#however he’s clearly not conventional in that heteronormativity

[hplonesomeart]

Here you go fellow gays enjoy some tranquil scenery with the favorite fruity robot ever. Spend a late night chatting with him on a balcony as the laughter rings out in the air. Can’t quite get any better then this

[lurkingteapot]

I've been going through my collection of old (pre-2016 for the most part) academic papers on BL and thought, hey, why not re-read some of them and sum them up so folks can see whether they want to check them out in full?

Today's offering:

Beautiful, Borrowed, and Bent: “Boys’ Love” as Girls’ Love in Shōjo Manga by James Welker, originally presented at the Third International Convention of Asia Scholars, August 19–22, 2003, Singapore, and published in Signs, Vol. 31, No. 3, New Feminist Theories of Visual Culture (Spring 2006), pp. 841-870, UChicago Press. [Jstor]

Welker starts off with a brief explanation of what the BL genre is, what terminology he uses ("BL" as an umbrella term that includes the earlier names of tanbi, shōnen ai, yaoi, and the long-form 'boys' love'):

“Boys’ love” manga emerged as a subgenre of shōjo manga (girls’ comics) around 1970 just as women artists were taking over the shōjo market.(*) It quickly became among the most popular shōjo manga genres, and its creators became some of the best-loved artists in the industry. (* First published in the monthly Bessatsu shōjo komikku in December 1970, Keiko Takemiya’s “In the Sunroom” (Sanrūmu nite [1970] 1976) was probably the first boys’ love narrative. See Aoyama 1988, 188.) - Welker 2006:841

He goes on to challenge the common perception of BL as a genre "by straight women for straight women":

[T]he genre is widely considered to offer a liberatory sphere within which presumably heteronormative readers can experiment with romance and sexuality through identification with the beautiful boy characters. […] Members of the Japanese lesbian community have, however, pointed to boys’ love and other gender-bending manga as strong influences on them in their formative years […] Clearly boys’ love manga can be viewed through a different lens from that which most critics and scholars have been using, and hence the full potential of boys’ love is largely overlooked: that of liberating readers not just from patriarchy but from gender dualism and heteronormativity. - Welker 2006:842-843

He introduces the texts he will analyse (Takemiya Keiko's Song of Wind and Trees 風と木の詩 kaze to ki no uta, 1976-1984 and Hagio Motō's Heart of Thomas トーマの心臓 tōma no shinzō, 1974), and concludes the essay's intro section as follows:

This reading will employ lesbian critical theory, visual theory, and reader responses to these and similar texts to show how 1970s boys’ love manga is not merely queer on its surface but how it opened up space for some readers to experiment with marginalized gender and sexual practices and played a role in identity formation. - Welker 2006:843

Welker goes into the questions of applicability of theories that weren't originally developed for this specific context – visual theories were largely developed through film analysis; European and North American models of gender and feminist theory, while also having informed academic discourse in Japan, in their origin operate on culturally specific assumptions and need to be applied with care.

He talks about the tradition of androgynous and cross-dressing heroines of early shōjo manga and their connection to the earliest BL manga, the dilemma of the "beautiful boy" characters' gender and sex and how to read these – are they boys? idealised self-images of girls drawn onto boys' bodies? neither male nor female? sexless altogether?, and the way Japanese readers in the 1970s, already culturally familiar with gender performance through kabuki or the all-female Takarazuka Revue and similar troupes, received the gender-bending nature of BL stories. He also comments on the role fan interaction via magazines, and the way readers were learning about queer life in Japan:

By the early to mid-1980s, the magazines’ readers were learning in real terms about the world of Shinjuku ni-chōme, Tokyo’s well-known gay district, described as a world full of “beautiful boys like those in the world of shōjo manga” (Aran 1983, 15), as well as various aspects of lesbian life in Japan (Gekkō 1985). In spite of the connections drawn on the pages of these magazines, the possibility that these narratives might be seen to actually depict homosexuality remains broadly denied. To allow that the narratives might truly be about homosexuality—between these girls-cum-beautiful boys—would be an apparently unthinkable invitation to read the narratives as lesbian. - Welker 2006:857

Welker briefly explores how the example texts of Song of Wind and Trees and Heart of Thomas "serve many of the functions lesbian critics and theorists have outlined as roles of lesbian texts" (Welker 2006:858), then goes on to analyse the flower imagery of roses and lilies that is very prevalent in both titles, the intertextuality of these stories with European and French literature (and how the readers were expected to catch on to this intertextuality). On the transgressive and queering nature of writing and reading BL, he says:

[T]hrough acculturation to gender performance in Takarazuka and kabuki and by such cross-dressing manga icons as Sapphire and Oscar, as well as the deliberate ambiguity of the beautiful boy, the reader is encouraged to see not just a girl but herself within the world of boys’ love and, ultimately, is encouraged to explore homoerotic desire, either as a beautiful boy or as herself, either alone or with others, either as her fantasy or as her reality. […] Regardless of whether boys’ love manga were created merely to offer heterosexual readers a temporary respite from patriarchal restrictions on their desire, some readers found in identifying with the beautiful boy a way through the looking glass to a world outside the patriarchy. And regardless of whether he is read as a boy or a girl, the beautiful boy can be read as a lesbian. […] For readers whose experience of sexuality and gender contravenes heteronormativity, works like Song and Thomas offer narrative safe havens where they can experiment with identity, find affirmation, and develop the strength necessary to find others like themselves and a sense of belonging. - Welker 2006:865-866

I've been out of academia so long that I've lost any sense of what a good proportion of direct quotes to original text is, or whether it's even appropriate to quote as much as I did here. This is emphatically NOT an academic article in and of itself -- I'm posting on bloody tumblr. If anyone wants to add to this, I'll be thrilled.

One of the most commonly voiced criticisms of BL is that it's about, but not (or did not in significant part used to be) by or for gay men. This article does not address this point further—Welker does go into this in his more recent articles, iirc; if you've got beef with this aspect, @ him not me. I do however think it's worth noting that this 17-year-old article already recognises that the genre is queer, and has been since its inception.

[frankendeers]

Kylux and the Queer Literary Tradition

So, I have seen a lot of people talk about Kylux in terms of queer fetishisation or even labelling it a “crack ship”.

The discourse has somehow made Kylux out to be this straight-girl fantasy where two men are simply shipped because they are white and handsome. Such an unfavourable interpretation completely takes away from many Kyluxers being queer and/or poc themselves as well as shaming straight people for seeing queer potential where it’s not canonically stated to be. Since the comic came out, there has been much elation because it finally “confirms” some of the things that appeal to Kyluxers, therefore justifying the ship. I don’t think, however, that Kylux has ever been anything but rather conventional in its queer subtext. Kylux falls in line with a long tradition of homoerotic aggression between two men. I will try to put this into words as eloquently as I can.

First, let’s talk about how Kylo Ren/Ben Solo and Armitage Hux are queer coded on their own before moving on to their relationship.

Armitage Hux is almost comically queer coded. The act of feminising a villain to subtly convey to the audience that he is gay and therefore “morally reprehensible” has been a practice since the Hays code era (in some respects even before that -as the Victorian Age marks the beginning of our modern understanding of gender and subsequently, its subversion). He is seen to be physically weak, petty, moving and snarling and “bitching” in a way society would stereotypically ascribe to women.

His British Accent, at least from an American point of view, already marks his sexuality as ambiguous. This is not helped by the fact that he speaks in an abnormally posh way, alienating himself from the common people.Hereby, the movies draw a well-established line between decadence/queer and pragmatic/heteronormative.

In the “Aftermath” trilogy Brendol Hux states his son to be “weak willed” and “thin as a slip of paper and just as useless”, robbing him of his masculinity – no matter how ridiculous of an endeavour this is when talking about a four-year old boy. Hux is very early on criticised for not fitting into a socially expected form of manhood. This is especially evident when one compares him to his resistance rival, Poe Dameron. Now, Dameron has his own set of queer coding, but he is shown to be what is commonly viewed as “acceptably queer”. He is masculine, trained and proactive. When he ridicules Hux at the beginning of The Last Jedi, there is this juxtaposition of the helpless, feminine villain and the dashing, superior male hero. Hux is supposed to be judged as vain and arrogant while Poe takes risks and although reckless, is somehow to be admired. Further, Hux is constantly abused. He is thrown into walls letting out high pitched screams, runs away in the face of danger (as seen in the recent comic) and is pushed around by his own subordinates. His strength lies in being cunning and calculated, not stereotypically masculine virtues.

Hux’s destructive powers, his monstrosity so to speak, also follow a long-standing tradition of queer villainization. Harry Benshoff’s The Monster and The Homosexual articulates this as follows:

“[...] repressed by society, these socio-political and psychosexual Others are displaced (as in a nightmare) onto monstrous signifiers, in which form they return to wreak havoc […]” (Benshoff 65).

And what other, than a socio-political Other, is Armitage Hux - the Starkiller?

Kylo Ren/Ben Solo, too, is touched by the mark of queerness. It is no coincidence that despite his raw power and muscular physique, Kylo Ren has not been adopted by hegemonic masculinity in the same way Han Solo has, for example. When the logical is traditionally seen as masculine, the realms of pure and unfiltered emotionality is feminine. And Kylo Ren is unrestrained in his vulnerability, his tears, his pain – People make fun of the dramatic ways he gives words to his feelings precisely because it is regarded as weak, as whiny, as “womanly”. His long curly hair, full lips and dress-like costume only strengthens this impression. Kylo Ren is an amalgam of masculine aggression and feminine expressiveness. Some of his outbursts even remind of the pseudo-illness of hysteria. The gendered lines are blurred and unclear in Kylo Ren, diffusing any efforts to appease the binary. Benshoff describes this as a form of queer existence which does not only constitute itself in opposition to what is considered normal but “ultimately opposed the binary definitions and prescriptions of a patriarchal heterosexism” (Benshoff 63).

Both are not easily categorised. They are patched up by multiple, gendered signifyers. Kylo Ren’s masculine body in contrast to his femininized fashion. Hux’s slender body with his stiff and masculinised military get-up. Hux’s toxic tendency to avoid showing his emotions while also being shown as weak, womanly, cowardly. Kylo Ren is an excellent warrior, yet simultaneously being prone to emotional outbursts. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen’s famous work Monster Theory (Seven Theses) elaborates upon this further, while acknowledging that queer figures are most commonly depicted as the monstrous Other:

“The refusal to participate in the classificatory “order of things” is true of monsters generally: they are disturbing hybrids whose externally incoherent bodies resist attempts to include them in any systematic structuration.” (Cohen 6).

Nonetheless, many queer people feel empowered by these figures. Lee Edelman theorises in his polemic No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive about the nature of queerness as a force of cultural resistance. According to Edelman, the queer must always refuse societal expectations of a perpetual future and embrace the death drive instead. In this sense, queerness stands in direct opposition to futurity as it negates any meaning in sexual reproduction and marriage (cp. Edelman 13). When Hux destroys planets, when Kylo Ren proposes to burn it all down “The Empire, your Parents, the Resistance, the Sith, the Jedi”, they are not merely killing the past. They are also negating the worth of categories that make up future and present alike. They are resisting the heteronormative values of production.

Now that we have the puzzle pieces that illustrate how Hux and Kylo are queer figures in on themselves, it might be interesting to examine how they work together.

In her text “Epistemology of the Closet”, Eve Sedgwick talks about a common gothic trope where two men are caught in a feud full of mutual hatred. In this case, both men are mirror images of one another, making them especially vulnerable to the other’s advances: "[…] a male hero is in a close, usually murderous relation to another male figure, in some respects his 'double', to whom he seems to be mentally transparent."

Kylo and Hux are very clearly mirrors of one another. Aside from the gendered oppositions I have already illustrated, they are each other’s double in every sense of the word. Born on opposite ends of an age-old war. Both caught in complicated relationship with their fathers whom both have killed out of opposite motivations (loving them too much vs. hating them with a passion). They represent the opposite ends in the binaries for logic vs. spirituality, restraint vs. wildness, control vs. sensuality, technology vs. nature etc.

This shot from The Last Jedi shows both of them mirroring each other visually, henceforth strengthening this impression.

They are "mentally transparent" to each other, because they are different sides of the same coin which Snoke tossed around to his whims. Even their aggression takes on erotic forms. It is hard to deny the homoerotic implications in choking another men to make him submit, forcing him onto his knees. The breaching of personal spaces and looming over each other, the obsessive need to prove one’s own worth to the male other with which one is engaged in a homosocial bond:

“The projective mutual accusation of two mirror-image men, drawn together in a bond that renders desire indistinguishable from prédation, is the typifying gesture of paranoid knowledge.” (Sedgwick 100).

And through all of this, I have not even talked about the collaborative potential between the two of them. Their instinct to protect one another despite insiting the opposite. How both of them could overcome their trauma by engaging with the other, who suffered so similarly under family obligation and Snoke’s abuse.

Works Cited:

Benshoff, Harry: “The Monster and the Homosexual.” In: Harry Benshoff (ed. and introd.)/Sean Griffin (ed. and introd.): Queer Cinema, the Film Reader. New York: Routledge 2004. Pp. 63-74.

Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. "Monster Culture (Seven Theses)." Jeffrey Jerome (ed. and preface) Cohen: Monster Theory: Reading Culture (1996): 3-25.

Edelman, Lee. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. ,2004. Print.

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky-Sedgwick. Epistemology Of the Closet. Berkeley, Calif. :University of California Press, 2008.

[woman-loving]

Reception of Gender Diversity in Indonesia and Women’s Erotic Literature

Selections from "Between sastra wangi and perda sharia: debates over gendered citizenship in post-authoritarian Indonesia," Susanne Schröter, Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs (RIMA), 48(1), 2014.

In Indonesia, we encounter a somewhat paradoxical situation where gender deviance is tolerated in many quarters while there is, at the same time, an increasingly repressive-patriarchal gender mainstream. This becomes particularly apparent in the issue of acceptance of queer lifestyles. After the end of the New Order period, the emerging liberalisation in the urban areas included that aspect as well. A group called Q-Munity has organised an annual queer film festival, the Q!Festival, in Jakarta since 2002 and activists join in public debates, trying to reduce prejudice and to put an end to discrimination. Within the women’s rights network, Kartini, a training manual was developed to strengthen the position of non-heteronormative life models (Bhaiya und Wieringa 2007), and Siti Musdah Mulia proclaimed in the newspaper Jakarta Globe of 23 September 2009 that lesbian desire was created by God just like its heterosexual counterpart and hence must be accepted as natural. Until today, her statement triggers controversial discussions within Indonesia and beyond.

As could be expected, this unusual awakening was criticised by Islamist hardliners as an adoption of Western decadence. Performance venues of the Q! Festival were repeatedly raided by ‘goon squads’ and in 2010 Surabaya became the site of an éclat that was even covered by the international media. It was sparked by plans of the Asian branch of the International Lesbian and Gay Association to hold an international conference in March of that year. There had been similar conventions before in Mumbai, Cebu and Chiang Mai. The organisers were eager to be as discrete as possible in order to avoid protests. There was to be no Gay Pride Parade, and the organisers planned to publish a press release only on the last day of the event. Due to an unlucky coincidence, however, the local media learned about the planned event in its run-up and there were quick reactions by Islamic organisations. Statements were issued by religious authorities, claiming that homosexuality is irreconcilable with both Indonesian culture and Islam. Such language immediately mobilised the Islamic Defenders Front (Front Pembela Islam) and the Indonesian fraction of Hizb-ut Tahrir[14] to take militant action against the organisers. As a result, the local authorities prohibited the conference and those participants who had already arrived were besieged at their hotels by the mob until they were brought to safety under police protection (Vacano 2010).

These incidents appear to be at odds with the supposedly tolerant attitude towards gender variances in Indonesia as described by anthropologists such as Boellstorff (2005), Peletz (2009), Davis (2010) and Blackwood (2010). These scholars base their claims on the existence of so-called third and fourth genders rooted in local social orders. An often-cited example of this are the Bugis of South Sulawesi who use five gender terms: besides women and men, there are calalai (masculine women), calabai (feminine men), and bissu (ritual experts and shamans who are ambiguous in terms of gender). The bissu have always particularly attracted the attention of anthropologists, who interpreted them as a culturally-accepted variant of non-binary gender. In the Bugis system of gender categories, they are classified as calabai, that is, individuals with a male body and a feminine or ambivalent habitus. They are viewed as embodying a pre-Islamic, double-gendered Supreme Being which is attributed the ability to mediate between humans and spirits; hence, they act as healers and shamans. There is some debate, however, among anthropologists about whether the existence of this phenomenon can actually be interpreted as an indicator of tolerance and liberalism. Birgit Röttger-Rössler, who has done fieldwork among the Bugis, is sceptical, and even objects to applying the term ‘third gender’. According to her, calabai are ‘institutionalised, socially-accepted variants or subcategories of the male gender’ (Röttger-Rössler 2009:287, translation mine). She adds that these types of transgenderism can by no means be interpreted as a negation of heteronormative gender concepts. The reverse is true: they reinforce the latter. As Röttger-Rössler sees it, the order legitimated by this exception is not only ‘defined clearly and rigidly’(Röttger-Rössler 2009:287–8), but also asymmetrical, putting  women at a disadvantage.

On top if this, the mere existence of a local ‘third gender’ does not allow the conclusion that local communities are generally characterised by a liberal attitude towards gender issues. This becomes particularly evident when modern phenomena of transgression, which are usually referred to as queer, meet local forms of deviance. The mobilisation of queer activists in Indonesia and the resulting Islamic counteroffensive is a well-documented example of this.

The same applies to shifts in local gender structures that were triggered by the general climate of open-mindedness after the end of the New Order. In the year when the conference in Surabaya was wrecked by conservative moral ideas, there was also a remarkable public debate on local Indonesian transgenders who are subsumed by the collective term of waria.[15] The debate was sparked by a ‘Miss Aceh Transsexual’ beauty pageant held in February 2010. Many people in Aceh have ambivalent and contradictory attitudes towards waria. On the one hand, they view the latter’s existence as a disgrace for the community; on the other hand, waria are tolerated half-heartedly, not least because men secretly relish their sexual services. Waria often use their beauty parlours and hairdressing salons as brothels and engage in prostitution in the semi-clandestine red light district of the capital Banda Aceh. It is obvious that neither Aceh society nor the police intend to actually eliminate this option for extramarital sex, which is punishable under current legislation. Representatives of the authorities, however, take advantage of the waria’s extralegal status and arbitrary arrests as well as rape in police custody are common. Everyday discrimination, humiliation, and assaults by the sharia police are rampant. In the wake of the devastating tsunami in 2004, which was interpreted by Islamic clerics as a warning to disobedient believers, waria were repeatedly expelled from their homes and businesses because their neighbours feared that their presence might evoke the wrath of God to descend upon them again.

