#homophobic treatment lol

[2024skin]

Thinking about the gay Mormon kid I met in middle school and how all the other Mormons were convinced he was gay-faking and actually straight

[boy-armageddon]

Post I revlogged. Reminded me of how music publications were genuinely just kind of evil about whitney and would use every word in the world 2 call him a faggot w/o actually saying the word lol. It genuinely pisses me off but I fear 4 talking about it too in depth cause I don’t wanna come off as being like “wow this straight guy suffered more than any gay guy” cause obviously I don’t think that. I just think about it a lot. Not mentioning it in da post tags cause I’d feel bad 4 clogging the notes about something unrelated

[kanmom51]

Jikook car drive to CT

I think that before I dive into the actual car ride I have to set a few things straight.

Did you guys notice they chose to ride together? Shock and awe...

Lmao.

Just a little stab for all those who were nitpicking at them back in 2021-23. Yeah, you's that were all about "but they don't ride in the same car anymore", or "they aren't addressing each other or reacting to each other on SM", or whatever other kind of insecurity for some or just outright malice from others.

JM and JK are the same JM and JK they were before the hiatus and solo paths. Same same. With adjustments having to be made to a new reality of not spending close to 24/7 together. Adjusting to their crazy busy solo work and schedules. Adjusting to learning how to be alone when you are used to not being, because your significant other is submerged in his work while you are not. With adjustments to not having ot7 as their protecting glass closet. When you are used to being together close to 24/7 and circumstances change and you can't anymore, as a couple you need to adjust to that new reality and sometimes it's harder on one of you than the other. Not because you don't love each other or need each other equally, but because you are different people and adjust differently to this new reality.

And in the reality of these 2 young men, well it has been apparent since the beginning of 2023 that JK was the one that was struggling most with these changes. I'd say that this is can be a huge clue to his neurodivergence.

When we look at these two young men, whom I believe to be 2 queer young men in a long term loving relationship, not only do we need to look at them within the context of them being in one of the biggest if not THE biggest band in the world right now, living in a still mostly homophobic society and at the time were looking at enlisting for their 18 month military service, a military that still outlaws sexual relations between men.

This has to be understood while looking at Jikook throughout the years and in 2021-2023, things changing after creation of Hybe, going public, trying to buy out SM and the whole saga with MHJ (which was going on since Oct 2022 behind the scenes).

That's a good starting point understanding them in 2023 and going into watching Are you sure?

But that's not all.

There's more.

Seeing some of the reactions, comments, posts I feel the need to say this as well:

JM and JK are human beings.

They aren't characters in a drama.

This isn't The Bold and the Beautiful, JK not Ridge and JM not Brooke or vise versa (seriously, just picked the parallels because of the current hair colours). They weren't married and divorced ending up with others and then married again and divorced and with others and just going on and on and on. Ups and downs, ins and outs, together and parted. This is real life, not a TV show. Not only would their love not last that (and they clearly love each other), their interactions, their dynamics wouldn't just stay the same same. Not to mention what it would have done to the band and their own relationships with the others. They wouldn't survive it nor would the band. So don't create drama where there isn't is what I say.

What I see is a pretty much levelled long term couple. With relationship bumps in the road, adjustments, frustrations, moods.

I also see 2 queer young men who due to the reality of 2023 have close to zero camera time in one frame. And it shows.

But mainly I see LOTS AND LOTS OF LOVE FOR EACH OTHER.

On top of that I see both of them feeling physically unwell. Poor JM with his stomach issues and bursting pipe (yes I just said that, lol), and JK who has been ill for days, had to go to the hospital for treatment before his solo debut performance, for that performance to be fucked up by the weather. Man was definitley still unwell the whole time constantly sniffling and coughing. And JM worrying about JK's health is another indicator as to it not being nothing.

Bottom line: these are real life people with their own different characteristics, feelings, stress, anxiety, illnesses and the runs.

Not that they didn't know there will be cameras, they were well aware of it, but looks like JM was initially a little shocked to see just how many of them.

Even with the cameras and initial apparent awkwardness, not with each other, but with the whole "it's just the two of us on camera together, no other members to buffer", they are at ease with each other, smiling and giggling.

And even with the cameras and that on one hand need to say things but on the other need to still be wary of what you say and not to say too much - something they are expert at, even if it's been a while and takes them a bit to get back on the wagon with. Even with that they go back to that very jikooky type of formal - informal interaction with each other, JK 'forgetting' JM is the hyung out of the two (like I said, same same).

We have JM's cheeky comment about spooning JK if he's cold, one he insisted on implementing that same night. Mics on, cameras obviously on, but us not allowed to see a thing (and I will talk about this in another post - the whole "if there's nothing to hide how come we didn't get to see one of the apparently funniest moments of the trip, one that the the two and those around them couldn't shut up about?" (phew, that was a long question).

We also get a cute JM looking out for JK's health turning on the heat in the car, turning on his seat heater (without JK knowing about it, lol).

As a whole, those two in the car sounded like an old married couple. I was watching laughing the whole time, the whole thing feeling too familiar, lol.

But I know what you are all waiting for.

More so those that love to question their relationship.

Let's get on and discuss the car convo some are stressing over.

This:

But wait.

Before I talk about it, there's one more word I want to mention.

CONTEXT.

Context is EVERYTHING.

We all know that, right?

And what is the important context here?

Well, first of, this is all in front of the cameras.

Secondly, we ALL KNOW that even with their crazy schedules JM and JK DID GET TO SEE EACH OTHER in those months counting up to this trip, in private, just the two of them.

We know from them that they were together drinking the night before Hobi's enlistment, for example. We know JM was at JK's before JM left for London end of May, JK 'complaining' about having to change the way JM adjusted the mood lamp. We know they are the closest duo in the group, but beyond that, those two are just super close. We know that JK went live basically every time JM left for overseas and was overjoyed when JM showed up in his comments (including his comments during the mukbang live and perhaps coming over after he finished his schedule). This is before this trip. Let's not mention (or maybe let's) the flirt-fest we got in the JK in bed live that came shortly after this trip.

