#i'm queer but don't THINK it's particularly visible - if at all

[hyperlexichypatia]

The thing about "lack of third spaces in the U.S." that doesn't get mentioned enough is that it's not just "Capitalists and corporations bought up the commons, privatized public resources, and made people pay to access them."

That's a big part of it. But it's not the only part.

The other part is that middle-class people -- particularly middle-class white, abled people -- willingly forked over money to set up private spaces rather than share public spaces with people of color, disabled people, neurodivergent people, poor people, religious minorities, and other "undesirable" people.

When you look at any article or picture from some point in the 20th century about third spaces that are less common now, consider that depending on exactly where and when in the 20th century U.S. this was, people of color might have been banned from that space by either law or threat of violence or both (or, at minimum, made to feel unwelcome). Physically disabled people probably could not access those spaces (or were institutionalized or kept at home). Visibly non-passing neurodivergent people probably could not access those spaces, because they were institutionalized or kept at home. Two women kissing, a man in a dress, any type of visibly queer or gender nonconforming person would not have been tolerated in that space.

And my point is, these things are not unrelated. The decline of third spaces is not unrelated to civil rights gains.

I'm not saying "Stop talking about the good things of the mid-20th century, don't you know that era also had racism and sexism and ableism and queerphobia?"

I'm saying they're not unrelated -- it's not "This time period was better in some ways, like more third spaces, but worse in some ways, like more racism and ableism." It's "Those good things, those third spaces, those labor unions, those safe neighborhoods, that sense of community, relied upon the systemic exclusion of a dehumanized underclass, and as soon as any civil rights pressure was put on that systemic exclusion, the sense of community crumbled."

The pattern is clear and recurring: Privileged people build a public space for "the community", marginalized people start using it (sometimes after a court case or two), the public place gets a reputation for being "full of" marginalized people, privileged people build a private space they can exclude people from, privileged people abandon the public space, the public space gets neglected and deprioritized because "nobody (who matters) uses it anymore," the public place goes to shit from neglect and possibly closes, the private space gets expensive, privileged people lament the loss of the public space.

Privileged people killed public pools rather than share them with Black people. Mortally wounded public schools rather than share them with people of color and religious minorities. Are trying to kill public libraries rather than share them with queer people and unhoused people and neurodivergent people. Can't revive public transportation for fear of sitting next to poor people. It's white flight all the way down.

The whole "Social democracy is the left wing of fascism" claim is tankie ridiculousness, but like most tankie ridiculousness, there's an underlying grain of truth. In this case, the underlying grain of truth is that widespread support for public services is a much easier sell when people don't think they'll have to share resources or public space with people they consider inferior. It's not a coincidence that some of the countries that provide the highest quality of life for their abled citizens are some of the worst to noncitizens and disabled people.

And it's not like Weird Queer Left-Leaning Types have a great track record of sharing public space with people different from yourselves, either. Y'all can't be normal about someone wearing a yarmulke at Pride. Y'all can't be normal about adults playing board games with kids. There's no way you'd be okay with unsupervised, uncontrolled, unmedicated-by-choice schizophrenic people hanging out and talking to themselves. You cannot handle public third spaces.

Yes, blame corporations and advertisers for privatizing public spaces, but also blame the social prejudice that willingly forks over money to avoid sharing public space with Those People.

[ranticore]

Now that you mentioned it in the tags; I really enjoyed how you did the queerness of characters in-text and I saw you mentioned more than once before how they consider/call themselves gay or anything and I was wondering if you'd be willing to elaborate on that (in Ironwall, MVF etc), but more from a writing standpoint than a worldbuilding one. Hope Im making sense lol

i looked up the invention of the word 'homosexuality' and found that it was invented 6 years after stbh is set

ghksjdg i mean there's more to it than that but it meant that my language was constrained, which also means that the characters' language is constrained as well. i have to think about ways i want this to come across to the reader. at the time i was thinking about how the basic concept of "btw this character is not straight/cis" is communicated in some of the stories i'd read, and one that stood out to me was a comic i read in a fully fantasy setting where the writer brought the narrative to a juddering halt to explain exactly how gender & sexuality are handled by the people here. as in the characters essentially turn to the camera and give the main character a lecture. i really didn't like it, the author's hand was too visible behind the panels.

but i took it as a learning exercise as well on what i didn't want to do. i didn't like the neon signs pointing at any instance of non-heteronormativity and i also don't like stories that market themselves based on the characters' gender identities, particularly stories which do not involve a coming-of-age/character learns to discover themselves narrative. it's a book about two trans men but it's not a book about being trans. that's none of the reader's business, that's hidden from you (particularly in islin's case, intentionally). i never wanted to foster a sense of voyeurism towards trans people particularly knowing that most readers, statistically, will not be trans. crucially the characters are stealth to literally everybody but like 3 people. their transition is done.

i never wanted a coming out moment, or an "i'm here i'm queer" moment either - not even because Society in the setting just because i don't like those things. to completely normalise it in the narrative between these characters is the goal - almost to the point of never even pointing it out at all except when it has to be. the vibe i wanted was like... hanging out in not necessarily a gay space, but with gay people, talking about random other stuff. i didn't even like the One coming out scene i had to put in (senca being like "i only fuck women" to bowman so that he would stop hitting on her)

so when writing i had a pretty good idea of what i didn't want. for the setting i had some strict rules to follow as well. characters would not identify as gay or bisexual or even some fantasy equivalent because those were not identities, they were acts. and heterosexuality wasn't an identity either, it wasn't even "the natural way of things", it was the means by which wealth could transfer between generations. if you do not marry, then you are not conforming to your gender. the four unmarriagable men in mvf are all denied entry to normative manhood for many de-gendering factors (disability, unmanly hobbies, vow of chastity, etc) but the culmination of those factors is that they can't marry, which is the whole POINT of being a man. three of them are entirely denied generational wealth - forcing them into poverty (it's not a coincidence that gay people are overrepresented in the criminal organisation)

from a writing standpoint this leaves them in a grey zone. when writing i tried out different language to see if it read nice to me (19th century equivalents to 'boyfriend' etc) and they all rang quite false, because outside of the whole 'can we put a label on something that doesn't officially exist in society' thing, the characters themselves are not the types of people to think that way. Bowman was dating Léa but he was never dating Félix. you can't date another man. the only people who date men are women, and Bowman is not a woman. therefore he is not dating Félix. to give just one example. ultimately for the language used i found that just leaving it as-is worked the best for me.

so after working all that out i wrote tha thing and then wanted to kind of explore - at what point does it become romantic? is there an actual border between romantic and platonic when you've kind of already fallen between the cracks in society into the grey zone where nothing is defined because it doesn't affirm the power of the ruling class. and in these particular friendships, where they've already been all things to one another, they've already done everything together, good or bad, does adding 'romantic love' to that list of things wildly recontextualise it retroactively or does anything change at all? just like the ending reveal of stbh says: who actually is the guy we've been thinking of as 'félix ortega' ? does it recontextualise everything we've just read? no, right? (or does it?)

the usual 'will-they-won't-they' romance plot isn't a factor in the book, we already know they will, they have, they won't, and they refuse to, all at once.

(jean-baptiste thinks of himself as an invert because he is Learned and has read some fascinating journal articles about cutting-edge sexology, and his relation to his sexuality is very very different. it's not something he shares with his closest friends in spaces without scrutiny; his entire life is scrutinised and his social system is predicated on marriage. like i think i said in the book, probably, i don't remember: he and renard are two guys clinging to the same life raft. they hate each other! but if you push the other guy off the life raft, then you're just one guy alone at sea, forever.)

[jesncin]

Lil' musing about Public Domain, AI theft and Transformative creativity

Old essay originally written on Cohost in February 2024. With additions.

I'm putting my thoughts here because I don't want to risk going viral for subtweeting discourse again, here we go! So with the Steamboat Willie Variant of Mickey Mouse going to public domain I've seen the usual cynical pushback over transformative art. Particularly in response to overplayed EDGY DARK WINNIE THE POOH and EDGY DARK STEAMBOAT MICKEY and YOUR CHILDHOOD THING DARK NOW that inevitably happens around this time.

But to group all transformative art as derivative, soul-less, profit-driven, lazy and "reliant on past successes" is frankly just...really silly? I saw a notable concept artist making this over-simplified talking point, and I find it odd that someone can look at the most visible (by being formulaic, provocative and made by rich people) examples of public domain adaptations and just generalize all art ever inspired by a thing as uninventive and compare artists who do that to being "ai-like". It feels like the false dichotomy constantly set between "real books" and fanfiction.

We've seen marginalized people reclaim cosmic horror from Lovecraftian fiction. I've seen queer people reckon with and reclaim the queer history of Peter Pan. There's something special about taking a familiar thing and informing it with a perspective that wasn't present in its original iteration. It takes a whole other part of your creative brain muscles to adapt and reimagine something that already exists. And it can be just as creatively fulfilling as making original stuff.

While it's important to recognize and remember the origin of archetypes in stories or movements in art, I think there's sometimes a misplaced reverence put towards the original version of something. Whenever I talk about how Asian writers like Gene Yang and Sarah Kuhn have more thoroughly integrated Superman's immigrant themes in their re-imaginings of his mythos than their white peers have, I get hit with the constant "hey remember Superman's creators were the sons of Jewish immigrants (who made racist jokes about Chinese people)" and "hey remember, Gene Yang and Gurihiru's Superman Smashes the Klan was based on a radio show arc made by WHITE people first (who made the story about a binary of Good white people vs Bad white people, along with centering how white people feel about racism)".