In Indonesia, both the human rights and the Qur’an and Sunna are invoked in the discussion about whether or not the existence of waria is legitimate. In Aceh, more importance is attached to the religious narratives of justification, however, than to secular reasoning, because Islam is viewed as the measure of all things. In the end, phenomena that are incompatible with the commandments of Allah will not gain acceptance. The experts disagree, however, about what is compatible with Islam, particularly if waria make their appearance in modern contexts. The pageant mentioned above, where they performed in burlesque costumes, sparked a pan-Indonesian controversy which dominated the headlines of the local and national press for several days. Well-known politicians, activists, and Islamic clerics piped up to express their opinion. The majority of the religious contributions condemned waria as being immoral and sinners, while secular commentators came to their defence, referring to minority rights.

I had the opportunity to discuss that issue in March 2010 with students at the State Islamic University (Universitas Islam Negeri, UIN) in Yogyakarta and at the Gadjah Mada University (UGM) which is also located in Yogyakarta. The Islamic students, in particular, engaged in a lively debate about whether the Qur’an makes a clear statement about the matter and what the prophet Muhammad said about it. This was their sole criterion for tolerating or condemning waria. On the personal level, the subject did not trigger any emotions in them; it was a purely matter-of-fact discussion without any recourse to moral categories. My colleague Sahiron Syamsuddin, a respected Islamic scholar with whom I held the event, eventually made an important point. He said that three gender categories were already known in Muhammad’s time: men, women, and khunta--transgenders who resembled the waria. He went on to explain that the third gender had fallen into oblivion due to subsequent patriarchal developments. This was acceptable to the students. Sahiron’s reasoning is typical of so-called ‘progressive’ Muslims who attempt to substantiate liberal ideas with little-known data from the Islamic past or new interpretations of the Qur’an and Sunna.

As becomes apparent from the abovementioned examples, upon closer examination, the much-cited Indonesian open-mindedness with regard to gender variances turns out to be a restrictive straightjacket into which some phenomena can be fitted, while others cannot. Transgender individuals are tolerated and may even hold respected positions, provided that they stay within narrow, strictly-defined social confines or already-accepted cultural constructs. Above all, they are expected to be inconspicuous. As long as a beauty pageant is held in a village, whether or not the event is made into a scandal depends on the social relations between the individual actors. At the national level, it is not possible to rely on such local relations. Other narratives of justification then take effect, particularly narratives backed by Islam. It appears that only a minority of the Indonesian Muslims subscribe to progressive interpretations of the Qur’an and the Islamic traditions, and my colleague Syamsuddin would certainly have had a hard time if rhetorically-versed Islamists had participated in the discussion. According to a study conducted in 2013 by the Pew Research Center, 93 per cent of all Indonesians disapprove of homosexuality. Thus, in terms of tolerance, the country is behind Malaysia (86 per cent) and Pakistan (87 per cent) and at the same level as Palestine. As has been noted by Jamison Liang, homophobia is on the rise (Liang 2010). This development is due not only to the strength gained by a conservative, partly militant Islam, but also to the fact that by now there is a public debate on the issue of gender deviance.

----

The virulently liberal face of Indonesian culture, despite Islamist zealotry, is also represented by the genre of female erotic literature. Called sastra wangi (fragrant literature) it caused an international sensation.[12] Writers such as Djenar Maesa Ayu, Ayu Utami, Fira Basuki, Dewi Lestari, and Nova Riyanti Yusuf picked out incest, extramarital sex, and homosexuality as central themes. They were not afraid of giving drastic descriptions of sexuality and they played offensively with the breach of all social conventions (Hatley 1999; Listyowulan 2010). One of the most prominent examples is Ayu Utami’s book Saman, of which more than one hundred thousand copies were sold in Indonesia. The novel is about the sexual adventures of three young women from good families, about split identities and the transgression of patriarchal moral ideas. Shakuntala, one of the protagonists, deflowers herself with a spoon and feeds the hymen to a dog. Later, she enters into a lesbian relationship in which she takes the male-connoted part. These are the scandal-provoking parts of the novel. It also has, however, another, political dimension which centres on the priest Saman. During a conflict, he takes sides with oppressed rubber farmers who are struggling against dispossession. He is denounced as their leader, arrested and tortured.

[cw for discussion of incest, child sexuality/assault]

In Djenar Maesa Ayu’s Menjusuh Ayah (Suckled by the Father), a woman recounts the sexual childhood experiences she had with older men, including her father. She states that as a baby she was not fed her mother’s milk, but her father’s semen. When she confronts her father with that story, he accuses her of lying and hits her with his belt. She insists, however, on her version of the past. The first-person narrator tells the reader that her father eventually refused to feed her any longer. Hence, she turned to his friends as a child. ‘I liked the way they slowly pushed down my head and allowed me to suckle there for a long time’ (Ayu 2008:95). When one of her father’s friends penetrates her, she kills him: ‘I am a woman, but I am not weaker than a man’, she writes, ‘because I have not suckled on mother’s breast’ (Ayu 2008:97).

[end cw]

The new erotic women’s literature led to a controversial discussion in Indonesia. The term sastra wangi itself alludes to the public erotic self-staging of the women, which was eagerly picked up by the media. Many stories about the young writers opened with exact descriptions of their looks, mentioning the high heels, the strapless t-shirts, the long loose hair, or the fact that the audience smoked and consumed alcohol during the readings. Like the provocative titles and texts, the media stagings brought fast fame and high sales figures. On the other hand, the women were accused of using sex as a marketing strategy. Not surprisingly, criticism of the taboo breaches came from the religious side, while secular-urban intellectuals mostly appreciated the new literary awakening. Saman won several awards, including a writing contest of the Jakarta Art Institute in 1997 and an award of the Jakarta Art Council (Dewan Kesenian Jakarta) for best novel in 1998. In 2000, Ayu Utami won the Claus Award in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, there has been some reserve on the part of literary scholars. Katrin Bandel criticises the unquestioned male perspective of the sastra wangi (Bandel 2006:115), Arnez and Dewojati find fault with the virulent phallocentrism (Arnez and Dewojati 2010).[13] Positive appraisal, however, prevails in the overall judgment. According to Arnez and Dewojati, the issue of whether sastra wangi can be called emancipatory is still controversial, but nevertheless ‘it can be claimed that in modern Indonesian literature such an open discussion of sexuality and female desire has not taken place before, especially not in such an outspoken language’ (Arnez and Dewojati 2010:20).

[sapphic-sex-ed]

Hi umm? How to differentiate between (social) anxiety and compulsive heterosexuality? Ive been calling myself bi all my adolescence, but now that i have a real shot at something romantic/sexual w a guy im way too anxious to even open his text asking me out. Plus yesterday he was flirting with me and i got really sexually aroused but i didnt do anything abt it (not even kissing) bc i was too nervous? 😖😖😖

It can be tricky distinguishing between social anxiety and heteronormative conditioning when the most obvious signs of the latter are discomfort and anxiety around interacting with men in ceirtan ways, but there are aother ways you can try and figure this all out.

A good start is to think about how you react when you are flirting with men vs women - are you as nervous? If you are, does the anxiety feel the same or different? If you haven’t really been in this situation with a woman yet, just keep reading through cause there are still ways to figure this out.

How you look at a potentional future with a man vs. with a woman*? When you imagine a future where you are married, maybe have a house or apartment and a dog or two with your s/o, does it feel different dependent on the gender you pick for your s/o? Does the fantasy with the man feel more uncomfortable to think about? Do you have to invent some ways to cope, like add in a skewed power balance (regardless of who holds that power) or does the affection you imagine between the to of you make you feel weird?

Back when I thought I was bi (and I had no experience with either binary gender) I would say that if I got married to a man I would never want to have kids, because the conventional family structure felt weird, and alternatively if I had kids with a man I would never marry him untli maybe the kids had moved out. If I married a woman however I would love a “traditional” family image of a partner two kids a house etc. At the time I wrote it off as myself being a silly “special snowfalke” (actual term I used btw) who just wanted to be edgy and unconventional, but now I realize the heteronormativity made me feel so off I had to invent ways to circumvent parts of the norm. I wasn’t trying to be edgy and unconventional to feel special, it was that the norm was so uncomfortable I was doing my best to bend it. 

If you feel you recognize yourself in that last paragraph then that could be a sign too.

When it comes to sexual fantasies a sign could be that power imbalance I mentioned before. You need to either be super dom or super submissive or you can’t go through with it. This can manifest in kink-like fantasies because of the common D/s dynamics there, or it can manifest in infedility scenarios, or in as extreme things ars r*pe. With the latter one it can be really traumatizing even if you don’t realize it at the time and it can be really hard to work though on your own. If possible, seek counseling if that’s something you experience.

In contrast, sexual fantasies with women won’t need this type of skewed dynamic. Even if you are into kink, as I am, there will be a difference. Namely that in the fantasies with men, the dynamic will feel like the only way you can stand to be in them. If you try to actively make them more equal in power they will be super uncomfortable, or you will swap perspective so that you are the guy sleeping with a woman (also super common). But fantasies with women don’t feel uncomfortable without the power dynamic. Like sure, if you are super into D/s they might feel a little boring but the won’t feel bad.

Another thing you can do is look at your past history of crushes. If the men you’ve had crushes on are all unavailable in some way - fictional, celebreties, dead, in prison, married, gay, a friend’s sibling, etc - or if you only developed a crush on them after a friend gave their approval either by mentioning they think them hot, or saying they would be a good fit for you. 

Another crush-related sign would be if you actively selected a guy to be attracted to. Like, you didn’t see them and were like OMG but you sat down and thought okay I’m gonna be into this one. Back when I was 17 I got really into the band Queen - I’d always liked them but that’s when I got into the fandom - and I clearly remember sitting on my firend’s bed, looking at a picture of them going “okay people who like bands have a crush on one of them so who should I pick?” and litterally just went “ah that guy” for no real reason except I liked his hair and that’s the story of how I had a “crush” on Queen guitarist Brian May for two years. Contrast that with my choldhood/teen fixation with Lady Gaga and how I just saw her and went like *heart-eye emoji*, no active decition just natural obsession. 

Another way to determine if your attraction to men is genuine is if you have a very specific list of things men need to be for you to be attracted to them, and if by any chance you meet a guy who fits you instinctively add more requirements to the list. Connected to that is soley being attracted to very feminine or very masculine guys. No inbetweens. 

I’m trying to remember more but google removed the docs that had all the information so there is more but I can’t think of it right now. you could try check out the #comp het or #coercive heteronormativity tags on our blog (although I always tag both so many posts are similar, but I think mod star only tags the latter and I’m unsure about the other mods so there will be differences) and see if we have mentioned other signs. If you look prior to august I believe I will have quoted directly from the google doc (although the links to it doesn’t work anymore, obviously) so those would be the most accurate.

-mod liz

*this will be very binary in man-woman but non binary people can and do fit into this conversation, however that would require a lot more nuance and I’m out of nuance for the whole of january 2020 due to uni work so a binary discussion will have to do)

[thefilmfatale]

Always Be My Maybe and How to Ruin a Rom Com

There is an art to a good romantic comedy.

Let me preface this post with a confession: I am a rom com enthusiast. Go ahead, turn your nose up at me, you snobs! But I unabashedly love romantic comedies. Yes, I’m aware that the genre is much maligned for being painfully predictable and vapid, but it would surprise you how tough it actually is to produce a solid rom com that hits all the right notes.

You see, there’s a formula. Boy Meets Girl (yes, I’m being deliberately heteronormative for this example, put your pitchforks down). Girl plays hard to get. Boy persists and wins her over despite how much the lady doth protest too much. A conflict introduces tension and separation (”Gasp! This was all part of a bet?!”), throwing the relationship into jeopardy. Boy performs Grand Gesture™ to win back Girl’s heart. Girl forgives Boy and the two gallop into the sunset. Cue Third Eye Blind’s “Semi-Charmed Life” as the credits roll.

The formula works, but only if the filmmaker can trick the audience into believing that this on screen romance has real stakes. To do that, you have to have a script that at least pretends to explore an interesting relationship which, as it unfolds, gives the audience butterflies and makes them want to root for the star-crossed lovers. Without audience investment, you have no rom com.

To get the audience to invest, you need likeable leads who have great chemistry and just enough tangible sexual tension to create that air of “Will they or won’t they?” After all, no one ships a couple who are devoid of personality and lack chemistry. Most of this sexual tension is physical—in the way the actors interact with each other—but what can really help establish this is verbal, by way of witty repartee.

Think of some of the classic rom coms, like When Harry Met Sally. Why does it work? Sally is a Type A personality. Prim, proper, particular, and uptight. Harry is more laid back, casual, and candid— unafraid to tell it like it is. He’s also a bit of a troll who enjoys getting a rise out of someone. Throw the two on a road trip together and you have a recipe for romance (or disaster—however you want to look at it). As a viewer, you begin to root for them because we’re told that opposites attract and complement each other. Harry softens Sally’s rough edges, Sally helps Harry realize he needs some maturing.

And you all know the Big Gesture™. A New Year’s eve confession that inspired a thousand sappy rom-com speeches.

What makes When Harry Met Sally successful?

Harry and Sally are different enough from each other that there is enough sexual tension and push and pull to make their interactions interesting.

Each half of the couple has their own personality that feels authentic to their character. They have their own ambitions and goals. They also have traits and quirks that uniquely position them to attract each other.

The relationship does not seem guaranteed—the audience has to have a moment of doubt or uncertainty that makes them will the couple back together.  

Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal have fantastic chemistry.

It seems pretty straightforward. Follow the formula, and you’ll be fine. In fact, it’s hard to screw up a good rom com if you just imagine unconventional ways to put two individually interesting but opposite enough people together then lean back and watch the sparks fly.

So all this to say that nothing could have prepared me for the soul-sucking awfulness of Always Be My Maybe, the Netflix flick starring comedian Ali Wong (know for her Baby Cobra Netflix special) and Fresh Off the Boat’s Randall Park.

The story follows Sasha Tran (Wong), a renowned chef and restauranteur, who rekindles a romance with her childhood best friend Marcus Kim (Park) when her marriage engagement suddenly falls through. Tran is portrayed as ambitious and driven, while Kim is unmotivated and immature, using his widowed father as a crutch to not follow his dreams. In its purest form (this summary), the gist of the story seems fine. Nothing to write home about (certainly not novel), but this is romantic comedy and the bar is more of a footstool so no one’s begrudging sticking to convention. But Always Be My Maybe takes that convention and, in true Asian fashion, approaches it with textbook diligence that just sapped the joy and life out of what should have been a fun, light-hearted romp. So much for subverting Asian stereotypes!

Now I’m a fan of Ali Wong and Randall Park’s, but this movie was so mind-numbing, it made me physically ill. Ali Wong? Hilarious! Randall Park? Extremely likable and has great comedic timing! Together you would think they would be dynamite. Fireworks! An explosive affair of epic proportions! And for those of us who’ve had a hankering for a rom com with Asian leads (and God knows we’ve waited a long fucking time—thank you, Crazy Rich Asians) we know about the demand for one.  

Alas, what a disappointment. A telephone pole and I would have had more chemistry than Ali Wong and Randall Park. As much as it pains, I have to say that Always Be My Maybe just might be one of the worst romantic comedies I have ever watched.

Not only did this movie put two leads together who had zero chemistry—or at least enough sexual tension to help the audience suspend their disbelief that these aren't just actors—but the story unfolds in a fashion that actually makes the audience keenly aware of the formula. I know I said if you just follow the formula you can’t go wrong, but Jesus they didn’t have to make it so obvious! It’s like Fight Club, you know? The first rule of making a good rom com is YOU DO NOT MAKE THE AUDIENCE AWARE THAT THEY ARE WATCHING A ROM COM. I mean, at least try to approach it like it’s actually an interesting story about two people.

Instead, the movie followed story beats that seemed to exist for the sake of moving the story along instead of actually selling us on the relationship. The beats were so obvious that you can actually pinpoint where they begin and end because they were helpfully (and often unnecessarily) bookended by old school hip hop songs. Cue music! Here comes the conflict, the part where Boy and Girl rekindle their romance only to find that the years apart have made them different people. Boy judges Girl for being pretentious and obnoxious. Girl judges boy for being immature and unmotivated. A big fight ensues! Insults are hurled at each other that are so truthful they hurt! But it’s only a sign that they are meant to be with each other because they can trust each other to be this honest!

You know your movie is bad when your story beats are so obvious that they take the viewer out of the movie. You know your rom com is bad when Boy’s Big Gesture™ felt like a very clear When Harry Met Sally rip-off with dialogue that makes you want to get a lobotomy. There’s certainly nothing wrong with being referential or, even better, deliberately parodying romantic comedies. But Always Be My Maybe wasn’t really trying to be either. It was just stuck in this weird gray area of trying to be a romantic comedy and failing.  

Always Be My Maybe’s biggest problem is in its turd of a script. It was so cringeworthy, filled with inauthentic lines and tired Asian jokes (the joke about Asians hating tipping was played out to the point of exasperation). Even their attempts to make fun of woke culture (which is an effort I wholly endorse) felt contrived and flat, which is such a bummer because that would have been a cool differentiator. Even the promising jabs at the pretentiousness of haute cuisine were awkwardly executed. Most of all, it didn't do its lead actors any favors, turning them into cartoonish cardboard cut-outs that were designed to follow the formula of a rom-com without putting in the work to earn the audience’s investment. Performance-wise, Wong did a passable job, but there were times when it felt like she was reciting a line that was clearly more apt for a comedy skit rather than a piece of dialogue that a character in a movie is saying. Park’s attempt at faux awkwardness, on the other hand, was excruciating to watch. Couldn’t he just be a dude in a rap band who happens to live with his dad? That's a decent enough back story. There really wasn’t a need to give him a personality quirk that seemed put on rather than authentic.  