One other huge thing we seem to forget is that:

This is an edited product we are seeing.

Not a live discussion.

And even if it looks like the conversation is somewhat flowing, when you look really closely you see that there are cuts cuts cuts. Some might just be change of camera angle, others are real cuts where you can see that whatever was said was not said at the same time as a flowing conversation.

So, if you look carefully you will see that the first part of the discussion and the part where JM brings up V are not exactly in one flow. That there is a cut between what JK says, and we will get to that, don't fret, and when JM brings up him facetiming with V and what follows.

The start of it is also not clear. If what JM says about not going somewhere together in a while is the start of the flow of conversation, then the clip they are showing us of them in the car driving in the streets of NY is not connected to that, because the conversation continues when they are already out of town. 2 possibilities here. Either that was the start of the convo and for some reason they decided to show the car driving in NY even though the convo happened with them out of the city already. Or, once again, my point that maybe the convo isn't in one flow - even that first part of it. That JM did say what he said when they were still in the city and then their conversation following was edited in a way that we didn't get much of it until they were already out of the city and JK says what he says.

Reason I bring this up is again to emphasize the fact that as much as we are let in, we are still getting an edited product.

You know, same edited product that cuts out their flirty playful bedtime toothbrushing session.

I also want to bring this up, because I basically agree with much of what @shellbells-things the importance of them needing that getaway together (in this post):

This was written with the official translations in mind.

But you see, this is not what JK said.

The actual translation is basically JK calling out JM for not seeking him out enough!!!

And we also have this from @haedalkoo (thanks you for this post💜):

And why does it matter? Why do these different translations matter? Because they tell us a totally different story.

In the first you have JK saying that when one of them is busy, even though the other is not, he does not tend to call/reach out to the one that is busy. Basically this could be read as them not making an effort to contact the other even when they had time on their hands to do so. And perhaps that is why there are people up in arms about this, although my take of it is that even if this was the correct translation, which it is not, that understanding, that conclusion, would have been a very superficial one, disregarding the context of those two, who they are, where they are and what they are doing, as mentioned above.

In the other, what seems to be the more accurate translation, we have a salty boyfriend complaining about his partner not reaching out to him when he's busy, but also not reaching out to him when JK is busy, even if JM is not as busy.

"Your busy you don't seek me out, your not busy you don't seek me out"...

Now let's look at what JK said within the context of it all.

This isn't about them not seeing each other, not being in touch at all. Being estranged. Losing contact. Like so many want it to be about, given that would be so much more dramatic and 'interesting'.

This is about it not being enough for JK.

Enough being the key word.

JM and JK are different. They are both highly driven, and when JK has a JM by his side, said JM is a catalyst and has JK as driven as him. But you see, they weren't together. JM, being the workaholic that he is, highly driven with his work, having to give not 100% but 1000%, could easily lose himself in that work. And as much as he loves JK, or perhaps even more so because he's crazy about him, he can't have him around as a distraction. So, in a sense, when he works he can get lost in that work and that leaves little "free" time to spend with the person he loves, the person that loves him, the person that needs him. Same person that was REALLY struggling at the start of 2023 while JM was too absent. Again, that does not mean that JM was not spending time with JK. It was just not enough. Especially while JK was sort of lost at that point in a sense that he had no clear path set for himself. JK is different in the sense that JM is kind of his blankie, his anchor, his safe place. He needs JM around even when he is up to nothing (see JM's "he comes to my room to lie on my bed and do nothing" from the LA live 2021). And having him around is a need. Do we remember crying JK at the end of his lives on White day 2023. Heart wrenching. And again, it's not that JM doesn't need JK, he does, but a. his need is different to JK's, and b. JM was super busy at the time while JK was doing basically nothing.

And when JK was busy, well I'm guessing that JM was giving him the space he thought JK needed to work. But obviously this wasn't what JK wanted.

This saltiness is all coming from the same person that says he doesn't answer his phone calls or reply to texts. The person that JM complained when he doesn't answer his calls. With all that he still needed JM to reach out. He needed to know that JM is thinking about him.

This conversation isn't about them not seeing each other. It's about not seeing each other enough. It's about JM not seeking JK out as much as JK needed him to. And it's about them not being able, for whichever reasons (exterior or self inflicted) to do exactly this. Be out and about together. The two of them. This is exactly what you do in a healthy long term relationship. You talk. You are open. You tell your partner how you feel and what you need.

And you know what JK sounded like to me?

He reminded me of this JK:

The JK that even though he had already scolded JM he couldn't just let it go. That even though JM apologized several times and explained himself, he just couldn't let it go because it was weighing on him, that choice that he felt JM made.

And I know, I just know, that this conversation we got in the car was not a one of. That "Your here. Finally" we got from him at the end...

He needed this to happen, for JM to make this happen.

I will also add, even though I cannot go into too much detail at this point, that I feel that the : "You're here. Finally", has so much more sub context to it within the way they had both handled 2022-23 and that adjustment to the new reality. Not about it being easier for one over the other, but more so about how they handled this "apartness" that was kind of forced on them.

Anyway, that "finally", that was it for me. Seeing. No. Feeling how this was weighing on JK. Feeling just how important this was for him. JM making that effort and showing up for him like he did.

I hope that I have managed to get the message through. I will drill it in with my three keywords to this post:

COUPLE

CONTEXT

ENOUGH

I will end this by saying this:

Read that convo as you will, see those two as you will. At the end of the day not only did they CHOOSE to do this again and again (even with the little time they still had with their crazy schedules and upcoming enlistment). Not only did JK say he wanted to keep going with this until they are 50 years old. But they also CHOSE to enlist together. To be TOGETHER for those 18 months of military service. CHOOSING to do so knowing that meant a harder service and placement.

