#healthy yaoi as opposed to toxic yaoi

[nycto-rotting]

u know shit’s gonna be good when rannells plays the role of a tall and stylish boyfriend

[sanchezsimp]

Okay, I'm just gonna be reeealll straight and honest with y'all here-

Billford.

Warning: I'm not going to tag this post, because there aren't any actual spoilers in it, but these were my thoughts after reading it. Read if ya want.

I, personally, never shipped it. I also never had a problem with others shipping it. I respected it and still do. Perhaps more now. It was sort of a "whatever, do what you want, like what you like, don't care" ship for me. BUT!

NEVER, in a million years, did I think the Book of Bill would get me into it rather than the goddamn fandom.

Okay, let me be more specific here...

I didn't see them as properly being in a relationship. It's not my OTP or anything like that, and it sure as hell wasn't healthy or sweet.

Bill was abusive, and Ford was a victim.

But I do believe that, despite using him, Bill actually felt connected with Ford, and they had some good times... And he was real upset when the only person he felt that connection with left him.

That doesn't make it any less toxic or wrong.

I wouldn't say I ship it now, per se, but I definitely see it, because it feels canon.

To me, it was a one-sided, maybe-romantic thing with Bill, and he was hurt. This does not excuse the fucked up shit he did.

Maybe it wasn't truly romantic, but there was some element in there, if you ask me.

To anyone who disagrees and thinks it definitely was or definitely wasn't romantic-- Alright! You're entitled to your own opinion.

But, y'all, I did not expect the Book of Bill to be about Bill and Ford's toxic yaoi, and hell, I'm not opposed.

It was great, I cannot explain more how much I fucking loved reading it.

Tumblr, please don't hate me-

[bramblewhisker]

Thoughts on FireTiger?

I love FireTiger. Among all the cats, Firestar is one of my favorites to ship, and among Firestar ships this is one of the best! Enemies-to-lovers is of course a tried and true shipping trope, and Firestar and Tigerstar complement each other especially well. The fact that they have so much in common (e.g. ambition, political savvy, a willingness to break the rules if it gets them what they want) but are otherwise so ideologically opposed makes for a great pairing.

I think there's three main ways this ship can go, and all of them are great:

A Boyfriend Soothes the Savage Beast: Falling for & getting with Fireheart stops Tigerstar somewhere short of his evil plans and he mellows out, ending up somewhere from grumpy but loyal warrior (more realistic) to docile and pliant malewife (fun silly time). I'm a big fan of these situations especially where Fireheart ends up being the more "dominant" one in the relationship (at least in private); fun little role reversal where he tamed the beast.

Got My Claws In You: In order to both maintain some semblance of peace within the clans while also keeping himself close to the big handsome tabby he fell for. There's interesting routes here for both a healthy relationship (Fireheart and Tigerstar compromise, mitigating a lot of the damage) and toxic yaoi (Fireheart is Tigerstar's "fixer" and is constantly covering for increasingly morally bereft stuff he does).

Fire Heartless: Evil Fireheart AU. Tfw the hot tabby you pulled corrupts your moral compass entirely.

Those are like the three points of the FireTiger alignment triangle and every point therein is something good. And there's just so many good possible interpersonal dynamics between the two of them as a couple.

[cameoamalthea]

illegalslothings:

I think the one thing that  miffs me about certain fujosji is the toxic views some have on gay relationships and often many women who write fanfiction have some very.. misinformed ideas?? And some of them tend to fetishize gay men (reguardless or not if they're lesbians or straight women) I USED to be one of these types of people and i didn't realize how damaging my ideas and 'fetishizing' was until I was in my early 20s. Just some food for thought

Thank you for your response. I can understand how you feel that way. Especially given that plenty of fujoshi are teenagers on the internet and teens can be obnoxious. There are annoying fans and plenty of bad fanfiction (especially if it’s written by people without much experience, but hey, safer for girls to explore sexuality and make mistakes in a story than exploring with another person where they could get hurt). 

I get what you mean about problems in yaoi. And honestly, it’s the same problems I see in a lot of het romance (and sometimes gay romance made by and for guy male audiences, like I was into Gravitation at the same time I was into Queer as Folk re-runs, there were overlapping tropes and overlapping problems).

However, I’m hoping that maybe I can give you some food for thought too. And please bare with me as my responses tend to be very long and tangental but I want to talk about this...

First, could you define “fetishizing” because I’ve seen the term used simply to mean ‘women thinking something is hot”. 

Kant’s take on sexual morality was that any sexual attraction is objectifying (or fetishizing, I suppose, since fetishizing and objectifying seems to be used interchangeably in the discourse. Kant’s reasoning that sexual attraction "makes of the loved person an Object of appetite. . . . Taken by itself it is a degradation of human nature" (Lectures on Ethics, p. 163) Source.

The idea is if you think someone or something is hot you’re not treating them as people and just as something to ‘get off to’. Therefor, any and all sexual attraction is evil.

I agree with Kant insofar as physical attraction is objectifying someone, but disagree that it’s inherently wrong.