The film’s most promising moment was a Keanu Reeves cameo. And it’s only because Reeves was so game at poking fun of himself and the pretentiousness of celebrity that it worked. But just like the tired Asian jokes, at a certain point the humor was played out to the point where it became unwelcome. I also want to give credit to the film for portraying an Asian American upbringing that wasn’t the Fresh Off the Boat variety. While there isn't anything wrong with that portrayal, it’s also a treat to be able to see a different dimension of Asian culture, one that shows how typical and relatable it is to the average American’s upbringing. Premarital, promiscuous sex! Rap music! Being into pretentious food! Much as I hate to admit it, the whole “Asians—we’re just like you!” approach is kinda needed in film and television because it removes this layer of exoticization that can be restrictive to Asian characters.

While not tokenizing Asian characters is a positive, it still doesn’t make Always Be My Maybe a good movie. While I did watch it all the way to the end (despite my body’s vehement protests), it hurt my soul in ways I didn’t anticipate. How did they ruin this rom com? First, and most importantly, there was a shocking lack of individual character development. You don't get a sense of who these people are individually. Instead, they just seemed to be characters created for the sole purpose of putting them together and contrasting them enough to where they should have some sort of chemistry. But you can’t manufacture that. Each actor has to go through the work of making their characters likable. If I like the characters individually, I like them even better together! See how that 2+2 worked? But without dedicating the right amount of time and space in the story to showing their inner lives and what makes them tick, you’re setting them up for failure.

Second, and on a related note: there were no real stakes to the relationship. because setting up Sasha and Marcus to be together just seemed like a given from the get go. There didn’t seem to be any real jeopardy to their relationship, even once the conflict was introduced. The forced repartee between the characters came off like lines of dialogue instead of natural conversation, not to mention the very apparent lack of chemistry between Ali Wong and Randall Park. So much so that you didn’t really want to see them make out, let alone root for them to end up together. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you ruin a rom com.

If you, a friend, or family member just watched Always Be My Maybe and are experiencing similar symptoms of nausea and misanthropy, may I direct you to a Netflix original rom com that is actually good? Go check out Set It Up, if you haven’t already!

What did you think of Always Be My Maybe? Am I full of shit? Did you like it? What are some of your favorite romantic comedies? Sound off in the comments below!

[starting-today-you-are-a-writer]

WICKED SAINTS

1.5 stars out of 5 stars

 Summary: Kalyazin and Tranavia have been at war for untold decades, owning to a religious/magical feud where one side claims the other heretics and the other side invaded them for…power? A young woman, Nadya, blessed with powers by the gods flees when her monastery is destroyed by the warrior prince of a nation she is at war with. Running, she bumps into a mysterious blood mage, Malachiasz, and together the two of them plot to end the war between their countries.

 Overall:

 When I first opened the book, it seemed promising. Different viewpoints, an interesting magic system, the main character fleeing everything she had ever known to begin an adventure in the wider world.

 Except the book promised a fearsome cleric, an in depth look at monsters and a prince. And it only delivered on one of those things. Perhaps I was expecting the monsters or villains to be in the vain of Vicious (by VE Schwab) or even ala Forest of a Thousand Lanterns (by Juile C Dao) where characters with understandable motivations but dark ambitions and flaws ultimately struggle with their monstrosity and lose.

 Alas, this book did not even deal with any struggling of monstrosity, or even deal with the concept of monsters outside of “looks like a literal monster” and “betrays people.” But didn’t even examine whether or not “looking like a monster” was necessary or sufficient to be one.

 Not to mention, the cleric wasn’t fearsome, her actions felt contrived and very few characters in the entire novel actually had any clear motivations. The book felt very much like things happened because they were supposed to, instead of because that’s what the characters wanted or would have done. Not to mention the main romance was nonsensical. Sure, there’s enemies-to-lovers. This was not it. It was more like enemy lovers, except not one reason was ever give as to why this guy was appealing, and nothing about him was ever shown, only sometimes told, if that. Nadya felt drawn to her love interest Malachaisz, but not for any reason. Overall the book started strong but fell flat, and felt contrived and unable to hold my suspension of disbelief for even minor events.

Dislikes

Nadya and the Love Interest (Malachiasz)

I could write an essay on the problems here but the basic problem is that Nadya has no motivations, reasoning or rationalization for anything let alone for her attraction to her love interest Malachaisz. She meets him, decides she wants to kill him for being an evil blood mage, but then decides she doesn’t. She had already killed several Tranavian soldiers by this point, many weren’t evil blood mages and none of which brutally betrays her.

 Does she perhaps look at Malachiasz like many a lovelorn hero and think “what measure is a man or a demon? Can I really strike down someone who has not wronged me? Can I lift my blade and execute someone who may be innocent? And how to I think of innocence? He has fled from Tranavia, from a life of evil, is that enough? Is it enough to forsake his country for its evils if he does not embrace the gods? Would he change if only he knew the gods? Do Tranavians even have the chance to know them? With mercy could he change?” Nope! Not only are none of these things thought of, now only are no rationalizations provided for her feelings, but she does not even consider any of those points when she thinks of him or evil. She doesn’t consider his past and how he might have been tortured or not like the ability to use his powers. She doesn’t consider that all heretics are not evil. She doesn’t consider that people can be redeemed. No. Not once does she spend even one second trying to figure out a reason why she doesn’t want to kill him even though she has killed before. She ignores all those things, insists that he is evil and a blood mage and …. doesn’t want to kill him. For some reason.

 Does she even think “wow, with his pretty eyes, and his kindness towards me and his banging body, maybe, I mean, the monastery was very chaste but….”  Does she think this and let her romantic heart speak for her? No. And she doesn’t think this because 1) nothing in his description seems attractive or like she is supposed to find it attractive 2) he is not kind to her. He is not nice to her. He is just mean to her (thought not cruel) 3) the times that seem like they might have sexual tension are always tied up inextricably in violence. But there is no OTHER aspect to him that might seem attractive to her EXCEPT the threat of violence. What I mean by this is she occasionally reflects that he looks sad, or is sad, but there’s no real textual evidence. In the same what that just saying a character is sad when they are laughing, and running about, glib, and seem happy, does not make them sad. So all other aspects of his character ring false EXCEPT that he is violent or has the potential to be. So her only reason to be attracted to him is…that he is violent? Gross.

 Now, likely he was supposed to have other, likeable qualities. But he does not. This is a problem with the characters themselves. Their character traits are often told instead of shown. His actions are almost always glib and argumentative and he really doesn’t take any other actions that that. He does not even rescue a lost dog from the rain as a token gesture of god will. And Nadya despite claiming that he might be lost, does really extrapolate or explain or provide any evidence or think about that. For instance, she could try to Sherlock Holmes his situation and realize he must be sad. But she does not do this. She seems to regurgitate these things like she has another magical power of empathy and can actually read people’s emotions in their heart instead of on sad expressions or through actions, but she does not ever give evidence for her thoughts, opinions or rationalizations for anything.

 In short, their relationship reads like the worst kind of Insta Lova/compulsory heteronormativity, even thought I know this was not the intention of the author. However, Nadya seemed to fall for him just because he is THERE and every time she says anything about him, it seems completely unbelievable, because there’s no textual evidence for it, and ever time she says that she likes him or doesn’t want to kill him it’s just WHHHHHHHHHHHY? Is it “Half of her wanted to kill him, but he was still a person… [insert moral quandary here]” NOPE, we don’t get that. It’s just “half of her wanted to kill him, but half of her didn’t. What were they having for dinner again?” but WHY didn’t she want to kill him? Personal goals and motivations are not things that you withhold form the reader to be clever, they are basic components of characterization.

 This lack of interior reasoning goes beyond just her relationship to this character. Even her plans and actions seem to change without reason. She had a plan. She meets Malachiasz and immediately agrees with his plan to kill the king of her rival country. But why? Does she think it will work? Does she spend one second considering the merit of the plan? Does she try to think of another plan? Does she ask him to elaborate on this? NO. She does whatever Malachiasz says. She sacrifices principles of herself, she does X and Y and Z and there never really feels like a reason for 90% of it. She’s surprised when she gets betrayed, but since she had not reason to trust anyone (she did not posit a reason in her internal monologue for trusting them, let alone have this be supported by the actual actions the characters take!), it falls flat. Her reactions and failure fall flat, because it’s never clear why she has to be doing what she’s doing, what’s at stake if she’s not doing that, why she couldn’t do something better, or why she thinks it’ll work.

 It really was a slog to get through her sections sometimes because there very few scenes where I cared about the stakes because the series of events themselves felt arbitrary.

 Minor Characters and Otherness

The minor characters and plain, forgettable, have no real character or personality traits and clearly serve as props to make whatever point, or facilitate whatever outcome, is supposed to happen at any scene. This becomes very transparent. The characters from the desert country Akola are constantly referred to as Akolans instead of their names even when their race has no point in the scene, and they only exist to like the main Love Interest Malachaisz, but no reason is give as to why they like him, what they want, or their goals or agency. So not only are they flat props to make the Love Interest related and sympathetic, they are also heavily Othered. Not to mention another minor character, Ana, is presented as a Strawman who’s only purpose is to dislike the Love Interest for No Reason so that he seems more relatable and agreeable in comparison. Again, do these characters have motivations? Thoughts? Goals? Personality? No.

 Worldbuilding

In the beginning I felt the world building was fairly good. Each country has distinct language and naming conventions. The differences between the countries respective magic systems seemed intriguing. But as the story went on, not much is learned about Kalyazin other than what was learned in the first few chapters, and only a scattered detail or two is learned about Tranavia. What do they eat in Tranavain? How do they dress? Fine silk? Heavy furs with flower patterns? What are their values outside of blood magic?

The author continuous repeats that Kalyazin is based on fantasy Russia and Tranavia on fantasy Poland but in the novel there feels like no real effort to elaborate and expects the reader to fill in world building with real world Russian or Polish culture. Perhaps that wasn’t her intention, but it comes across that way when no real details about the culture are give outside the very one note religious differences.

 Religion

Speaking of the religious differences, this was something else I thought was interesting at first but quickly disappointed me. The religion conflicts starts off with Kalyazins claiming that magic should come from the gods and that using blood to fuel magic (like the Tranavians do) is heresy and terrible. However, the main character Nadya, never explores this beyond using it as a talking point. Why would it be considered terrible? Because accessing magic is holy and to do so without it being holy is bad? There is something said about how Tranavia is also bad for rejecting the gods, but what really bothered me was that the main character never really thinks deeply about these things. She never examines what she thinks is bad, or what her thoughts are on the war and the gods. She only repeats what she had been told and makes it clear she is doing so, providing no real analysis on her own. For all that she is claimed to be empathetic she does not actually empathize and consider the other position.

 It’s fine for characters not to know something, but if you’re a cleric, you would think you’d spend some time contemplating the morality of what you are doing. Moreover, as the novel progresses Nadya comes into more and more contact with blood magic, but her analysis of the situation never changes, she never stops to think “is it possible for someone to use blood magic if they aren’t evil?” or “is it truly doing evil if you aren’t aware that it’s evil?” Instead, it seems her views seem to shift but there’s no corresponding rationalization or thought as to why. Rather than Character Development it feels more like her Character just slips into something else. This is a recurrent problem with Nadya, but it was something that bothered me on a larger scale. Lip service is paid to characters having different viewpoints on this issue but nothing is ever developed from it.

 Notes on Confusion

A lot of people had complained (I think) that they found the ending confusing, to which the author said that something things were supposed to be confusing. In general I agree that books don’t have to answer every question raised. The magic system didn’t have to be completely explained.

 However the end was confusing in that the prose was literally unclear. The blocking and actions taken by the characters were unclear. It wasn’t “Wait! But I never learned why this happened! How does the magic work! Why would he betray them!” unclear. It was “Wait, is he still in the scene? When it says he “flies up” is he leaving this location or hanging around near the ceiling? What does this sentence mean?” confusing. It was difficult to follow the sequence of events without multiple rereading of lines, and even then it was unclear as to why the characters were taking certain actions. Not in a “why does the character not betray X” sort of way but more in the “wait, what is he trying to do? Is he trying to kill X? What does he think killing X will accomplish? Why did he even come back here? Does this benefit him? What does he think will happen?” the problem is that, when you don’t understand the characters goals/thoughts, it’s hard to know if they are succeeding or failing at them, so the conflict wanes immediately.

 Likes

Serefin

Unlike possibly every other character, Serefin had clear motivations, goals, and things at stake. His life was at stake if he didn’t figure out what going on. His goal was to figure out what his father was doing, and to thwart it and live. Boom. A dynamic character. Throw in interpersonal conflict with him being traumatized from a war but now being forced to act in court and you have someone who actually has stakes in most scenes he’s in, who’s actions are logically derived from what he wants, and who makes progress towards his goal. A good character, a likeable character. One who can be funny, but with flaws.

 Magic System

The idea of two different magic system did seem interesting to me. I’ve always liked the idea that there were different ways to use magic and of course there was room to have rife interplay of how magic actually worked, how people accessed it, what that meant, etc etc

[oneweekoneband]

Today’s first guest post is by my friend and fellow The Singles Jukebox contributor Vikram Joseph.

Counting to 15, 20, 30… - Delayed Queer Adolescence and the Songs of Troye Sivan

- Vikram Joseph

On a humid early August evening a few weeks ago, in one of those converted warehouse bars endemic to inner north-east London, I was chatting over drinks with a guy I’d once dated and had last seen in 2014. There was a lot to catch up on, and the conversation ran unexpectedly, rewardingly deep. It became clear that, though we’re both well into our adult lives by any conventional measurement, we’d each changed and grown significantly in the intervening years in a way that films, books and the media seem to suggest happens in your late teens. The idea of delayed adolescence being a common trope for queer people came up, and I’ve been thinking about it a lot since then. Why do those formative years of growth and the exploration of self-identity seem to happen later for us? Is it a delayed phase of development, a prolonged phase, or both? And how is this reflected in the way we interact, the spaces we choose to spend time in, and the art we consume?

***

A recent viral tweet:

“Gay culture is your life being delayed by 10 years because you didn’t start being yourself until your mid-20s.”

At the time of writing, this tweet has 117,000 likes.  Clearly, this is a phenomenon which touches nerves across the spectrum.

To the extent that we can “know” a pop singer through their songs, it seems like Troye Sivan – still just 23, and releasing his second album – has done his growing fairly early on. In just a few years, we’ve heard him go from singing about tentative gay crushes to the fully-realised queer euphoria of his newer songs. And yet, the concept of protracted, stuttering adolescence is crisply, poignantly refracted through his music, and I feel that a lot of his immense appeal to queer people far older than himself can be attributed to this.

***

HEAVEN “The truth runs wild, like kids on concrete.”

“Heaven” deals with the internal struggle for self-acceptance – by no means unique to LGBTQ+ people, but one that everyone who’s grown up on that spectrum will understand intimately, in the form of coming out to yourself. “Without losing a piece of me, how do I get to heaven?” Religion is a useful allegory here, but ultimately a distractor – the duality Sivan is really concerned with here is about happiness. For a lot of us, coming out for the first time feels like a crossroads, where we have to make a choice between one kind of happiness and another, and “Heaven” captures this (false, but very powerful) dichotomy beautifully.

Sivan’s first album, Blue Neighbourhood, hangs heavy with the imagery of suburbia. It’s rich, relatable visual and psychological territory, exemplified in decades’ worth of teen TV dramas and coming-of-age films. Many of us will recognise it as the backdrop to the fraught intensity of that long, tangled conversation with ourselves; the feeling of being on the brink of everything and the precipice of nothing, the intoxicating, paralysing combination of anticipation and dread. Sivan deals with this at 15; for me, I was 20, during university Christmas holidays, back in the dull hum of suburbia. Maybe there’s something about it that gives us the emotional space to plumb the depths of those brave new ideas. “Heaven” conjures this musically as well as lyrically, with a tense two-chord shuffle, close, muffled production, and Betty Who’s guest turn evoking a better angel from the future, reassuring us, beckoning us towards the light. If I’d heard it at 20, or earlier, it would have destroyed me; it might even have accelerated my own journey.

Sivan sings about “counting to 15”, the age at which he came out to his family. There’s something that invariably surprises straight people, when I’ve tried to explain it to them, but will come as no surprise at all to anyone else, and it is this: coming out never stops. Every new environment presents a decision to make and a challenge to face; and while it gets easier (and can often be an incredibly liberating experience), it’s never a formality. The subtler aspect to this is that there is no end-point to coming out to yourself, either. Accepting yourself as a gay person is just the beginning; there follows years and years of figuring out what that means. And I think this lies at the heart of delayed queer adolescence. These are questions of identity that are near-impossible to figure out alone, and many of us aren’t surrounded by other people with the same questions until much later – either due to geography, or opportunity, or not realising how badly we need to be, or maybe all of the above. And so “counting to 15” (or however old we are when we get there) is a countdown to the real start of our lives, rather than to any sort of conclusion.

***

TALK ME DOWN

“You know that I can’t trust myself with my 3 a.m. shadow.”

Queer mental health remains poorly understood and inadequately talked about, both in the mainstream press and in medical circles. Working as a doctor, I’ve witnessed the stigma towards LGBTQ+ patients from other medical professionals – rarely overtly hostile, but often casual, unthinking and pernicious. The mental health charity Mind believe that 42% of gay men, 70% of lesbians and 80% of transgender people experience mental illness; the statistics for gay men are almost certainly an underrepresentation, as men in general are less likely to report symptoms.

Early on in his powerful book “Straight Jacket: Overcoming Society’s Legacy of Gay Shame”, the journalist Matthew Todd runs through an harrowing litany of case studies of young gay people who have lost their lives to suicide, violence and addiction. He then explores the factors behind this, both intrinsic and extrinsic to the gay community, and hones in particularly on the near-universal gay experience of shame (in its many forms) during our formative childhood and adolescent years as a key determinant of depression, anxiety, poor body image, low self-worth, and harmful patterns of behaviour.

On the gorgeous, shimmering ballad “Talk Me Down”, Blue Neighbourhood’s emotional centre of gravity, Sivan sings (possibly from a friend or partner’s perspective) about dark thoughts, struggling for self-acceptance, and, implicitly, ideas of suicide. The accompanying video is high melodrama, but then, so is coming to terms with your sexuality. “I know I like to draw the line when it starts to get too real / but the less time that I spend with you, the less you need to heal” cuts to the heart of the conundrum most young gay people face – desire, and a need to be open and liberated, versus deeply-ingrained feelings of guilt, fear and shame. In his book, Todd argues that these are socially determined but can be overcome, but it’s hardly surprising that it takes a long time to get there – and hence, “normal” emotional development is a protracted experience.

