#homosociality is a killer | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

autisticandroids · 4 years ago

Text

okay i am finally writing my explanation on what i mean when i say that dean is a serial killer as an allegory for being gay

ok so there are a LOT of reasons why this is true but i’m kind of referencing a specific thing here, or i guess two specific things that are intertwined: the first being dean being portrayed as having some kind of dark inherent impulse toward violence, and the second being violence as a form of bonding with other men. there are actually like...... a variety of things that i could mean? when i say that dean is a serial killer as an allegory for being gay? because spn is an insane show with many wild subtexts. but i mean these two specific phenomena and their intersection.

like, i’m not gonna give..... comprehensive examples? of either of these phenomena because that would require like, an archival understanding of supernatural that i do not have. but i’m gonna give some pertinent examples, and finding more will be left as an exercise to the reader. it should be easy because these subtexts are persistent throughout the entire show. perhaps the spn academic hivemind can add some examples in the notes.

the inherent violence thing....... it’s dean being nostalgic for purgatory because he could kill and do violence there without qualms. the emphasis on the fact that dean enjoyed torturing souls in hell.* it's the mark of cain. hell, it's fucking ketch referring to "someone with our inclinations" in an extremely euphemism for being gay way in 12x14 and when dean questions him saying, "you're a killer, dean winchester."

*season four is complicated. it belongs on this post but it's also a subtext about sexual assault, and i don't feel comfortable drawing on it without giving it its own appendix

like, it's all about how dean has this dark need to do violence that he has to keep suppressed. this dark need that keeps him from ever being normal (i'm thinking of for example season six, when dean tries to be normal with lisa but he needs to hunt, and implicitly to kill).

and at the same time, violence is inherently erotic. like, sex and violence are tied up in our culture. surely we, the spn fandom, professional connoisseurs of the eroticized violence show, understand this.

now, there are a lot of ways violence can stand in for sex. for example, being a victim of violence can cause the male body to become a viable erotic object, like in this essay. or violence can be an eroticized interaction between victim and perpetrator (we as deancas shippers should understand this, 5x18, 8x17, and 10x22 are considered big destiel episodes for a reason.)

but i want to talk about violence as an erotic performance by the perpetrator.

this is what i mean by violence as a form of bonding with other men: dean kills the vampire in front of gordon walker in bloodlust, and they instantly take a shine to one another. dean killed indiscriminately in purgatory, with and in front of benny (and to an extent cas). hell, the scene i was referring to earlier with ketch was basically ketch saying "hey wanna do some murder, together?"

basically, dean is a freak for having a deep need to do violence, and for gaining pleasure from it, this prevents him from ever being normal, and it's a method by which he bonds with other men who are freaks who need to kill. it's deviant eroticized behavior performed to bond with other deviant men. i.e. dean is a serial killer as an allegory for being gay

[also: for those who like to discuss queer allegory in general in relation to spn, it's interesting to note that sam's site of deviance is that he is as the monster is, dean's site of deviance is that he does as the monster does. something to chew on]

appendix: season four

the thing about hell trauma is that it's explicitly comparable to sexual assault trauma. we see that in season seven with sam. but sam's is straightforward: sam is the victim of a sexual assault, lucifer is the perpetrator of that assault. dean's is far more complex. he was forced to participate in his own trauma, and eventually came to enjoy aspects of it. it's still a sexual assault allegory but a much more complicated one. quite frankly, it reads like dean being forced to confront his own capacity for queer desire in the worst way possible.

this is added to by the fact that this homosocial bonding, violence as homosocial and homosexual performance, happens (nonconsensually!) in on the head of a pin. dean is in the role of perpetrator, and he is trying to put alistair in the role of victim, where dean has all the power, but alistair is attempting to occupy the role of observer instead, putting dean in a position where he is putting on this eroticized performance for alistair.

anyway this post is like so much less fleshed out than it could be but i think i have the broad strokes of the idea laid out here.

#spn #rape tw

694 notes · View notes

albertserra · 3 years ago

Text

okay titane spoilers but. the way it shifts from shocking car fuck metal fetishism etc serial killer movie to like. something that so deftly explores homosocial bonding (the firemen environment) without ever making a Big Deal about it, agathe rousselle just going okay i want to present as masc now partly out of necessity for survival but eventually seems to enjoy their ‘role’, sort of in a twisted way bc of the obvious bodily harm but sort of not just in the way the whole film is structured. and then the endlessly complicated relationship they have w/ vincent lindon like ok perhaps its like pseudo-inc*stual just bc of the roles each adopted but also not bc both are aware that those roles are a farce and there is a genuine sort of twisted type of love between them borne out of each’s needs to survive i think whether its platonic or something more .......uhunijhnyiujolh6n4ujtnhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh its about found family yes but its also about something more and its not easy to talk about without sounding like a freak but...... god