At the end of the day they CHOSE EACH OTHER.

And they will keep on doing so!!!

[shesnake]

I wanted to know your thoughts on this but do you think it's fair to say either Louis or Armand are abusive in their relationship? Idek if this is a valid angle to view the characters from because I guess they're all monsters or whatever but a part of me thinks that it's kinda lukewarm to refuse to engage with the complicated themes of the show, which abuse is featured heavily and pretty clearly imo. This isn't aimed at you btw. Something I noticed is people tend to use some of Louis's less favorable moments to justify the violence he experiences. Like that post about Armand just matching Louis energy in ep 5, most of the notes are taking the stance that Louis is a cold, unempathic pimp who doesn't care about sa victims, that Armand genuinely is completely right when he says he is always cleaning up after Louis that he was only worried and tenderhearted and Louis escalated in the worst way and that after Louis said that he deserved everything that happened after. And I may be biased but to me that is so fucking crazy. To me it seems like fans, specially nonblack fans, have zero empathy for black abuse victims, actively enacting abuse culture even. But idk if that is a too reactive view. I don't want to say Louis isn't flawed because he is. But I mean we are watching the season about Armand getting Claudia killed on purpose and somehow people are still like Maybe Armand didn't do it, maybe it was all Louis, maybe Louis really asked for it. All of it. I think there's a problem there but idk I kinda feel a little crazy too. Btw disclaimer I fuckin hate Lestat this is not about comparing Loumand/Loustat lol

hi! and wow there is so much to discuss here...

I think it is fair to describe the actions of both Louis and Armand towards each other as abusive by definition but it's always important to remember that it is Armand in the position of greater power over him. Armand is older, stronger, owns dominion. He can walk in the sun, manipulate memories, and live without constant debilitating hunger for blood - all of which are things that impede Louis from being his own person outside of Armand.

Louis also faced this same predicament when he was with Lestat, but unlike Armand who uses his own innate powers against Louis, Lestat mostly used his social advantages of whiteness, wealth etc in addition to withholding key knowledge about vampirism to keep himself in control and Louis dependent on him.

and sure Louis can lash out all he wants! He can mock Armand's sexual trauma (trauma which Armand himself already gets them both to fetishise... but that's a whole different conversation...) he can hit back when Lestat hits him but when he's with either of those guys he is always going to be the victim. Nothing shitty he does to his partners, or to Claudia, or to Daniel, justifies what is being done to him by these men.

There absolutely has to be anti-blackness involved in any argument that says Louis deserves any of this. (Of course Armand as a brown South Asian man is not immune from fandom racism but his treatment is racialised in a different way that is also a different conversation). Any negative behaviour from a Black man is going to be seen by racists as exponentially more aggressive than it is, especially the cross-section with those you mentioned who aren't engaging with the complicated themes of this show exploring abuse.

They can see that Louis yelling at Armand is bad, but don't notice that Armand is being manipulative. They can see that Louis stabbing Lestat that one time during sex is bad (and still sexualise it), but don't notice that Louis is disassociating in every sex scene he has with Lestat afterwards (because they're too busy sexualising it). They can see that Louis making Daniel upset is bad, but don't notice that Daniel has been leveling dozens of racist and homophobic micro-aggressions at him since episode 1.

Armand got a few minutes to tell his tragic backstory in Louvre, Lestat had 2 or 3 different scenes in season 1 to recall his own. It's just been words. Meanwhile racists erase Louis' experiences with trauma because they never had enough fucking empathy for him to begin with to even register it happening to him! on screen! in real time! right in front of us!

And yeah Louis and Armand and Loumand are incredibly complex and compelling, and I do enjoy seeing Louis' moments of cruelty towards Armand! But he's never going to win against him in the game Armand built for him.

And in terms of Claudia, I do think that Louis failed her, as he has always failed her. And is responsible for her death in that regard. But that failure involved letting those other two fucking sharks eat her!!! I personally haven't seen anyone pushing the blame completely off Armand and onto Louis but I wouldn't be surprised. This week I've more pissed off about people levelling it all on Armand and think of Lestat as an unwilling participant.... this is of course the blonde white vampire show....

anyways sorry this is so long! thanks for the message this was really interesting to think about.

[cheonminhyuk]

tapping the sign that says "you don't need to use slurs or outwardly express bigotry to retain homophobic or racist ideas"

why is the author of hsr incapable of conceptualizing a wlw romance that does not have a sexuality crisis/societal homophobia as a central element? why is greg's route creating a new problem every update? it is not even that we as the readers don't see them as fully realized characters - the author doesn't see them as interesting enough on their own to carry out a romance with.

i'm all caught up on the dmitry romance, and i've seen quite a lot of cain's. why is it that both of them get the tension, the pining, the gradual closeness and what keeps them and lane apart is disregarded eventually because love wins i guess?

meanwhile anna's romance is 'slow burn' and 'angsty' and 'lane thinks they're just friends'...i really just think the author cannot imagine a gay ship being interesting without a backdrop of homophobia lol

and that's sort of what the problem is - interest, or lack thereof. the author doesn't think anna and greg's characters, on their own, can maintain reader interest. i've been romancing greg since the start and damn near every update there's some bullshit disagreement/conflict they have that the diamond scenes are then focused on resolving. rinse and repeat. lane can have two unfriendly interactions with greg about the squad drugging her. she is uniquely upset at greg's involvement in it because "i thought you were different". compare this to the dmitry scene, in which lane only brings the drugging up as a joke and dmitry finally says 'sorry', a season later when it no longer matters to anyone.

this brings us to greg's treatment as a whole. as someone else has pointed out, the black man is the only romance option you can actually kill. he is regarded by lane as the one having betrayed her most severely regarding the drugging, purely because what? they had one civil conversation beforehand?