Especially if it's a means of centering white creatives, people love to dismiss the transformative contributions of marginalized people, but especially that of people of color. It took until 2016 for the World Fantasy Award to change their statuette to not be based after the face of renown racist H.P Lovecraft, after all.

Last year I gave myself the goal to do something "unnecessarily ambitious" with no plan of pitching/printing/selling it. Just "art for art's sake", something really not-algorithm-friendly. And yeah, that ended up being a fully rendered, 40-page martian manhunter fan comic. I did it for no other reason than being a huge fan of a severely unpopular character and feeling like there was a new story I really wanted to tell about the character that would never happen in canon with how little there's been written about him. I don't think it's fair to call writing 40 pages of a new origin story, drawing fully colored pages with unique re-designs, reading hours of martian manhunter comics to tie different aspects of his lore into coherent worldbuilding, putting that comic up for free for the few other Green Justice League Guy fans to read, as lazy, profit-driven, and soul-less.

There's tons of artists who do stuff like this all the time. It just comes off as being very out of touch to view true creativity as only existing one way. That transformative media must inherently be "less". One time a white guy pitched to me some ideas he had for Superman if he ever had a chance to write him, and I said "that sounds cool, you should write a fanfic about it" and another white guy (who felt the need to come to the first one's defense), viewed what I said as an insult. There's something about doing fanart because you enjoy it and don't need to profit out of everything you make that's seen as lesser than having the seal of canonicity from a company.

My motto with making needlessly ambitious fancomics is "You don't need to work for DC Comics to make DC comics". Because canonicity has nothing to do with what makes art special.

To bring this back to edgy Mickey Mouse spin offs, even if you do just want to make cliche mascot-horrified stuff because you enjoy it, then by all means go ahead! I always go back to this video Sagan Hawkes did about petscop-inspired video series. There's a running theme about grappling with the concept of Originality in Art in relation to youtube horror projects (the thesis comes around at 2:04:10), and some valuable words are shared in the collected interviews with web series creatives (2:18:47) in the end. SeireaSong (creator behind Diminish) talks about how misguided conversations surrounding "originality" can be (2:29:43). It's so worth it to watch when you have the time.

Anyway happy 2024! Be good to each other.

[catboybiologist]

Boymoding is getting exhausting.

And yay, toxic thought time that's going to be anecdotal and probably come off as somewhat sexist. But I hope it doesn't.

The thing that's really wearing down on me is emotional responses, I think. When cis women cry or show emotion as part of their daily routine, it's still taboo, but often accommodated more than others. I'm going through a lot of emotional swings right now, and there's a very stark difference in how those are treated vs how it's treated in others. And I don't know if that'll ever change, tbh, but hopefully at least someone will acknowledge that it's rough. Even with the good, close friends I have, there very much is a gap in what level of emotion elicits sympathy vs ignoring it or treating it as an overreaction in men vs women. I'm a "man" now, and simply don't get the space for that emotional support as a casual daily thing. It's not uncommon for people in academia to cry or be overwhelmed and anxious, and it's becoming more and more obvious how that's treated in men vs women. It's always a thought I had in the back of my head, but I'm noticing it a lot more now that I'm outwardly a man but have a lot more visibly emotional moments.

Its weird. I have made efforts to be more open about bisexuality, and my day to day vibe has gotten fruitier as a result. A lot of cis women friends have gotten closer to me as a result, but they very clearly treat me with a "gay best friend" kinda vibe. Which is honestly fun, but it provides an interesting baseline for the biases people have in how much emotion men vs women are allowed to show, even among good friends.

On the flip side, another thing I'm becoming more acutely aware of (even though I always knew it was a thing, it just feels more pressing now) is how casually women are ignored, talked over, disregarded, etc etc when compared to men in a academia. I've always known this was a problem, but it's been on my mind a lot more recently.

Top all of that off with the endless physical considerations of compressive bras, managing the way I walk, baggy clothes, mitigating dysphoria vs hiding my transition, not accidentally slipping into my shitty voice training voice while going around daily, making time for injections now, taking sublingual pills midday when I was still on those... Yeah. It adds up.

I've tried making my transition an "open secret" by going to social events and queer events femme, and I know word gets around to labmates and such. I just don't know who exactly knows, and the barrier of actually talking to people about it is huge. I really think, for my own sanity, I need to start telling people what's up even before I socially transition.

I'm particularly moody and stressed bc of my qual tomorrow, but yeah. Consider this a toxic unfocused rant. I'll probably have more to say in a more focused way in a couple days.

Oh also. Please don't be like "ooohhh then why are you still boymoding idiot" cuz that's not helpful. There's a right moment to socially transition and I have a plan.

[overleftdown]

this is going to be my somewhat-brief analysis (buckle in, it's not brief at all) of preluding scenes to farleigh and olivers... scene, lmao. because i can't read micro-expressions and social cues IRL, but i can for movies! also, i want to give my understanding of farleigh's character using the most substantial part of his arc. i disagree so much with a lot of people's takes on farleigh. i needed to talk extensively about it.

[0:58:46] farleigh makes eye contact with a footman. this is one of the footmen that farleigh mentions to felix in a later scene, which i'll also go into. what's interesting about this subtle interaction is how wildly differently you could consider it, depending on how you choose to view farleigh as a character. if you go the "mirror of oliver," route, then this eye contact could be the moment farleigh decides the route he's going to take to confront felix.

on the other hand, the hand that i believe makes more sense, farleigh is genuine in his confrontation with felix. the eye contact he shares with the footman is reciprocated; the footman holds it, even as his body pulls back and his head turns. this gives the idea that they are making a connection. the expression farleigh makes afterwards is also an indication that farleigh isn't plotting or scheming to earn pity points; he feels a connection and comradery with the only other black people at saltburn. when the footman turns away, unneeded anymore (this can be a parallel to farleigh), farleigh glances down, back up, then purses his lips. he looks dejected, in my opinion. this is immediately followed by farleigh's dig at oliver; "i think oliver looks like he'd rather throw himself out of a window.

food for thought.

[0:59:9] elsbeth: you can invite all your friends. farleigh: what friends?

this can obviously be a petty dig. and it is, in some ways. but i think a lot of these petty digs are because farleigh has been here before. he has watched his cousin drag home mediocre and tragic (presumably) white boys for perceived self-benefit. whether felix wants entertainment, wants to quell his guilty conscious (both of which are motivations for his mother), felix seems to have these fleeting possessive relationships with the friends he brings back to saltburn. he could also be queer and deeply repressed, lmfao.

i digress; farleigh is sick and tired. the first thing he says to oliver, before oliver even got to felix, was bitchy as all hell. after that, farleigh had more incentive to belittle oliver; yes, his comments about mannerisms, class, and overall character were petty. they were also all of the qualities that farleigh couldn't afford to have. farleigh is pointing out that oliver has no social life, yet still gets a 200-person party full of people that don't even know his name. this is tragically unfair, at least in farleigh's mind.

[1:01:25] felix: and fucking farleigh, what a little shit stirrer. oliver: well, someone has to entertain us all. felix: ...right. oliver: that's why we love him.

there's a clear disregard of humanity and depth, when felix concedes that farleigh is "entertainment." the sheer fact that felix would immediately believe oliver, a "stranger (as venetia so eloquently puts)" over a close family member, is odd on it's own. there are probably more reasons for distrust; everyone in saltburn is a shit stirrer, and farleigh does put on a particularly good show.

that's intentional, though. farleigh is very intentionally entertainment. otherwise, why would the cattons keep him around? they're welcoming people to their house as family, because they want a break from the reality of soul sucking wealth. because they want entertainment. elsbeth with her friend, who's only real personality traits are being pitiful and visibly different. felix, with his summer pet projects like oliver. farleigh can't be a temporary show; he needs to keep coming back. he needs sir james to support his mother.

[1:02:40] farleigh: i'm not saying my mother isn't completely idiotic when it comes to money. felix: you just have to be firm with her. farleigh: well i can't call her and tell her no! felix: i know, i know, you've said that. i know, i understand. farleigh: no, you don't know! you don't, it's humiliating. felix: it's very hard.

felix's approach to discussing other people's issues--that he does not relate to--makes me giggle sometimes. not that he's malicious or a fumbling idiot, but because of this scene specifically. in just this chunk of dialogue, you have the "i understand" and "you don't understand" conflict. an age old one. a common representation of someone who has never lived a specific struggle yet frames themselves as knowledgeable. felix seems to enjoy the "it's very hard" verbiage. the manner in which he speaks to oliver about his supposed impoverishment and struggles is very similar to the way he speaks to farleigh, in this scene.

i don't know what else to say about this. you can make your own inferences on felix's dialogue, i suppose.

[1:02:50] farleigh: i'm sorry, but it's a bit fucking shitty. you're all throwing oliver a party for 200 people while my mother lives in squalor. felix: well, she's hardly living in squalor, mate. farleigh: well she can't pay her bills so she will be! okay? at the rate she's going, she will be.

GAH. again, this dialogue can be considered in two different ways. farleigh could be hyperbolizing in order to play into the catton savior complex. or he could be completely genuine in his anxiety surrounding his mother's finances. it's very important that you recognize the fact that farleigh isn't arguing about himself, in this situation. he's talking about his mother. later in the conversation, he recenters himself as a person of color. but the original conflict is about whether or not his mom is living comfortably. this arguably affects him, but not entirely. he could continue to maintain his oxford-student-and-saltburn-resident character and continue to frolic around while his mom struggles to make responsible decisions.