23 notes · View notes

stylesnews · 4 years ago

Link

The extravagant wardrobes of the old English middle classes are a far-flung fantasy for Steven Stokey-Daley. Still, it’s the codes of this very clothing that the Liverpool-born designer, who just graduated from University of Westminster’s Fashion (BA), explores and queers. Think crocheted boating hats, linen shirts that resemble tablecloths and billowing wide-legged trousers in corduroys and floral patterns. They seem tailor-made for an even more queer take on James Ivory’s gay love story, Maurice. Harry Styles, it seems, loves them too.

Steven has spent the past seven months of locked-down life working on his eponymous young brand, S.S.DALEY. Things were going well for him, items on his webstore sold out -- and then Harry Styles appeared on the cover of his new single “Golden”, clothesless, save for a rain hat and a pair of Steven’s ‘Sebastian’ trousers. Things, subsequently, went mental.

This week has seen the video for the song drop too. In it, courtesy of the fine curatorial eye of stylist Harry Lambert, Harry S wears pretty much one big, sexy, loose-fitting sartorial piece for the duration of the video: an S.S.DALEY ‘Hall’ Tennant shirt.

These pieces are lifted from his AW20 graduate collection “The Inalienable Right”, which explores homosociality, portrayals of public school boys, and all of the frivolity that entails. Just when you think that designs that feel effusively British are a shallow well that has been drained dry, here is Steven Stokey-Daley: a lad twisting those references into something that pays homage to pretty while still scrutinising and reinventing its roots.

Here, just hours after the world came to know his name, i-D spoke to Steven about his time at University of Westminster, launching his eponymous brand and what it’s like to work with the sexiest pop star on the planet.

You graduated from the University of Westminster's BA Fashion course this year. What did you spend that time exploring, thematically and design wise? I spent most of my time at Westminster experimenting with design. Making the most of fashion education is about being hands on, trying everything and not limiting yourself too soon. I had the pleasure of being taught by the wonderful Stephanie Cooper (now teaches at Central Saint Martins) who taught me everything I know about volume and silhouette. Over the years, I have explored class in the UK and how it's reflected in fashion. Coming from an ex-council estate in Liverpool and being gay, I didn’t truly resonate with the codes of dress I was surrounded by, so when I came to study in Harrow (Westminster campus) and see first-hand the merchant ivory realm of reality; I was completely enraptured. I studied theatre for years and I’m a member of the National Youth Theatre so there was something theatrical about seeing Eton regatta traditionalism for the first time; it was almost Brechtian in its alienation. This space I was enamoured by wasn’t meant for me and I think that’s what feels radical about it.

You’ve interned at Tom Ford and Alexander McQueen, as well as at fashion publications. Yet you came out of university and launched an eponymous brand. What did the experience of working under others teach you? I learned so much working for big brands; some brilliant experiences that helped hone my key skills. I feel like a traveller in that regard, picking up different things from different work experiences. McQueen menswear was a true delight and an experience I’ll value forever; I learned so much there that has allowed me to do what I’m doing now. I worked for publications, and I told everyone I knew they should do the same thing in order to understand the flipside of how the industry works. Working under people, respecting the chain of command from big brands to smaller ones also provided me with examples of how (and how not) to treat people you expect to work with successfully. When creating my AW20 collection, I had the most wonderful group of interns and found that creating a respectful and enjoyable work environment ensured the best team results. Thankfully, I think the 90s ‘killer fashion’ days are phasing out -- but there’s still some way to go!

What were the limitations for you, in terms of setting up your brand, and who did you turn to to help overcome them? Setting up my own brand sort of happened really naturally and organically. When Louis Rubi posted a photo in my AW20 floral trousers, I had so many requests for orders. This was the peak of lockdown and things felt bleak, but I decided to, one by one, try and fulfil the requests with the help of my boyfriend Leo who was locked down with me. (He never wants to see fabric scissors or sewing needles ever again). It progressed from there! Sarah Mower was a constant source of support during lockdown too. She really made it possible for me to actually consider making this a reality -- she does an awful lot to support students behind the scenes.

Your work leans towards the traditionalist and sartorial. Were you hoping to find something radical within that space? The traditionalist and sartorial references feel radical because they aren’t meant for me with my background. I also think there are micro-radicalisms within my approach to design, applying details of typically working class pieces (A Gannex coat, for example) to sartorial outerwear cut in a tattersall check, subverting the functionality of the elite codes of dress.