onto s2 - greg is now the temporary leader of the squad. this changes nothing for him and lane. sure. in dmitry's train cabin scene, they have an exchange about this in which she tells dmitry her and greg "haven't interacted much", even if you've been romancing both. hey, at least the author's self aware? dmitry's position as general colors every single interaction he has with lane and the world, as well as the other characters, react to it. greg's position as his second-in-command is so irrelevant we find out about it only when dmitry is out of commission and someone else needs to lead the squad in his absence.

towards the season one finale, we find out the fate of emma, greg's sister. half of the ensuing interactions with him have lane thinking about how she's keeping this information from him. but she continues to do so with no good reason. 5 episodes later - the gym scene. i don't know about the mercy path, as my greg slot is not on it, but on the no compassion path, lane basically argues she can't tell him because she likes him and knowing the truth would somehow cause him to leave the squad. i simply don't buy this reason. first of all - why would greg, now knowing his sister died in the siberia base, not stay with the only people who could possibly know more about this base? second...where the fuck would he go lmao. one could argue this is simply lane being irrational, but no mercy lane has never before been portrayed as irrational, only lacking in empathy for other people. it's hard not to see this for what it is - another hook for conflict between them because the author, again, does not see greg as interesting enough on his own and feels she has to rely on cheap drama to keep readers invested.

[daouoffroads]

can you please explain the col director hating the show and daouoffroad situation? i keep hearing that they were treated poorly on set and even faced homophobia but i don't know where this information comes from. did they ever mention that themselves?

btw tysm for keeping this fandom well fed with all your gifsets 🩷 century of love is my current obsession so i keep checking the tag and you're always there 🥺

+

huh, what do you mean? why didn't the director like daouoffroad?

answering these two asks at the same time lol

the director essentially made the filming environment hell (which he's infamous for when he doesn't like a project?). it got so bad that both daou and offroad mentioned they weren't happy most days, wanting to leave the project/quit acting entirely. (these are things 🦖 🚗 said themselves.) the director was hard on them both (seems to not like working with non-actors/idols) but was particularly hard on offroad. he also never allowed either one of them any sort of creative freedom within the script, they had to do to exactly what was on the page exactly how he wanted it. he also told them they'd be lucky if he came back after Q1 to finish directing.

the director has also never posted about col except to say he won't be posting about col lol (his ig jumps from laws of attraction to spare me your mercy which he's also currently directing.)

as for the onset homophobic treatment/harassment that was, unfortunately, true! while daou (as it was directed mostly toward him) hasn't said anything about it himself... it was caught on video as well as posted publicly online by the people who did it (hair/makeup/wardrobe staff for col).

so yeah... 🦖🚗 went through hell on set and the director is a knob head lol

ahhhh thank you so much 😭🩷🩷🩷🩷 i'm incredibly unbearable about this show lol

[familyabolisher]

re: this post, would you perhaps be able to reword it? i understand the words you're using individually, and i think i might kind of get what you're trying to say, but it's just one very long sentence and so i'm having trouble parsing it! (wait--i just reread it. initial question canceled, mostly--now: what alternatives might we have available to us?) and what does this section: "it feels all too easy to jump from that to then just stymieing our ability to actually describe the textual violences necessary to the discursive construction of that normativity in the first place" mean, exactly? thank you as always for running this blog. :-)

What I’m describing is a critical phenomenon wherein people will approach (usually canonical) horror texts which reify hegemony by ‘identifying’ with the monster who is generally figured in terms of alterity in some capacity; by extricating, for example, a queer narrative out of what is in fact a homophobic one, and treating this as something of a ‘reclamatory’ practice in which one ‘relates’ to that which the text figures as monstrous. The most common instance of this which I see is people’s discussion of Carmilla as an erotic lesbian romance; other examples include Dracula, or Frankenstein, or the socially currency invested in the idea of a ‘madwoman in the attic’ (ie. Jane Eyre).  

I don’t think this is like, a practice that we need to do away with entirely, lol – but I do think that a) there are marginalised writers + filmmakers who are making horror with actual teeth, with actual radical edge, and we don’t need to keep pretending like this approach of reclamation-through-identification with a monster in a v normative work is all we have available to us when politically subversive horror does very much exist, and b) this critical practice is often vvv limited in its discursive scope, and tends to lack the kind of materialist analysis that I would consider necessary in talking about literatures of alterity/marginality/violence.

When I talked about stymieing our ability to describe the textual violences necessary to the discursive constructions of that normativity in the first place, I meant that overfocusing on these texts as “reclaimed” articulations of an essentially queer (or otherwise ‘othered’) imaginary can inhibit our ability, as critics, to describe how those texts in fact do not think of their monstrous figures as worthy of a sympathetic or appreciative narrative. I mentioned Carmilla above – we can talk about Carmilla as erotically lesbian, sure, but how far down the line in talking about it as a Queer Narrative do we lose track of the fact that the text itself asserts the sexual norms of white Christian hegemony to necessarily succeed over the perversion of the corruptive, predatory lesbian, or as an Anglo-Irish work positing Carmilla as an Irish woman (and thus a contaminant threat to Anglo-Irish society)? At what point in adulating Dracula as articulating a particular form of queer, effeminate Jewishness destabilising and threatening Jonathan and Mina’s persistent heterosexuality do we lose track of Dracula as having grown out of the fear that the new waves of Jewish immigration in London’s East End were vampiric sources of contagion, or its possible relationship to the antisemitic smears that grew out of the Jack the Ripper murders? Or like, taking Bertha Mason (or ‘the madwoman in the attic,’ because truly, v few people using this phrase are actually thinking about Bertha Mason lol) as a kind of feminist paragon – at what point do we begin to overlook the fact that Jane Eyre is a v racist text?

