#i think i've touched on some key points which hopefully allow some dialogue.but do feel free to point me more clearly at your question

[divinekangaroo]

furthering tommy-sexuality and intersection of ethnicity discussion with @deadendtracks from this post:

I do wish I could be more concise about this so sorry for the ramble - too much I think is still trying to sort it out through the process of writing it. These moments I really appreciate your concise, coherent meta posts! I also don't think I've properly answered the question, but contains more broader context around my thinking.

"This is a very interesting approach that I don't think I fully disagree with, but where I hesitate is that Tommy's the only character in his family or extended kin group who uses his body like this. / What do you make of the fact that Tommy is the only "subaltern" character we see who uses himself sexually the way we're more used to seeing a woman do?"

I think Polly and Ada do it too, though? And I also think Arthur does it particularly with Linda but it’s in a very differently articulated way, but this definite sense of the use of the body. (I *headcanon* Tommy also saw his father do it, too, paying off a debt to some English woman with authority this way, and one day some husband/brother etc cut up Dad as a consequence, but off I spiral -- this was born out of very micro hints of Arthur Shelby Snr as a wandering Casanova using sex as a (theoretically) no-personal-cost way for a man to slide out of situations or obligations, and Arthur Snr's association with prostitutes without any war-soldier-prostitution linkage to drive that connection.)

But, I also feel there’s a deliberate presentation of Tommy’s consideration of his ethnicity as different to how most of his family consider it (long different conversation), because of the alignment to his mother that none of the rest of the family have (another long different conversation). This assumes a reading of his mother as far more closely associated with his (rather silent/compressed) relationship with his ethnicity, too. Polly and Uncle Charlie's comments reinforce this reading in a few points. So this different relationship he has with his ethnicity also leads into a different intersection of that with his sexual activities.

When Tommy does use his body, I think it’s repeating behaviours he’s seen and understood as an available way for those with no power and limited influence to exert more influence, and those behaviours were drawn from watching the behaviours of primarily women of his family. And will mostly talk about Polly because that's what we do see on screen, extrapolating there was more of this sort of exchange going on around Tommy in his youth, too.

And while there’s an argument to be made that using sex/body is a behaviour available to any person with no power trying to exercise influence (many stories of women over time) without the subaltern/ethnic layer, it’s difficult for me to detach ethnicity from Tommy and Polly's on screen behaviours, because their ethnicity is a huge contextual-for-the-time part of what limits their power/influence in the first place. I think the show also includes significant hints of the Othering/exoticism associated with Tommy’s (and Polly’s) ethnicity in a way that shows it is connected to sexual behaviours/body trading – May talks about everyone laughing about when he’ll steal the silver, which is a Romani stereotype more than working class or racketeer; I think you mentioned once Tatiana does it too with the allusion to Tommy squatting in his own house. Polly has Campbell (the whole exchange is subaltern coded) and Abarama which is also ethnically *heavy* if not in the same way as with Campbell because Abarama is Romani too. And for Tommy: Campbell, Hughes and Mosley’s sexually charged ethnic slurs (or ethnically charged sexual attacks?) towards Tommy are a whole essay on their own.

For Polly, feeding into my thoughts around subaltern coding: stolen children and Polly’s sexual behaviours, including approaching Campbell. Stealing children from certain cultures/families is not just a poverty/class thing, taking children was a deliberate targeting of the Romani culture (amongst other cultures) to detach children from the culture and destroy/degrade culture, in a similar way (if not as governmentally sanctioned/policy-driven) as the Stolen Generation in Australia and other colonial government policies over indigenous (subaltern) cultures. So from that particular approach, I’ve then read every one of Polly’s actions to protect Michael (sleeping with/rape by Campbell, sleeping with Abarama, even her actions with Tommy in his clannishly coded position of masculine/head of family privilege) as coming from that place of the woman-subaltern, lower even in status than the male-subaltern. So Polly’s behaviours with Campbell and Abarama translate directly into my reading of the subaltern coding around her sexual behaviours, which then has a copy/mirroring in Tommy’s own sexual behaviours.

There’s also an interesting question I ask myself as I ponder why I've taken this reading. If Tommy were instead a Romani woman who engaged with her cultural/ethnic signifiers in the same way Tommy does*, and she used her body for sex with higher class English men to obtain influence where she cannot obtain or apply power, would the exotification / Othering / subaltern coding associated be a discussed layer? A Romani woman using sex as trade to gain influence? And I think, but of course it would, this is a tale as old as time...but because Tommy’s a man, there’s always that sort of mental hiccup first?

