that your partner is guaranteed to think you're competent in bed. Bodice ripper stories do not reflect the reality of getting raped, but is more about the idea of getting sexually satisfied with none of the shame of "being slutty" for desiring sex, since it was "against your will." Or they're about controlling the fear of getting raped within this safe romantic fantasy where everything turns out all right. Or various other things because kinks are personal.

Shen Qingqiu is the perfect example of this, where he functions as a great insert for female readers who might have shame around sexuality, since he's a "prude" without actually being one, hence his parallel with Xiaolongnu. Instead, he's just comedically under the misconception that he's straight or that Binghe's only platonically in love with his teacher—that's why he's always ashamed and putting on airs. It's a comedic/unrealistic version of comphet, so you don't gotta think about purity culture while reading your silly little stories.

And Luo Binghe is the self-insert fantasy of readers with daddy issues. His strict father who criticized him all the time actually secretly thought he was the bestest-westest, most handsomest boy in the whole wide world, and there was a secret understandable reason he had to be mean to him, and he secretly loves when he acts like a crybaby because that just means an excuse to pamper him.

And while in real life, many of these would be incredibly dysfunctional—within fiction, we can make these fantasies work anyway. If your romance manages to hit at one of these underlying desires in a fantastical way, you've got a hit with one audience of people! Whether that be by making them EVEN MORE dysfunctional (papapa to save the world) or by having them somehow communicate it out into a healthy dynamic (the extras, presumably).

All this to say, if you're a man frustrated with your love life, all you need is a gay, milf-y male teacher to ruin your life.

[thatsonemorbidcorvid]

A few weeks after #MeToo exploded on the internet, an old friend and I did what so many women did during that time: We got on the phone and finally began to acknowledge what had happened to us. My friend shared a story of hers from college. Back then, we’d all just considered it a “bad date,” but she now recognized it as sexual assault. She also shared that at nearly every single job she’s had since college, a boss or co-worker has sexually harassed her.

The month before our conversation, I had published an essay sharing my own experience of sexual assault while traveling abroad. Like my friend, it was not my only experience—it was one of many. But I’d only included the one, because in the early stages of #MeToo, the idea of sharing one assault story still felt risky. The idea of sharing more than one felt culturally impossible. My friend agreed.

“As a woman, you’re only allowed one #MeToo moment,” she told me. “After that, people begin assuming the problem must be you.”

Out of the many celebrity #MeToo stories told in the past five years, only a handful have acknowledged the experience of multiple assaults. In an HBO documentary, Alanis Morisette spoke about repeated incidents of statuatory rape that happened when she first entered the music industry, all of which “fell on deaf ears” when she tried seeking accountability. In her memoir, Selma Blair wrote about a teacher who sexually assaulted her, as well as the many men who raped her in her 20s. In an interview with Dazed, Amber Rose said, “I cannot even count how many times a famous guy touched me inappropriately.” On a social media post during the Kavanaugh hearings, Tatum O’Neal wrote about her multiple assaults: “It was not my fault when I was 5, 6, 12, 13, 15.”

Stories that emphasize the ubiquitous nature of assault are vital in a world that so often focuses on one dramatic episode, with visceral details of the violation and an easily identifiable villain. This amplifies the false idea that assault is just a singular, horrifying incident—when in reality, many of us experience it as part of a larger, more insidious culture.

Once a person is assaulted, research shows they’re more likely to be assaulted again, a phenomenon called “revictimization.” Around 50 percent of children who survive sexual assault reexperience it later in life, and even a single incident of sexual assault in adulthood can increase the risk for it to happen again. As psychologist A.E. Jaffe and her colleagues wrote in a 2019 paper on revictimization: “Perhaps the most consistent predictor of future trauma exposure is a history of prior trauma exposure.”

Why would this be? In lieu of a good answer for it (more on that in a moment), we often blame victims themselves. We easily justify these statistics by suggesting that anyone who has survived multiple incidents of violence must be asking for it—either by acting promiscuously, hanging around too many shady men, or getting themselves into precarious situations. One survivor I interviewed told me that though she received some form of victim-blaming in response to all three sexual assaults she experienced, she noticed a stark decrease in support each time it happened again.