These aren’t necessarily contradictory approaches – like, for example, you can talk about ‘identifying’ with Dracula as emblematic of British Jewish assimilation and the discontents thereof whilst also talking about Dracula as an antisemitic text, even if the analysis in the former isn’t especially coherent – but the focus of the ‘identification’ treatment is often incredibly limited in its scope, and those limitations can often be detrimental to one’s ability to talk frankly and honestly about what a text actually says and does. A very good example such limitations is that of Frankenstein; an identification with Frankenstein’s monster as an entrypoint for textual analysis obfuscates the way in which Frankenstein constructed a discursive template by which the ameliorationist argument against the immediate abolition of slavery could be argued for. (The linked post lays this out v clearly, but the cited source is Mary Mulvey’ Roberts’ ‘Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, and Slavery,’ in Dangerous Bodies: Historicising the Gothic Corporeal). What I basically mean is, when we talk about relating to, identifying with, ‘reclaiming’ the monster, we have to have a real grasp on what it is we’re trying to impose such a practice on, and what the actual substance of the source text has to say for itself. I’m not one for assuming a text as a body with a set of metaphysical properties that we as critics are tasked to find – I think the relationship between text and reader ought to be dialectical – but part of that dialectical process means situating the text in its material social context and responding appropriately.

[marisatomay]

not gonna deny how funny norm is as a comedian i'll give him that but ppl dont realize that he and a lot of the rest of the 90s snl alumni were conservatives and that norm in particular was homophobic. he made a ton of homophobic jokes. sometimes he'd make himself the punchline but usually he'd make another man, usually one who was already being targeted by homophobic rumors, the punchline. a good example of this would be his treatment of chris kattan. kattan reacted very negatively to jokes about his sexuality so norm just went in harder and harder on him until kattan couldnt take it anymore. genuinely really awful behavior

He was one of the funniest people to ever do it and he was also a hardcore conservative who had a history of really awful homophobic and transphobic jokes that people thought crossed the line *even back then*. Makes me feel more than a little nuts to see people born after 9/11 unironically post “norm was so kind<3” about his targeted homophobic harassment of people he didn’t like for bigoted reasons lol.

[cator99]

not trying to start shit but if ur comfortable do you mind talking about your gender identity and transition / opinions cause the post about your coworker really got me thinking

Youre not starting shit dw. I think that if a man can blast roids be bald not shave think of femininity as personal humiliation be competitive and openly express attraction to females then I should be able to do all that while rejecting any of the pathologizing that happens based on the fact that I'm doing that while female. Ykwim. I think that the concept of "gender identity" is precisely that disturbing pathologization I'm referring to. When a male looks or lives how I do, it isn't ever seen as indicative of any internal misalignment... but for me it is? Stupid. But the thing is that there absolutely is a misalignment occuring– and I've had to realize it has nothing to do with me. The way I live signifies nothing about holding some sort of allegiance to the males who are generally the only ones utterly unquestioningly afforded the freedom to live this way because for them it is a freedom– and for females, living like this often takes immense amounts of courage. And when one wants OUT of it all... it's easier to approach this painful reality by simply performing mental magic, flipping the narrative and saying "ah! Suddenly my hatred for all of this Woman Stuff makes sense! I should have been a man all along!" That's great but after almost 15 years in this I've realized it is fucking loser shit to think that despising misogynistic expectations and restrictive gender roles makes one a man actually because well um because you said so... because only men crave dignity... because woman equals long hair and shaving legs and makeup and my socially-trained bodily hatred and desire for a life free from demeaning treatment on the basis of my femaleness is totally abnormal no women ever feel like this no women could possibly enjoy the thought having a hairy body or a beard or feel inspired by masculine aesthetics which are largely equated with strength confidence dignity social dominance and being in actual possession of a brain and personality so any desire to embody that and be seen by others as an actual human being instead of a member of the subjugated sex actually make one imbued with Real Maleness... right..... to be honest it just became so embarassing to think that I was a grown adult still acting like this shit made any sense. I don't have a gender identity. When I pass, I take on the status of undercover female. I'm not a male. Have y'all actually met any of them?? Like, for real??? Its like... Jesus christ... LOL. No. I like the way I live. I have sympathy for females lost in the gender sauce but it only goes so far when they're by and large fucking insane and homophobic. And sure I could talk about my transition but I ultimately see it as such a non-thing. I don't think of myself as having transitioned at all, because I was always like this more or less, it's just that now I have a few more hairs on my face and a deeper voice and none of it feels unnatural or strange or "trans" it just is what it is and was always going to be... and that will always be contextualized by my sex– how could I go on denying myself that? And letting it fester like a wound... Oh and also I eventually realized it's just way more dope to be a high-value hairy jacked dyke who accepts myself but keeps doing my thang & not give a fuck than it is to be a desperate delulu self-conscious passing-obsessed little wannabe-man lol

[akookminsupporter]

I'm laughing...

The energy that was there last week with the entire fandom posting Taekook last week, is mysteriously missing that week. Instead some are trying to cover their obvious disdain for Jikook by posting Vmin moments of this week. Which- I'm really happy that Vmin are also getting their spotlight, but it's hilarious that they also had some very cute interactions last week but the same people who posted about them now didn't bother last week and were obsessing over Taekook😅

ARMYs don't realize that by behaving this way, they are exposing what really lies deep inside their subconscious. It's no secret that a very big majority of ARMYs are homophobic. And it's telling how they like to double-down on the 'they are bros' comments unprompted, unprovoked when it comes to Jikook, while simultaneously avoiding those two men's interactions altogether. If they were so confident Jikook's bond is just like the rest and that JK is like Jihyun in Jimin's eyes, as they always say, why is the reaction and treatment never the same?

All this time as an ARMY and I've never once come across those "they are so soft for each other, they love one another please, I'm gonna cry" posts for Jikook that I encounter about any other BTS duo every other day. Not unless it's from a Jikooker lol.