[1:03:02] felix: right, well that's exactly why dads concerned about helping her. he doesn't want to enable her. he wants her to learn how to stand on her own two feet. farleigh: yeah, like he does?

and farleigh ate.

[1:03:09] farleigh: i mean, you know how this looks, right? making me come to you with a begging bowl. felix: what are you implying? farleigh: i think you know what i'm implying, felix. why don't you ask liam and joshua? felix: who... who the fuck are liam and joshua!? farleigh: ...your footmen.

farleigh's mannerisms in this portion of the scene GAG me. the easy confidence, the self-assured and confrontational attitude. the cocky wave of his shoulders and tilt of his head. he smirks, scoffs, makes and holds eye contact as emphasis to what he is accusing. the way he says "i think you know what i'm implying" even though i'm not quite sure if felix did. this really hammers in the implicit nature of the cattons' treatment of farleigh.

[1:03:33] felix: oh, oh. that is... that is low, farleigh. farleigh: okay. felix: jesus christ, mate! seriously, is that where you wanna take this!? farleigh: right. felix: make it a race thing!? what the fuck! i mean, we're your family, we hardly even notice that you're... different, or anything like that! farleigh: mmm. felix: i never know our footmen's names!

GAGGED. i eat up this scene and lick my fingers. "wohohoho, i don't see color! i can't believe you'd make it a race thing!" i know i should cut felix some slack, but this is just a little too real. although i've cut farleigh some slack for his classism.

the complete change in farleigh's mannerisms from the previous timestamp to this one is EDIBLE. i can't cope with it. his smile as felix says "that is low" is so painfully real. it says "i've been here before and maybe i was expecting this." for a second, felix is almost entertainingly cliche. then the exasperation hits. farleigh just looks tired. he blinks rapidly, smooths over his eyebrow with his hand, vocalizes his disbelief in felix's denial. "we hardly even notice you're different," to which farleigh crosses his arms (defensive), raises his eyebrows, nods along.

i won't include the final few lines of this conversation cuz i'm blabbing FAR too much, but farleigh's expressions of absolutely exhaustion and disappointment as felix says they've "been more generous then most"... i'm so sick. it doesn't matter what other families would do, because this family passes out charity like it's their favorite pastime. farleigh is your best american girl.

oliver, overhearing this conversation, immediately knows what his next plan of action is. compare himself to farleigh. and really, it's funny, because oliver misses the obvious differences between him and farleigh. just like everyone else. he will never feel different, not in the same way farleigh does. not with farleigh's relationship to the cattons, the legacy of his parents, and his blackness.

[1:06:32] (godfather's karaoke scene, AKA apple bottom jeans. he's a disgusting manchild and he throws his jacket at his wife.) is it odd to point out that another one of the only visible black characters is being degraded/mistreated/disregarded? not crazy, right? especially following the conversation about bias two scenes ago.

[1:07:02] farleigh: y'know, i think i'd fuck richard the III. he's so insecure, so you'd know he'd put in the work, right? oliver: or you could just fuck me, right?

here, i think there's a level of projection that farleigh is using in his line about insecurity. not only is it made known that farleigh uses sex as a tool (with teachers, specifically), but it's also made known that farleigh believes/knows that he is treated differently due to his race and/or family history. oliver seems to have clocked this, considering he relates himself to richard the III, then tells farleigh they have similar experiences.

[1:07:34] oliver: y'know, if you ever wanna talk to anyone, you can talk to me, farleigh. farleigh: ...what do you mean? oliver: well, i know you're going through a hard time at home. i know how that feels, when things are so precarious. it's terrifying... and lonely. and it must be so fucking weird, having to ask them for everything. and i know you fucking hate me. farleigh: i... i don't hate you. oliver: but... if you ever wanted me to talk to them, to see if there's... if i can help in any way... just ask. farleigh: ...okay.

i love this movie. have i said that yet? i bet you definitely couldn't tell by this post. this conversation is so... there's so much to talk about.

i'll start with some of my favorite of farleigh's mannerisms/expressions. when oliver first cuts their... tensions with "you can talk to me," farleigh pulls back slightly, sits up slightly, looks across oliver's face. there's a level of shock to it, but. farleigh was comfortable with oliver, his sworn enemy, flirting with him. yet, he pulled back at a genuine offer of support. some see this as farleigh always wanting oliver sexually, but i think it's more nuanced than that. when oliver says "terrifying... and lonely" that's when the camera cuts back to farleigh. he previously wore a half-smile that is now dropping; "lonely" was the hardest word to swallow. his lip is quivering. he looks up in an almost-eye roll when he says, "i don't hate you." he's laughing when oliver finishes, like he finds it all funny, yet the way he says "okay" makes him seem genuine. however... clearly not, considering the next portion of this scene!

even though oliver is lying out of his ass, everything he's saying is a description of farleigh. people grossly misunderstand farleigh's character, even when it's laid onto a banquette sized table through this portion of the movie. he's insecure, desperate, terrified, unsure, and lonely. farleigh, with so many friends and so many scandalous choices, is so fucking lonely. he knows he doesn't belong here, so he jams his ill-fitting puzzle piece into the saltburn jigsaw and crosses his fingers.

he tells oliver he doesn't hate him, and he looks like he's struggling to spit it out. he looks up towards the ceiling, closes his eyes like he's gathering himself. again, people take this as a bonding moment. the next portion of the scene contradicts this. honestly, i'm not completely sure, either. i think he's honest when he says he doesn't hate oliver. so, what? he's jealous, definitely. he wants to hold the same power as oliver, a foreign entity with somehow so much more privilege than farleigh. maybe that bred a certain kind of infatuation; the need to emulate what you'll never be. of course, he sees himself in the boys felix brings home; they, just like farleigh, need or want something from the cattons (although i object to the idea that farleigh is somehow "a mirror" of oliver). do what you will with this word vomit, i don't know where i'm going here.

and OH MY GOD "if you ever wanted me to talk to them, to see if there's... if i can help in any way," is diabolical. so terribly diabolical. the sheer idea that oliver knows, is pummeling it into farleigh's face, that he has authority over farleigh's life like that? that he knew felix for six months and he can somehow "talk to" farleigh's family about treating farleigh better... vomit inducing. farleigh is actually your best american girl.

[1:09:39] (karaoke scene) elsbeth, so uncomfortable with the idea that oliver is using them. i suppose that's the manner of wealthy people; they don't want to believe that they're only good for their money. but... they did that to themselves, in a way. they enjoy the pet projects, the charity work, the ego boost that comes with inviting the "lesser" to saltburn. hanjob on a haybale, golden big boy summer, right? everyone in the room is scandalized. farleigh is having the time of his fucking life. yet, here's the kicker,

[1:10:10] oliver: this is your song too, farleigh. come finish it. farleigh: only if you insist!

and then farleigh gives the performance of his life, by the way. people died. but... nobody is uncomfortable. literally no one. no one shudders or gasps at the scandal of oliver saying "this is your song, too" over the karaoke microphone; everyone heard. nobody cares. they all know. they start clapping farleigh on, cheering. elsbeth relaxes back onto her bed of cushions, because farleigh is entertaining. the change in mood is soooo... interesting.

[1:10:45] curse this scene, i don't even want to talk about it. it was hot, oliver and farleigh are so homoerotic, whatever yadayada. just like every other sexual scene in this movie, it is riddled with a suffocating kind of uncomfortable tension. we are made intimate third-party witnesses to carnal, sinful, emotionally ambiguous scenes. when i pointed out farleigh seemed more comfortable with flirting then comfort, when i said farleigh uses sex as a tool, when i said farleigh was projecting with "he's so insecure, so you know he'd put in the work." i just overthink. but any person that has sexual relationships with teachers needs intensive therapy and that cannot be denied. however, it's oliver, that uses sex as a tool throughout this movie. another uncomfortable parallel between the two characters.

something about farleigh's expression throughout this scene is... kind of hurtful. the way the moonlight just barely illuminates the light in his eyes, whereas any detail of oliver's face is shrouded in darkness. it make's farleigh look young, innocent, real. (sidenote, as i'm watching, i have to mention this. the way farleigh says that second "no" is so funny. "...no...?" LMFAO). man, i don't even know what to say, past this. the whole dominant dynamic, farleigh saying "i'm going to behave" is a little too painful considering the context leading up to this scene. it's freaky. it's so very oliver.

this is way too long but i could make so many more connections with their final confrontation at oliver's birthday party. i'm drowning in thoughts. what i really wanted to highlight was how ambiguous farleigh's character is, and how differently a lot of his scenes can be perceived. i've decided that farleigh is a sympathetic character, similar to oliver but so much less powerful. some people hate farleigh! so. there's that. the end! thanks to anyone who read this whole thing!

[intersex-support]

(half vent half ramble about intersex, medical neglect, and the racialization of gender and sex binaries)

I am going to lose my mind. There is Something Wrong with my reproductive system. I know this much. It doesn't act how every single piece of (modern, reputable) medical literature I can find says is "normal". At this point I think the reason I can't get any doctors to take me seriously is because I'm mixed race. I pass white easily, and I'll discuss my symptoms with a doctor, show the physical, visible proof of endocrine weirdness on my body, and they look concerned, willing to discuss, in agreement that there's something weird. Then they look over my medical history and profile before doing anything in depth. They see I am biracial. They suddenly insist that everything is normal and that I'm overreacting.