***

YOUTH

“What if we’re speeding through red lights into paradise?”

It’s easy to forget that there are very few conventional pop songs on Blue Neighbourhood. “Youth” (and “Wild”) are probably the closest, but while it might be tempting to read “Youth” purely as a love song, I think its real core lies in escapism, another trope prevalent among (although, clearly, not unique to) young gay people. The imagery is wild and fantastical – “trippin’ on skies, sippin’ waterfalls” – and I distinctly remember writing similar (albeit much worse) songs at 15 or 16, cosmic love songs to no one in particular about things I knew nothing about.

Todd’s “Straight Jacket” has an interesting chapter on how he believes escapism informs archetypal LGBTQ+ tastes in pop, musicals, science fiction, horror and drag. I don’t always agree with the specifics, as I think we’re a broader church than he implies. But it’s hard to argue with the queer impulse for escape, particularly in our years of self-discovery, into spheres where our possibilities are limitless, our own selves freer and more confident, and our fears diminished. It’s maybe a symptom of that delayed development, of more years spent in limbo.  When I listen to “Youth”, it gives me a clean hit of that feeling, particularly in the bridge, with “the lights start flashing like a photobooth” simulated by pulsing, strobe-light synths.

***

MY, MY, MY!

“Let’s stop running from love.”

Bloom, Sivan’s second album, finds him confident, assured and in love. It’s a big step, though not a quantum leap, from much of Blue Neighbourhood, and I’m interested in the in-between.  “Running from love” perhaps gives a little away. It’s hard for us to know how to approach dating, love and sex. Certainly, queer people might feel unconfined by traditional heteronormative conventions or ideals, but equally many of us crave what our straight friends and families have. (It’s important to note that, of course, it’s not one or the other.) I think “running from love” speaks to a queer (and perhaps more universal) anxiety – after what feels like forever waiting for opportunities that feel tantalisingly out of reach, embracing a singular, tangible thing at the expense of all other potential things is terrifying.

Still, this is a dizzy, ecstatic, seductive love song.  The expression “my, my, my” can seem trite in a pop song, but Sivan sells it as breathless disbelief.  Some things are hard-earned.

***

ANIMAL

“No angels could beckon me back.”

And so we come full circle. The religious imagery is no coincidence; on Bloom’s stunning closer, the gorgeous, hazy reverie of “Animal”, we understand the heaven the Troye Sivan managed to reach.

It takes some of us a long time to get there, and the destination is different for all of us. I’m currently reading Michael Cunningham’s classic queer novel “A Home at the End of the World”, in which the character of Jonathan, at 27, tries to navigate the differences between the sort of settled, faintly bleak domesticity of the kind his parents have lived (“the fluorescent aisles of a supermarket at two in the afternoon”) and the often lonely, unfulfilling search for a different kind of home and family in the city (gay literature is fascinatingly fixated on homes and families, albeit often unconventional ones). It resonates with me. As queer people, the usual rules don’t have to apply – the expectations of one milestone and then the next, the pragmatic retreat back into suburbia at 30 – and that presents a different set of challenges.

I believe it’s a double-edged sword. Queer adolescence might be delayed because of our differences in the world, but equally, we are different because of that delayed development.  It informs the way we experience life. Beautiful art is created because of those differences; hell, we might even be lucky enough to create some ourselves. And so, way beyond 15, most of us are still counting, still trying to understand, still discovering ourselves and each other, searching for logical families and people to grow with. No angels could beckon us back.

[ranchonmysteak]

My issues with DITF: My first thoughts

The anime community has been sort of amping this anime up and I’d heard it was like super deep and interesting but it dropped off in quality in the last few episodes. Due to raving nature of the reaction surrounding until the last 2-3 episodes, I was naturally intrigued by this anime. What exactly caused the positive reaction and how had the last few episodes caused such a violent response? (by the way, this rant will be very disjointed and I might clean it up later... If you haven’t watched this anime, you will get very confused.)

I watched the first few minutes and right off the bat, I’m already disappointed. It starts off with a monologue by Hiro, the main character, about a species of bird (this is a plot point later but literally no one cares for now) that requires a male and female to be able to fly. If you couldn’t already tell, this is an analogy for the way the mecha are piloted in the anime and gives off the impression that this anime will be analysing how relationships work. 

Now, on to my disappointment: Why did this piss me off? 

First off, it’s an incredibly unhealthy expectation of a relationship. It doesn’t really work that way. It’s fine not to have things completely work out in the beginning but one should never have the expectation that a romantic relationship will save your life and if you don’t, you will literally die. Hiro’s words, not mine. He’s not wrong, either. After all, to pilot a mecha in this series, you should have sex! (wow, it’s not like you could just have sex outside a relationship) Shipping off teenagers to have sex to save the world and we don’t even really know if they’re into each other is not problematic at all!

Secondly, it’s heteronormative. You might say,”oh, but it’s Japan. No shit” and I’d like to say that’s racist. Anime and manga are 100% completely able to discuss queer issues. In fact, the studio also created Little Witch Academia and you’d be hard pressed to find someone deny that Diana Cavendish is, at least, a little gay for Akko. Furthermore, this is anime where relationships are discussed and to sort of hamfist a heteronormative moral isn’t great. 

I continued watching and found that it was completely boring. I am not kidding when I say I probably accidentally skipped half the episodes just because I was thinking of the better anime I could watch. Jesus Christ. One episode had the girls be really angry at the boys for ogling them which, if you watched anime in the early 2000s, have probably heard of this plot line. It’s about as boring as you could imagine and more!

Side note: how many times has a female character, who has not been established as a pervert, ogled men? It’s a very weird convention than women’s (weirdly enough, straight women get the brunt of this but I watch yuri more often so it might just be me) sexualities get brushed off. 

For an anime that is obsessed with sex, it seems really bad at sex ed. It literally only shows one position (missionary) and never quite talks about kink, safe sex and consent, which is wager is incredibly important to educate teenagers on.  Sadly, the creators are likely only interested in selling Zero Two figurines to a bunch of horny anime fans who will eat anything up so they don’t give a shit about that.

Which is another thing the anime community duped me on. 

They kept mentioning Freud and really interesting sex comparisons (really, it’s about as basic as a 7th grade biology lesson) so I thought that this anime would have something interesting to say about sex. It did not. It may have been more sex positive than other anime but given the characters are technically married (the first episode had allusions to marriage), it probably isn’t extremely sex positive and more creepy. Power to them, I guess.

However, that’s not my point.

My point is that I’m sick of people throwing out references and pretending that means they are very enlightened and they are very interesting! References should have a purpose and be a narrative device in the story. One example that does this well is Flip Flappers. It references ojou type women which were a staple in Class S yuri manga, which the show obviously carries some influence because it is also yuri. The women are perfect and prim and the world is equally perfect and prim. However, the catch is that the world resets at midnight and the day repeats itself ad infinitum. This is a clear parallel to old yuri conventions where lesbian relationships must adhere to traditional Japanese conventions of femininity and stop by graduation. By having the characters fight against this is a statement that this anime will not trivialise the characters’ sexualities and refuses to compromise to homphobia. Here, the reference has a use.

In DITF, there is no use apart from short hand that the robots rely on sex.

That’s it

Speaking of lesbians, there was a lesbian character, Ikuno, who is completely in love with Zero Two, the main love interest for Hiro (because of course). Of course, the robot doesn’t work when the two of them are together because of their incompatible sexualities. Which would be a statement if it weren’t for the fact this character could clearly work with men in the mecha even though she is explicitly lesbian so the point is sort of moot and the sentiment was lost.

She did get a girlfriend, which is cool, I guess.

There was also a bi male character but because his bisexuality is so vague, it almost doesn’t count as representation.

Also, the ending has Zero Two and Hiro die for each other which would be tragic if it weren’t for the fact that the two are unable to function without the other. Again, the anime glorifies an unhealthy and toxic relationship and the fact DITF doesn’t even acknowledge that is worrying given that it’s explicitly about relationships and there are hardly any media which discuss just how hurtful being in this type of relationship is.

[bellabooks]

The Case for (Imagined) Queerness in the Works of Jane Austen

As 12 years of mandatory English classes taught us, a book’s impact and importance depend on a ton more factors than just “what the author decided the plot should be.” Every story is contextualized and processed by its individual readers. And if you think you understand the power of this reader/text relationship like the bookish queer youth does, oh boy are you out of your league. There’s an entire ocean of characters out there, and so shamefully few of them are non-hetero. Fan fiction, fan art and extensive Tumblr analyses abound trying to engineer Queer Subtext for any book, movie or television show you can imagine. LGBTQ folk are experts at collecting scraps of dialogue, stray looks or ambiguous moments, pinning them to the cork board of Accidental Queer Representation and connecting them with the red yarn of, uh, Extremely Biased Interpretation? Much like the metaphor in that last sentence, these cobbled-together narratives are often flimsy at best, but we stand behind them with conviction. See? I’m a weathered professional at holding together a trembling, papier-mâché construct despite all evidence to the contrary! Plenty of heteronormative franchises and stories have been given new life by the queer reader’s re-programming, but I have felt mostly alone in my bold quest to Gay Up the works of Jane Austen. These stories all at least partially revolve around the stirrings of Heterosexual Love in the hearts of young women and naturally have been favored mostly by my exceedingly hetero, female-identifiying peers. Therefore I have taken it upon myself to do this heavy lifting on behalf of the Queer Agenda. I have labored intensely for many years, and now at long last I present my findings on a few of Jane Austen’s most notable works.   Mansfield Park for Queer Youth Ah, Mansfield Park. The story of a mousy, impoverished heterosexual young woman fending off the advances of a wealthy and charming young heterosexual man in order to ultimately commit to an austere and boring heterosexual young man. Or is it?   Exhibit A: Mary Crawford, The Original Girlcrush   When Miss Mary Crawford and her wealthy and charming heterosexual brother Henry move into the neighborhood, young Fanny Price and her better-off cousins the Bertrams find their lives turned upside-down. Perhaps not quite in the way you would think. Miss Crawford’s beauty did her no disservice with the Miss Bertrams. They were too handsome themselves to dislike any woman for being so too, and were almost as much charmed as their brothers with her lively dark eye, clear brown complexion, and general prettiness. (Chapter 5) The first half of this excerpt is a very informative piece of intel on the lives of conventionally attractive, straight women. (Finally, Taylor Swift’s #girlsquad makes sense!) The second half, however, is queer as hell if you just believe hard enough. “Almost” as much charmed? Come on, Austen. Just give it to us straight. (Uh, no pun intended.) Everyone is in love with Mary Crawford, which is beautiful and tragic. The Bertram daughters are bound by custom and convention to marry men, but in the depths of their hearts, they clearly yearn to leave it all behind and run away with Mary.   Exhibit B: Wait, Is Mary Crawford after Edmund or Fanny?   The ongoing flirtation between Mary and Edmund is explicit enough. While they turn out to be ill-suited for one another, the initial sparks between them cannot be denied. Only slightly more subtle, however, is Mary’s fascination with Fanny which leads the two women to spend the majority of their free time together. Such was the origin of the sort of intimacy which took place between them within the first fortnight after the Miss Bertrams’ going away—an intimacy resulting principally from Miss Crawford’s desire of something new, and which had little reality in Fanny’s feelings.”(Chapter 22) Mary, girl, we’ve all been there. Experiment away! Bless Jane Austen for this completely unintended example of much-needed bisexual representation.   Exhibit C: Fanny Just Wants a Beard I have always found protagonist Fanny Price’s rejection of rich, effusive and affable Henry Crawford in favor of her stoic and dare I say withholding cousin Edmund Bertram to be one of the most frustrating heterosexual choices in literature, which is already full to bursting with the baffling entanglements of straight people. Ostensibly, Fanny has chosen a life of quiet morality as worth more to her than indulgence and having fun and being happy. And at first glance, the moral of this story seems to be the bland and inoffensive message that it’s actually okay for straight women to love solemn contemplation and quiet alone time and reading indoors on a rainy day. Oh, and being sexually attracted to one’s first cousin too, obviously. But is there perhaps a more original and insightful takeaway from this novel? Of course there is! Arguably, a queer reading of Mansfield Park is the only thing that would explain why in the end, Fanny falls for the least threatening or exciting man she has ever met. It also explains her intense discomfort with male attention. (She’s described in Chapter 21 as “almost as fearful of notice and praise as other women were of neglect.”) She’s not looking for sex appeal or chemistry, because she knows she will never find them in a man, nor does she want such a thing. The best case for Fanny is a dependable and amiable enough life partner with whom to pay the bills, share in life’s various duties and sleep in separate beds. Edmund is certainly that.   Emma, Obviously in Denial   In addition to having the most personally relatable protagonist I have ever encountered, Emma is coincidentally also the easiest of Jane Austen’s works to jam into a queer-shaped mold. You can read a good 85% of this novel as the story of a lady-loving lady in very deep denial struggling with the heterosexual inclinations of all the women she cares for. Unfortunately things go a little off the rails when Emma finally realizes her love for Mr. Knightley, which is difficult to handwave away seeing as how it is actually a rather compelling Heterosexual Romance. We’ll just ignore this minor detail that is arguably the culmination of the entire novel and focus on the rest.   Exhibit A: Feelings? For Men?   We are often reminded in this book that Emma has little to no interest in ever marrying. And why would she? She does not lack for money or status. Her only reason to marry would be True Hetero Love. “I have none of the usual inducements of women to marry. Were I to fall in love, indeed, it would be a different thing! but I never have been in love; it is not my way, or my nature; and I do not think I ever shall.” (Chapter 10) Okay but is it not your nature to be in love or to be in love with men? Maybe this requires just a bit more introspection, Emma. Indeed, let us examine Emma’s attempted quasi-relationship with Frank Churchill. Emma realizes that she feels left out of all the fun watching her friends fall in love and circle through flirtations and makes the decision to get a crush on Frank with the aim of adding a little excitement to her life. (Relatable!) She notices that there seems to be something missing in her feelings for Frank, but she boldly soldiers on through the motions of being In Love so as to better fit in. Eventually, even Emma, queen of self-delusion that she is, cannot continue to pretend to love a man as anything more than a friend. But, on the other hand, she could not admit herself to be unhappy, nor, after the first morning, to be less disposed for employment than usual; she was still busy and cheerful; and, pleasing as he was, she could yet imagine him to have faults; and farther, though thinking of him so much, and, as she sat drawing or working, forming a thousand amusing schemes for the progress and close of their attachment, fancying interesting dialogues, and inventing elegant letters; the conclusion of every imaginary declaration on his side was that she refused him. Their affection was always to subside into friendship…When she became sensible of this, it struck her that she could not be very much in love. (Chapter 13) Because “I can like Men if only I just try hard enough” has always worked out!   Exhibit B: I Only Sabotaged My Best Friend’s Relationship For Her Own Good   Who among us hasn’t vehemently encouraged our dearest friend Harriet to turn down the advances of a perfectly lovely boy whom she likes very much ostensibly because he’s not good enough but actually because lurking in the deepest recesses of our subconscious, we could not bear to see her with someone else? This is so classic, I could rest my case right here. I probably spent my entire teenhood trying to subtly manipulate my secret lady crushes into dumping their boyfriends. “I lay it down as a general rule, Harriet, that if a woman doubts as to whether she should accept a man or not, she certainly ought to refuse him. If she can hesitate as to ‘Yes,’ she ought to say ‘No’ directly. It is not a state to be safely entered into with doubtful feelings, with half a heart. I thought it my duty as a friend, and older than yourself, to say thus much to you. But do not imagine that I want to influence you.” (Chapter 7) I would never tell you what to do! I’m just saying maybe think about it. And while you’re thinking about it, think about the fact that you’re thinking about it. If you really loved him, would you even need to think about it? Makes you think, doesn’t it?   Exhibit C: Serial Monogamy   On the topic of Harriet, let’s take a closer look at a pattern of behavior Emma seems to set up. She was exceedingly close to Mrs. Weston, her old governess-turned-best-friend before this woman had the nerve to move out and get married to a man. Emma, drowning in sorrow at the loss of this relationship, cannot handle being single and working on herself for a while, therefore she immediately turns her faculties to selecting herself a new girlfriend. When Emma decides that Harriet shall be her next life partner, she cleaves to her wholly and immediately. Harriet must accompany Emma on all her errands, must call on her nearly daily and must attend every party Emma attends as well. The poor girl doesn’t know how to exist without being in the constant company of a woman who adores her. Have I mentioned how relatable Emma is enough times yet?   Pride and Prejudice and Homosexuality Yes, Pride and Prejudice is perhaps the most Heterosexual piece of literature ever written at first glance, but please! Do not doubt my ability to make Austen’s most enduring triumph Extremely Gay. I told you I was a professional. By the time my case is finished, you will see that Pride and Prejudice is one of the queerest classic works in the canon.   Exhibit A: Uhhh, Why Do Darcy and Bingley Have to Be Together All the Time?   Darcy has Pemberley. Bingley has enough money to buy any property he pleases. There is no reason these boys need to follow each other from estate to estate, attending parties together, traveling to all the same boroughs. Darcy, if you hate the country so much, why don’t you just go live at home in your home that you own? You know, the home that everyone constantly talks about how incredible it is? The home you can just ride a horse over to right now? That home? Darcy gets a lot of guff for convincing Bingley not to propose to Jane. And yeah, that screams Jealous Secret Crush on Darcy’s end. But one must also wonder why Bingley would have been so very easy to persuade. If he truly wanted to marry Jane, I think it would have taken more than a slight nudge from his platonic best bud to ghost her the way he did. I mean, he didn’t just stop answering her texts. He moved himself and his family out of town. However, it doesn’t seem quite so inexplicable to dump one’s beard at the urging of one’s Secret Boyfriend now does it?   Exhibit B: Everyone Is Gay for Georgiana   “I really do not think Georgiana Darcy has her equal for beauty, elegance, and accomplishments; and the affection she inspires in Louisa and myself is heightened into something still more interesting…” (Chapter 21) I swear to God, no one in this book will ever shut up about Georgiana Darcy. We get it! She’s so very beautiful and kind and charming and talented! The Bingley sisters practically salivate over her. Lady Catherine admires her in her own grumpy old elitist way. Elizabeth finds her fully delightful. Everyone is obsessed with Georgiana. She’s like the Shane McCutcheon of Regency England.   Exhibit C: Relax, Elizabeth, People Get Married.   Elizabeth has decidedly no interest in marrying the human embodiment of Oblivious Mansplaining, Mr. Collins. Elizabeth’s best friend Charlotte Lucas, however, seems to think the constant stream of ignorant babble is worth the cash money. So she locks it down, infuriating Elizabeth. She had always felt that Charlotte’s opinion of matrimony was not exactly like her own, but she had not supposed it to be possible that, when called into action, she would have sacrificed every better feeling to worldly advantage. Charlotte the wife of Mr. Collins was a most humiliating picture! And to the pang of a friend disgracing herself and sunk in her esteem, was added the distressing conviction that it was impossible for that friend to be tolerably happy in the lot she had chosen. (Chapter 22) Lizzy. We get that you weren’t into him, girl, but why are you, like… so upset about this? Could it be that your dearest partner and secret love Charlotte has accepted a Heterosexual Union. And immediately after you yourself made such a display of rejecting one? Ouch!   Sense and Sensibility   Guys, I tried with this one. I really did. But all the women in this book are related and also obsessed with dudes. I thought I could stick it to the straight people, but I must regretfully concede that this task is beyond even my expertise. If anyone has a queer angle on this one though, please contact me immediately. We queers have always been around, even when every offshoot of culture has tried to erase us from existence. Yeah, it’s super fun to retroactively barge our way back into old literature. But it’s also a much-needed assertion that we exist, we matter and we deserve to see ourselves. Even in light-hearted novels about manners and marrying rich and falling in love with one’s first cousin. Ashley Chupp is a Chicago-based writer, crossword enthusiast and frequent crier at the local Trader Joe’s.   Gif 1: fibu.tumblr.com Gif 2: teenvogue.tumblr.com Gif 3: BBC Gif 4: bringmybooks.com http://dlvr.it/PZ94CB

[news-mashable-yahoopartner-blog]

Femme birds, butch owls, and lesbian frogs: Meet the queer animals of Instagram

In 2008, a gay penguin couple went viral for the best of reasons: They stole an egg from a straight couple in order to become parents, then replaced the missing egg with a rock. Genius. 