Rather, I think  sexual morality hinges on consent. If you treat someone as an object without their consent, that is wrong. If a guy asks me invasive questions about my sex life or harasses me and the girl I’m with because ‘lesbians are hot’ or ‘I love bisexuals’. He’s trying to use to me to fulfill a sexual fantasy without my consent and it’s creepy and wrong.

Using people without their consent is always wrong.

Him finding the idea of two women together hot doesn’t really effect me because it doesn’t involve me.

Consent is also a two sided coin. No means no, but yes means yes. It means that if I want to do something, either on my own or with other consenting adults, I’m allowed to do so...

I reject the idea that how other people who aren’t involved might feel about it negates the right of an individual to consent.

If I decide to hold hands with another woman in public or kiss her and it makes some people uncomfortable, that’s not my problem. They’re not involved. Our relationship is between us.

If I decide to write a romance story between two guys for other women or rp as a guy with another woman and it makes some people uncomfortable, that’s also not my problem. Again, they’re not involved. Everyone involved is consenting, whether consenting to read or to play. 

The fujoshi community is for the most part women exploring their sexuality with other women in a women dominated space. 

If a woman sexually harasses anyone, man or woman, then that of course is wrong, because there’s no consent. That’s what harassment means, doing something to someone without their consent and/or in spite of their clear lack of consent. 

Note, consent is between the people involved. 

If I cosplay a guy from Ouran High School Host Club and give roses to girls and consensually pose somewhat suggestively with my cosplay partner to make them happy, everyone involved consents and there is no problem. 

If someone sexually harasses cosplayers, demands they do poses they’re not comfortable with...that’s a problem. 

If someone sees us cosplaying two guys and posing with our arms around each other and is uncomfortable...that’s not my problem. 

I just can’t agree with the idea that consensual activity is wrong because it makes people who aren’t involved feel uncomfortable. 

Whether a sexual act (sexual used here to mean any activity linked to sexual attraction) is moral hinges on consent between those involved, not how other people feel about it. 

Their feelings are valid, they may be genuinely uncomfortable, but feelings aren’t facts. Something making you (a general you) uncomfortable doesn’t make it wrong. 

Again, plenty of straight girls might be uncomfortable with me because ‘what if I liked them, that would be gross’ but me existing as a person who likes girls or expressing that I like girls in general isn’t actually a threat to them. Me liking something doesn’t = being predatory, attraction doesn’t = sexual harassment.

And the same goes for me liking guys or the idea of being a guy in a relationship with another guy. 

Now, don’t get me wrong. I support criticizing media.

It’s important to critique media. Media reflects culture. By criticizing how relationships in media present predatory behavior as romantic can help us to pause and question where is this idea coming from?

As a romance fan (someone who read and wrote  romance, since like, middle school) - I will say that there are issues with the romance genre as a whole. Like any issue with the yaoi genre also exists in the romance genre because yaoi is still a subset of romance. The romance genre is full of toxic and unhealthy views of relationships (sometimes that’s the point, sometimes it seems the authors don’t understand when behavior is creepy as opposed to romantic). 

However, harmful messages in media don’t exist in a vacuum. They reenforce or subvert harmful ideas that exist in culture. So lesbian porn where the plot is a straight man turns lesbians straight should be criticized in light of reenforcing the idea that all women exist to please men and should want men and be available, even lesbians. Meanwhile, gay porn where the plot is a gay man turns a straight man gay doesn’t really reenforce anything.

Gay men don’t have the power to oppress straight men. Gay men’s fantasies about straight men can’t reenforce oppressive ideas because straight men aren’t oppressed.

Likewise, I don’t really think porn made by women about men can oppress men. Women don’t have societal power over men. Lesbians do not hold any privilege over gay men.

Rather, men have ‘male privilege’ which may be part of the draw of yaoi for lesbians. The opportunity to explore sexuality while using a male avatar. To explore sexuality with the baggage that comes with female sexuality (am I writing this character too slutty, will people hate her for it, what if they think this is me, what if I get sexually harassed for posting about sex things- Things you think about if you’re a woman writing porn that involves women that vanish if you write about men instead). And that’s besides the fact that in fandom content most characters in mainstream media are men and the most developed canon relationships tend to be between men. 

Lesbians ‘fetishizing’ gay men? Women fetishizing the idea of being a man/maleness? 

I just don’t see how lesbians have the power to harm gay men by reading, writing or drawing porn about men. 

Or see how whether something is harmful depends on the gender. So if my husband does “rabid fangirl’ things, it’s not fetishization but if I do...it is?

Also, what about non-binary people and intersex people? I have PCOS, which is a form of intersex and sort of makes my gender identification shift depending on how much T I have in my system in a given time. Sometimes, I want to present as male and feel more comfortable as a guy. Most of the time I identify as a woman. (And sometimes I’m a sobbing mess of double dysphoria). 

So like...if I like yaoi while I feel like a guy it’s fine, but if I do it while I’m feeling more like a girl it’s fetishizing?

I just question any logic that boils down to ‘it’s only bad if girls do it’. Which I see a lot of...