I have some friends that are studying medicine, including one that has particular interest in intersex and general queer medicine (and has her doctorate even). She agrees that there's something different by any metric. All of them are in agreement that I likely have something unusual with either my reproductive system, endocrine system, or both. They all agree I should get proper testing but can't authorize it due too the ethical issue of them being my friends.

So I go to new doctors regularly and the cycle repeats every time. The oddities are only getting more apparent. How long will it be before people can put down their perception of different races as different species? There are differences between us. But they are not as drastic as people make them out to be. How strange must my body become before a doctor can no longer blame it on my mixed heritage?

I'm so tired of being Schrodinger's intersex. We need to put down the idea that traits can only be intersex in specific races. The amount of poc that are struggling from this is almost certainly larger than we can imagine. The only reason I think this problem becomes so obvious with me is because of my white passing biracial-ness. I feel like the canary, making it particularly clear how much the racialization of gender and sex hurts all of us. I'm so tired

Sending so much solidarity and support 💜💜💜

The amount of racism from doctors is so incredibly fucked up, especially when it comes to the racialization of gender and sex and how that creates so many barriers for accessing care. We've talked a lot on this blog before about how some diagnostic standards for certain intersex variations are just explicitly racist--hirsutism scales and the way that they're talked about, for example. There are so many ways that white supremacy works together with intersexism/compulsory dyadism and a key part of intersex justice is fighting against all these connected systems of oppression.

on this blog we understand that there are so many barriers to getting testing and diagnosis in the current medical system, which is one of the reasons why we support informed self-diagnosis. if you're at all interested in participating in intersex community spaces, InterConnect has online and in person peer support groups, including a peer support group specifically for intersex people of color. Know that you are absolutely welcome here, even if you don't have a confirmed medical diagnosis.

I really hope that you're able to find the answers you need--you deserve better than you've been treated, and I can absolutely imagine how exhausting the discrimination through this whole process has been. Please feel welcome to send in any more asks, whether you need resources, have questions, or just need to vent.

best wishes, anon 💜💜💜

[transgamerthoughts]

a night at poe's masquerade

Last night I made a quick tweet about how I think Persona games (particular from Persona 3 onwards) tend to be fundamentally conservative games. In worlds filled with magic powers, shadow selves, and literal gods there's an understanding that many of the most villainous people you can know are folks in positions of social/political power who weaponize their status in order to prey on those beneath them. This is a particular focus of Persona 5 but it extends even back to back to a game like Persona 2 and characters like Tatsuzou Sudou. Although these games acknowledge the social structures that lead to particularly vicious kinds of abuse, there is tendency for our protagonist to then fold themselves into those power structures. In games that focus less on real-life political allegory, there's still pattern of protagonists eventually accepting the societal roles that they're initial chafing against. It's a very common occurrence in the series. clockwork!

Persona 4 is the chief culprit here. Yukiko struggles with the idea that her presumed inheritance of the Amagi Inn is an imposition on her life but makes peace with that fact and eventually prepares herself for that role. Chie confronts Adachi, shocked that anyone who chose to be a police officer would do so for selfish reasons or betray the ideal image she holds of that job. Though confronted with the ways in which the system enabled Adachi's murders, she ultimately decided that she wants to become a police officer. Just as some examples. there's more. it's a fraught game in many ways

(I'm not gonna talk about Naoto. That's a minefield. as a trans critic people ask what I think about Naoto quite often. my answer is I like Naoto quite a bit and while I appreciate the queer read I don't need her story to be actually about transness. my tongue in cheek deep position here is that I think she's the damn coolest thing in the Dancing All Night opening movie. absolute fire!)

Persona fans are totally reasonable human beings. by which I mean that they might be the most electric and fuckin' absurd fandom I've ever encountered. While some people agreed with my read of the series, many others swarmed in. Which is fine enough. That's just what happens when you're visible on Twitter. I don't really have an interest in outlining the series in gross detail although, contrary to many accusations, I have played all the mainline games. One thing that can never be hurled my way is a suggestion that I don't play videos games. This criticism doesn't arise out of nowhere though I admit I didn't exactly expect it to become a trending topic floating in the "For You" tab. I was tweeting before bed.

Lesson learned! this fandom is wild! So it goes!

I've been thinking about people's responses and I want to venture into fraught territory to talk about a particularly bad habit I see from many fans. Which I think can be extended to things like ongoing debates about localization as much as they can apply to this little tempest in a teapot. Which is that I've grown somewhat concerned with he ways in which RPG fans (intentionally or not) exoticize Japan as a means to defend their favorite games from critique. It's kinda bad!

and I'm gonna risk a ramble exploring the topic… and I wonder how tumblr in 2024 will compare in reaction to hellscape of twitter

Something you often encounter in these discussions is an implication (sometimes a direct suggestion) that it is impossible to really engage with Japanese media as a westerner. That there's too many layers of nuance and too many centuries of ingrained tradition for anyone who has not engaged in lengthy study on the topic to penetrate. Often, this is framed as a desire to simply put things in cultural contexts. respect it and give due seriousness! Which is fine. I absolutely think if you wanna talk about something like the portrayal of the Japanese justice system in Judgement, it probably helps to… y'know… know details about the Japanese justice system. If you want to talk about how a game approaches gender, an understanding of certain social mores is important. No one debates this; it's important to understand art as arising from specific material conditions and places.

This is not really the approach people take however. Instead there is an insistence that the cultural difference between Japan and western nations is essentially insurmountable. Which has some bad implications. I think people are well meaning when they're like "hey, you gotta watch this YouTuber talk about Shintoism and JRPG boss fights for over an hour" but it comes at the cost of painting the culture as something of a puzzle to solve. and make no mistake: I'm glad anyone is doing the work but there's a bit of strangeness at play when folks are like "well you're American" and then tell me to watch criticism also made by Americans. especially since I do have a educational background that includes the study of world religions. i've studied plenty of this! and it's not impossible for me to have grasped.

the world is beautiful and nuanced and specific and full of vibrancies. but these things are not so singular that we can't connect with them or come to know them. and those nuances and specifics and vibrances don't create a protective ward around works. if anything, they're invitations to explore something new. if I walk away from Persona with a position that you don't agree with I promise that it's not something that's happened in haste. It used to be my job to think about games. and I've thought about Persona a lot! it's not inaccesible.

When we start to paint a culture as being particularly foreign we inherently exoticize it. We drape a degree of mystery over it which implies there is no universal connections found in art. Of course the concept of "police" is different in Japan to some extent as is the expectations that go into inheriting a family business. yes, the social nuances of a classroom differ. But Japan is not so alien to the western critic that we can't look at popular fiction and spot patterns. I certain don't need a 17 anime consumer to write me an essay on honne and tatemae or whatever in order to understand what's going on in the Midnight Channel. It's an easily observable truth that Persona often identifies issues within Japan society while also (particularly in Persona 5's case) concluding that these problems are not a consequence of specific power structures but rather moral failings of certain bad individuals. That's the text. Even when it wants to suggest otherwise.

Here's a little snippet from Persona 5. On face value, it seems to contradict what I'm saying. "Harper, how can you say that it only cares about individuals when it outright says that society itself needs to be addressed!?" DO YOU EVEN PLAY THESE GAMES YOU BITCH?! The answer is that the game does not have a model or idea of what it means to change society except vaguely to inspire people to more individual action. be nicer. stand up for yourself, speak your truth, do things for your own reasons. which has a radical element to it in the context to be sure but we've spent a huge portion of the game seeing how the abuse of power, particularly power placed in certain positions and social strata

a change of mindset is good but… is that sufficient? I'm not entirely convinced. not if this game want to truly deliver on everything it has explored. (side note, a lot of folks were like "why are you focusing on p5 so much here?" and the answer is that it's recent, representative of the series' values from the last decade or so, and because I'm a tired adult in their 30s who has stuff to do and isn't obligated to make a 300 tweet long thread breaking down multiple scripts. if you want me to do that labor, you better pay me for my time. otherwise I don't care to appease fan who have no plans of truly entertaining what I'd do anyway. no breakdown I do could please them)

but you fight Yaldabaoth Harper! You kill the collective gestalt representative of the status quo!. okay sure but the metaphorical battle falters as the game ultimately imagines many of our heroes (for instance Makoto, who also decides to become a cop even after her sister leaves the profession to become a defense attorney) are content to slide into the power structures as they exist. they've simply become "good apples" in the same basket that held the bad ones What does it matter if you kill the metaphor when you don't carry through elsewhere? It's not simply some vague human desire to be exploited that created the various monstrous villains we face throughout the game. There's real material circumstances, systems and long-held powers that gave them the carte blanche that enabled their abuses! Be they financial, political, or even sexual.

We might layer nuances on top of this of course. Notions of reticence to change or valuing of tradition, attitudes towards elders. But when we do so it's important be careful. When fans imply impenetrabilities in the works by virtue of cultural difference, there's a risk of veering into a kind of Orientalism. One which mystifies the culture and turns it into a kind of "other." Distant, strange. This sometimes comes paired with a kind of infantilization of creators but that's a different though similarly fraught topic that I think is particularly best left in the hands of the creators themselves. I'm not the person to talk about that!

Nevertheless, a frustrating part of the response to my tweet today has been a rush to say "This work functions that makes it necessarily elide your ability to critique it."

I'll be an ass and generalize. It's mostly people with Persona avatars making this suggest. That Persona, as a Japanese work, is imbued with an ineffable quality that magically allows it to side-step what's ultimately a pretty timid conclusion. Many of these folks are younger players, self-identified as such in profiles, who clearly have a deep connection to the series. It means something to them. But I'd rather they simply say "hey, I found this thing particularly moving at an important moment in my life" rather than conjure an impassable ocean between myself (or really anyone) and the work in the event they find flaws.