It's rare to see queerness represented in the animal world — if you can even call it queerness, given that these are, in fact, animals who don't have human sexualities. Still, that hasn't stopped the LGBTQ community from anthropomorphizing them wherever they can.

To anthropomorphize is to be human. Who doesn't want to see a lesbian earth mother frog dispensing self-care advice? Or a high femme owl warding off a heteronormative holiday with her deadly, femme fatale stare? Tell me the last time you saw a masculine-of-center bird represented in media. How many serial monogamist flamingos do you know in your personal life? 

View this post on Instagram

▼ 2019 people! We need to take it easy!!!! As in just let it come. Take it with the utmost gentleness. Take my pose and repeat after me: “I am ready for any challenge and I will keep my peace and relax my body when needed. I ROCK even when I sit still! 🙏🏾 “ And then you can say HELL YEAH or Namaste or amen or whatever but SAY IT!!!! Ps don’t forget that it is EXTREMELY important to scream once in a while. LET IT OUT!!! But ALWAYS go back to this relaxed pose I am showing you here. You can even print it out and hang me on your wall! Try it! You will not regret it. Yours truly. Lesbian Frog forever. ▼ #lesbian #animal #lgbt #lgbtq #lgbtqi #lesbianculture #lesbianfun #animals #animalsco #animalsofinstagram #queer #animallover #animales #lesbians #lesbienne #lesbiana #dyke #frog #2019 photo by @yan_hidayat_567 special thnxz to @heavenandhella @amysedaris 🙏🏾💘

A post shared by Lesbian ▼ Animals (@lesbian_animals) on Jan 7, 2019 at 3:02pm PST

These moments are few. But thanks to Instagram, "queer" and queer-adjacent animal representation is starting to spike.

SEE ALSO: Zodiac shaming is a real thing. Don't do it.

Welcome to 2019, where "queer" animals are able to build large Instagram followings. To be clear: None of the queer-animal-centered Instagram accounts claim to fully know the sexuality of the animals they depict. The "lesbian warthog" from Instagram account @lesbian_animals could very well be a pansexual warthog. Or maybe she just experimented with female warthogs in college after seeing a particularly dapper drag king warthog at the local warthog cabaret.

Or maybe she's just a warthog and therefore has no idea what any of these humans posting about her are talking about.

View this post on Instagram

▼ Tiny Lesbian warthog cooling down in a tiny mud puddle ▼ #lesbian #animal #lgbt #lgbtq #lgbtqi #lesbianculture #lesbianfun #animals #animalsco #animalsofinstagram #queer #animallover #animales #lesbians #lesbienne #lesbiana #dyke #warthog

A post shared by Lesbian ▼ Animals (@lesbian_animals) on Jun 12, 2017 at 4:41pm PDT

So while queer Instagram animals might not have a sexuality in the same way humans have a sexuality, there's something about them visually that feels so deeply, constitutionally queer. Queer people can see themselves in them.

As strange as that is, it matters. 

The inherent queerness of birds

Take a look at @femmebirds, an Instagram account dedicated to the bird femme community. Created by Meaghan O'Malley of Butches and Babies and Katie Horowitz, the account celebrates the femmeness at the heart of bird identity:

"Birds just don't give a fuck, which I think is inherently femme," O'Malley told Mashable in a phone interview. "They're also very sensitive and hollow-boned."

O'Malley started the account after discovering @butchbirds on Instagram, an account dedicated to the severely underrepresented butch bird community. Both accounts share photos of birds that are aesthetically queer.  

Worship the raw masc power of Bryce, a newly appointed young butch owl. Bryce is the Shane of the queer owl community. He fucks.

View this post on Instagram

A submission from @thepaylestqweeyah, for your viewing pleasure we bring you Bryce, a newly minted baby butch. Very eager to sweep you off your feet. #woulddate #alsotherewillprobablybemessypoly #babybirdbutch

A post shared by Butch (@butchbirds) on Dec 30, 2018 at 12:52pm PST

Next, open your heart to these queer pastel parrotlets processing critical attachment theory:

View this post on Instagram

A good wingfemme knows when to pull you into her fluffy, feathery bosom to tell you how magical and important you are when things are feeling rough. A good wingfemme also probably takes advantage of the convenient proximity of your ear to her beak and whispers a reminder to read that book about attachment she mentioned to you a year ago. AHEM.⁣ ⁣ #wingfemmewednesday [femme birds: pastel parrotlets] #femmebirds | photo credit: @freyaeverafter_ |

A post shared by Femme Birds (@femmebirds) on Feb 6, 2019 at 5:19am PST

But these accounts do more than just share photos of animals. Both @femmebirds and @butchbirds draw from queer tropes to generate meaningful conversation. 

For O'Malley, @femmebirds allows her to discuss queerness in a way that feels lighthearted and slightly removed. It can be challenging and painful to discuss LGBTQ issues in more traditional contexts. Who really wants to explore the nuances of gender performance in a Twitter thread?

When queer identity is re-imagined in bird form, the conversation feels lighter, more manageable. It's easier to discuss femme visibility among parrots (who are inherently absurd) than among humans:

"I am not really an animal person, but I love birds and their anthropomorphic personalities ... and I think it's a little bit easier with animals to connect with what you're feeling and experiencing," O'Malley said. "Femme birds are specifically adaptable in that way. The vast majority of birds we post are assigned male at birth. Male birds tend to be the most femme in nature. Some people have been curious about why we use male birds. But that has everything to do with our perception of femme identity."

View this post on Instagram

A good ol’ fashioned #wingfemmewednesday intervention is in order when your bestie suggests getting back together with her toxic ex for the fourth time. ⁣ ⁣ We can acknowledge our fear of scarcity and then do everything we can to believe in abundance. Toxicity isn’t love, boobirds! ⁣ ⁣ [femme birds: eastern bluebirds] #femmebirds

A post shared by Femme Birds (@femmebirds) on Feb 20, 2019 at 8:45am PST

O'Malley is able to facilitate a conversation about the meaning of femme identity — who it belongs to, and why we associate it with just one sex — without it becoming a contentious internet forum.

These are birds, for God's sake.

View this post on Instagram

Femmes: there is no such thing as more femme or less femme, better femme or worse femme, good femme or bad femme, real femme or imposter femme.⁣ ⁣ Femme is femme is femme. ⁣ ⁣ You are pure, real, and beautiful in your femmeness, however it manifests, no matter your gender. Identity policing is *NOT* for the femmebirds. [femme bird: dwarf kingfisher from SE Asia] #femmebirds

A post shared by Femme Birds (@femmebirds) on Feb 9, 2019 at 10:57am PST

Language is key to understanding these accounts. @Femmebirds routinely repurposes vocabulary from queer culture, such as bottoming or lesbian processing, to discuss bird behavior. In doing so, O'Malley is able to have a conversation about femme visibility and even poke fun at some of the more rigid conventions through a careful curation of words.

View this post on Instagram

WE STAN FOR THE POWER BOTTOM ⁣ [femme birds: common kestrel] #femmebird4femmebird #femmebirds

A post shared by Femme Birds (@femmebirds) on Feb 15, 2019 at 8:37am PST

Look at this queer femmebird trying to process her emotions with her cis boyfriend:

View this post on Instagram

Queer femmebird trying to do some deep lesbian processing with her boyfriend, who has very clearly never been a lesbian. #panbirdproblems [femme bird: red-legged honeycreeper] #femmebirds

A post shared by Femme Birds (@femmebirds) on Jan 26, 2019 at 1:33pm PST

This femmebird walks her runway like a goddamn professional: She's "steadfastly true to herself, her values, and her fabulous shoulder-padded/glittery pantsuited/silky bowtied aesthetic."⁣

View this post on Instagram

This week's Femmebird Icon is none other than Dorothy Zbornack, the tallest, fiercest, sharpest-tongued Golden Girl. Dorothy was known for her [...occasionally problematic...] ability to quickly read the room, and you, for filth. When forced to explain or justify her gender and/or sexuality, she remained steadfastly true to herself, her values, and her fabulous shoulder-padded/glittery pantsuited/silky bowtied aesthetic. ⁣ ⁣ While not the tallest bird of prey, the secretarybird reminds us so much of Dorothy that we felt this comparison needed to happen. Like Dorothy and her suffer no fools approach to Stan's hijinks/Blanche’s delusions/Rose’s non sequiturs/Sophia’s trickery, secretarybirds quietly and carefully stalk their prey and then skillfully and aggressively, well, uh, stomp them to death. Thank you for being a friendbird, Dorothy.⁣ ⁣ NB: These pairings are our best bird testaments to these icons and their energy/aesthetics. These femmebird icons are people who have contributed to the expression and identity of femme, in many cases to our intersecting movements, and generally to our conceptions and expressions of justice and/or style. Finally, these Femmebird Icons include folx who are real and fictional AND folx of all gender identities and expressions who may or may not identify as femme, but who have inspired us nonetheless.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ [femme bird: secretarybird] #femmebirds #femmebirdicons

A post shared by Femme Birds (@femmebirds) on Jan 28, 2019 at 4:17pm PST

Human lesbians may struggle with scissoring. Great crested grebes sure do:

View this post on Instagram

Giving you hot scissoring technique this #femmebird4femmebird Friday. #✂️🐥🐥✂️⁣ ⁣ [femme bird: great crested grebe]⁣ #femmebirds

A post shared by Femme Birds (@femmebirds) on Jan 25, 2019 at 7:42am PST

These femmebirds are absolutely crushing the cis-heteropatriarchy:

View this post on Instagram

Femmebirds, 1. Cisheteropatriarchy, 0. [femme bird: house sparrow] #femmebirds

A post shared by Femme Birds (@femmebirds) on Jan 17, 2019 at 6:55am PST

Let's be clear: @femmebirds and @butchbirds are, at their hearts, extremely funny accounts. Yes, they inspire thoughtful comment threads about gender performance and identity. They're also weird as hell, in wonderful, tender ways that remind me of the pre-bad internet era. 

Forget everything you learned about Judith Butler and Michel Foucault and just soak up the comedy of this sex talk between parakeet lesbians.

View this post on Instagram

Explaining to your newly-out wingfemme the finer points of good ol’ fashioned lez luvin’. [femme bird: Indian ringneck parakeet] #femmebirds #wingfemmewednesday

A post shared by Femme Birds (@femmebirds) on Jan 23, 2019 at 6:08pm PST

I will always hate birds. But I am deeply thankful for Instagram's queer bird community for giving this highly marginalized group some representation in media.

Lesbian guinea pigs, gay lions, and closeted cats

There are plenty of animals in the kingdom who possess big dyke energy.

Instagram account @lesbian_animals, which has been around since 2016, identifies the non-avian queer members of the animal kingdom. They're less visible than out and proud pigeons. But that doesn't mean they're not worth paying attention to.

Consider, for example, the queer guinea pig community. Without this account, we wouldn't even know they existed.

View this post on Instagram

▼ Lesbian parenting ▼ #lesbian #animal #lgbt #lgbtq #lgbtqi #lesbianculture #lesbianfun #animals #animalsco #animalsofinstagram #queer #animallover #animales #lesbians #guineapig

A post shared by Lesbian ▼ Animals (@lesbian_animals) on Oct 8, 2016 at 4:00pm PDT

View this post on Instagram

▼ Lesbian Guinea Pig (by EmmasBears on Etsy)▼ #lesbian #animal #lgbt #lgbtq #lgbtqi #lesbianculture #lesbianfun #animals #animalsco #animalsofinstagram #queer #animallover #animales #lesbians #lesbienne #lesbiana #dyke #happypride

A post shared by Lesbian ▼ Animals (@lesbian_animals) on Aug 1, 2017 at 11:36pm PDT

Possums really broke into the viral spotlight last year. But — with all those memes and all those tweets — did you ever once hear about the vibrant LGBTQ possum scene?

Probably not. Shout out to @lesbian_animals for bringing this marginalized demographic to the forefront.

View this post on Instagram

▼ Lesbian parenting ▼ #lesbian #animal #lgbt #lgbtq #lgbtqi #lesbianculture #lesbianfun #animals #animalsco #animalsofinstagram #queer #animallover #animales #lesbians #lesbienne #lesbiana #dyke #mammapossum

A post shared by Lesbian ▼ Animals (@lesbian_animals) on Jun 6, 2017 at 2:24pm PDT

When was the last time you learned about queer chosen families in the animal world? Look at how these queer koalas have forged community in spite of oppression:

View this post on Instagram

▼ Lesbian Koala's Love to cuddle in groups. "Our favorite movie is Trolls!! We watch it together at least twice a month and then we cuddle and dance and eat rainbow popcorn!!!" ▼ #lesbian #animal #lgbt #lgbtq #lgbtqi #lesbianculture #lesbianfun #animals #animalsco #animalsofinstagram #queer #animallover #animales #lesbians #lesbienne #lesbiana #dyke #koala

A post shared by Lesbian ▼ Animals (@lesbian_animals) on Mar 30, 2017 at 6:57am PDT

Accounts like @lesbian_animals are more than just collections of queer koala friends. They meet a psychological need, highlighting "queerness" in the world around us, even if that queerness is absurdist projection.

Just like everyone else, queer people want to see themselves on television, in movies, in government, and sometimes even boning in the wild. 

So forgive me if I take deep satisfaction in this lesbian otter tape dispenser. As a queer person, I am sick and tired of seeing only cis heteronormative seal tape dispensers. 

Finally, I feel seen: by animals, and by the people creating these accounts.

View this post on Instagram

▼ Lesbian Tape Dispenser ▼ #lesbian #animal #lgbt #lgbtq #lgbtqi #lesbianculture #lesbianfun #animals #animalsco #animalsofinstagram #queer #animallover #animales #lesbians #tape

A post shared by Lesbian ▼ Animals (@lesbian_animals) on Dec 16, 2016 at 4:55pm PST

It's more than just queer animal tape dispenser representation

For all the joy it brings me to see a genderqueer rockabilly owl, queer animal representation isn't ultimately about the animals. It's more than that. As O'Malley describes it, it's about the people behind the accounts and the people engaging with these accounts connecting with each other.

When you like a photo of two lesbian dogs in matching knit hats, you're not identifying with the dogs. You're  sharing a moment with the account's creator, who knows what knit hats signify in the lesbian community and can laugh about it with you.

View this post on Instagram

▼ Lesbian couple ▼ #lesbian #animal #lgbt #lgbtq #lgbtqi #lesbianculture #lesbianfun #animals #animalsco #animalsofinstagram #animallover #animales #lesbians #deers

A post shared by Lesbian ▼ Animals (@lesbian_animals) on Jun 18, 2016 at 3:07pm PDT

As much as you think you're connecting with animals, you're actually connecting with people.

Here's how O'Malley describes the human affect behind her femme bird account: 

"Femme identity has always been something I tentatively danced around. I didn’t fully embrace it until about a decade ago. It's been challenging because there's so much gatekeeping around it. I was really unsure if I would be able to create femme-centric content ... [but] posts that tend to resonate the most are dramatized versions of my own experience. Posts that say: 'I am femme but I don't feel like I'm good at it' tend to get the most affirming feedback. It makes me feel like less of an outsider femme. I have not been able to connect to other femmes as a human but I have through my bird language." 

Let me use my bird language to connect to the kind readers who've made it to the end of this story.

We see you all: the masc owls, the drag queen parrots, and even the heteroflexible parakeets. These Instagram skies are open. There's a home for you all, my fellow queer birds, even if it's just on a platform.