“After the second and third, some people began saying, ‘What’s happening in your life to attract that?’ or ‘Do you have enough awareness to know when men want to harm you?’ ” she told me. “One person even asked why I was ‘trusting men so much.’ ” Another friend who experienced multiple assaults went through a similar line of questioning, only with herself. “After so many times, I began asking myself, ‘What is it about me that brings on these experiences?’ ” she said. I told her I ask myself that question all the time.

In his essay “Spectator” for Roxane Gay’s anthology on sexual assault stories, Not That Bad, Brandon Taylor wrote about his best friend telling him she was beginning to think she was “just the kind of person this stuff happens to.” For a long time, that’s what I believed, too. As a travel writer and a single bisexual woman, I figured that at some point, I’d pay the price. Eventually, I’d have to face some element of physical harm—wasn’t that the obvious trade-off for attempting a liberated life? To me, survivorship—more than resilience, bravery, or strength—often felt like resignation.

But in some cases, it’s exactly that resignation that influences repeat assaults. While there’s no conclusive evidence as to why revictimization happens, we do know that normalizing assault can contribute to future harm. If a survivor has not internalized their experience as exceptionally traumatic, they are less likely to advocate for themselves, or demand accountability if it happens again. If they, like me, accept violence as an obvious fact of their lives, then when it repeats, they don’t seek the support they need to process and heal from each experience.

In an article for Psychology Today, psychotherapist and clinical social worker Keith Fadelici called this a “cognitive accommodation to ongoing violence.” The trauma continuously gets downplayed as victims attempt to normalize their assaults, which helps them feel more in control. “This dissociative process is a common symptom of PTSD,” Fadelici told me. “And can also later make survivors less capable of detecting risk by numbing the fear that is supposed to trigger alertness to danger.”

Oppression also plays a significant role. Those with marginalized identities are more at risk for experiencing assault in general, and thus more likely to experience it again. LGBTQ+ people are four times more likely to be assaulted than the general population (bisexual women and trangender people also are far more likely to experience assault than gay men and lesbian women). Rates of sexual assault for Indigenous women are three times higher than non-Indigenous women, and Black women are much more likely to experience assault than white women. Neurodivergent people are 11 times more likely than neurotypical people to be victims of violent crimes.

“If this is coming up repeatedly with one individual, it might be because that person is within systems and structures that facilitate assault more often,” said Jaffe. For those of us living with any of these identities, we normalize violence because living under oppression is consistently violent. In order to survive, a “cognitive accommodation to ongoing violence” is necessary. We train ourselves to get used to it, and move on.

After #MeToo, I began reading and rereading the legal definitions for rape and sexual assault to make sense of what had happened to me. Any sexual contact that occurred without consent constitutes assault? Any sexual contact that included penetration without the other person’s consent constitutes rape? The criteria felt almost too easy. Under these standards, I had been raped twice, and assaulted several other times—all stories I had not yet fully internalized, and was not yet ready to tell. Dozens of legal crimes had been committed against my body, but that idea felt so unfathomable I hardly knew what to do next.

In the three years after publishing that first story, I experienced more incidents, and I still don’t know what to call them. I don’t feel comfortable firmly declaring them as “assault.” I don’t like how it connects so deeply with an oppressive legal system, and how it automatically connotes some excessive form of violence. Even today, it seems too strong and rough a word for how these episodes played out: often with little physicality, with only brief conflict and polite turns toward quick forgiveness, until weeks later when I’d unpack the severity of what had happened. As I began sharing more of these stories with close friends, I would catch myself saying “technically” before saying “I was assaulted,” acknowledging the semantic disconnect I still felt. This hesitation is common among many survivors: As one 2019 meta-analysis showed, rates of victimization increase when participants are asked “behaviorally descriptive questions” about what happened to them, rather than questions that use terms like “rape” and “assault.”

Sometimes, people ask “How many times all together?” I say “six-ish,” a number that captures the amount of experiences that have dramatically changed the way I relate to my body—how it experiences intimacy, how it engages with the world: The one that happened at work, just weeks into my first job out of college. The one at a festival in India. The one while getting a deep-tissue massage. The one at a New York play party. The one so common I learned it has its own name (“stealthing“). The one with a lover I had loved and trusted deeply. The one with another lover, a violation that was not sexual but physical and thus, as yet another nonconsensual act done against my body, still felt so connected to all the rest.