And I don't even think they (ARMYs) realize how they move. The need to pretend not even a FRIENDSHIP exists between Jimin and Jungkook, the knee-jerk reaction to convince everyone that when Jikook see each other, they feel as if they suckled at the same breast, when the video they are commenting under is not even edited in a "shippy" manner. Those two just breathing next to one another clearly triggers that familiar disgust and intolerance they hold for Queer people that is just always just simmering beneath their skin, and it's time motherfuckers asked themselves "WHY?" that is.

You know, I don't think it's very deep or subconscious anymore. They know exactly what they're doing, and they don't care because no one will do anything about it. Jikookers aren't powerful enough to make a difference. Jikookers always end up being the villains, no matter what.

I've said it a thousand times and I'll say it a thousand more, they see what we see, and it makes them uncomfortable. For the reasons you mentioned, and because deep down, many of them are envious."

[ca-suffit]

Lol literally in the pictures you put as an example of the "dress" you can see he's wearing pants...... Not sure that classifies it as a dress. When y'all were saying dress i thought it meant skirt. Do they mean his cape??? That's also always been men's fashion.... And men dressing up for community events in women's clothing IS historically accepted and a normalised part of community entertainment. Were Shakespeare actors gnc as fuck when they wore women's clothing on stage? Was that queer or was it maybe an example of something else?The king's clothes have always been very ornate for the parade, mimicking actual royalty so was Henry the 8th.....? Is it queer slay yay when a rich man overtakes a cultural phenomenon just to mock the people who participate in it every year because he wore a dress? Did it make waves for the rest of the queer daily wage workers when these 2 rich ass fucks kissed in the halls of an exclusive party and went on a mass murder spree???? Hm so slayyyyyyyyyyyyy really nola society was forever changed by that we got gay rights when lestat wore that outfit. Fuck off. Stop. man is getting the Harry styles treatment

omg, u know what. I was aware of this photo too (from carol cutshall's ig) and it didn't even register to me he's wearing pants until literally rn 💀💀 I was so used to the fandom's discussion of this as a "dress" that it rly got in my head. I mean, that still doesn't undo what carol said bts but u know. omg lol.

but yes yes yes the rest of ur ask!! the fact he's referencing marie antoinette and all that too. that cake quote might be historically inaccurate but its placement in the show is meaningful and yet that never comes up when talking about this.

ppl can hc all they want about him, but it's when every conversation is shut down to cater to that instead that's the problem. it's not homophobic or oppressing anyone to criticize these things, they're literally *there* to be criticized. it's not like he's the only one who is queer and also doing fucked up shit, that's *everyone.* he's just the most *protected* of them and it gets tiring. especially bcuz for the entirety of S1 it's rly just *him* who is the fucking problem to a lot of ppl!!

[satanfemme]

[ID in alt]

ok meee :-) this is my slasher sona. he's a ~late 70s / early 80s low-budget slasher with slightly gothic vibes, and maybe leaning a little bit giallo in genre?

his name is Mutt and his "gimmick" is that he's a gay dog man (and wears a lot of leather. obviously)

hypothetical horror movie plot for him under the cut (warning for genre typical violence and tropes and such) (also some weird kink stuff cause this is my horror movie fantasy and I get to decide the level of strange eroticism)

I'm gonna summarize the story in chronological order but if it were a real movie there'd be more mystery than this ftr lol.

mutt's backstory is that he was in an intense relationship with a guy who kept him as a human pet. he tortured mutt, kept him in a shock collar, and required him to wear a muzzle most of the time. he also didn't let mutt leave the house ever (which was isolated in the woods). years of this treatment warped mutt's mind until he was both deeply devoted to his lover in a self-destructive loyal dog way, and also "insane" in the stereotypical slasher way.

one day while in a nearby town running errands, mutt's lover is killed in a homophobic hate crime. mutt knows something is wrong when his lover doesn't come home that night, so he leaves the house to investigate, and (from the shadows a distance away) he sees the police cleaning up the crime scene and his lover's body. mutt returns to his house, fashions a leather slasher mask out of his muzzle and his lover's clothes, and decides to get revenge on the people of the town.

he begins to kill a new gay guy every night in very homoerotic ways (since this is really the only way mutt knows how to exist). the homophobic cops don't take any of this seriously ofc, so it's up to a few members of the lgbt community to solve the series of murders and put of a stop to it, before they get killed themselves.

they actually wrongfully assume at first that mutt's lover was also part of the same pattern of gay murders, but eventually the homophobe who murdered mutt's lover is identified and (reluctantly) arrested by the police. so, the next time mutt kills someone, it becomes clear that there were two (2) killers on the loose, and the community member protags use that info to finally piece together the various clues they'd gathered, leading them to the correct conclusion that the first murder (of mutt's lover) was a single incident, and the serial murders after the fact are being done by someone motivated by a broken heart (ie. by this point the backstory would be fully revealed).

while all this investigating and shit was going on, mutt learned that the guy who killed his lover was arrested, and plans to go kill him inside his jail cell that night. the protags attempt to stop mutt before he gets there (to end the circle of violence and restore "peace" and all that), but in the process he kills them all one by one until just the token Final Girl is left. he then breaks inside the jail and successfully kills the homophobe, getting closure. the final girl thinks she has him, as he's "cornered" inside the small jail. but when she follows him inside, he's vanished and all that's left is the homophobe's body.

the movie ends all mysteriously like "he's still out there... and he might come back" but he's my character so I can tell u what he does after the movie. and he does NOT come back.

he still has a broken heart, but he's had his revenge and decides to leave town. he travels on his own, living like a stray dog for a long time (he doesn't take off his mask unless he really has to, so it's hard for him to interact with society. that said, when he does take off his mask to go into a town or city for something, he's completely safe from being recognized because no one ever saw his face in the town he killed people in. he's just a bit off-putting to people)

after traveling for a while, he happens upon the haddonfield illinois area, some time after the michael myers' murders took place (original halloween canon, but don't ask me for an exact timeline, I don't know or care)

michael would also be hiding out in the woods (cause it's not halloween yet. it's his off-season :-) ) and the two would run into each other, instantly clicking. two neurodivergent guys... in freaky masks... in the woods... hiding from society because they're wanted for countless murders. a real meet cute <3. they would grow closer over time.... and although michael would originally like mutt for how "empty inside" and inhuman he is (the same canonical motivation as to why he likes corpses), as time goes on and michael really gets to know mutt, their bond would become stronger and more genuine, and michael would love mutt for the person he is too :'-). and then they'd take off their masks and embrace and kiss each other sloppy style and- [comically long bleep sound effect].

and then I think the next halloween, mutt would join michael in the senseless killing :-) and they would live happily ever after and also mutt would take michael to the dang club! the end. that's my story thx for reading.