WATCH: New study says honeybees can do basic math

[yeah-oh-shit]

ooh! this is great. i didn't think about the cast of characters or the similarities between mary and marius. i liked ep.2 the best but have had the hardest time tying it into the "lost special" theory (which i agree with). 

ep.1 to me feels clearly tied to homophobia. we have the aids metaphor, johnny having been contaminated, potentially through sex. we have an explicit moment where we hear that "letting him in" leads to death. so something that sounds pretty explicitly sexual is being tied to death, which we know represents falling in love in sherlock. ep.1 also really explores and digs into the conflation of homosexuality and monstrosity. almost all the most queerly coded things are during moments that are animalistic (beastly), moments of seductive threat and cohersion, and scenes that read as non-consensual  (the dreams johnny has of mina turning into dracula). i think this episode can be read as showing sherlock's own inner fear of his love/affection somehow hurting john. if he thinks that a heteronormative life is the only way that john can be safe and happy, his own (sexual) feelings for john  are threatening to that and therefore bad. dracula represents sexuality at large, but in this episode he is clearly queer coded and therefore can be read as representing queer sexuality. heteronormativity = safe and boring, queerness = dangerous is a clear metaphor in sherlock. this becomes even more damning if we take the view that sherlock and john could have possibly actually had sex on stag night, which this (X, X) brilliant meta by @possiblyimbiassed​ explores at length. 

ep.3 is very tied to facing fear and shame, and being willing to be fully “seen” for who you are. in this case, i would argue that dracula is actually a stand in for john, or at least his relationship to sexuality. it is time for him to see himself fully and clearly, to understand who he is, what he is afraid of, and to embrace himself without shame (stand in the sun). it also has a clear "coming together" at the end that i hope is relevant to sherlock, because i didn't love it for dracula as such. this is mostly due to the the implication the actual characters zoe/agatha and dracula somehow complete each other, "after all this time," when from dracula’s pov, he tried to kill agatha via hanging only 3 months ago, didn’t know her for long before that, and generally didn’t care about her or anyone (even johnny, who he came to get in the convent, even lucy “his greatest bride”) until about 10 seconds ago. ( and don't even get me started on the gross fire sex scene..) however, when read as a metaphorical stand in for john being willing to face his own sexuality (bi identity) without shame, and embracing death (falling in love) and sex (weird fire scene) wholeheartedly, allowing himself to see the face of his beloved (sherlock) for what it really is (his beloved, not something that will kill him) it makes sense. 

anyways, that was a long rant, and i know there are a lot of ways to read it, but thanks to y’all for helping me understand how ep.2 fits in a little better. 

Dracula is mind palace

[orionsangel86]

12x10 - Pterodactyl Screeching into the Void - Part 2

This is the second part of my episode review for 12x10 “Lily Sunder has some Regrets”. The first part mainly focusses on Destiel and its HUGE role in the episode. You can go check that out first if you like here.

This part of my review is to talk about some of the other very interesting themes in the episode now that I have screeched about Destiel to my heart’s content and will try to be a more rational person (disclaimer: its not gonna work)

To be honest it is practically impossible for me to talk about this episode without at least referencing Destiel as the very principle theme of the episode is about angels and their interactions with humans in different ways specifically where love is involved. But whether you see Dean and Cas’s love for one another as romantic or platonic the one thing that absolutely cannot be argued away after this episode is that the love between them well and truly does exist in canon. Therefore sorry Jensen but you seem to be confusing Supernatural with another show when you make rash and ill-conceived statements at conventions to appease hateful non-fans. Ahem. Anyway, Moving on…

Angels and Obsession

The starting scene of the episode introduces us to Benjamin. In a bar decorated with vintage video game memorabilia the angel is obsessively playing a game that just makes me think of Charlie. :( Though tbh the symbolism behind an angel controlling an monster to destroy a city is certainly not lost on me and takes my mind right back to the apocalypse where the angels were the ‘monsters’ who wanted to kick start the apocalypse that would literally bring cities to the ground. So yeah, that was an interesting choice of video game basically.

The fact that Benjamin has been here every night obsessively playing this game gives us another interesting insight into angels. One that is explored quite thoroughly in this episode: They have an obsessive nature when it comes to human things.

This opening sequence therefore shows us the most harmless version of this. Benjamin has got himself hooked on video games. (kinda reminds me of Cas taking up Riverboat Gambling. I wonder if Cas ever still sneaks off when the Winchesters are on hunts to feed his gambling addiction? I know it hasn’t been mentioned since but it is certainly within the realms of canon possibility that Cas has an addictive personality, and now after this episode that has been applied to more angels than just Cas.)

I’m now thinking of Endverse!Cas and my heart is breaking because of course Castiel has an addictive personality. Oh and lets not forget 11x04 – 11x06 and Cas’s newfound obsession with Netflix. Human things are shown to be dangerous to angels.  Ishim says this himself later in the episode:

“You know why we’re meant to stay away from humans? It’s not because we’re a danger to them, they’re are a danger to us.”

The thing is, as much of a dick as Ishim was, he’s not wrong. Humans are a danger to angels because angels are not built to really understand human things and emotions. Benjamin’s obsessive gaming is just the start. He may be best case scenario, but Ishim is worst case scenario. An angel who becomes completely enthralled by a human and claims to have ‘fallen in love’ with her – though in Isham’s case it is doubtful he even understands the concept of love. Lily becomes Isham’s obsession. To the point that he terrifies her into calling on another angel to protect her from him.

“you were obsessed!” she cries.

“I was in love with you” he argues. But Ishim couldn’t have been in love with her, because as Dean (aka poster boy for humanity) shows us later on, love isn’t about causing your lover pain, it’s about being willing to risk yourself to save them from any further harm.

This is one of the very major points of the episode. Because Angels are not accustomed to deal with Human things, for an angel, love itself becomes the killer. Condemning both the angel and the object of the angel’s affection to a life of pain, tragedy and death. To bring this back to Dean and Cas, it can very easily be argued that much of what has happened to Castiel, and by association Dean, is because of Castiel’s ‘unrequited’ love for Dean. Thinking back over their long tragic history, if you remove that deep love that Castiel has felt for Dean since the beginning where would we be now? Would we have had the leviathans? Would the angels have the angel tablet? The angels probably wouldn’t have fallen, and much of Castiel’s guilt that came from that wouldn’t have happened. On the other hand if we had had canon destiel since the end of season 5, it can also be argued that much of what Dean and Cas and also Sam went through in seasons 6 and 7 wouldn’t have happened because they would have found another way to stop Raphael together. But this is all just speculation after all.

This episode does seem to imply that when the angels love is requited, things don’t go quite so terribly. Whatever kind of love it was that was shared between Lily and Akobel, it worked. He cared for her and gave his life protecting her. Not so much an obsession as a mutual respect and understanding. Then there is Benjamin and his vessel. Not an obsession but a shared trust and care for each other. A devotion that kept them both safe for many years.

So basically, we can conclude that when an angel has a supportive human by their side to help them through any potentially “obsessive” compulsions, it works out okay for both parties. If the angel is shunned and left to its own completely inhuman devices, it turns cold and monstrous. Gosh now this is making me think of that destiel comic where Cas becomes an actual ‘weeping angel’ from Doctor Who. Cold and monstrous indeed.

more under the cut...

Angels and Gender

This is a topic that has me so excited you have no idea how happy I am. Those of you that are regular followers of my blog know that I was going on about genderbend not that long ago. The fact that we get a CANON FEMALE CASTIEL IS AMAZING AND I WILL NEVER STOP GOING ON ABOUT IT.

But before I go on and on about that. Let me talk about this moment:

“Wait so Benjamin’s a woman?”

“Benjamin is an angel. His vessel is a woman.”

I love that this point was drummed home and it was done so for several reasons. The first one is obviously the textual reason to put the situation straight with Sam and Dean. ‘Angels don’t have gender’ is the message here. Sam and Dean get it straight away. Say no more. However we can then start asking why the writer chose to put in this little discussion with our main characters. Why was it even necessary if Sam and Dean are not going to meet Castiel’s female vessel later on? The answer is to remind the viewer of this very same thing.

Because unfortunately Supernatural still has a lot of narrow minded viewers. It still has an appeal among the straight white dude bros of the American Midwest who watch it for Sam and Dean and their macho attitude and their guns. These are the kind of people who will go on to watch Cas have a female vessel in the past and just not get it one bit (and probably find a forum like reddit in which to moan about it). By having this exchange about Benjamin it is acting as a prior warning, reminding these narrow minded viewers that angels don’t have genders and therefore NEITHER DOES CASTIEL. So suck it up and accept it now because it is canon. 

There is also the fact that Castiel has now had this discussion directly with Dean, planting the idea back into Dean’s head that he himself is genderless. That gender and therefore sexuality mean nothing to Castiel. Dean is being reminded along with the audience that Castiel is in no way a “straight white guy in a trench coat”.

Anyway, now to the thing I desperately wanna talk about:

This beautiful angel right here:

I have an awful lot of feelings about female Castiel. Let me tell you. For a start, I keep thinking up scenarios where she can come visit the future or an alternate reality or ANTHING! I just want her to meet Dean and have him have to deal with BOTH Castiel’s in the same room… (because lets be honest we all know what Dean would be thinking… the same thing I am thinking. Lol)

Secondly, on a more meta related point. Castiel had a female vessel. Castiel himself, one of our main characters used to be a woman. (well, technically he is an angel and neither man nor woman but for arguments sake and for the sake of the less open minded CIS straight slightly right leaning audience member let’s just think of it this way for a moment.) This is different from doing it with other side characters. This is important. It is 100% impossible for anyone to argue that Castiel (one of our three main characters) is a CIS straight guy. Impossible. Because Castiel doesn’t have a gender, you cannot define his sexuality. He cannot be straight, because he is not a man who is attracted to women or vice versa. You cannot call him gay for the same reason. (this is of course different to a transgender person who has a defined gender and therefore defines their sexuality based on their gender). He physically does not have a gender, he has had both male and female vessels and is clearly not bothered by gender.

I’m not sure how well I am explaining this, but my point is to consider how this would look to the audience member I described above. The heteronormative audience member who looks at things like destiel and Dean’s bisexuality and goes “what? No way. Dean is straight. Cas is straight. Shut up.” Because they literally would have seen Castiel’s female vessel and had their brains freeze for a moment trying to understand it.

What things like introducing the idea of Cas with a female vessel does to a general audience member is get them thinking about things they would otherwise never consider. It is representation for anything other than the norm (which still is unfortunately the CIS straight white guy). A general audience member would see Cas with a female vessel and think what? Cas used to be a girl? Wow. Imagine if Cas had stayed a girl? How different would that make the show? Well if Cas was a girl she’d be into guys right? (because this meta assumes the G.A to be extremely heteronormative) Wait a sec, does that mean Cas would be into Dean? OMG… and then the cogs would start fitting into place. Basically, it’s a really good thing for us.

The show has done things like this before. I consider it all “testing the waters” personally. Jesse and Cesar from 11x19s “The Chitters” is a brilliant example of this. Because again, that audience member I described above is very likely to have a very narrow minded idea of what a gay or bisexual man would look like. They certainly wouldn’t look like Dean Winchester. So what does Supernatural do? It introduces us to a homosexual married couple who are the polar opposite of that stereotypical gay man as portrayed in mainstream media. Instead, we get a couple of gay/bisexual guys who are eerily similar to Dean Winchester in their macho gruff plaid wearing way and this would very much confuse the heteronormative G.A viewer.

So what we end up with is Supernatural pushing the boundaries of what its G.A viewer would expect. Castiel used to be a woman. Macho manly plaid wearing hunters can be happily gay married.  GOD can be bisexual and eat bacon. Now ask yourselves honestly. Would the show have even dared to do these things 6 years ago??

What does this tell us? Why on earth would Supernatural be pushing to defy these expectations? What is the show trying to say with this narrative?

Basically all I’m saying is keep a look out for anything in future episode that would “defy mainstream expectations”. Because in a show like Supernatural with such a long history, this kind of thing is unheard of. Unless it has a reason for wanting to try these things out of course…

Castiel’s emotional arc

I always seem to be going on about this in my meta’s. But GUYS it is SUCH a big deal right now. I SAID that Andrew Dabb would not let us down. I SAID that he would explore this further. I knew that it would get more screen time. I WAS RIGHT. Through this episode we get so much more to explore with Castiel (and that’s not including the female vessel and all the destiel goodness). Okay so starting at the beginning HOW AWESOME IS SASSY GRUMPY CAS? I love him so much. HASHTAG MARRIED AM I RIGHT?

How awesome is it that our wonderful Sam Winchester is sticking up for his friend/brother-in-law here? Because bless his heart Sam just gets it. What Cas did was no different to what Dean or Sam would have done. Dean is being unreasonable because he is super worried that his husband has put himself into horrible danger. Sam on the other hand, sees the situation for what it really is and fights Cas’s corner for him when he isn’t there to do it himself. And when Cas is there to fight himself? Oh Boy does he!

This episode gave us a Sam Winchester who truly cares for his friend. Bless Steve Yokey for really driving this point home throughout the episode. Sam and Dean BOTH care about Cas. Both LOVE him and both respect him, just in different ways. And FINALLY Cas is starting to see this. Especially because he overhears this conversation. He knows that Sam is fighting for him and then instead of getting upset or letting his depression sink its teeth in further, he fights alongside Sam.

“I WAS doing the right thing.” He says.

This is a Cas who is completely over being disrespected and will not take any shit from his silly husband anymore. He is standing up for himself and gives as good as he gets and this has been something we have seen more of this season (since Dabb took the reins). Less of the Cas who doesn’t understand human sayings and metaphors and more of a Cas who is showing just how much he has picked up from his stupid husband and can snap back with a remark just as witty, (I’m still snickering over the lumberjack comment from 12x07).

When we get to the bar Cas’s reaction to Benjamin’s burn marks is quite severe for him. He shows clear distress over it and snaps at the poor barman, breaking character while doing so. I have a question for anyone who wants to answer it: Is this the first time that Sam and Dean would have clearly seen the evidence of the angels wings burning? Have they seen burnt wing marks to this extent before? If not then this could be distressing for Castiel for several reasons. One is that his friend is dead, two is that the evidence of his friends death is crudely displayed on the wall, three is that those clearly burnt wing marks remind Castiel of his own burnt wings and four Dean and Sam and anyone else in the room are also able to gawp at the evidence of the angel fall (which Cas still blames himself for). Basically distressing all around. This shows us plainly that even though Cas is stronger and once again out and fighting the game (unlike in season 11), he is still clearly traumatised by his past.

I feel I need to quickly mention the angel blade here… I thought that it was just a headcanon found in fanfic that angel’s each had an individual blade that belonged to them? Connected to their grace somehow? Has the show ever confirmed this previously? Did I miss something? Or did Yokey just bring another fanfiction headcanon to life? Because suddenly my mind is flashing to “Path of the Fireflies” and if you have read that fic you would know why. This episode is the gift that keeps on giving.

So we should come to expect now that whenever Castiel is going to be interacting with other angels that they are gonna be super dicks to him, and this diner scene is no exception.

“You kept your vessels all this time”

“We are not careless”.

All this makes me think is that something happened to Cas’s previous vessel and I wanna know what now. The comment was definitely meant to insult so just what exactly happened to Cas’s previous vessel? Did she get harmed? Did he get expelled from her somehow? We know absolutely nothing about his vessels name (though the speculation that she is part of Jimmy Novaks bloodline makes solid sense). Though maybe Castiel just returned to heaven without his vessel because he didn’t feel like he needed her anymore, and returned her to her human life? Though remembering his reaction when Hannah chose to release Caroline kinda implies maybe he didn’t treat his former vessel that well. Its not like he treated Jimmy Novak all that well really is it? Its all just another load of guilt to pile on Castiel’s heavy shoulders.

This whole conversation is so extremely hostile too. Dragging things up that we haven’t had mentioned in the show in ages. Balthazar! Oh my gosh poor Cas we know he suffers horrendous guilt over that.

“Is he a hero? Is he a spanner in the works? I don’t know” Once again we are getting the same questions we have been getting over and over again. What are you Castiel? Once again. Castiel doesn’t answer directly. Also the line “Spanner in the works” is a massive call back to Naomi and this line: “You're the famous spanner in the works. Honestly, I think you came off the line with a crack in your chassis. You have never done what you were told. Not completely. You don't even die right, do you?”  and honestly now I am just screeching again because this is more hints that maybe Castiel was made different. What with the other themes of this episode I can’t help but relate this to the speculation about Castiel having a soul. He flinched when he heard the screams coming from the house as Ishim killed Lily’s child. He was never cold. I am still one of those who head canons that Chuck made Castiel different on purpose, and that Castiel has at least grown a soul since he was human if he didn’t already have the ability to grow one built in him.

“When I knew Castiel he was a soldier… a warrior… he was an angels angel… now look how far he’s fallen”. Seriously. Aside from the call back to 7x21 what on earth is an “angel’s angel” anyway? The reason for all of this talk of course is to get the audience thinking about exactly what Castiel is now. To get the characters questioning it. It all plays into his emotional development arc. Eventually, he will be able to stand up and say exactly what he is with certainty. But right now, we are still in major grey areas with Cas and his motivations.

“No wings, no home. Just a ratty old coat and a pair of poorly trained monkeys” Whats funny about this line, is that Ishim just listed Castiel’s home. No he doesn’t have wings, but he doesn’t really need them, because he has his truck and the impala of course. His home is the bunker, as he has been referring to it as “home” since 10x23. That “ratty old coat” is Cas’s identity, his armour, and those “poorly trained monkeys” are his family. Ishim looks down on these things, but it is Ishim who will display jealousy towards Castiel in the end. Because Castiel has far more than Ishim has.

“I used to envy you Castiel do you believe that? You survived hell, you were chosen by God. Now look at you, you’re just sad, and pathetically weak.” We have heard lines like this from other angels over and over again relating to Castiel, but here we get an angel admitting that he envied Cas (as he still does). The “chosen by God” line is interesting bearing in mind it comes after we have had a rather disappointing few episodes with God in them that never resolved Cas’s issues with his father. At least the show is still reinforcing that this is the truth even if it wasn’t directly addressed at the time (which if my recollection is correct was due to too much story being shoved into the last few episodes – or at least so said several people including Jared).

Castiel’s speech to Lily at the end though is heartbreaking because this is Cas accepting that he is in the wrong. I have said before that there isn’t another character in this show who carries as much guilt as Cas (Sam being a close second) and this moment just heightens the depths of his humanity. His ability to admit his wrongs, to accept that he has caused pain and to also accept that perhaps that person won’t be able to spare him. To accept that if they feel the punishment is just, he will just kneel down and accept execution. THAT is how far the depths of his guilt go. He is sorry. He is so so fucking sorry for the pain he has caused, and not just Lily, but all of the guilt he carries for all his crimes.

After moments like this I just wanna scream at the haters who claim Cas is nothing but a fuck up who doesn’t care. HE CARES MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THIS ENTIRE FUCKING SHOW. He is inherently so so fucking GOOD in his core and at times like this, after scenes like this, how is it possible to believe that Cas still doesn’t have a soul?