And this still does not take into account every time I was nonconsensually touched in public—the men who pulled and grabbed my arms, my back, my butt, my shoulders to try to get my attention on the street—nor the times I’ve been followed, harassed, physically threatened by strangers on the street.

The accumulation of more and more of these events creates a compounding impact, one where each additional incident begins to amplify the ones before. For me and most survivors I spoke to, we are not healing from trauma—we are learning how to exist in a world where trauma continues to accumulate.

Every survivor I interviewed for this piece told me they fully accept the potential that they’ll experience assault in the future. Still, most of them admitted to me that it’s still easier to only share just one story with the world—never the full range of what has happened to them. “When you only have one story, the enemy is the rapist,” one survivor told me. “But when you have several people with a lifetime of these experiences, the enemy is all of us.”

This is what we mean when we talk about rape culture. The first thing we can do to start to dismantle it is to recognize what we’re up against.

[genderqueerdykes]

In a weird way, it feels like this is the only blog I can ask this and know that I'll get a 100% honest answer to my question, without having to worry about reading subtext. (Thank you for that) you've mentioned you don't want man hating lesbians here (valid) and if that applies here I'll back off 100% but like.

What if I specifically hate Cishet men. What if I don't take issue with queer men at all, just the cishets? Geunine question, just in case, because I know this could read as like trolling or something, and I do understand that basic language dictates yes it'd apply but I'm stupid & not sure, and I know that even if it's a harsh or brutal reply, you'll still give it to me straight. (Thank you for that too, my autistic ass struggles with subtext a lot.)

While I have reasons for feeling the way I do, I'm not sure they matter in this context. And that's okay.

i'm glad that you want to have a genuine conversation about it, i really appreciate that! the only way to learn and figure things out is to ask questions

at the end of the day, this behavior still affects queer men. cishet men can be queer- they can be intersex, aromantic, asexual, genderqueer, gender non conforming, drag artists... "cishet man" does not inherently mean someone who is not queer. there are many ways to be queer outside of being gay, bisexual, and/or trans. and even then, this behavior gets dangerous fast because strangers you perceive to be cishet men very well can be anything but that. someone you clock to be a cishet man may be a closeted trans girl, a trans man, a non binary person, a butch lesbian, and so on. you treating that person like they're an inherent danger causes a whole host of issues

this attitude is also why trans men, trans women, and non binary people are being forcefully removed from queer communities. if a queer person reads or passes as a "cishet man," they are treated with hostility and asked to leave in a lot of cases. we cannot allow the concept of manhood and perceived manhood to be viewed as something to be avoided and cast out, because it affects so much more than just cishet men. this attitude affects a LOT of closeted and non-passing trans women. honestly, that's who this hurts the most. it hurts trans men and enbies, but it really hurts trans women. it creates a standard where they have to overperform femininity and womanhood in order to be seen as "safe", and it's not okay.

projecting your issues with a small handful of people on to an entire group does not help. you have not been harmed by the concept of cishet men- you have been harmed by specific cishet men. in permanently labeling cishet men as bad people, this creates an ultimatum where they can never improve. hating them by virtue of them being cishet men creates a standard that cishet men will ALWAYS be terrible, and that they can't improve or learn. this creates an environment where no one challenges these behaviors and it makes the cycle even more toxic and abusive

it's okay to not want to spend time with cishet men, but saying that you hate all cishet men really isn't a good look. it's not the way to go about living a happy life. assuming that every single cishet man on this planet will hurt you or be a bad person strictly by virtue of being a cishet man is exactly what cishets do to us. this is how queerphobic cishet people look at trans women. there's no reason to do it back. we have to learn not to stereotype entire groups of people, no matter who they are

the concept of cishet men has never hurt you, and it never will. cishet men are not your enemy- patriarchy is. not every single cishet man benefits from patriarchy, either. intersex men, men of color, gender non conforming men, ace men and aro men are treated like absolute shit for not conforming to the toxic masculinity that patriarchy pushes. patriarchy also harms men- we must stand alongside men who are being chewed up and spat out by this machine. cishet men are not inherently bad people- we are grooming boys and men to be hostile, emotionally closed off, and violent. this is not an inherent trait of cishet men, but rather a societal issue

i hope that makes sense! in general it just really sucks to stereotype an entire group of people. it doesn't help anyone. the concept of cishet manhood hasn't hurt you and it never will. cishet men can still be allies. i've had lots of cishet male friends who weren't transphobic or even homophobic. the first person in my irl life to switch to using my proper pronouns at the time was a cishet man. he never screwed up my pronouns once, he never questioned my gender identity. cishet man does not mean inherently violent, dangerous, and evil. the more we teach men that they don't have to be this way, the more they will follow.

hope that helps! take care!