At what point did Harry Lambert reach out to you about Harry Styles? Was there a brief for this project in particular? Harry Lambert (a genius) is a huge supporter of students and small brands, and he did a call out for students via Instagram stories for an editorial. I hadn’t met him before but still I sent him my lookbook. He replied saying that it wasn’t right for the shoot, but he had something else coming up that it could work for: “a project with Harry Styles”. I couldn’t believe it. Both Harry Lambert and Harry Styles have been incredible in supporting my work.

Half a million people watched your work as the “Golden” video debuted on YouTube. Two days later it has 20 million views. Can you describe how that feels? Seeing the view count of the video, knowing that for the majority of it he is wearing the S.S.DALEY ‘Hall’ shirt the whole way through is just phenomenal. It’s utterly surreal.

#id #harry styles #oct20 #Steven Stokey-Daley

158 notes · View notes

gaysidneycrosby · 4 years ago

Text

“the men of letter is an excellent fit for someone of our...inclinations. you’re a killer, dean winchester” thinking about dean’s queerness and dean’s Secret Inner Violence which always seems to be brought up linked to men, especially men dean forms intense homosocial bonds with

#from the desk

32 notes · View notes

hlupdate · 4 years ago

Link

You can buy your own ‘Hall’ shirt and see more of S.S.DALEY’s work here

#harry styles #articles #281020

38 notes · View notes

gascon-en-exil · 5 years ago

Note

"I could go on a long tangent here about this and why it irks me that the Eagles have the fandom reputation for being the “gay house,” but that’s a major digression." please spill the tea, as someone who finds the eagles "gay house" thing byleth-centric and kind of stupid

Ok, I’m back in town now and able to write out a response to this properly.

In an interesting coincidence, there’s been some back-and-forth in my corner of the fandom this evening about how the nations of Three Houses are not sufficiently distinguished from one another, with the concession that of the three Faerghus easily fares the best in this regard thanks to its cold and unforgiving climate just ignore that there’s no snowy maps in this game and its strong tradition of knighthood that heavily prioritizes Crests and Relics above and beyond the other nations and also encourages deeply intimate bonds between men that come into play in almost every relationship between the Lions characters as well as in the development and themes of Azure Moon as a whole. The Empire and Alliance are comparatively lacking in both worldbuilding detail and characterization through lines that would make these nations more readily distinguishable. The most common descriptor of the Eagles in fandom is that they’re the gay house, with almost every Byleth same-sex S support coming from their ranks or from originally Adrestian characters like Mercedes and potentially Yuri. Moreover, they’ve got the most same-sex paired endings not involving Byleth overall, so quantitatively the Eagles come off as the most queer-friendly house.

But what does that tell us about Adrestia? Even one of my critics who complained that I’m too dismissive of the value people place on Avatar romances was willing to concede that I had a point in the post linked above about Faerghus’s homosocial culture, so can you apply a similar approach and learn something deeper about the Empire from its many same-sex pairings? These being:

A conquering emperor who is Hot for Teacher on all routes, possibly because they have the same Crest as her

Pride and Prejudice if Elizabeth was a man and Darcy was an unrepentant murderer and vampire cosplayer

Thespians who swing both ways for the right price, or because they fear being old and alone

FE10 if Ike and Soren had no chemistry but still ran off together, or Ike and Ranulf if they still had no chemistry but they raised cats together instead of one of them being a cat

A lesbian nun - haven’t heard that one before

A catatonic serial killer into bloodplay wants to kill and/or have sex with someone because they have a certain sword

Whatever Yuri’s deal is, and with the caveat that as it stands it might also include Balthus

Even if you toss out the Byleth pairings and narrow all that down to the core Eagles there’s nothing in the way of a unifying theme to all that. The closest I could come when writing that down was that most of these pairings have a certain amount of deliberate artificiality to them. Ferdibert ignores the war and Hubert’s...everything in favor of genteel letter-writing and tea dates, Caspar’s two same-sex pairings run entirely off allusions to Radiant Dawn, Dorothea and Manuela are borrowing from a rich and storied tradition that spans multiple cultures of theatrical performers being sexually flexible - of sex being part of their careers (which FE dabbles in too via the dancer class) - and of course all of Byleth’s romance options feel artificial when the self-insert can’t speak or express any kind of personality...and that goes double for the canon-favored Edeleth backed by some kind of subconscious Crest bond. The Mittlefrank Opera provides the most frequently recurring looks into same-sex relationships as they exist in the Empire, but that’s not saying all that much when it accounts for so few of them altogether - and even then the Doropetra ending in particular says more about the culture of Brigid than of Adrestia.

