#fellas is it male to be attracted to women and express it like human beings

[punkeropercyjackson]

Other Ghostflower shippers are so messy sometimes.What the fuck is male yearning

[briannas-casebook]

ANIMATION CONTEXT - MANCHESTER ART GALLERY

On the 14th of October for our latest Animation Context class, we visited the Manchester Art Gallery. It is here that the painting that we discussed in last week's class, 1882's The Chariot Race by Alexander von Wagner is displayed.

Along with this, there were several other paintings on display that caught my eye. For example, Waiting for the Coach by Edmund Blair Leighton. The detail and realism presented in the oil painting were so lifelike, some of the students mistook it for a colourised photograph.

Another painting that fascinated me was the painting of the greek poet Sappho painted in 1877 by Charles-August Mengin. depicting the poet all in black, leaning on a rock with a somber expression, chest exposed. According to the plaque, "the painting has an intense sexual charge intended to appeal to male viewers visiting the officially endorsed Paris Salon exhibition. Its eroticism was legitimized for them by the meticulous finish of the fine brushstrokes and the scholarly reference to classical history".

Furthermore, a tour guide leading a separate group commented that the reason for her melancholic expression and the dower tone of the painting itself, with the cold, grey setting of the windy rocks and the black robes Sappho wears, is due to the male artists projecting the stereotypes of sapphic women held by men such as himself. As evidenced in a few of her love poems and the fact there is no historical evidence to suggest Sappho ever showed any interest, romantically and/or sexually in men, it is accepted by most historians that Sappho was what we in modern times would label as a lesbian. In 1800th/1900th century Britain, not only was homosexuality considered a mental deficiency and a crime but it was also believed a woman who preferred the same gender would never truly be happy or fulfilled in a non-heterosexual relationship. Thus the melancholic look of Sappho evokes this deeply misogynistic, lesbophobic view. Ironically though, as two of my female classmates joked, this tired, rugged, and "goth" look the artist gave to Sappho to demonize her identity likely just makes her more attractive to a particular subset of women-loving women in modern times...

Throughout the gallery, there were several signs and plaques that ask questions and encourage viewers to reconsider the subtext of certain paintings in the gallery, how the social and political landscape of the victorian era informed it, and how it may affect or feed into harmful biases of today.

A notable example of this is the "feminist revision" plaques created in 2015 by cultural activist Anne Louise Kershaw, documents created for the first feminist takeover of the Manchester Art Gallery. Placed next to the regular plaques that describe the gallery subjects in a neutral and formal manner, these feminist revisions bring up and expose many of the overlooked or purposefully hidden ugly sides of these classical art movements, such as in the body and form gallery, which highlight paintings where artists explored the human body. The feminist revision points out how not only is there an imbalance of male-to-female artists work displayed in this section, with only two female artists represented, but also how the nude figures, particularly the female figures, are portrayed with overly perfect idealized bodies that reflect male-centric beauty standards of women. The female figures serve mainly as an excuse for the male artists and viewers to create and consume content that objectified and commodified (an idealized version of) the female body. Points which the "unbiased" and "neutral" regular plaques often overlook or leave out.

Adding to the provocative points of the feminist revision is the use of highly informal language not often, if ever, seen on informational plaques of this type. With men or male artists being described as "fellas", women, female artists, and subjects described as "ladies" and other uses of slang such as "obvs", "proper dodgy" and "aces". The result reads more like an informal social media post on the subject of classical art than a formal informational plaque. This, of course, was likely tongue-in-cheek and very much intentional on the part of Kershaw, who used this informal use of slang to deconstruct the typically formal and neutral language used in informational plaques used in art galleries, but also could've been used to intentionally provoke a response, thus drawing attention to the points and the conversation of these feminist talking points at the heart of the plaques.

Other paintings that caught my eye aesthetically were India House and The Water Baby.

I was drawn to the misty, impressionistic, and dreamlike style of India House, and there was something about the imagery of the baby in the clam in The Water Baby that sparked my imagination.

before I left the gallery, I was informed they sell a small book containing images of many of the gallery's paintings, so I bought that to use as a reference or for future inspiration in creative projects.