Honestly though it kills me that Cas still blames himself for crimes that I still think are totally heavens fault, or the fault of other angels. Cas has been manipulated at heaven throughout the entirety of his existence right up until only a few seasons ago, then they started torturing him whenever they got hold of him because they didn’t like that he turned his back on them. ARGH it makes me so MAD at heaven. This episode is yet further proof that heaven is nothing good and has nothing to give Castiel but pain. I honestly can’t see any other way that his story could go that to have him eventually turn his back on heaven for good. Not because he has been shunned by the angels, but because he chooses to shun them. Because he is better than them.

This is why I am convinced that his emotional arc will end with him accepting that the guilt he carries is not his alone to bare, that it is the responsibility of all of heaven and at that point, Castiel will be able to walk away. To admit that he was better than them all along. To realise that he deserves a life, a home, and most of all that he deserves love in every meaning of the word. Castiel will be able to free himself of that guilt and say farewell to heaven, instead accepting a human life, to reflect his own humanity, and find happiness in that.

Lily Sunder

I just need to point out that I love this character. Supernatural does enjoy giving us red headed ladies! So the first thing I noticed about Lily Sunder was how she reminded me of our very own Charlie. Probably because of this:

Also because the game themed bar at the beginning automatically made me think of Charlie as well. Why is Lily a Charlie mirror? I’m not sure about that one. She is a woman who has been severely wronged by the Supernatural, and yet this was partly because she was obsessed with the Supernatural to begin with. Lily was obsessed with angels and learning all about them, Charlie was looking for her quest, her adventure. Both Lily and Charlie had affairs with Supernatural beings and both Lily and Charlie were made powerless at one point. Where this lack of power cost Charlie her life, it cost Lily her soul. I was saying to @elizabethrobertajones whilst still screeching after my first watch that I thought this episode channelled the writing of Robbie Thompson, and I couldn’t really explain why other than Yokey just seems clued in to the important issue and the things that the fandom cares about. Robbie’s episodes were always chock full of meta and left us with a happy glowy feeling afterwards and I think Yokey has somehow mastered this. (something bucklemming have been unable to do in 6 freaking seasons).

But then there is also this homage to Charlie Bradbury in this character that Yokey has created. The visual imagery of Lily is undeniably based on Charlie. The eye patch alone would have been enough to go on but that along with everything else is telling us something. This episode was about our Charlie mirror taking her power back after all. Maybe it was in a way, an acknowledgement to us and our pain over Charlie’s death. A silent nod to fandom and an admittance that it was a mistake? But then, I could totally be reading too far into that based on my own broken heart.

The other and probably more important mirror for Lily in the episode is Dean. Lily is a Dean mirror through and through. Lily “dreamed about angels” all her life, whereas Dean spent his life with his mothers voice in his head saying “angels are watching over you”. Lily studied angels and learnt to speak fluent enochion. Whilst Dean isn’t fluent he has an excellent knowledge of angels as this episode showed with a fancy new sigil that we haven’t seen before. We know Dean knows his stuff. Lily was awed by the first angel she saw “it was like looking into the face of the divine” and we all remember Dean’s reaction to seeing Cas. Yet just like Dean, when angels came into Lily’s life they ruined it for her. Yes, like Dean, she had an angelic protector, whom she shared an ambiguous relationship with. Like Dean, she was devoted to her child (because Dean has always been framed as Sam’s parent) and also like Dean, thanks to angels, that child was taken from her (Sam’s sacrifice in Swan Song). Lily’s story is a tragic worst case scenario for Dean, and also for Cas and Sam. I touched on this in part 1, as the themes here are heavily connected to destiel with Cas playing the parts of both Ishim and Akabel at various points throughout Supernatural’s long run.

The other really interesting things about Lily were:

“You’ll be amazed what a person can do with a little bit of purpose and an abundance of time” Lily had a hell of a lot of patience. Her focus was revenge, “Revenge is all I’ve had for a hundred years. It’s all I am” like many side characters we see in the show. The themes of revenge and waiting years and years to get it is one that supernatural has been exploring again and again over the past few seasons. Jesse and Cesar spring to mind. With Jesse finally getting his revenge before retiring to New Mexico with his husband. Jesse was also a Dean mirror. What is the show trying to tell us about this? The Winchesters story is built on a revenge mission. The revenge mission of their father. However that has been over for a long time, and now with the return of their mother is it even relevant any more? All these side characters still dealing with their revenge missions? Is this telling us that our wayward sons really should be laying their weary heads to rest now? Its over? Lily said revenge was all she was. She also said that it was destroying her soul:

“Everytime I use one of their spells a piece of my soul burns away”

So what does this tell us about Dean? After everything he has been through, every heartbreak, every fight, isn’t it time he was also done? Lily lost her family, her revenge was all she had. But Dean still has his family around him. Perhaps he should quit whilst he’s ahead too before more trouble finds him? After what Cas did in the last episode, and given who Cas’s mirror was here, the foreshadowing is pretty damn gloomy… especially for Sam. But emotionally, the boys are all on better ground at the end of this episode, and it’s about damn time.

Overall

This episode was a tornado of meta madness. The character growth and development in this episode alone is in some ways more than we’ve seen in whole seasons. I couldn’t be happier. The flashback scene was visually stunning, and I will never be over fem!cas. She was amazing. 

The very fact that this episode was all about angel/human relationships still fills me with glee. What tops this off is that the primary relationship of the episode was Dean and Cas’s. They were actual husbands this episode, and no one would agree with me more on that fact than poor long suffering Sam. Who brought humour and fun and sympathy and support in all his glory.

This episode was fanfiction brought to life, and I mean that in the best possible way. It was like one of those super juicy case fic hurt/comfort stories that’s around the 50k mark and pulls you in and you can’t stop reading the damn thing. Of course its such a slow burn you are driving yourself crazy, but it has such a satisfying ending... those are always gems to find. 

I could write so much more. But my head is hurting, I don’t want to delay this any longer and I think I am done. This episode was wonderful. I have watched it 5 times and I would watch it again. It was everything I could have hoped for and more. Steve Yokey is fast becoming my favourite writer on the show and filling the hole left by Robbie Thompson’s departure. I can’t wait for his next episode. I’m gonna leave it there. Please check out part 1 if you haven’t already for all the destiel goodness.

[mosaicabstract]

Queer Baiting vs. Queer Coding: A Discourse on Yuri on Ice and other media

Sup kiddos. Listen. The Yuri on Ice finale came out two weeks and some change ago, and ever since, I’ve seen a lot of people complaining about how the show didn’t end with a kiss or a wedding or a solid, physical confirmation that Yuuri and Viktor are, indeed, your friendly neighborhood gays. Others are saying that because of this, the show intentionally queer baited its viewers, and that Viktuuri is not, in fact, canon because of it. 

Well I’m going to spend the next however long, as someone who has a bachelor's degree in film and has written lengthy essays about this very topic in the past, explaining why that’s a big pile of poo!! 

(Disclaimer: I apologize if anyone is offended by the word ‘queer’. I’m using is solely because it is the word used in both of the terms I will be discussing). 

Okay, so first, I need you to understand the historical and cultural context of what we call “queer coding”. Queer coding, in film theory, is the implicit and subtle coding of characters to be LGBTQA+ without every explicitly saying it or showing it on screen/in literature/etc. I like to think about coding as kind of an inside joke: if you’re ‘in the know’, you get it. If you’re not, it goes right over your head. For decades, queer coding was the only way that anyone non-straight or non-cis could have any sort of representation in media. Old Hollywood is riddled with some of the best, most subversive queer coding. One of my absolute favorite examples is an Alfred Hitchcock film called Rope. Rope is a thriller about two young, handsome men living in a penthouse apartment together in New York who decide to commit a murder for the fun of it, throw the corpse in a giant chest, and then serve the dead guy’s family and friends a dinner party on top of the chest. It’s morbid and dark, but what intrigues me the most about it is that the two men are, if you’re looking for it, clearly homosexual. It’s never stated. It’s never shown. But they simply are, and if you look closely, you can tell they are through various character traits and wink wink nudge nudge lines in the script. This was much later confirmed by the man who wrote Rope, Arthur Laurents, who was himself gay, and was in a romantic relationship with one of the lead actors, Farley Granger (John Dall, the other lead, was also gay) (x). This was an utter act of subversion. It was a rebellious act, as were all queer codings back then, to have representation in media. (Side note: When I took a class on Hitchcock I read a book by an author I can’t quite remember, and he had an anecdote in his book about being a teenager and going to see Rope in theaters, and coming out in tears and so happy because it was the first time he’d ever realized people like him even existed. Queer coding is HUGELY important in the history of queer media and queer representation.)

Coding still happens today, as well. Just because gay marriage is legal in the US doesn’t mean the fight is anywhere near over (but it’s not like that’s some huge secret). Out and Proud queer media is often a rather niche platform. Film and television are starting to be better about having queer representation, but often it’s either fetishized, pushed to the background, or made into tragedy. Rare and far between are there just like, your average happy-go-lucky shows or films that capture a non-het romance in a normal light. It almost always, still, ends in tragedy. “Bury your gays” is a phrase for a reason, folks. Also in more conservative cultures (such as Japan, where gay marriage hasn’t been universally legalized, and discrimination against LGBTQA+ people is still technically legal (x)), queer coding is a valuable tool for telling queer stories and finding representation. 

Now, we’re going to talk about queer baiting, which is also a thing that happens, but is not the same as queer coding. The difference may be subtle to some people, but it’s there, and it’s all about intent of content and treatment of LGBTQA+ viewers and fans. Where queer coding is done for the benefit of queer viewers, queer baiting is done at the expense of queer viewers. Let’s face it, with fandom culture and non-straight or non-cis people desperately seeking representation and validation from popular media, having a queer relationship/character is a cash cow for a show or film. However, either due to networks or investors or homophobia of certain actors/crew members etc, certain media might find it difficult to just have characters like this. Some certain shows (I’ve especially found this is a trend in television shows... you know the ones) have decided to exploit that interest in the possibility of a homosexual relationship between two (usually male) characters, and they lead their audiences on and make them believe that it’s a thing, only to bring back in ye olde mighty fist of ‘no homo’ heteronormativity and crush everyone’s hopes and dreams, time and time again. (I would argue, at this point, Supernatural makes 99% of its revenue from queer baiting...)

So! Let’s discuss now why YOI isn’t queer baiting, but is, in fact, queer coding (aka why dem bitches be gay af):

I mentioned earlier that Japan is a more conservative place when it comes to homosexuality. It isn’t illegal to be homosexual there, like it is in some places, but there are no laws that protect homosexual people from discrimination, they can’t marry, they can’t be recognized as married (in most places), they can’t adopt, etc. Often, homosexuality portrayed in Japanese media is extremely fetishized and stereotyped. This isn’t all-inclusive. There are some really, really positive strides being made toward queer representation in Japanese media. And honestly, YOI is one of them. And for the record, no, reading the wiki on LGBT rights in Japan doesn’t make me an expert on what it’s like to be gay or trans in Japan. All I have are online testimonies and actual laws, so feel free to comment on that if you know more than I do (which isn’t hard at all). 

Back to YOI. It wasn’t easy to get this thing made. They had to fight to get aired in the first place, only to get relegated to being aired in the middle of the night. I’m not sure if anyone expected them to become the international hit that they did, with millions of watchers all over the world. But, already hanging on by a thread to get aired in the first place, they had to walk a delicate line between getting the green light and bringing you the gay love story of your dreams. 

Because that’s what YOI is. It’s a gay love story. The skating is a platform that they use through which to tell the gay love story,  but at the very core of the show, YOI is about two people who fall in love. 

But Rachel, you say, there’s no confirmation! Nothing from the show to validate their love to the audience! How are we supposed to think it isn’t queerbaiting?!? 

Because it is validated, children. It’s consummated, if you will. Here’s why: 

YOI relies heavily on established genre conventions of romance. Pining, lust, blushing, hugging, etc etc etc. There isn’t a single moment in the show that tells you that it’s just bros being bros, y’know? There’s never that Supernatural No Homo Moment™. But there’s also never a moment where their love is, in the traditional sense, explicitly shown. Why? Because their love is explicitly laid out and shown to you through the grand euphemism of figure skating. 

Think of figure skating as the invisible thread that ties it all (and them) together. They meet because of figure skating. Viktor becomes Yuuri’s coach. Viktor uses figure skating to get Yuuri to love himself and regain his confidence in himself. Viktor puts his own figure skating career on hold for Yuuri. At almost every single performance, Viktor and Yuri have a Moment together, because the ice is the purest form of their love. It’s where Yuuri expresses his love to Viktor. (I mean, for f*ck’s sake, Yuuri’s theme of the season is ‘love on ice’. I even read a meta somewhere that says in Japanese the title can be translated to ‘love on ice’ as well.) It’s love. Their love. On Ice. That’s it. That’s the show. 

Yuuri’s experience skating reflects his experience being in love with Viktor. It starts out shy, embarrassed, self-conscious, and a little inexperienced. But it grows and grows as the season goes on, to show Yuuri taking more risks and gaining confidence. He gets into skating because of Viktor, and Viktor goes back to skating because of him. Their love is directly correlated to skating. 

If you think of their skating as an explicit euphemism for their love story, then the rings? A real engagement. 

(C’MON PEOPLE. Romantic setting. Soft mood lighting. Sliding gold rings onto each others’ fingers. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT)

The pair skate at the end? Their marriage. 

(y’all... full offense but like... matching suits? in front of a ton of people? THE LYRICS OF ‘STAY CLOSE TO ME’ BECOMING A DUET? THEY’RE MARRIED OK gif credit: x)

The kiss? Well...

(CONGRATS IT’S A FUCKING KISS, JUST BECAUSE WE DON’T SEE LIP TO LIP CONTACT, DO YOU HONESTLY THINK IT’S ANYTHING ELSE??? gif credit: x)

Once you stop thinking of things literally and wondering why you didn’t get a steamy make-out scene post GPF final, you will honestly be free. Because for all intents and purposes, that pair skate was either a marriage or a sex scene, depending on how you’d like to interpret it. Point is: it shows them consummating their love. Are you following? If their skating represents their love and finally they’re both skating together... Harold, are you listening? Harold... HAROLD.

Another show I love to compare this to is Hannibal. And I know a lot of people have various issues with Hannibal and the moral implications of it and I’m right there with you bud but if you take a step back and look at it as a heavily queer coded piece of media, a very distinct comparison can be made to the end of Hannibal and the end of Yuri on Ice (I know... I know... but STAY WITH ME HERE OK??). Hannibal was made by Bryan Fuller, an out gay man, and although it’s total possible for gay people to write straight characters (obviously!!!!!!!!!!!! kill that gross stereotype!!!!!!!!!!) it makes the queer coding a little more... apparent. (Warning: Spoilers and also... mentions of gore and violence ahoy)

What skating is to Viktor and Yuuri’s love is what murder is to Hannibal and Will’s love (as fucked up as that is). And how do they end the show? With Will and Hannibal (in the most homoerotic way possible) murdering a dude together, viscerally, and then holding each other, covered in blood. Do you see what I’m saying? IT WAS A SEX SCENE. IT WAS A MARRIAGE. JUST BECAUSE THERE WASN’T THRUSTING OR MAKING OUT DOESN’T MEAN IT WASN’T THERE. It’s what’s beautiful about queer coding. We all watch it and go “Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” whereas all the homophobes watch it and it goes right over their stupid heads and into the void. But yeah, like how the pair skate was Yuuri and Viktor consummating their love, Will and Hannibal fuckin destroying a dude together and then falling off a cliff was them consummating their love. 

In conclusion? YOI didn’t queer bait you. The contrary. It gave you a beautiful gay relationship with a happy ending and a promise for more. Let me reiterate that: it gave you a beautiful, 100% canon gay relationship with a happy ending and a promise for more. You just have to squint a little. Read between the lines. Take your Straight Goggles™ that traditional media have glued to your lil noggin right off and realize that you’re not imagining it and they’re not doing it to fool you. They want you to see it. They want you to know that Viktor and Yuuri are in love. They just have to do it in a way where they can maybe get green lit for another season because the world is still a shit place and homophobes still exist, kapish? 

Look. This isn’t some theory. I’m not saying this like I think it might be the case. No. I know this. I would bet my entire life on it. Trust me. I will not lead you astray. Viktor and Yuuri are in love. You know this. I know this. Kubo knows this. 

(gif credit x)

[fairshoulder-blog]

(unfinished) Presentation on NQC, how it began, where it went and what has it done for us today.

How was New Queer cinema defined as a movement?

Presenter: “The queer film phenomenon was introduced a year ago at Toronto's Festival of Festivals, the best spot in North America for tracking new cinematic trends. there, suddenly, was a flock of films that were doing something new, renegotiating subjectivities, annexing whole genres, revising history in their image. all through the winter, spring, summer and now autumn, the message has been loud and clear: queer is hot.” B. Ruby Rich said in the same village voice article where she coined the term “New Queer Cinema” in 1992.

Projector: the phrase New Queer Cinema commented on the strong gay and lesbian presence that appeared in the previous years film festival circuit. The term described a growing movement of films made by queer independent filmmakers. Films that were radical in form, and aggressive in their presentation of sexual identities. 

Projector: what was new queer cinema and why was it defined as a movement?

Projector: “New Queer Cinema produced complex work that didn’t simply create new gay heroes as subjects. It dealt with the politics of representation, it ventured into transgressive themes and challenged ideas about victimhood and subjugation” - Todd Haynes

Presenter: In the Empire article; “movie moments that defined cinema: New Queer Cinema”, it is pointed out that “the term ‘New Queer Cinema’ suggests that there was an Old Queer Cinema too. And there was. The groundwork had been laid for bold new voices in gay cinema like Derek Jarman, Todd Haynes and Tom Kalin by Kenneth Anger, Jan Oxenberg, Gus Van Sant and Bill Sherwood.” The movement grew from a strong presence of gay and lesbian films in the underground scene, films that typically shared certain themes, including, the rejection of heteronormativity and the lives of LGBT protagonists living on the fringe of society. The themes of these films often reflected the lives of the LGBT community and the homophobia that affected their lives, particularly due to the AIDs epidemic.