Otherwise, you just get this:

Stories are not merely about what happens on the journey. The destination does matter. It means something when the king grabs his shining sword and fights off the orc invaders or whatever. A value system is suggested Similarly, it does means something when Chie becomes a cop. (This is just a shorthand example mind you! But you hopefully get the idea!)

I don't think games or any work of art need us to defend them. The trap of fandom is that you often turn to any possible means to justify what you love. For Persona, a series which does have the decency to explore cultural issues, that same cultural specificity is often weaponize by fans (largely western fans even!) to deflect certain problems. This process inadvertently portrays that culture as a mystery, a shrouded thing that we cannot ever criticize. It's one thing to dig into some of those contextual specifics but it's another all-together to imply these specifics provide a mean to abrogate certain analyses. and I think navigating the line between due deference and something deeper and stranger seems to be something many of the fans reacting to me... have not managed. I had a peer talk to me about this situation and their feeling was that the animated members of the fandom that were coming at me, many of whom are self-identified as young and western, were kinda treating Japan like it was a land of elves. which it's not! it is a place on Earth and yes we need to take strides to understand and respect certain specificities... but we can't mystify an entire people. especially if the purpose is to turn those people and their culture into a shield. a means to justify and validate the specialness you see in a franchise.

I call Persona conservative because it cannot imagine a world in any other shape that what we have right now. God dies but nothing actually changes. I don't think it's enough to say "well, they defeated the god! and they needed the collective strength of society to do it! people did change because without that change of heart, the heroes wouldn't have the magical juice to fight the Kabbalah monster!" to toss Makoto's words back at the series: victory against a single god is meaningless if the true enemy is society.

If you can't show me what that grand spiritual change means for society, then I think you've kinda failed. you've certainly failed if the conclusion is that the world after that change is functionally the same and it doesn't really matter to me if "they talk about this in Strikers or whatever" because you can't offload your thematic snarls to side games. if the main stories you tell can't resolve this tension, that's a problem. these are often very beautiful games. they certainly have amazing structure and systems. but I don't think it's controversial to say they often hedge their bets at the end. and there's no impenetrable cultural wall surrounding the games that leaves the criticism off the table.

that's just What Happens. and it's fine for us to acknowledge flaws in even in things that contain beauty or meant something to us

really. it's fine.

[lippiethehoe]

Well hi tumblr queers again :D.

Okay so for starters CONTENT WARNING I'll be talking about sexuality sex and overall sexual stuff so if that's not something you wanna look at then don't read thanks :).

I kinda feel like starting a little conversation and also hopefully getting some answers from lgbts from tumblr which hmmm... idk if this is the best place for this, especially since I don't particularly have a big following, nor do I think I have the means to make this be more visible to randos on tumblr so hmm, if this amounts to nothing know I'll be embarassed about it but that's okay, but also I fucking hate reddit and all my google research efforts have resulted in either basically nothing or people asking similar questions to mine but having very deeply different prespectives of both gender in general and sexuality in general than me so google research didn't slay at all, and so I'll lend my trust to the tumblers ig.

Ok so hello, I'm lilly I'm a demiromantic trans woman and I've struggled for kind of a while with my sexuality, not because I don't know what it is, but because I'm actually a huge labels person. Having a word to describe the way i feel about things has always helped me feel as though I know myself better and can make others know me better aswell. Even if putting labels on complex human feelings and emotions is essentialy pointless, it's still something that means alot to me, and I hate that for the longest time I have been perfectly capable of knowing what my sexuality is, but can't simple it down to one word and use it on my day to day life and that makes me sad. It also makes me feel kinda alone in my feelings? cause I'm basically the only person i know with this prespective on my sexuality at least for now so I'm a bit confused, obviously I don't think I'm the only person like this cause that's basically impossible but it still feels that way ig?

Also I remembered this recently only because it's pride month, happy pride month btw :3, and I was doing a thing on discord where everyday I'd add a flag that I indetify with on my profile picture, problem is I've ran out of flags, because no sexual orientation feels right and from my knowledge of it there isn't a sexuality nor a flag for what I feel, and now not only does my discord pfp not look full of colors and pretty it also re-awakened a little identity crisis I've had for a while.

This is definetly gonna be a very long post but I won't feel like I explained myself correctly if it isn't a big post so bear with me, but let's start.

So I'm gonna start explaining how I personally view sexuality and gender so you, reader, can have all the means available to understand my prespective on this. Sexuality to me is kinda simple, simply means whatever a person is attracted to, what makes them sexually interested in someone, whatever other way you wanna put it, and gender is simply the way a person identifies themselves with, the eyes they navigate the world through, the way they percieve themselves and the way they want to be percieved as by others etcetera, I won't explain my prespective on romanticism cause that's essentially useless to my question, but yeah simple stuff right?

So here's where I don't believe I fit in with most sexualities, here's the question I've had for quite a while but never thought to express it in a place where more than just a few friends could hear, I am not sexuality attracted to genders, ok now is when someone screams at me and says pansexual, I don't agree, but moving on, I'm not sexually attracted to people much, I am sexually attracted to penis tho, and here's where someone screams heterosexual at me AND IF YOU DID I FUCKING HATE YOU FYI NOT CAUSE I HATE HETEROS BUT BECAUSE THAT AS AN ANSWER TO WHAT I SAID IS FUCKING TRANSPHOBIC, YEAH I SAID IT, BITCH!!!

But here's the thing, what is a gender, ok I wrote alot after i said that but deleted it all cause this could fall into a very long rabbit hole, but gender's a construct blah blah, can you tell I probably have some neurodivergencies going on in the head anyways continuing. Genuinely, I don't know what it feels like to be a sexuality that includes gender in it, not because I don't think it to be true obviously i know people are heterosexual bisexual homosexual lesbians any other sexual orientation that implies gender being a part of the equation. But to me I can't be sexually attracted to men because a man can be anything to me, I can't be sexually attracted to women because a woman can be anything to me, i can't be sexually attracted to enbys cause being non-binary can be anything to me and the list goes on. Nothing is set in gender because to me gender can look like, feel like, and be like anything, if I labeled myself heterosexual, sexually attracted to people of the opposite gender of me, what would I mean by it? cause think about it, there're big men small men skinny fat muscular men hairy shaved brown eyed dark skinned pussy having dick having blah blah blah and the list goes on again, and even in there I'm not specifically attracted to any of the traits on that list anyways, none of those traits sexually arouse me, men don't sexually arouse me, women don't sexually arouse me, but you know what does? penis. So therein lies the issue, cause surprise, there's a bunch of dicks in the world, what? that's crazy? Yeah penis is everywhere, there're men with penises women with penises nonbinaries with penises intersex people with penises dildos people with strap-ons and the list goes on and in that entire list, the only thing that sexualy arouses me personally, is penis, not who has it, not wether or not it was there from birth, not wether or not it's made of plastic or human skin, not wether or not I'm specifically sexually attracted to any other aspect of said person, but simply the thing that sexually arrouses me and makes me feel pleasure is the thing that sexually attracts me, which in my head is so fucking obvious? Like it's a conclusion so natural to me, but it seems I'm the only person in a 50 km radius that feels this way? It's also possible that I'm actually wrong and view the current existing sexualities in the wrong way and if that's what's up please tell me.

Also i feel the rising tension of someone saying stuff like "people can sexually stimulate others with fingers are u FiNgErSeXuAl?" and the truth is not really but I still find it sexually arousing when it happens, but the last thing I'm gonna do is look at fingers and blush I think. WOAH THAT JUST OPENED A NEW DOOR FUCKK OH NO THIS IS GONNA BE TOO LONG MAYBE I SHOULDN'T POST THIS IDK. I am also sexually attracted to certain actions, but at this point I feel I'm leaving sexuality and going into kink territory and that isn't really where I wanted to go. EITHER WAY my overall conclusion is I don't understand most sexualities and feel as though my view of my sexuality should have a label so I feel more comfortable, maybe I should be the catalyst who knows maybe someone's already been the catalyst and I'm simply unaware of that, either way I'd like a sexuality flag to add to my discord pfp so maybe I'll just make a flag up, who fucking knows, that's it tho. So yeah if anyone who sees this post experiences anything similar to this and wants to share about it please do I'd be really thankful.

Thank you so much if you sticked with me all the way to the end, and if you feel like you might have some insight on what I'm saying or simply wanna say something relevant to this topic please do, it's pride month and I'm incredibly proud of all queers and gender fuckers :3 happy pride month!

Ps: I just wanna say something, this isn't an invitation to flirt with me send me unsolicited dick pics or respond to things I clearly showed not to be questions, I want this topic to be taken in more of a discussion way than a sexual one, if that could be possible I'd be thankful, ok that's it bie bie.

[crimsonwing62]

So, I watched the Taylor Swifts Eras Tour tonight and I can't stop thinking about this one moment when she is singing Lover and the camera focuses on the individual coupled up dancers slow dancing to the song. For one it gave me joy to see same sex couples. Also this one duo where the guy was looking up through his eyelashes at his dance partner whilst she had her eyes closed and I thought that was sooo adorable. I don't know whether he was directed to do that or not but it was cute.

Anyway, it got me thinking if there was any fan ships out there based on these types of concert snippets. And of course my brain links it back to the Stranger Things Fruity Four.

Specifically, an AU where one is the big star Singer (i was thinking Eddie or Robin) whilst the others are dancers on Tour.