I felt this visit to the gallery was very fulfilling for me as an artist, not only to be able to see such captivating works of art in person but also to gain a new critical and nuanced perspective on these works through some of the thoughts from staff signs and even the heavy-handed feminist revision plaques.

[official-queer]

sooo i figured it’d be helpful for me to make a complete post on my thoughts on pansexual as a label. i've answered a few asks about this and then figured i'd covered it enough, but i realize that i covered separate points in each post/ask. 

i'll try to make it as organized as possible, but y'all know i'm the king of run-on sentences and unnecessarily long statements and restatements. so yeah, this is gonna be a long one, fellas

"bi = two, pan = all"

in reality, the bi identity has always included attraction to all genders. i'm sure you'll've heard it time and time again, but the 1995 bisexual manifesto states very clearly that bi people are not duogamous in their attraction. insisting that bisexuality is only for attraction to cis men and cis women paints bisexuality as transphobic, as well.

the pan label became so popular with the rise of awareness of nonbinary identities because people started to find it important to state they were also attracted to nonbinary people. the whole pan- prefix was specifically picked because people were aware that "nonbinary" was merely a category for those who fell outside of the imposed male-female dichotomy, and under which several hundred genders could fall.

so... bisexual includes all these hundreds of genders, and pansexual specifies these hundreds of genders. seems redundant, but what's the issue?

"some people find the distinction important"

this is a sentiment i've heard brought up as an argument to just leave pan people alone. but i don't find it quite so valid an argument, irony not intended. *why* is the distinction so important? how come one can concede that bi people like all genders too, but you *must* let people know you are the type of "m-spec" who is definitely able to be attracted to all genders?

the idea one can id as pan but still agree that bi people can also feel the same way a pan person does is contradictory. you are attempting to label an experience as x and argue that it's a necessary label, when there was already a label for x and y. the very idea of a "distinction" is to point out how something is *different*. it's completely redundant.

so if bi and pan are the same, is there some other reason why someone would prefer pan over bi?

"attraction regardless of gender"/"hearts not parts"

i'm lumping these two together because, despite sounding like different points, they argue the same thing in the end. it's just that one is more subtle.

when the label of pansexual was in it's formative years, some sought to argue that pan *is* different from bi, because pansexuals do not consider gender when they are gauging attraction to someone. there are several problems with this.

this switches pan from a "who" label (correct usage of a sexuality label, denoting to whom you are attracted, referring to gender), to a "how" label (incorrect usage of a sexuality label, denoting in what circumstances one feels attraction, not accounting for gender). with the other definition of pan, the "who" was simple - anyone of any gender. with this definition, the "how" is now involved, that being without regarding gender.

within normal parameters of a sexuality label, as in, a "who" label, it is functionally the same as the previous definition. you are still attracted to any gender.

just as well, it can be used just as well for a bi person attracted to all genders. many bi people have stated this is exactly how they feel, and so you jump back to the distinction argument. but also, many gay and straight people have also expressed that gender plays no part in *how* they feel their attraction. their attraction may only include one or so gender(s), but beyond that, it's not something that factors in.

many trans and specifically nonbinary people have stated distaste at this definition as it is dismissive of gender. one gets the impression that their gender struggles, growth, identity, etc. is not important to the pan who uses this definition.

specifically in regards to "hearts not parts", a very popular quote around the early years of the pan label - this gives the very strong idea that pan people are claiming that only their sexuality involves being attracted to the important parts of someone; their mind, their soul, their identity beyond gender, etc.. this is just... yuck.

just as well, this further pushes the pretty prevalent idea among mogai/inclus that gay, bi, and straight people are driven solely by sexual desire. while the "hearts not parts" phrase is uniquely pansexual in nature, the sentiment is shared by inclus asexual and other people using "how" labels, such as demisexual and other "a-spec" people. this sentiment is considered pretty homophobic, because while the idea seems to be against gay, bi, *and* straight people, it is weaponized frequently in opposition to gay and bi folk, especially lesbians.