*which he does in fact do, it's not non-existent. But I think the complexity starts to come in with what and how exactly these cultural/ethnic signifiers are engaged with by Tommy / his partners, and how obvious it is or isn't, because the show doesn't always treat this as a direct or foregrounded thing. For example, to reframe that question, is Romani Tommy (male or female) exoticised/othered/[consciously acting as or unconsciously portrayed as] subaltern in sexual encounters for influence, if he and his partners *don’t in any way* acknowledge his ethnicity in any way? Probably not, BUT, his partners (and sexual aggressors) actually do acknowledge his ethnicity if with varying directness, and using uncomfortable stereotypes/terms. Tommy either forcefully silences his ethnicity in their encounters, or, he acknowledges his ethnicity but it’s in difficult and uncomfortable ways.

Tommy almost deliberately omits engaging on any ethnic line of dialogue with any of his partners raising it to his face. (I swear the only time he says Gypsy all 6 seasons is when he shouts at Lizzie in S6 in his panic.) Class dialogue, yes; ethnicity, no. And Tommy's silences say a lot. Vulnerability, shame, tool, sense of self, etc: the ethnicity is almost more sensitive and can't be talked about because it's something he can't change, whereas he (sort of can) with class via money and rank. He does *use* his ethnicity as a tool (his Romani connections/forces, the way gangs even being formed tend to occur on ethnic lines in the first place because general society even working class shuns that ethnicity, aspects of trying to find comfort like potentially his retreat to the road and Zelda after Greta died; seeking the first Barwell sister after Grace died; the protection motifs around Ruby; using the language in front of others to speak secretly but in plain sight) but it's almost more frequently a vulnerability and liability (the reason for his disadvantage, the weight of inevitability of suicide, seeing visions etc).

I also think on how he has this repeated motif of being almost physically incapable of talking about the things most close to, hurtful, risk of hurt to him, and it seems his ethnicity fits into this, too. He doesn't even talk directly to Polly about it except in his fit about his mother in S4, and even that's a sideways, indirect mention. He says something like 'going like Mum, speaking to the dead, scaring the kids' - but because we've seen Polly's behaviours we understand that 'going like Mum' means Polly leaning hard into her take on Romani mysticism and calling it her Gypsy blood/opening the door to Gypsy foretelling/seeing things etc; from this I make the link that Mum = Romani; Tommy's complicated relationship with his mother = Tommy's complicated relationship with his ethnicity. Every time Polly raises their Gypsy blood, he lets her speak but won't engage. Even Uncle Charlie's commentary around the mother's suicide, everything framed around that is Romani - the horse, the travelling, the Gypsy mythos. And again Tommy says nothing when he hears all that. It all feels like a wound he can't touch, ethnicity / mother. (He also never engages with Alfie on this line, despite multiple times Alfie opens that door.)

And so the deliberateness of his omission conversely makes his ethnicity feel quite dominant in his sense of self and identity for me, in the way this series frequently uses silences and omissions to show the shape of something there.

Where it gets to his sexual actions as [partially consciously subaltern] or [unconsciously subaltern but consciously portrayed as such by the show], I suppose the guts is that I feel like he carries his awareness of how other people view the Romani, and his discomfort with that awareness and the discomfort/hurt with that part of his self that he can never get away from and that has disadvantaged him, into his sexual encounters (except for Grace in S1) -- but that in parallel, his decision to proactively trigger sexual encounters as a way to win/exercise influence is also weighted by a sense of ‘this is what I need to do because this is a tool I have available’ and his internal definition of ‘I’ includes (amongst other things) ‘Romani’.

I also think, like: a Romani woman using sex with upper class men to gain influence, becomes a conversation about stereotyping, authorial and period specific contextual justifications, as well as character justifications; but given it's a Romani man doing it, I've been fascinated in fandom discussion it's almost automatically honed in on masculine vs feminine behaviours only. The Romani layer is silenced in so much fandom discussion -- as if the masculine v feminine becomes the sole question rather than as well as, why does a Romani man in particular in that position maybe think to behave that way/why did they choose to portray a Romani man in particular behaving that way. Like, could any of his thinking to behave that way (or, could the expectations and approaches of his sexual partners/aggressors) have anything to do with the rather abundant late 1800s/early 1900s literary and pseudoethnographic texts which exotify and hypersexualise his ethnicity? (watch out for that gypsy man stealing women, the tinker sleeping with your wife while you're at work, etc etc; then he looks at someone like May, and maybe Arthur and John only see a hunger for working class cock, but Tommy is maybe consciously just a little bit leaning into that exotic stereotype as well, horses and goldfish etc, because it might gain him advantage?) Or even authorial intent to really hammer home the subaltern nature of this character because look, even in sex as a man who is in theory has more privilege in bed, this character still can't be free of behaviours and manners which tie back to his ethnicity?

But I know and sorely feel how much harder it is to write and think effectively about ethnicity in a public forum, because it can be so much more hurtful and real and intersectional, than it is to consider slightly more abstract concepts, such as the masculine animus and feminine anima, and mother-parallels, that become more symbolic, character-only, and which can be contained and referenced within the source material alone, hence, IDEK, it's a safer dialogue, and so~?