[kkoffin]

“Bigotry is intersectional. There aren’t a lot of single-issue bigots, people who hate Mexicans but fight for everyone else’s rights. People generally don’t apply this hierarchical thinking to just 1 aspect of their lives, so commonly racism is comorbid with antisemitism is comorbid with misogyny is comorbid with transphobia is comorbid with homophobia is comorbid with religious intolerance, I mean just listen to a Klansman talk about Catholics sometime, or, better yet, don’t. Any marginalized group may be inducted into the tribe to consolidate against a common enemy. But, should that enemy be defeated the inductees become the new enemy. We can see the history of social progress in the US as successively disenfranchised groups demanding and sometimes gaining their rights one by one with reactionaries trying to beat back the tide. Transphobia is recently in rampant in fascist circles, and conservative politics, because with the legalization of same sex marriage the battle against homosexuality is thought to be lost or, at least, at a ceasefire. This gives some cause to welcome gay transphobes into the ranks, but should they seize enough power to strip what few protections trans people have gained recently and the alliance is no longer useful, their gaze refocuses and it’s last hired 1st fired for the homosexuals. And then the African Americans and then the women and on and on, stripping rights from social groups in the order opposite to which they were gained, like the plot of Final Destination 2.”

I’d like to begin by saying; believing women have a right to single-sex spaces is not bigotry. Not believing in a religion which insists in a male and female soul is not bigotry. Believing in sex is not bigotry. Preventing the harms of medically transitioning children, mutilating their genitals, and being caution of giving them known harmful chemicals is not bigotry.

You are absolutely right about bigotry being intersectional. Conservatives, fascists, etc hate women, femininity, gender-nonconformity and homosexuality. Their hatred of trans people is based on this. “Transphobia”, as far as I’ve ever seen, does not exist alone. “Transphobia” is the intersection of a hatred of women, homosexuality and gnc people.

Absolute majority of trans deaths are due to them presenting as women and being killed like any woman walking alone at night would be killed, or the male killer has sex with a trans identified male (often a prostutite), realises he’s having sex with a male, and out of a fear of homosexuality and being called gay, he kills the trans person, so his “secret” won’t get out.

I’ve never in my life seen someone who is fine with homosexuality, fine with women’s rights, fine with gender nonconformity, and fine with femininity etc, but irrationally hates trans people. If you think I irrationally hate trans people, then in theory, this would be me, however i do not believe that insistence on putting women’s safety before the feelings of male people is an “irrational hatred” of said male people.

It’s not that “after trans people, they’ll go after women and homosexuals” it’s that they only hate trans people because they hate women and homosexuals, alongside gender nonconformity. I work to protect these three groups primarily. Both the right-wing and gender ideology hurts all three, in different different but same ways.

Conservatives believe a person of the female sex must be feminine, gender ideology believes a person who is feminine must be female. both reduce “women” to femininity. right wing wants to erase homosexuality via traditional conversion therapy, gender ideology tries to remove homosexuality via gender reassignment and shaming homosexuals for not being attracted to people of the opposite sex, heterosexual people taking over our spaces etc. Right wing hates gender nonconformity because it goes against their norms and standards, gender ideology sees gender nonconforming people and tells them they need hundreds of thousands of dollars of surgery and life-long hormones.

I seek to abolish gender, both gender ideology and the right-wing seek to reinforce it, only in slightly different ways.

I am against gender ideology because I want to protect women, gnc kids and adults and homosexuals. Conservatives hate trans people because they hate women, gnc kids and adults and homosexuals. My movement is not their movement, as it’s fundamentally almost opposite. Although we may share “battles” occasionally, their “winning the war” is not my win. It’s my loss as much as anyone’s. This is why radfems are not right-wing. we do not share ideas with right-wing, we do not share ideology with right-wing. we are fundamentally opposed.