I will say that the lack of a cohesive cultural context for the Eagles’ gay pairs makes them easier to slot into AUs than those of the Lions, as so many of the Lions characters are defined by their martial upbringings and wartime trauma that it bleeds over into their relationships with one another. Not so with the Empire; in fact, if I had to guess Eagles AUs are probably a bit more popular than canon fics so as to sidestep some of the less pleasant realities of Crimson Flower and its dubiously happy ending...and also Hubert being Hubert. One can only imagine how Ferdinand sleeps at night knowing the truth of his lover’s personal body count and the running checklist of all the war crimes he still needs to commit.

#Fire Emblem #FE16 #Fire Emblem Three Houses #Black Eagles

54 notes · View notes

rgr-pop · 5 years ago

Text

quick review of film fest

the tingler (1959): good movie, very homosocial, sexy vincent price, but too much wife murder. everyone was always touching each other a little inappropriately in 1959 and i like it a lot

night of the comet (1984): i agree that this is underrated and i recommend you all see it. somewhat flawlessly made but a missed opportunity in terms of all content--was like they live without a moral core or any argument. v good dtla visuals, like an ad for john portman. really enjoyed the ending. men who make a big deal about this being female led are creepy and dumb. it’s good but also just okay, and fundamentally not my thing

killer klowns from outer space (1988): i hate to say this about one of my lifelong faves and one of the coolest art directed films of the 1980s, but killer klowns has no content, and is extremely boring to watch on a big screen, especially if you are already doing an endurance test and haven’t had your red bull yet. belongs on vhs, 3/10

poltergeist (1982): this might be the film i revisit and re-review more than any film, and i will do so ASAP. i think this movie has no fundamental errors, but is uncommitted and--actually--wrong about itself

fright night (1985): i don’t think this is a good movie, but i enjoyed watching it. why are men in their thirties to forties like this about eighties films. i don’t really care for vampire film anyway

me at this point in the night: where is the MURDERING????? where are the murder movies. this is america

candyman (1992): persistently good movie, and i think some of the re-staged racial controversy about its representation is just re-staged discomfort about the fact of race in film at all. can elaborate at a later date. this is the only one of these films that would be in my top 31. guy running the thing said this movie is sort of about “gentrification” which is hilarious proof that people don’t know what that word means and want to say something more specific about race but are too weak willed. they should have paired this with people under the stairs and the fact that they didn’t is proof that they aren’t the zeitgeist they think they are. candyman geist is like in year 5 now at least

surprise film re-animator (1985, r-rated version): choice to use this cut was kind of funny but also refreshing, very good end to the evening. fun movie, i used to like a lot more of these kinds of eighties exploitation revival romps (peter jackson, henenlotter, etc.) but lately i only really like the troma ones. i want to revisit this movement and ask where the overt politics are! (answer: in toxic avenger.) the pencil breaking scene in this is GOAT and the dead cat robotics are also, hate to say it, GOAT

#horror #film

12 notes · View notes

alwaysalreadyangry · 7 years ago

Text

due south: the ladies man (redux)

In the fall of 1998, I was a student of Derrida’s in his seminar at The New School for Social Research, “Justice, Perjury, and Forgiveness.” Despite the ambitious title, Derrida’s singular focus that semester was forgiveness. He was particularly interested in the notion that to be pardoned or forgiven is only actually meaningful in the face of the unpardonable, the unforgivable. To forgive someone for a minor mistake, or to say “pardon me” when accidentally bumping into a stranger on the street, is perhaps a nicety, a well-meaning mannerism or gesture, but where forgiveness is really needed — where it actually changes human relations — is where (and when) it is given to the unforgivable. In this way, the power of forgiveness depends upon the unforgivable.

Since then, I have maintained a correlated interest in the acceptance of the unacceptable, in the toleration of the intolerable, pairings that indicate a deeper problem; deeper in the sense that humans regularly accept the unacceptable (unlike forgiving the unforgivable). People regularly accept theoretically changeable facts of the world that are, even by their own accounts, totally unacceptable. Adjustments and acquiescence to unhappiness and dissatisfaction are common expectations of a practical life of “doing what one has to do,” and yet, it remains a basic ethical instinct to say that we should not accept a life that does us and others real measurable harm — at home, at work, in school, in society. And yet we regularly do. We do, that is, until there is a revolt against the unacceptable, against the intolerable.

richard gilman-opalsky, specters of revolt

this is an interesting section in the introduction to the book i’m reading. the book is mostly about revolt and its possiblities -- both the possibility of revolt haunting the capitalist world, but also the possibilities of what revolt can do.