"it's just a preference"

preferences are for flavors of ice cream. i highly doubt one is basing their whole identity on the phonetic sounds of "pan" vs. "bi", or a "prettier flag", or what have you. typically, if one dives deeper into what exactly these "preferences" are, they almost all lead back to misconceptions about bi as a label.

differing community

it's no secret that pansexual people have, at an alarming rate, culminated for themselves a unique culture and community. it's also no secret that a lot of this reeks of the era it was born from - 2009-2012 internet culture - but my distaste is my own.

some argue that their preference for the pan label is simply due to this differing community. some... do not argue this, but it's apparent. what either party doesn't consider is this: stating preference for one community, in this situation, is stating a preference to not be included in the other community.

this is why i say that some pan people, while not consciously aware, adhere to this argument. i was one of these people. this is where you'll have to forgive my heavy reliance on personal anecdote, but i believe it applies.

when i id'd as pan, i realized later that a big portion of my preference for this label stemmed from this mystified idea of the bi community. in my head, subconsciously, i viewed bi people as mature but not too mature, sexy, club-going, drug-using, edgy. i thought i couldn't be one of those people because they were too *cool* (these ideas aren't cool in this regard - they're very common biphobic stereotypes). pansexuals, on the other hand, where nerdy, friendly, meme-loving, sex-positive but not promiscuous. so many of the "fandom moms" we all used to admired had pan in their tumblr description, twitter bio, blog header, etc.. i could relate to this! (emphasis on could... i'm a normal human being now)

you can see these internal biases become very apparent when you see pan people insisting that their preference is "valid", or when you try to get them to explain how they're different from bi people at all. this isn't a matter of "one community or another", or even "one community over another", but "one community over the boogeyman of our idea of their community". and it all becomes so silly when you see how self-imposed this is - all these traits are bi culture! you're bi! you are contributing all this to bi culture, and you only need to shed your internalized biphobia and realize this!

fetishization of trans identities

i touched on this in my first point, but i'll go more in depth here. essentially, the idea that there must be a separate identity for those willing to date nb people, and god forbid if you're even more ignorant, trans men and women, is inherently othering and, in many cases, fetishizing of trans identities.

in my experience, the pan person who recognizes that pan is the same as bi, but who claims they are pan due simply to preference, is actually in the minority. for every pan of this sort i've seen, i've seen 20 more who blatantly believe that they must id as pan, since they would date trans and nb people. i believe this is almost directly related to how many cis people id as pan, as well as a mix of trans+nb people who've been fed this narrative and now believe it to be true. those quirky fandom moms i mentioned? all cis, all iding as pan performatively. the label of pan is an act of defiance in their eyes, the ultimate symbol of trans+nb allyship. and it's so, soooo cringey. i'd rather they be honest and id as "chaser" and be done with it.

if you're one of those people, or someone who believes this distinction is valid, hear me when i say this: TRANS PEOPLE DO NOT WANT YOUR SPECIAL TREATMENT! binary trans men and women want to be included in your overall binary men and women categories. trans men are men, trans women are women. attraction to men includes trans men by default, attraction to women, the same. nb people adjacent to these binary genders (demi-man, genderfluid, trans masc, agender+masc presenting, etc.) like to be included in these categories of attraction on an individual basis! there are gay men who date masc nb people, and lesbians who identify lesbian attraction as attraction to non-men, and vice versa. how can you rectify iding with an identity solely to point out your attraction to these otherwise unincluded (by your standards) categories, all in the name of being for these peoples' desires, while also ignoring their pleas to just be included and normalized within *all* attractions? can you say that gay, straight, lesbian, and pan people can all be attracted to trans+nb people, but not bi people? that's silly! so, in your attempt to be more inclusive, you've actually insisted on further othering us.

i'll add more points if/when they're brought up, or if i remember anything else later. i just got back from work and am quite tired, so.. :,)