Whilst it's easy to do the obvious Eddie as the Singer, Nancy as dance captain and Steve as the love interest people ship him with ( and be absolutely correct about).

I love and think of it as :

Robin, the Singer. She's not a natural dancer but she's learnt to give her fans a good show.

Steve, The Dance Captain. He keeps up morale but is the good kind of strict. If the song calls for a boyfriend/love interest figure (often at the insistence of the label changing the pronouns in her songs), he is it. They know each other well enough. He taught her to dance, and so she trusts him and doesn't feel uncomfortable with him.

Nancy, as the dancer fans ship Robin with. Nancy has a way when she dances she can control when she's visible and invisible. Like she can fade into the lights behind, or she can stand out in the line. Nancy is often placed the closest to Robin after Steve. The way they move around each other onstage is familiar and charged. The stares they give each other are equally charged and often seek each other out on stage.

Within the team, she's Steve's 2nd in command, in all but name. The other dancers look to her if Steve is ill or busy. But there's always that team, we are in this together vibe.

Aaaand Eddie. I'm not sure where to put Eddie in this AU. Half of me wants him as another dancer, so the fans have someone on stage to ship Steve wi- wait. I had an idea. It was staring me in the face...

Eddie is one of Robins Guitarists and band Lead. 🫨. He still comes on stage. Not quite for a slow dance song like Lover. For that, Nancy and Steve are partnered with others in the dance crew. Maybe Nancy is the girl I mentioned that inspired this.

But in a slightly more lively one, the band cones on stage to join in the fun, and the dancers interact with them. Of course, Steve always goes to Eddie and dances with him.

The Internet goes wild with theories when concert footage and the concert film are released. Robin already has a plethora of male celebs she's "supposedly" dating. Not to mention those who think Robin and Steve are dating. They particularly enjoy laughing at those posts. Some people see Nancy and Robins interactions as close friends . Whilst the queer community sees straight - ha - through the queer coding to the glass closet. Others ship Nancy with the dancer she's paired with for the slow dance song.

Meanwhile, some parts of the Internet go feral over the small interactions Steve and Eddie have. Since they're a little out of the limelight, they can be a little... freer?, borderline appropriate for work? with the short section they have together.

The documentary of the Tour only fans the flames, too. Although it helps them fall in love with Nancy, Steve, and Eddie even more...

[martianbugsbunny]

Not the gospel not the blanket statement but I don't like the way the Loki series, at least thus far, has treated either of Loki's queer identities. because guess what!! I happen to also be bisexual and genderfluid.

(also, this post has been in my drafts for enough days that I do not remember if I wrote before or after season 2 started, but I do know that 1: I wrote it before I watched that episode, and 2: I wouldn't made a damn lick of difference anyway.)

Okay so right off the bat, the bisexuality within the show is actually pretty decent. It's not a big deal, Loki isn't throwing himself at every character onscreen, that's pretty respectful. But I feel that (and this is simply my weary, jaded-at-the-MCU opinion) the writers decided to finally commit to him being canonically bisexual because it can be made more palatable for homophobic straight audiences. If you decide to say, okay, Character X is gay, they will then be shown in same-sex relationships or in a conspicuous absence of any relationship at all despite chemistry and history with same-sex characters, one of which pisses of the straights and one of which pisses of people like me. Now, I don't think Marvel minds hurting us, but it's still not a good look to say here's a canonically gay character but wait! we're not actually going to show a gay relationship onscreen. It feels like going for the cheapest of sucking-up options and ain't nobody buying. Therefore, the number of canonically gay characters in the MCU is low.

If you have a bisexual character, however, they can be in an opposite-sex relationship and the straights can pretend the character is also straight or going through a phase or some bullshit, and we can't say hey this feels like a cop-out because well we gave you what you wanted, the character is bisexual, and also because the biphobia card can be played against us immediately.

To avoid that, I'm saying right here and now I love opposite-sex bisexual relationships as a rule, whether it's bi4bi or one of the characters in the couple is straight. I'm bisexual and while the gender situation is complicated (we'll get to that in a minute) I'm AFAB and my only relationship ever has been with a cishet man, and I would throw hands with anybody who suggested that I'm not a real bisexual just because I haven't made that kind of a connection with a woman yet. (Trust me, I would love to date a woman.) Now, a wee bit of a caveat, the complicated gender also complicates that, because I am not female, so technically my relationship with that one man was not a straight relationship, but I also hadn't realized it at the time so it's difficult to parse what it was, and frankly I don't care.

The point is, it's the context, not the relationship, that really bothers me. The context is the MCU, which has proven itself pretty damn against having queer characters or queer relationships, particularly visibly same-sex ones, for the sake of the box office. Taking that into consideration Loki and Sylvie's relationship feels like a way to cop out of having to show a same-sex relationship with a queer character while also making queer people look bad if we say that it feels like a feeble attempt to score progressive brownie points. It also gives the straights in the room a reason to point and us and say why can't you be grateful, you've been thrown a bone, what more could you possibly want, you're so demanding. The MCU does the bare minimum, doesn't have to show a same-sex relationship, and we look like the badguys if we say what I'm saying right now.

But you know what I don't want? I don't want my identity weaponized against me, against other bisexual people who feel like we're being used as a not-really-queer statement for a character because not queer enough is something that I think is directed against bi people way too often. I don't want the MCU to use that logic in having a bi4bi couple, which I personally think is probably what at least part of their motivation was. I don't want to be accused of biphobia simply because I don't think an identity that I share with the character, and therefore have some experience with, is being used properly. Bisexuality is not a tool to say queer-not-queer about fictional characters, because using it that way I would go so far as to say can actually be detrimental to bisexual people in real life.

The gender fluid claim I hate with every ounce of my own gender. It's canon because what, it's showed on a file in the end-credits sequence? Lazy. Bullshit. I don't want it. Sylvie is treated like some kind of exception for being a woman and ostensibly a Loki; if Loki was actually genderfluid nobody would give a rat's ass. Our Loki could qualify as a woman and a Loki every now and then. Sylvie wouldn't be anything special...oh, wait. That would defeat the purpose of having her on the nice little pedestal the writers built for her. So they shoved in some quarter-assed claim (I say quarter-assed because it wasn't even enough effort to be half-assed) that's blink and you miss it, in fact don't specifically look for it and you miss it, to gender fluidity because...I don't even know. Because they want to bring MCU Loki closer to the comics version of Loki, who has been slaying gender fluidity for a darn while? Well, if that's why, they failed. Because they were looking for some more of those no-effort brownie points? If that's why, they've once again failed, because I am giving them none. There are no feathers for the MCU to preen here. Our Loki is a man and Sylvie is a woman, that's all there is to it, and putting that Loki is genderfluid in that stupid end-credits sequence doesn't change that. What would change that it actually depicting both of them as alternately male, female, nonbinary, etc., because that once again avoids the exceptionalism complex for one of them that would make gender fluidity look like a deviation for Loki when really it should be the norm. They tried to claim my gender identity for Loki and I'm not even sorry, I'm not having it. They failed. Of course it's not to say I'm the Almighty Keeper of the Gender Fluid. I'm not. But am I allowed to take full offense when someone majorly screws up at what they're barely even attempting to depict and it's my identity? YES. I am.

So the thing is, I'm probably overreacting a little bit. And as a member of a mistreated and marginalized part of society, and as a member of a fandom for something that feels sort of actively hostile towards people like me pretty often, I think I have the right to be. And as a person who actually lives with the identities that Loki is trying to claim, I also think I have the right to hold my opinion about it.

Now I'm not saying all genderfluid people or all bisexual people who watch the show will have the same reaction I did. That would be ridiculous. In fact, if not for the context of the MCU existing around it, I would be ecstatic about Loki being bisexual myself. But I am saying that these are the reactions I did have to it, and if you disagree, that's fine, but please do it as civilly as I am doing with people with whom I disagree. Queer representation is a complicated, messy thing, as is queerness itself a lot of the time, and different people will see different things in it.

Slay on.

[soldierandawar]

Anyone who knows me knows how hard I ride for LGBTQ representation, and since today is Bi Visibility Day, why not share some of my favorite bisexual characters?

This is a long ass list, so I'll keep the commentary short. I'll also try to keep it to the main characters, but there will inevitably be a few sides.

Rosa Diaz - Oh, the ways I love Rosa, she's mean, and yet she's kind. She moved because one person knew her address, and I want to live that life. Now, she is a cop, but she does leave the force in B99's attempt to continue the show after 2020.

Patrick Zweig, Art Donaldson, and Tashi Duncan—only one of these isn't confirmed, but it's true in my heart. They're all toxic and a mess, and essentially in a throuple.

Calliope Torres - Later in life realization. Still has sex with men over the series. She's special because she's also annoying.

Carina Deluca, Amelia Sheperd, Maya Bishop - all from the Shondaland ABC universe.

Annalise Keating - Not nearly as celebrated as she should be. Wonder why?

Alice Whitley - she's black, biromantic, and asexual. Get into it.

Bob Belcher - he's "mostly straight," and he's animated, so that's fun.

David Rose - technically, I think he uses pansexual? He likes the wine and not the label.

Random shoutout to Jake from Schitt's Creek as well cause he's bisexual and has the audacity.

Harley Quinn - if you have yet to see her animated series where she gets with Poison Ivy, what are you even doing? That leads me to...

Poison Ivy - She's also mean, cares about the environment, and that's hot.

Jon Kent - bet you didn't know Superman's son was bisexual.

Lindsay - I'm just going to assume that you haven't seen Queer as Folk, and like..you should fix that.