but i think there’s something interesting in this passage -- and as someone who really struggles with derrida that’s not something i expected to find myself saying. after these two paragraphs, gilman-opalsky starts talking about revolt. which i am also interested in. but i do find myself thinking about the moments before. all the unforgivable moments before. before revolt; when revolt is a ghost, a potential body rather than a real physical force. and then i also think a lot about the idea that forgiveness given to the unforgivable has the power to change human relations.

which all relates back to my meta on what the ladies’ man in due south says about law enforcement and the US “justice system”.

because the bit i was struggling with the reading of the most was: the scene between beth botrelle and ray kowalski at the end of the episode. it’s not that i found it hard to reconcile it with the rest of the episode; on an emotional sense i understand why that scene is there. it’s about the system, not him. she understands... and also, it’s him facing a final, impossibly hard emotional truth. and... it’s ray giving the crime scene back to her, and making it back into a personal tragedy. or the scene of the crime done to her.

but on a craft sense; or on an ideological sense, i wondered exactly what the final embrace between them was saying. ray apologising multiple times; beth botrelle hugging him, and kissing him on the cheek. it’s a brutal, beautiful moment; why?

so i’ve been talking with @zielenna about this episode, and one of the other things that came up was the way in which it talks about masculinity, but especially through this very male police hierarchy. all of the cops around and especially above ray are men. the woman he has to fight to exonerate and her lawyer are both women -- and this is not a coincidence. no, it’s very much about patriarchal systems... the patriarchal arm of the state and the ways in which masculinity & homosocial relations are used to keep men in line, to keep them as enforcers of it.

there’s something also interesting that the dead guy is a male cop -- and a male cop who is named, in the episode’s title, as a “ladies’ man”. no, not a ladies’ man. he was “the ladies’ man”. there’s something there about virile masculinity, about how men admire other men who treat women badly.

and so when ray dissents from the ways in which the basic instinct of the police force is to cheer the woman’s execution, to bray for her blood (dewey operates here as a stand-in for the force at large) -- there is a sense in which that can be seen as a rejection of these structures of male power. by which i don’t mean that i’m reading ray as a radical feminist. but if we’re thinking about human relations, and the act of changing them at a time of emergency (and this episode is absolutely about a state of emergency), then it bears teasing out. he is absolutely rejecting a system of male power and personal relationships that intersect with and help strengthen this power.

this episode gives us a male mentor for ray kowalski, who up until now has had very little past beyond his family and ex-wife. a workplace mentor; a mentor who pretends to be supporting ray as a friend, but is actually out to save his own skin and consolidate his own power, his own power-network.

this is important; it shows us the figure of ray in a long line, in a huge interconnected network of men who will let this sort of thing happen. and it also shows the ways in which personal relationships between men will be used to strengthen this network; and the ways in which women and those who are outside and marginalised by the network... can and will be crushed by it.

ray’s only one link; when he consciously shatters that link, the network doesn’t fail. but he is able to save one person, in the face of this huge monolith.

so, let’s look at beth botrelle. in the first scene we see her in, her lawyer reinds her that she does not have to see ray. she can turn him away. not only does she choose to see him -- she insists that it’s alone, one-on-one. no lawyer, no fraser. it’s a personal connection. two people who can’t forget each other; and two individuals in a system that’s out to crush one using the other.

then there’s this:

Beth: So, you're looking for forgiveness? [Ray still does not meet her eyes.] Ray: Is that what you think?

ray does not ask for forgiveness. she doesn’t give it. what she does do is try to give him some kind of easy absolution, or a way to clear his conscience. “any cop could have taken that call,” she says. but ray knows that. and then she tells him that she killed her husband; and as soon as she says it, ray is certain that it’s not true. so she hasn’t given him absolution, or forgiveness. in lying, she has given him the truth -- or some portion of it.

let’s contrast this with the end of their final scene:

Ray (softly): I'm sorry. Beth: No. Ray: I am. I'm so sorry. Beth (tearfully): No. [She cups his face with one hand, then kisses his cheek.] Beth: Thank you, Officer Kowalski. [They embrace.]

there is one constant; beth botrelle is saying “no” when ray apologises, taking the responsibility upon himself. this isn’t so different to the way she tries to absolve him earlier. only, in the earlier scene she gives him all the cop platitudes she knows from her husband -- anybody could have taken that call, don’t let it wear on you. she lies. she is all give, willing him to take what she’s offering.

but it’s false; ray hasn’t done anything to earn it. he doesn’t take it; he can’t take it. she is the prisoner, and he is the cop. she’s an incarcerated woman, he’s the man whose role as a cop put her there. and not only is she incarcerated, she’s being touted everywhere as a “cop-killer” -- the people the system hates the most, because they have targeted the officers of that very system. even if, as beth botrelle didn’t, they did no such thing. despite beth asking that they be alone together, they can’t change the nature of their relations to each other.