That doesn’t mean we can’t criticize girls for bad behavior. If you treat real people badly or treat non-consenting third parties like they should be your sex toys, that’s absolutely not acceptable. But thinking about boys or reading bad romance stories about boys isn’t hurting anyone.

Again, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ever question media. When media reflects harmful norms we should discuss what’s wrong with this picture so that we can consciously reject the harmful ideas. That said, it’s still ok to enjoy problematic media. It’s not about never enjoying something that isn’t it’s perfect. It’s about thinking critically so you won’t reenforce any harmful ideas you’ve picked up due to societal norms and so you can instead question those norms. 

For example, Star Wars featured some pretty toxic stuff. However, it’s ok to like Star Wars, and to like Han Solo and like his relationship and chemistry with Leia. You can like it and still acknowledge that the narrative frames predatory behavior as cute/romantic. Liking it doesn’t mean you’re predatory or support predatory behaviors. 

If you haven’t questioned predatory romance in Harrison Ford movies before and have misinformed ideas about relationships, that’s not your fault. We grow up in a society that has some messed up ideas about relationships and doesn’t give us the information we need. 

In the U.S. at least we don’t even have access to basic sex-ed let alone classes on relationships. This is a problem because we need tools to recognize abusive relationships and make healthy choices. It doesn’t help when media doesn’t really give great examples. 

However, the issue isn’t fiction not teaching us good lessons. Fiction exists to entertain not educate. That’s what the non-fiction section is for...

Making decisions about relationship based on fictional romance books isn’t a good idea. Making decisions about what pet to get based on fictional dog books isn’t a good idea either. The good news is, you can fact check. That’s part of what criticism is...looking at something is presented and thinking about it critically means fact checking.

Women interested in BDSM because of 50 Shades have been hurt as a result. Families interested in Dalmatians because of 101 Dalmatians have been hurt as a result and have hurt a lot of dogs and the breed as a whole. 

That doesn’t mean enjoying the fantasy of an unhealthy relationship in a romance book is wrong, or enjoying unrealistic stories about puppies. That’s not a problem. Using fiction as if it were a guide book is a problem.

I’ve talked about this discussing “The Shallows” and how sharks are portrayed in the media. Monster movies about Sharks aren’t really the issue. The issue is people who treat fiction (whose purpose is to entertain) like non-fiction (whose purpose it is to educate and inform). “The Shallows” isn’t a documentary, we shouldn’t treat it like one. And really, the bigger problem is more when actual documentaries sensationalize things. The issue is less with Sharknado and more with so called ‘educational channels” which purport to be non-fiction, informative sources try to be entertaining for ratings (Shark Week makes me angrier than the Shallows). 

(sorry, shark digression...)

My point is genres that exist to entertain aren’t meant to educate. They can still be criticized (all media should be criticized), but they shouldn’t be help to a standard of something it’s not. A romance novel is not a sex-ed book, it’s a not a relationship guide book, it’s a form of entertainment. 

To quote Oscar Wilde “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all.”

What’s true for books also applies to fanfic and manga and all art. The purpose of fiction is to entertain. It doesn’t have to teach moral lessons or leave the reader more informed. Note that I distinguish fiction from propaganda, as propaganda exists to purposely support a certain point of view, and so it is necessary to judge it on the point of view it’s pushing. So I think you can say that the philosophy advocated in “Atlas Shrugged” is morally wrong because that’s propaganda, but I’d argue “The Picture of Dorian Gray” isn’t morally wrong because it’s a book, it’s job is to be entertainment and judged on whether it’s well written or badly written.

Note, criticizing media is different than judging it as moral or immoral. I can write an essay about the character of Dorian and what makes him an bad person in the novel. That’s different than saying the book itself is immoral or that Oscar Wilde is bad for writing it and his fans are bad for reading it. Yes, it’s a problematic book, that’s part of the point of it. It’s not a guide book on behavior, it’s art.

[genquerdeer]

tumblr discourse

I wonder if the reason why tumblr discourse is so horrible and toxic is the fact that tumblr user attribute a moral value to EVERY political position someone has, and there’s only two possible - good and EVIL; and if someone disagress with me, they’re clearly EVIL and VILE.

This approach of course makes sense when the dichotomy is like, “nazis versus anti-nazis”, and it even has some sense when it’s “feminism vs men’s rights” but then tumblr decides to apply it to ANY position at all, to forcibly portray their position as Moral Good and opposite position as Vile Evil, even when it makes no sense, like “do ace people being in LGBT spaces?” or “is women drawing yaoi healthy expression of female sexuality in a world that forbids it - or is it straight fetishization of gay men?” - like, there’s this tendency to frame everyone who has arguments opposing you as an evil person who’s clearly evil, divide everything into two sides where one side is right and righteous, and one is wrong and terrible.

Some issues are complex. Some issues are muddled, some issues are grey. Some issues don’t have an obvious right answer, or perhaps both position are somewhat right. Some issues require a detailed and nuanced discussion. But you won’t find any of that nuance on tumblr, because it’s so much more satisfying to call everyone you dislike evil and vile, and all you will find is pointless harassment and people taking ‘sides’, as if this was about WINNING and not SOLVING A PROBLEM.