Chuck Bass - I know, I know. He sucks, but that's what representation is all about.

Chuck/God—This is literally from a one-off line in S11, but isn't it cool that God is bisexual?

Leopoldo, Cruz, and Ivan - Elite is honestly kind of a terrible show, but it is fun.

Max - so basically if you haven't seen Black Sails...what are you even doing with your life?

Sarah - Orphan Black is another show that must be seen.

Jaskier - Idk if this is one that people would mind getting into. The Witcher is a very confusing show, but, like, I love it. & Yennefer of Vendenberg is not bisexual, but she is a hot witch, so that's worth it.

Now, I can get into the characters that are extra special to me.

Marie and Jordan from Gen V - okay, these two are particularly special because Jordan has powers that allow them to switch between male and female presenting, and where else do we see the literal physical embodiment of a non-binary person? Also, there's a little slice of commentary about how they switch to their male form whenever they want to make a point, and they are nervous because they don't think Marie likes them in their female form, and that's rectified by the end. & Marie is, of course, besotted by them no matter their form, and she's got cool, blood-bending powers, and she's hot.

Ashley Davies - you will not find her on any of those listicles that publications make of the top bisexual characters, but you must know who she is because she is the character that started it all for me. On a little show called South of Nowhere about her and Spencer (a newly out lesbian) having a whirlwind high school romance. She's edgy and emotionally unavailable, she's kind of mean, but most of the time, she doesn't mean it, and she means a lot to me, so if you don't like her, keep that shit to yourself.

Kat Edison - my main bitch, my main squeeze, and the love of my life. She's a bisexual disaster, but that's okay because I love her. Heavily identify with her, and I hold her close to my heart.

Evan Buckley— I don't make a habit of relating to male characters; that's not my ministry, but Buck is a very special case. I didn't even click with him until 3x16, and then boom. I was rocked to my core by how much I relate to him, and now he's Bi! I don't have enough words yet to explain what that feels like but shout out to him.

[readingrobin]

Ooof this was probably my roughest month when it came to reading, Didn't really get a lot read since my schedule was jam packed and I didn't get as much reading in as I thought I would during vacation. To top it all off, the things I did manage to read mostly fell on the meh side of things, so I can't even say it was worth it for a few good reads. Oh well. I think I'll have better luck in November.

Total Books Read: 5

Total Pages Read: 1,713

Books Read:

Nightshade by Andrea Cremer (2.5/5) -

This book has been collecting dust on my bookshelves since the great vampire/werewolf YA fiction boom of the early 2010s. Really the only thing that's been keeping me from reading it has been circumstance and a deluge of other things I'd rather be reading. Big note to self, if the synopsis describes one of the teenage lead characters as "sexy," there's a good chance that I, an almost thirty year old adult, will get one of those ick feelings along my spine. It's one thing if it's coming through the perspective of a teenaged character, and another when you know it's more than likely coming from some middle-aged editor in a publishing office cubicle.

Now if I had read this over a decade ago, odds are I would have loved it. Awesome werewolf mythology that seemed very unique, a badass lead character that's not here for your girly dresses or makeup, sarcasm galore, oh yeah teen me would've eaten it up. While I can still appreciate the lore aspect, there are some qualities of the book that just tire me out.

Love triangles are always going to be some dodgy ground, particularly when you don't care for them or either of the love interests. Shay seemed so irresponsible and okay with constantly putting Calla in danger, even if it had the intention of trying to get her to see the truth behind the Keepers. Rey, though slightly better, made some comments here and there that set my teeth grinding, but at least it felt like he actually respected Calla at times. Pretty sure with how the story is going that Shay is ultimately going to win out in the end, which doesn't really encourage me to read any of the sequels.

At least pour one out for the gay werewolf representation in a time where queer characters, even queer side characters, were in short supply.

While I really liked the werewolf lore, the book also reinforces my least favorite werewolf trope, which is reinforcing incorrect "facts" about actual wolf pack dynamics to explain the weird sexism of the werewolf packs. I know it's all to make the term "alpha wolf" look cool and intimidating, but they literally do not exist. Wolf packs are made up of a mated pair and their kids/extended family. There's very little dominance involved. I know bringing actual reality to this werewolf book means absolutely nothing, but they did it first.

There's also an absurd amount of sexism, misogyny, and slut-shaming going on here and yes, I know it's all for us to realize that werewolf society is corrupt and has this weird propaganda thing going on to keeps the wolves in line, but god it's overbearing at times. It's really just a me thing, but I had to visibly cringe when one of the adults told Calla to "keep her legs shut." I don't know, maybe it was too much just because all the characters are like 15-17 years old and I'm entering my "old person yells at YA for being YA" era. God help me.

So yeah, lots of emotions with this one and I'm not sure if I want to continue the series just to get closure or not.

Don't Turn Out the Lights: A Tribute to Alan Schwartz's Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark edited by Jonathan Maberry (3/5) -

Seeing as I was a giant scaredy cat as a kid, I didn't really grow up with Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. I tried once, but Stephen Gammell's haunting illustrations proved to be too much for little me who already had an overactive imagination. Now that I have a little more stamina when it comes to horror and spooky pictures, I figured to give this collection a try to find some worthwhile middle grade horror. There are definitely strong contenders in this collection, some that'll even unnerve some adults. Others, well, they're there to give a little variety when it comes to the type and tone of the stories.

My favorites would have to be:

"The Carved Bear" "The Golden Peacock" "The Neighbor" "The Bottle Tree" "The Tall Ones"

I don't know if the collection decently balanced between the light spooky stories that were more humorous and the more traumatizing tales. There are two that sort of stick out like sore thumbs, those being R.L. Stine's and Sherrilyn Kenyon's contributions. Stine is known for his off the wall twists, but this one being a little bit more silly, yet typical for his kind of work, doesn't really make it mesh well with the majority of other stories that want to leave you with a shiver down your spine. Kenyon's poem has the same effect, having more of an innocent, playful tone that sets it apart from the other stories, but not in a memorable way. I think if the collection offered a few more stories like these it wouldn't be so noticeable. Each are completely fine on their own, but not when integrated into a collection that aims to leave lasting scares.

Also, it's REALLY noticeable that some of the writers are writing stories centered around certain cultures that aren't their own or that they have done very little research on. I may be as white as winter snow, but even I know that the Devil has nothing to do with Dia de los Muertos. 

The Ravenmaster: My Life with the Ravens at the Tower of London by Christopher Skaife (3/5) -

I have such a great fondness for corvids, be they crows, ravens, magpies, or even blue jays, so I figured this book would be right up my alley. Skaife delves into the history behind the ravens' presence at the Towers, which I was surprised but maybe not too much that it holds a legend that may not be as old and revered as once thought.

I've been to the Tower of London, which helped me visualize some of his stories. The ravens there are definitely a quirky bunch. I remember one that graciously allowed a seagull to peck a bit at their raw chicken lunch, only to shoo them off a few seconds after. This cycle would actually repeat itself a bit, a little nibble and then a shoo, it almost seemed like a sort of game. Anyway, they are very amusing birds and Skaife really does make their personalities shine in this book.

There were moments where the book lost a little steam or included something that seemed a bit superfluous. The chapter on ghosts around the grounds seemed a little out of place in a book about the Tower ravens and the stories get a little repetitive once you edge closer to the end. But if you have an interest in the Tower and its inhabitants, I recommend picking it up.

The Oddmire: Changeling by William Ritter (2.5/5) -

I'm not sure if this is a case of me reading this book at the wrong time or I'm just getting more picky with my middle grade fantasy, but I never really felt very invested in this one. It's a great setup for a story, two brothers venture into a dark magical forest to learn which one of them is human and which is a changeling left by a goblin one long ago night. They meet various friends and threats across the way, culminating in a wonderful depiction of family bonds and loyalty. I appreciated how involved their mother was in the story, who had absolutely no qualms about going into the dangerous forest to save her kids. I love seeing more competent parents in fiction, if only just to show kids that some grownups are capable of being helpful at times.

But, other than that, I didn't really get much out of the story. The brothers seemed very interchangeable, not really having distinguishable personalities so that ultimately it doesn't really matter who is human and who is the changeling. They both have the same worries and fears, the same goals, so there's nothing really to set them apart.

The writing style didn't really pull me in either, to the point where by the last couple of chapters I was doing more skimming than actual reading.

I will say that it is a decent fantasy for younger readers looking for a bit of adventure and magic. It twists some fairy tale conventions just enough to feel fresh while holding onto a few just for good measure. I've probably just read too many at this point to really appreciate it.

Watership Down: The Graphic Novel by Richard Adams, adapated by James Sturm, illustrated by Joe Sutphin (5/5) -

I stumbled upon Watership Down a little later in life, knowing full well of its status as one of those "Top 10 Films that Scarred You As A Child." At some point, I had seen the glorious intro to the film, where Frith bestows various gifts to the animals and El-Ahrairah displays his tricks and cunning, and that immediately sent me to the novel. It's a beautiful story, with lush descriptions of the downs and adventure that, while coming from so humble a place, keeps you interested from beginning to end. By some magic, James Sturm and Joe Sutphin managed to capture everything about this story that has delighted readers for decades.

Sutphin goes for a more naturalistic style, keeping the rabbits and other various animals expressive, but not too cartoony. It mostly keeps to a certain realm of reality, with colors that are more muted, but never do any sort of disservice to the setting. While I am a fan of styles that bush boundaries, this style is perfect for Watership Down that, while seemingly fantastical at times, is a very down to earth tale. There's a certain charm to it that comes from the simplicity of its setup, that is a group of animals just trying to survive.