[insufferableprotagonistpoll]

Round 2

Propaganda why Dr. Gregory House is insufferable:

"Choses to make the people around him and himself miserable.

Makes patients take treatments or tests without their knowledge, and does the same to his employees

Doesn't believe in asexuality

Gave a deaf patient a hearing implant without their consent

Started to call a woman a "he" once he realized she was intersexual

Always makes sexual remarks to his female boss

Lowkey racist

Didn't want to give his condolences to his best friend after his girlfriend died accompanying a drunk House to his... house

More stuff I can't remember right now but I hate hate hate hate him"

"The whole point of the show is that this guy sucks as a person, knows it, is proud of it, and works to keep it that way. But he’s extremely competent. There is a reason fans call this show “Malpractice Hospital” and it’s this guy. Literally."

"Transphobic, intersexist, aphobic, etc. And I'm not entirely sure how to explain this but, while he is racist/homophobic/sexist, it's in a Liberal kind of way? Like I have a feeling the writers dont want you to think he's actually racist or homophobic because That's Bad, "he just makes those kinds of comments because he's edgy!!!" or whatever excuse people come up with. For a show that hates religion, they show more respect towards christianity than they do the "Trannies" or Asexuals they make fun of. Don't even get me started on his interpersonal skills."

"Self-centered, sometimes misogynistic, low-key racist sometimes, gives his patience treatment without their concent or knowledge, started to called a woman "he" after realizing she was intersex, doesn't believe in asexuality, crashed a car into his ex's house."

"the "he needs mouse bites to live" gif kinda sums it up. He's like Sherlock Holmes if he worked as doctor and prescribed nonsensical solutions to illnesses that always work. He also doesn't explain himself and bitches to his coworkers instead. Also an asshole in general."

Propaganda why Rachel Berry is insufferable:

"Literally the annoying theatre girl stereotype cranked up to the MAX. She's got that "takes everything too seriously, stick up her ass" thing that soooo many theatre kids have bit she's not just annoying she's a terrible person. She felt so threatened by a girl who wanted to join Glee being better than her that she sent her to a CRACK HOUSE for "auditions." She's like lowkey homophonic, transphobic, and racist too. "

"omg she acts so entitled and always gets what she wants even if others get put down and she NEVER PAYS FOR IT"

"Watched two episodes of glee. Two were enough. Everyone else was a bastard in at least a somewhat entertaining way but she singlehandedly ruined everything. If she went to my high school I'd probably bully her too and then she'd whine and throw a karen fit about how I'm literally just better than her. At least I don't need autotune lol."

"She constantly does weird and villainous stuff such as; sent someone to a crackhouse, accused a teacher of molestation coz she didn’t get a part in a musical, dropped out of glee club when she didn’t get a part, a black character (mercedes) asked if glee club could sing more songs by black artists and rachel said « it’s glee club, not krunk club », tried to hook up with a gay man who she also knew her best friend liked, cheated on finn with his best friend, also her bangs post s3 are a crime.

Despite all this she always acts like she’s hard done by and the victim, barely ever apologises or takes accountability for hurting people, and is treated like a sympathetic main character by the show. Not only is she insufferable, she’s a malicious manipulator glorified by the narrative"

[twig-tea]

Shadow the series: hopefully an enabling post

I want as many people as are interested to be able to watch this series so as promised: Here's a non-spoilery summary of potential triggers and squicks in Shadow the Series eps 1-7.

The really brief version: this show is really good, lots of intense things happening with family trauma, family violence, mental health, and abuse, but the actual supernatural stuff is pretty mild and the gore and violence is very minimal. There are also light comedy moments, and pining, and friendship, and the mystery is fun to watch unravel, so I didn't find it too spooky (but I have a high spooky tolerance so you may want to take breaks or otherwise do what you need to).

Ep1

Vomiting

Some creepy music

Slight jump scares

Depictions of drowning

Homophobic slurs

Bullying (including punches)

Scars (potentially self-harm but it's not clear)

Mention of ghosts, non-graphic ghost, creepy amorphous smoke

Ep2

References to hypnosis, potential gaslighting or hallucinations, uncertainty of reality

Institutional homophobia

Bullying (non-graphic)

Homophobia

Mention of possible teacher/student relationship (potentially unrequited)

Ep3

Bullying, homophobia

Mention of dead bodies

Mention of ghosts

Mention of family violence

Depictions of drowning

Flickering lights

Mild corporal punishment

Non-graphic ghost

Mentions of cancer

Creepy grinning (lmao idk how else to list this)

Ep4

Mentions of cancer and treatment including deteriorating physical state

Depictions of deteriorating mental state

Depiction of end-of-life medical care in hospital

Depictions of family violence (yelling, grabbing, threats, slapping, kicking, beating, threats with a gun) of both a mother and child

Hospitalization for mental illness, psychosis

Mention of antidepressants

Threatening someone's freedom with hospitalization

Accusations of infidelity

Depiction of suicide by hanging (not the actual death, just the body in partial shot)

Description of what sounds like childhood sexual assault from the perspective of a child (non-graphic, vague)