Projector: AIDs, known at the time as the “gay cancer/plague”, is a sexually transmitted disease that spread to America through a group of gay men in southern California. With the already intense homophobia within the US, the country reacted severely to the disease and used it as a way to not only alienate but almost attempt to remove the presence of the gay community. With Reagan's lack of action and at the time no cure or treatment that seemed successful, the country used mass propaganda to encourage fear of homosexuality and homosexual relations. In the article “twenty five years of NQC”, Nathan Smith stated; “New Queer Cinema was characterised by a tenacious refusal to give in to the stigmatisation of gay men, transgender folk and queers”, a stigmatisation that with the power of the media conception of “the gay plague” caused the alienation and abandonment of so many sick and dying members of LGBT community.

Presenter: NQC gave the support and acceptance that many who suffered from AIDs failed to find anywhere else. In the article; “Queer and Present danger”, Rich quoted Derek Jarman, the godfather of the NQC movement, in saying that he was “finally able to connect with an audience thanks to the critical mass of new films and videos that burned a clearing in the bush”

Presenter: LGBT protagonists were presented as outsiders and renegades from the rules of conventional society, and filmmakers resisted promoting “positive” images of queer characters and embraced radical and unconventional gender roles and ways of life, refusing to make their films fit to the “palatable”, censored presentation of sexuality that their films needed to break into the mainstream media.   

Projector: “the Mississippi hitman Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, attacked Poison for its (non-existent) “explicit porno scenes of homosexuals involved in anal sex”. He later admitted he never saw the film.” – New Queer Cinema: The Director’s cut written by B. Ruby Rich.  

Presenter: Although it is clear that the movement came about due to the mass homophobia and alienation of the queer community, there are considered four reasons as to why the movement came into definition when it did.

Projector: the AIDs epidemic.

Ronald Reagan’s failure to respond.

Cheap rent.

Camcorders.

Presenter: In the article “queer and present danger: after new queer cinema”, Rich commented on how the movement came about due to these reasons and would live its life only due to these reasons. She stated “It was meant to catch the beat of a new kind of film- and video-making that was fresh, edgy, low-budget, inventive, unapologetic, sexy and stylistically daring.” 

Presenter: The ADs epidemic shows the new queer cinema truly as the movement of a moment that it was.

Video clip: The ADs epidemic.

Presenter:  Not only does the film clearly state the presence of the AIDs epidemic and Reagan’s failure to respond, but it unapologetically points out the entire country’s unnecessary media-induced panic and fear of the gay community, which was, in order to mask the homophobic underlining of this fear, blamed on the AIDs epidemic. NQC began in the underground film scene, so it is no surprise that the Ads epidemic can be clearly viewed as the perfect example, being a film made with a low quality camera, with little information to be found online about this film, it justly was an underground independent NQC film.  

Projector: is it still new queer cinema if it hits the mainstream media?

Presenter: the film ‘Paris is burning’ is arguably the first NQC film to achieve a mainstream status, but can it also be argued to be the first NQC film that does not fit into the movement. 

Presenter: directed by Jeanie Livingston, Paris is burning received funding of 500,000 USD from the National endowment for the arts. Earning over 3,700,000 USD in gross, Paris is burning was one of, if not the highest earning NQC film. The film attempted to capture the realities of New York’s drag balls and houses, and of the non-white people who occupied this space.  

Projector: Was Paris is burning film “made for and by the straight community”?

Presenter: Paris is burning has evoked discussion on whether or not it can truly be classed as a NQC film since its release in 1991. Critics (including feminist scholar Bell Hooks, in the ) have questioned whether Livingston (as a white, middle class, lesbian)  was enabling cultural appropriation. This film, unlike previous NQC films, seemed concerned with the heterosexual community’s opinion, it lacked the brutal and harsh realities of the lives of the queer community at the time, but rather chose to present the more glamorous and enjoyable aspects of the LGBT community.

Projector: The negative impact that Paris is burning had on the LGBT community only adds to the argument.

Presenter: a 1993 New York Times article entitled “Paris has burned” reported that several of the performers, feeling that they’d missed out on the wealth generated by the film, wished to sue for a share of its profits. One, Paris DuPree, sought $40m in compensation for unauthorised use of her ballroom. Even in recent years performers have come forward admitting they gave no authorisation for themselves to be featured in the film, and received no payment for their service.

Presenter: However, in a recent (2015) article entitled “Burning down the house”, Livingston's was quoted saying that she felt a sense of frustration for the criticism considering the film was produced at a time where she was “up against an entire establishment of people who didn't want you as a woman making films and didn't want to see queer images”.  

Projector: so why is it one of the most successful and well known films within the movement?

Presenter: the sad truth is that the heterosexual community, at the time, had utter control of the mainstream media, despite not fully fitting to the ideas of NQC, paris is burning did fit to the mainstream media’s idea of what could be presented as the LGBT community.

Projector: Paris is burning started a transition which led to the evolution of NQC. But many still argue that paris is burning does not fit into the movement, with its mainstream success. However, with the survival of AIDs into the second decade and the proliferation of small-format video the NQC movement in no way slowed its growth. By the late 90s the sheer volume of queer films had began to dilute the quality. NQC had become so successful it had dispersed itself, it lacked the concentrated creative focus and community responsiveness, and simply became another niche market for hollywood to capitalise on, and the evolution that came from such a powerful movement seemed to have no connection its origin. 

Presenter: Mysterious skin, directed by Gregg Araki, shows connection to the NQC style, however is clearly a different movement, the modern queer cinema. Mysterious skin shows the evolution of NQC from its 80/90s movement to the more mainstream 2000s version of the movement, however even the time the film was created removes it from the original NQC movement. More similar to the movement than other modern queer cinema, the obvious avoidance to present the queer community in a solely positive light and the queer characters separation from ‘normal’ society within the film shows that Araki clearly was inspired by the NQC movement. Araki has produced queer films from the late 80s well into the early 2000s, so it is no surprise that mysterious skin, released in 2004, would still hold a sense of the NQC movement, despite the time frame for this movement (and the events that took place in this time frame) causing the movement to be one that would only last a ‘moment’.

Projector: in the article “burning down the house”, it was written that the recent murders of 6 transgender women of colour ( im the space of two weeks, in brooklyn), along with the still unsolved murder of Venus Xtravaganza, was simply a reminder of the high rates of violence faced by the trans community and the lack of appropriate response form law enforcement.   

Presenter: However it must be taken into account that our modern world, though improved in many ways, still alienates and demonizes the LGBT community, and especially with the rising media coverage of transgender people and characters. There is no reason not to argue that our world still holds enough reasons for this new wave of NQC to be just as powerful as the last.

[how2to18]

THE #METOO MOVEMENT, at its core, highlights failures of consent. What’s gone wrong in the underlying cases is that a person, usually in power, acted without explicit permission, forcing another person into an unwelcome situation. At best, it’s been uncomfortable; at worst, it’s been assault.

Participants in the movement — victimizers and victimized, men and women both — are publicly sharing their stories. Many of these traumatic outcomes have been brought on by professed ignorance of or indifference toward norms and habits of appropriate sexual conduct.

Part of the reckoning with these transgressions has been renewed debate about the meaning of sexual consent. For example, a British PSA drew plenty of attention for charmingly explaining it in terms of serving tea: “If you say, ‘Hey, would you like a cup of tea,’ […] and if they say, ‘No thank you,’ then don’t make them tea. At all. […] If they’re unconscious, don’t make them tea. Unconscious people do not want to drink tea, and they can’t answer the question, ‘Do you want tea?’” But such explanations, no matter how cutely presented, are not enough. Thinking there’s more to the problem than clearer explications of consent can solve, some commentators have renewed a call for cultural adoption of affirmative consent, the view that says the conventional “no means no” must be replaced with “yes means yes.”

Where the “no means no” standard demands that partners interrupt proceedings when they’re not (or no longer) consenting, “yes means yes” instead encourages sexual participants to check in with one another, to make sure everybody��s enjoying themselves and wanting what’s happening.

While “yes means yes” is a relatively recent arrival to the culture at large, “no means no” has been the standard in American sexual consent since the 1990s. Its operation may seem obvious enough: if you’re not into what’s happening, just say, “No.” One of its problems, though, is that people stay silent for lots of reasons, not just that they’re comfortable with what’s occurring. Without enthusiastic affirmative consent, sexual partners, especially new ones, may be left with too much ambiguity about one another’s desire and enjoyment and thus be unable to ensure informed, voluntary decision-making. Affirmative consent demands greater attention to power dynamics, coercion, and the subtleties of intimate encounters. Without it, there’s no guaranteed way to avoid the messy, risky uncertainty of “gray area” sexual experiences, those that wind up unwanted and regrettable, even if not illegal.

“Yes means yes” has attracted critics who hold that it’s both cumbersome and profoundly unerotic. Writing in The New York Times, Daphne Merkin claims, “Asking for oral consent before proceeding with a sexual advance seems both innately clumsy and retrograde, like going back to the childhood game of ‘Mother, May I?’” Arguments like Merkin’s imagine robotic, stepwise encounters, in which participants disengage every few moments to plot their subsequent action. On this telling, after each completed phase of a sexual encounter, partners return to the disembodied sterility of discourse. This, however, misunderstands affirmative consent’s possibilities and requirements. Proponents aren’t asking partners to write up contracts (though there’s a host of smart phone apps for just this purpose). Rather, they’re suggesting that people treat one another as intelligent adults, checking in and sharing feelings and desires rather than acting without concern. It’s about deciding together what comes next. Such conversation can happen during an embrace or in a seductive tone; it can create a space for partners to communicate not just their consent but also what they enjoy, desire, or imagine. Contrary to assumptions, one doesn’t need to put on a necktie and adopt legalese.

The deepest imperative of affirmative sexual consent is that even while exploring and expressing our most primal physical desires, we must remember one another’s humanity. Jaclyn Friedman, co-editor of the 2008 Yes Means Yes! Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape, puts the need for rethinking our understanding of consent in explicitly moral terms:

Real consent requires us to really be present when we’re having sex with someone. It requires us to see our sex partners — whether they be anonymous hookups or life partners — not simply as instrumental to our own pleasure but as co-equal collaborators, equally human and important, equally harmable, equally free and equally sovereign.

Part of the conceptual shift Friedman offers is from seeing sexuality as something that’s done by one to another to something that’s done together, a mutual planning of behavior for joint pleasure. And though the understanding of consent she endorses is new for many people, the foundation of moral equality on which it rests isn’t at all novel.

¤

The contemporary notion of sexual consent has its origins in a wholly unsexy domain: English legal philosophy. Thinkers from the 17th and 18th century, including John Locke, argued that while, by nature, almost everything belongs equally to everybody, the same isn’t true for the body: “[E]very man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself.” Our bodies are our own, uniquely; if anybody wants to make use of them, they must have our permission. Or, on Locke’s heteronormative telling, “conjugal society is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman, and […] it consist chiefly in such a communion and right in one another’s bodies as is necessary to its chief end, procreation.” Voluntary agreement is what makes sharing, enjoying, or otherwise using the private property of another person’s body morally permissible.

But sex isn’t the only element of contemporary culture where consent matters. Signing a contract or taking out a loan requires consent. So does getting married. Accepting a medical treatment plan is, at its best, giving informed consent: the patient understands what ails them and what steps their doctor will attempt to return them to health. And consent is fundamental to US politics. For example, midway through the Preamble to the American Declaration of Independence appears, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” When Thomas Jefferson penned that line, he invoked an English intellectual tradition to explain the legitimacy of American independence from England. That tradition was Locke’s.

Just after arguing how to share bodies consensually, Locke explains how legitimate political sovereignty works: “[N]o one can be […] subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one […] puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another.” The language here couldn’t be clearer: justified political power over others requires each one’s individual consent.

Locke’s account of the origin of the state isn’t without its detractors. Some scholars have pointed out that, historically, many people have been left out of this contractarian political framing. Carole Pateman, in her 1988 The Sexual Contract, argues that Locke downplays women, making them exclusively subjects of contracts instead of parties to them. Likewise, Charles W. Mills’s 1999 text, The Racial Contract, identifies Locke’s social contract as one only between whites. And then there’s the obvious critique, that the ahistorical Lockean telling assumes both an overly individualistic pre-social situation and a clear moment of discourse and agreement that forms the state. From what we know of both the family and the messiness of life before states, there’s no way sovereignty originated from a rational conversation among disconnected individuals.

Those who wish to endorse the Lockean view tend to shrug off these concerns, arguing that the account is a political fiction showing not what occurred to bring about the state but instead what would be necessary in order to have a morally justified sovereign. And though Locke’s telling clearly leaves some people out, this exclusion can be read as an artifact of his social-historical moment rather than as an absolute defect of the theory. Locke’s “every man” can be read more broadly without loss, much as we squint at the Declaration’s “all Men are created equal” and see that it points beyond Jefferson’s sexist, racist time to an eternal truth — or at least ideal — about all people.

Regardless of the fictional character of the Lockean origin of the state, more recent American political figures have embraced it emphatically. Major speeches have been regularly peppered with references to the consent of the governed, with each speaker offering his or her own take, shaded to their own political aims. It’s one of those populist lines that can be deployed by most anybody to support most anything. For example, Abraham Lincoln invoked it to argue against slavery, holding that “no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other’s consent.” And then Ronald Reagan suggested, in his first inaugural address, that because the government showed “signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed,” he’d downsize it. Even NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden justified his leaking classified documents by claiming “the consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.” One must know what one’s getting into in order to consent truly.

If the Lockean story is right, and justifiable political power requires voluntary agreement to the setup, what legitimates the current American system? After all, no one asks newly born Americans whether they want to be ruled. More troublingly, an August Rasmussen poll shows that 53 percent of likely US voters believe the federal government doesn’t have the consent of the governed. Is it the case that the United States, despite its lofty founding ideals and its politicians’ assertions, doesn’t care about consent?

Locke’s answer to this question — endorsed by both the Founders and subsequent generations of mainstream liberal political thinkers — is that by living peacefully, citizens are giving “tacit,” or silently implied, consent. If people don’t like it here, they should leave or do something about the injustice. If they’re not rebelling, they’re consenting. This understanding of political consent is the analogue of “no means no,” and it’s just as ripe for abuse and misunderstanding as its sexual cousin.

¤

While “yes means yes” may be good for sexuality, some will bristle at the thought of applying affirmative consent beyond this narrow field. Yet it is the standard in almost every other practice that requires consent: the earlier-mentioned contracts, loans, marriage, and medical treatment plan all require one to sign on, not just fail to object.

Governance is one of the few places where “no means no” seemingly remains acceptable. Perhaps this is appropriate in that political consent isn’t the perfect mirror of all the others mentioned. Sexual encounters mostly occur among small numbers of people who can converse face-to-face during their interactions. States, on the other hand, are made up of thousands if not millions or billions of people. Their interactions are mediated by both distance and institutions. For political participants to check in with one another continuously would require unthinkably sophisticated technology and unimaginably flexible political institutions. Despite this difficulty, there are important features both politics and sexuality share. Most notably, both are about other people having a say over key aspects of our bodies and lives.

Our current political system is not entirely without methods for going beyond tacit consent and instead checking in on people’s continuing support and explicit political desires. These include taxation, elections, and public comment sessions. But taxation comes with a threat of punishment for non-compliance, and coercion always undermines voluntariness. As for the other modes of asking for affirmative political consent, the percentage of citizens who take part in elections and public fora is low, and, as with sexuality, the silence of non-objection is not necessarily evidence of agreement with the status quo.

There’s also no guarantee that any individual’s expressed political preferences determine any political outcome whatsoever. Elected representatives regularly sit silently through public comment sessions, understanding them as a ritual to be endured, not as an important moment of contact between government and governed. And even when people have a chance to affect policy directly, not everyone’s desires are realized. Americans make sense of these facts with a nod to “the majority rules,” but this idea doesn’t, by itself, explain President Trump’s election without a majority of the votes cast in 2016. It also doesn’t account for the workings of most non-presidential elections, in which more than half of Americans vote for no one by choosing not to vote, or those cases, like marijuana legality, where the majority of Americans want the exact opposite of the nation’s current laws.

A further trouble in mapping affirmative consent onto politics is that it often isn’t clear to what participants might be consenting. In sexuality, there is, or at least can be, clear demarcation of this action from that, allowing a “yes” to touching here but not there, to kissing but not to intercourse. By contrast, the current political system, with all its assumptions and bureaucracy, has a complexity that can be difficult to understand, let alone to disentangle. The sort of affirmative consent that most easily applies to contemporary politics is that found in accepting a social media site’s terms of service. There’s some scrolling through and skimming of dense legalese, a shrug, and a click on “I accept.” Participants agree because they want or think they need access, without beginning to understand what they’re getting themselves into. It just isn’t clear that this is a meaningful sort of consent.

These disconnects, along with the general difficulty of determining ongoing affirmative consent at scale, lead some political thinkers to reject mass politics and instead to support anarchism. Their position doesn’t embrace the colloquial sense of the term, in which there are no rules and everything devolves to tire-fires and madcap chaos. Rather, it’s the idea that worthwhile consenting requires people to discuss and affirm the rules that bind them: laws shouldn’t hold power over you just because they are laws — but only because you’ve consented to them in a meaningful way. This idea, called voluntary associationism, is, in one author’s telling,

the freedom to form whatever groups and collectives we want without being compelled to participate in any. We never had the chance to say no to capitalism, to government, to police, to all the systems of hierarchy that impose their rule — so clearly those can’t be consensual in any meaningful way.

Anarchist ideas about the operation of legitimate consent and its impossibility in the current system inform anti-state cooperative projects underway worldwide.

For those who believe that states are here to stay, however, the important question must be whether and how political consent may be revivified in light of challenges brought by the ongoing development in sexual consent. The most pressing challenge arises from the shift in seeing sexuality as something done by one to another to instead the planning together of actions for mutual satisfaction. In understanding sexual consent, only this view respects each person’s humanity and equality, their self-sovereignty and their ability to express desires and set ends. Is it possible to understand governance along similar lines?

This is to ask what possibilities there are for both the government and the governed, the politicians and the people, to plan their futures together, explicitly fantasizing about what might come next in the nation’s democratic experiment. Such a shift would require a radical rethinking of what sovereignty means. Without this work, there’s no clear way to distinguish the current silence of apparent political consent from the silence of hopelessness, fear, or abuse.

¤

Steven A. Miller is a visiting professor of philosophy at Ripon College, in Ripon, Wisconsin. He likes cats and justice.

¤

Feature image by Rob Shenk. Banner image by William Chen.

The post Sexual Consent and the Social Contract appeared first on Los Angeles Review of Books.

from Los Angeles Review of Books http://bit.ly/2T79hqx via IFTTT