in the final scene, everything has changed; except nothing that happened to beth has been taken away or removed. she still lived through an atrocity; she still had eight years of her life stolen from her. and that is -- unforgivable. both in the basic sense that it’s an awful, unimaginable thing that has happened to her. that has been done to her. but it is also unforgivable in the sense that she can’t forgive it; it’s impossible to grasp the totality of it, and all of the different people and systems and -- nodes in the network of power that created her fate. she can’t forgive it because they are not all there, it’s impossible to face them all. and it’s also unforgivable, specifically with ray kowalski, because he was one part of the larger system which failed her -- and not all of it. he is complicit, but he is not the root of the corruption.

does this make sense? i find myself doing that old essay trick of looking up the different, interconnected meanings of the word “forgive”. forgiving debt, giving up resentment towards -- and then. to pardon an offender.

because beth was thought to be an offender; she wasn’t one. because it’s the system and the state that can forgive offenders, and beth is a victim (a survivor) of the state’s violence. because ray did not commit an official offence against her; because those that did (the higher-up law enforcement officials) are not there. for all of these reasons, too, she is not able to forgive ray. because of the systems they exist within; because of the systems that shape their lives, and how they relate to each other.

and also just because of the unimaginable, horrifying scope of what was done to her, the way in which her life was destroyed.

so what does she do? she thanks ray. she kisses his cheek. she embraces him. this is not the words “i forgive you” -- and in fact, in the use of the repeated “no” we see her trying to absolve, rather than forgive. the idea that you have nothing to be sorry for equals i don’t need to forgive you.

but the first thing she thought ray was there for was forgiveness. and the last thing she does is she thanks him, and embraces him. a gesture of love; a gesture that nobody could have expected, a gesture that nobody outside the situation could perhaps easily understand.

so, i’m not a derridean, and if you’ve made it this far then you’ve probably guessed that? i’m not good with theory and i’m sure the phrase “human relations” has had a lot written about it (without even getting into the idea of forgiveness). but i’m not backing out from this now. in this passage, we see derrida’s ideas that forgiveness matters most in the face of the unforgivable; that this is when it is a radical act that can change human relations, which i read as relations between humans.

is her thank you and embrace -- forgiveness? is it absolution? does one have radical power that the other does not? or do both have a radical power in the face of all that has come before this moment? we have seen ray splintering the network that he was part of, that other male cops were trying to coerce him to remain committed to. and here he is, to a certain extent, cut loose from that. he is a person, again. alone with another person.

knowledge of the past power relations haunt this scene -- and of course there is still a power imbalance between them, even now. things have changed, but they have not changed enough. ray did all that he could; he is no longer slumped over in a chair in a prison. he has done something. he has changed something.

and it’s not enough -- because nothing could be enough. forgiveness is impossible. but in the face of the power relations that both hold them still, and haunt them, we see a radical act; an embrace. tenderness. halting, emotional honesty -- contrasting with the comforting lies she tells in the earlier scene. in the face of this system, which can perhaps only be saved by its total destruction, by revolt, by a radical, collective act -- this is what can be done to change power relations. an embrace. a few words. it’s not quite forgiveness; he still does not ask for forgiveness. he does not ask; she bridges the gap. personal tenderness; two people, who are trying to live as best as the world will let them. who are trying not to be defined by the roles in which their relative positions of power would have them. embracing in a way that is not about desire, or about one person’s power over another; embrace as transmission of emotion, empathy, understanding. when i started writing this, i thought it was forgiveness. i don’t think it is forgiveness; i don’t think it’s less of a gesture on beth’s part for that. because --

it’s not enough, and it’s not enough. of course it’s not enough; between two people in this situation, enough is not possible. between any amount of people in this situation, enough is not possible, because the atrocity was already committed. what is so upsetting, the reason why ray cries, is because her tenderness with him is not justified, is not reasonable. the maybe-forgiveness, the attempted-absolution. she can’t give it; and yet she gives it, or something like it. ray has done all that he can, and he does not deserve what she is giving him in return. what she is giving -- an act of love -- is radical in a way that he can’t answer in kind. which is why it’s so beautiful, which is why it’s so sad.

ray can’t be forgiven because he’s not responsible; and he can’t be forgiven because he was complicit. it’s a double-bind. and in the face of that knowledge; love. understanding. thank you. gratitude.

at the end, it’s gratitude. what is gratitude? kind words said, in earnest, in response to an imbalance -- in response to kindness, specifically an act of kindness which creates an imbalance between two parties. but here, the imbalance is insurmountable. the gap is so wide. it can’t be breached

the words fly tenderly across that gap anyway. thank you.

and so we have ray crying in his car -- we return to that image again. and of course there is so much more to be said about masculinity; about the ways in which it has been shed, and changed by ray’s relationship with beth. this is what a change in human relations means, this is what it can look like. so i have to end on it. ray, sobbing, unconsoled.

what is unforgivable cannot be forgiven; but that doesn’t mean it’s not a radical act to try.