Depictions of alcoholism

Child neglect (feeding a child food they are allergic to)

Allergic reaction in a child

Beating (not too graphic but there is blood on knuckles and blood on face shown)

Funeral, death of a parent (mother and father)

Floating body

Ep 5

Floating body

Systemic inertia (probably not triggering but seriously infuriating)

Mentions of narcotic use

Mentions of bipolar disorder

Creepy mask

Casual mentions of father's death

Implied one-sided teacher/student crush (student hugging teacher from behind)

Non-graphic ghost

Homophobia, bullying

Teacher/student relationship (kissing, implied sexual relationship between older woman and younger male)

Negative self-talk around mental illness and medicating mental illness

Descriptions of hallucinations

Ep6

Smoking (supposed to be marijuana but looks like manufactured cigarettes)

Wet dream resulting from an erotic-coded moment with amorphous smoke (idk how to properly warn for this lol)

Scratches on body (ambiguous source)

Mentions of pregnancy

Implied infidelity (by a married couple)

Slap

Bite, punches

Non-graphic ghost, mild jump scare

Creepy "fun house" with decorations including a lot of bloody handprints/blood-sprayed walls, creepy clown, distorting mirrors, screaming, flashing light, red lighting

Ep7

Creepy "fun house" with decorations including a lot of bloody handprints/blood-sprayed walls, creepy clown, distorting mirrors, screaming, flashing light, red lighting

Multiple people punched in the head, bruised faces from being punched in the mouth (mostly student-on-student but one parent punching their child)

Mild jump-scare with a loud sound

Vision of multiple bodies on the ground, with pools of blood (brief, no visible wounds, gore is mild)

Clothed heavy makeout between married female teacher and male student

Flash of someone blindfolded and someone with a gun

Implied sexual dream with amorphous smoke

Mention of loss of a limb, dripping of blood (no wound visible)

Mentions of drug use (spoon over a flame shown, implying heroin)

Depictions of someone dying by firing squad as a death sentence (death not shown)

Non-graphic ghost

Someone being choked

The preview for the second half has a bunch more stuff, but nothing that hasn't been warned for in the first half (choking, punching, hanging, creepy mask, amorphous smoke, etc.)

[velvetvexations]

For two, I want talk about TRANSMISOGYNY to actually get taken seriously. I want to talk about how so many stereotypes of trans people as a whole come from shitty caricatures of trans women that THEMSELVES come from shitty caricatures of both "perverted" men AND "hysterical" cis women. I want to talk about how everything that is transandrophobic has a transmisogynistic flip side and vice versa. I want to talk about tokenism and the superficial support that vanishes the moment a trans woman isn't the "positive" caricature people made her out to be - and how the trans-specific version of that is only one example of a template that was codified against trans women but oh boy does it get applied to all trans people, see previous points. I want to discuss these things and have them taken seriously, WITHOUT people jumping on it as an excuse to just shit on transmascs and "theyfabs" and otherwise just take the path of least resistance by taking it out on another scapegoat minority. And I especially hate it, because the more I think about it, I'm pretty sure a lot of tumblr's most homophobic memes (e.g., twink (derogatory)) really did solidify right around the time that "homophobia" was damned near only being used to shut down ace people, and holy shit I do not want people to use this environment to do THAT.

I really feel the same way. I almost always have my hopes dashed when I see a really good post about transfem issues I really relate to and then it turns out the OP fucking sucks.

Reblog 5 posts about trans women every time I reblog one about trans men or else I'm bad If I make a post about my own problems, I have to be incredibly clear about how privileged I am and how other people have it worse or else I'm bad If I see a post that's transmisogynistic, I have to actively argue with the OP or else I'm some privileged dude doing nothing with my power and so I'm bad I have to br 100% clear about what my stance is on transcourse in the tags of every post or else I'll make trans women feel unsafe and so I'm bad It goes on and on. Eventually, I made up so many rules that I had to get off the internet bc every time I wanted to post ot reblog something I'd have to compulsively examine the post for days, search through the OP's entire blog, etc etc etc. It sucked! Glad I'm getting treatment! I wanna be clear though that I'm not blaming trans people of any kind for my. LOL! Caught myself!! Caught myself with "having to be 100% clear or else I'm unsafe" compulsion! Anyways, thanks for listening. I'm wondering if any other queer with moral ocd have had discourse affect them like this! 🤔

I'm sorry anon, I promise you don't have to live your life like that. You're not a bad person.

Ehhhhh. They are all those things, but I don't think most of them are former members of or directly sympathetic to 4chan culture. It's just that trans women are the in-group and 4chan happens to be where trans women who used to be (more obviously) problematic hung out the way that's TERFism for transmascs.

I haven't! A lot of things like that are triggering me in one way or another, either because it discusses hate crimes or just the general crushing opposition we face, but I like to read what I can make it through.

Happy to provide, anon. <3

[kepnerandavery]

to add more insult to injury, i got curious and googled how julia quinn felt about this change with francesca, and she literally said she was happy with francesca's change and genderswapping michael. I just...I can't believe these words would come out of the authors mouth who wrote their story! they brainwashed her. i lost respect for her, too, she doesn't even seem to have any respect for her own story and characters.

Wth? We’re out here defending her work, and she’s just fine with it? Well, I wonder if she would say the same if Netflix decided to halve her pay for “adapting” her books in the future lol. Or maybe, she’s afraid that some people would accuse her of being homophobic for standing by her writing. Honestly, the money she’s making may make up for the ruination of her work, but from the way he was written, it’s clear that Michael is one of her favorite male characters in the book series, so I wonder if she said this in good conscience. And if she did, she must also be fine with the third-class writing that Kanthony got in season two, the ill-treatment Jonathan and Simone received during their season, and how the writers conveniently ship characters off to sea at their convenience (I’d dare the writers to try a little harder to write convincing exists for characters if I cared about this show lol). Anyways, I guess, money really can buy everything.