#it's romance son #due south #look this is unforgivable sub-derridean nonsense from someone who does not know derrida #but i was having a terrible anxiety attack and writing this calmed me down #i am not clever enough!#you read this at your own risk!#overlong meta #my writing #unfortunately

31 notes · View notes

homosociallyyours · 7 years ago

Text

I was tagged by @marsdaydream who is so wonderful :) thank you, pal!! I love these, both doing then and reading them

Rules: answer 30 questions and tag 20 blogs you would like to know better

nicknames: Beene, Bean, Milton, Dottie, a bunch more variatios of beene (er, ie, etc), Meggles

gender: queer and genderqueer femme dyke (she/they pronouns please)

star sign: Taurus sun and moon, Gemini rising

height: 5′5″ or so

time: 8:40pm

birthday: May 13, 1980

favourite bands: (in no particular order of course) Indigo Girls (i have loved them since I was 14), Team Dresch, Bikini Kill, Le Tigre, The Butchies, Sweet Honey in the Rock, One Direction apparently, Two Nice Girls, Ben Folds Five, Queen...there are probably a lot more but I’m blanking. (Please note my gay ass roots with all those queer lady bands)

favourite solo artists: Amy Ray, Kaia Wilson, Sia, Sarah Dougher, Niall Horan, Louis Tomlinson, Harry Styles, Jens Leckman, Joan Armatrading, Dolly Parton, Maren Morris, Dar Williams, Kate Bush...probably a lot more than that. I do enjoy a solo artist.

song stuck in my head: Currently a rotation of 1D songs (18, Happily, If I Could Fly, No Control) and Niall Horan’s “Too Much to Ask”--I think it’s my fave off his album, or at least has my fave lyric “watch the sun coming up, don’t it feel fucked up we’re not in love?”

last movie I watched: Last night I watched “But I’m a Cheerleader” and my last in theater movie was the Jumanji reboot

when did I create my blog: June 2012--this was Mars’ answer and it’s mine too! I like that!

what do I post: Queer shit, Sherlock, 1D, Martin Freeman thirst, witchy shit, TMI personal shit, multi-fandom squee, femslash, and my own brand of underappreciated yet insightful texts posts (ha)

last thing I googled: umm probably a 1D thing honestly. I’m not gonna look because it will certainly embarrass me.

do I have other blogs: I used to co-run a benedict cumberbatch meme blog, darlingdomesticbatch. It’s still there but it’s basically a hole of sadness and I don’t look at it any more. I made a couple of random side blogs here--heycheeselady, sassymartinfreeman, but I really don’t post to them. I DO have a dreamwidth which is basically the new version of my old livejournal and an old diaryland diary that I post emotional prose poetry to like an emo teenager. I have had it since my early 20s and will never willingly give it up (and only rarely share it)

do I get asks?: Rarely, though I do have a couple of folks who will send me meme asks or prompts if I ask for them.

why did I choose my URL: umm it was tough. I wanted something that was overtly queer and I think my first choice of homosocial or homosocialist was taken. For some reason that morphed into homosocially yours, like signing off a letter. The subtitle is “I am a homosocialsexual, which is really the heart of it.

following blogs: 638. I am sure a lot are inactive at this point, because it doesn’t *feel* like that many.

followers: 781, right now. I don’t pay attention to the number so much as the interactions I have, which are great. I am lucky to have amazing mutuals <3

favourite colours: Pink and green

average hours of sleep: 5-12. IDK with this weird fatigue plus insomnia. Sometimes I can’t force myself to fall asleep and sometimes it’s all I can do.

lucky numbers: 5, 13, yes it’s my birthday numbers but I still think they’re lucky.

what am i wearing: blue lularoe carly dress (like a soft and pretty pajama dress) and blue buffalo check pajama pants.

how many blankets do i sleep with: softest blanket + sheets when it’s not too cold or too hot. On colder nights I add a down comforter.

dream job: The job I have, when I am able to work it. I’m currently on medical leave, figuring out wtf is wrong with me. But when I do get to work I’m a cheesemonger at a cooperatively owned grocery store that’s non-hierarchically structured. It’s like owning my own cheese counter with 10 other people. I love it.

dream trip: Toss up between a visit to all the 50 states, stopping for several days at national parks and to visit friends, a 3 week Hawaii extravaganza, and a cheese-focused tour of Europe.

favourite food: Cheese. Obviously. :)

nationality: I’m from the southern US (Georgia/Tennessee). Not the best place to be from for a lot of reasons, but I do appreciate that I can’t hide from my whiteness being from there.

favourite song right now: Ohh man. That Niall song I mentioned above, or pretty much anything off his album. “Seeing Blind” is another fave. “Ever Since New York” or “From the Dining Table” from Harry Styles’ album, though again the whole thing is killer. And “No Control” maybe from 1D? I am seriously in such a 1D tornado at the moment that I love everything <3

tagging: anyone who sees this and WANTS to do it (please @ me if you do!) and umm specific ppl:

@aprillikesthings @lesbianchrispine @irrelevantbl0g @billiethepoet @tiltedsyllogism @deaflock @samwellwinchesterthebrave @porcupine-girl @mxaether @bandersnatchmycummerbund @goldenheartedrose @beaubete

#meme #about me #long post #text post #i love these #they remind me of my early aol days #and early livejournal

7 notes · View notes

titleleaf · 8 years ago

Text

self-rec meme: turns out i have a lot of love to give

chthonic-cassandra tagged me in a fic author self-rec meme and I was so happy because at the bottom of my heart all my random ask memes and stuff are just desperate self-recs. I’m playing this hard mode and not including any fic for Early Modern drama. If you want fic recs for early modern drama, start literally anywhere on my AO3.

(4 out of these 5 fics has warning tags/content notes; so does most of what I write, so heed that stuff if you need to.)

forest in the desert | l.a. confidential, vincennes/exley, 14k, written for @scioscribe yuletide 2016 | ok is it okay to rec this one just on the basis of “14k is SUPER LONG FOR ME”?? I had a lot of fun doing the material culture research for this fic, and canon reviewing a bunch of stuff that did not, strictly speaking, actually need canon review. i plotted! i planned! i kept a document full of resources and read books and watched films and listened to podcasts and accessed other people’s academic theses! and BY THUNDER do jack and ed bone. originally it had another title but the working title was too pretentious even for me, can you imagine.

a celluloid tendency (to flare out and blaze) | scream, billy loomis/stu macher | it took a lot to reconcile how much i love this ship with HOLY SHIT these guys are bad-- but they’re also young and pushy and stupid and they sort of rattle off each other. They’re more human than the potentially-literally-inhuman killers in live on wire, but it doesn’t make them better people. they’re teenage dirtbags only capable of exploring their nascent bisexuality through film allusions! they’re non-woobie horrible shitheads preparing to harm and destroy everyone they know and love! they’re combination pizza hut and taco bell!

won’t you be my panacea | ex machina, multi | This fic is a fusion with Brandon Cronenberg’s Antiviral and that alone reserves it a special place in my own heart. Abjection! Strange desires! Commodified femininity! Orchids! I don’t think I’ve written an Ex Machina fic that really takes the canon Bluebead allusions as far as I want them to go, but this fic alludes to just about everything else.

the artificial wilderness | rope, rupert cadell/pretentious bullshit otp | if i wrote this fic now it would probably be a lot uglier and more harsh. i write lots of mentor betrayal and shitty teachers but it’s seldom from the teacher’s pov or with the foregone conclusion that all the stuff cadell thinks is just normal wholesome diversions for homosocial young american brainiacs is in fact INCREDIBLY TOXIC AND BANKRUPT AND SELF-SERVING AND WEIRD. he may never learn, but! fuck him

pray, pray, pray | bright star, fanny brawne/john keats | NEVER FORGET THAT I WROTE JOHN KEATS SUCKING ON FANNY BRAWNE’S TITTIES because god knows i never do. this might be the only one of these fics without any content warnings. it is SHOCKING to me that i am capable of writing two people boning down just because they love each other and like each other and like each other to be having a good time. even though it is STRICTLY above the waist. good night!

I forgot that I wrote an entire Fright Night fic with gratuitous Little Red Riding Hood allusions. Why? I’m tagging @shredsandpatches, @manzanas-amargas, @acanofpeaches, and anyone else who wants to trumpet five (or more) of their own works to the heavens.

#ska writes a thing #honestly i may never write a rope fic disturbing enough to express my deep weird misplaced ire #i'm working on it but i'm not there yet #i need to go to bed now for real xoxo

7 notes · View notes