Of course, not every plot point and character makes it through the process of adaptation. I am thankful that Sturm was able to include some of the folk tales of the rabbits, which was one of my favorite elements of the story. Naturally, to keep this story to a single volume and maintain a sense of flow, things would have to be reworked and shifted.

In my opinion, this graphic novel is an exemplary transfiguration on the original story that will please fans and hopefully entice new readers to the book.

Rating Average 3.2

[biracy]

I'm going to preface this post by saying I rarely use tone indicators, I don't find them particularly useful in most situations, I find some of them to be silly, superfluous, and hard to memorize, and I understand why someone would find them personally useless or even hindering. Okay. Got it? Good

I do not like the way people on here mock the usage of tone indicators. I remember rbing a post a while back that discouraged the mocking of tone indicators on the basis that they're a form of "teen slang", that they're not really "for" people in their 20s and 30s, and it's okay if they don't click with adults, that's not the point. While I agree with that to an extent, I also think it's important to remember that the majority of people who use tone indicators consider them to be an accessibility tool. People who use tone indicators find their ability to interpret tone over text to be hindered in some way, almost always by neurodivergence and/or disability, and tone indicators are intended to be a tool to assist people with that. This is really why I find the consistent, at this point years-long mocking of tone indicators and people who use them to be particularly distasteful and unsympathetic. "/pos? Piece of shit?" was funny the first time, but it's not funny the tenth, twentieth, hundredth, thousandth time. Sometimes people will create accessibility tools that you don't find particularly helpful, because they are not for you. The people who use them find them helpful. You don't need to keep posting about how dumb and stupid you think they are.

The conflation of tone indicator usage with a cartoonish "overly childlike Steven Universe squeecore picrew pfp autistic/ADHD teenager" stereotype makes it very clear to me that although people on this website love to tout that "cringe culture is dead" as a slogan, it really isn't, not in practice. It honestly just fuckin feels like "le cringe transtrender" bullshit reheated, but somehow even more transparent, since mockery of tone indicators doesn't pretend to be about "transtrenders making us all look bad, this is why transphobes hate us" or whatever (I'd also honestly argue a comparison to "triggered blue-haired libtard snowflake" meme culture, with screenshots of supposed neurodivergent teens on Twitter and TikTok being visibly upset being spread around). Idk there's just a persistent, often wholly unintentional cruelty underlying a lot of Funny Jokes on this website even now, and while I still dislike and criticize the mockery of teen slang, teen queer symbols, etc., there's something particularly mean-spirited to me about how insistent people are with mocking an accessibility tool that happened to get popular. Why are so many jokes on this website built around mocking caricatures of marginalized teenagers? Why hasn't this gone away yet?

[literaticat]

Hi, Jenn! So I don’t usually include romance in my books. I identify as asexual but haven’t actually mentioned that online. I kind of want to say so and try to connect with LGBTQIA+ groups so my work can be included on queer book lists… but I don’t know if it would make a difference (even though, again, my books notably don’t have romance)… and I feel weird about it. Like maybe I��m not queer enough to do that? Do you have any advice for me?

Based exclusively on what you've said here, it sounds like your books could ALREADY be included on lists of "Books that Don't Have Romance" or "Books Ace Readers Might Like" or something like that.

But IMO, a book Without Romance isn't actually the same as a book WITH Positive Ace Representation. Lots of books don't have romance -- that doesn't make them explicitly (haha) ACE BOOKS, you know? Is ANY book without a romantic storyline or sex an Ace/Aro book, by default?

I'm NOT saying "you aren't queer enough" -- but it could very well be that your current published books... kinda aren't queer enough. Like, these might for sure be books that an ace reader would appreciate -- BUT, is it Positive Ace Representation if nobody particularly knows the character is meant to be ace at all?

If you look into your own heart and want to "come out" and talk publicly about being asexual / on the ace spectrum / etc -- you should do so. But you also don't need to feel pressure to do so.

Like, think about your reasoning. If you want to potentially find community and connect with other queer people, or be a visible role model for younger people, or write books that DO have Ace representation on the page and want people to know that you are speaking with the voice of authority -- fantastic. Coming out is the move.

BUT -- If you are a private person and don't really WANT to talk about your personal life with strangers, that's OK, too. I don't think you should do it just to potentially market your books.

[crimeronan]

I feel like I would consider myself polyamory agnostic in a way, like I would maybe like for it to happen but I often fear that I don't have the ability to manage even one partnership, let alone multiple relationships, since I am often. So tired. I often find myself idealizing the "late" stage of a relationship when everyone already has settled into what to expect of each other and knows not to take it personally if someone falls asleep mid movie, for example. All this to say, how do you handle your relationship structure as a disabled/chronically ill person? Do you have any advice/thoughts on how it works for you? (I feel like perhaps you have posted about this before and I am just forgetting...)

oh this is a really good question! i'm not sure how relevant my life experience will be to you, particularly given that i started dating all three of my current partners before becoming disabled/crippled. but i am happy to share!

first off -- i 100% get romanticizing the late stage of relationships, sometimes you just need things to be chill and flexible. but i also don't think that this stage necessarily Needs to be reserved for Late Relationships?

like.... the older i get, the more upfront i've decided to be about my needs, especially with new people. granted, a lot of the people i meet these days are either disabled themselves or Get It -- my social circle is mostly queer spoonies in their 20s and 30s + much much older retirees that i hang out with at the local pool.

some people prefer not to be so open so quickly about their limitations, it is hard and scary to be visibly disabled, harder still to ask for help & admit that you might be inconvenient / a burden / take up extra space. this USED to be me until i said. eh. fuck it. after a certain point, wounded pride is just a mental construct

basically, like. when i'm online these days, you'll see me be clear about my limits with strangers - i'll say that if i stop replying to chats or asks, it's not bc i hate you, it's bc i'm tired or forgetful. that i can't guarantee responses to ppl, even people i'm already friendly with. that if my mood is bad or my pain levels are high, i won't engage in much social interaction at All. that my capabilities fluctuate wildly depending on the day and that i cannot be relied upon for consistent scheduling or posting or creative output

i'm similarly open with people irl. it helps that i'm often using mobility aids when i'm talking to people. the mobility aids sorta strip the possibility of pretending not to be disabled. it's kinda the elephant in the room. but it means that i can be like, "as you can see, i am very crippled. i may need flexibility with any plans that we make. due to being very crippled."

if people get upset by this or simply don't have the capacity to deal with it, that is fine! that's not either of our faults, no one's done anything wrong, we're just not in the right circumstances to mesh. i don't get hurt by that personally. i've honestly found that it saves SO much time and hassle and potential drama/heartache to set expectations right away. the only other option is to exhaust myself and end up failing to meet expectations regardless and losing the friendship after burning up a bunch of energy and social bridges. painful and bad!

so like... i can meet a new person, and if they're cool with My Whole Deal, then there's no waiting period before we're familiar enough for flaky behavior. i can be like, "i'm not sure i'll be able to walk tonight, is there a place to sit down at the event?" or "i'm flaring a little, is it okay for us to be kinda flexible about tomorrow's schedule?" or "hey, i'll get back to you as soon as possible i promise, i'm just fogged TO SHIT today [peace sign]" from day 1. it's great

i'm not saying that you Have to do this; i am aware that it breaches like seventeen laws of general social etiquette. i'm just saying that i have met many people who are totally chill about this! as long as you're chill and respectful of the other person as well, you can do whatever you want forever

that was not even relevant to the initial ask, so. AS FOR MY PARTNERS.

i actually don't find that my illness makes it harder to navigate my relationships at all. like i mentioned, i've been with all three partners for Many Many Years now. we know each other Extremely well, we're all extremely turbo autistic, we all have blunt communication down to a science. so saying "i'm not up for doing [x thing] tonight, can we take a rain check?" is super easy.

in fact, my partners can basically intuit a flare from just my physical movements and tone of voice, even before i say a single word. we are VERY familiar with each other.

.....and, alright. after fighting the urge to longpost i've decided to put the rest under a cut. YOU'RE WELCOME 4 THE RETURN OF YOUR DASHBOARDS. "why didnt you put it under a cut so much earlier" read my posts boy

anyway. click readmore to hear me expand upon just how fucking incredible and awesome and kind and generous and loving my People are

there ARE some ways that the illness has made it more difficult for ME to be the kind of partner that i want to be -- for example, i often lack the energy to provide proper emotional support during stressful situations, i have a shorter threshold for pain/irritation than i used to, i can't give 100% of my energy anymore and there have been times when that has resulted in hurt feelings in my partners.

(there have been far more times, though, when nobody's feelings are hurt and it's literally fine.)

in every case where feelings DID get hurt, we've talked stuff out and fixed it within like an hour. bc we all trust each other and know that we don't WANT to hurt each other's feelings. i never ever Ever say things with the intention of wounding my partners, and they know that. they never say things with the intention of wounding me, either, which is why our very blunt "hey, you need to change something you're doing" convos go so well. there's no need to tiptoe, it doesn't hurt me to know what they're thinking or feeling or needing.

sometimes things are just hard and shitty and we're all doing the best we can. this is just part of adulthood i think. especially adulthood in late stage capitalism, etc. the Biggest key to my polycule is that we are all much happier as a family than we would be without each other. the relationships are about as wholesome and healthy and non-toxic and openly communicative as they can get

the Other key aspect when dealing with my illness is that.... being polyamorous has actually been... SOOOOOO MUCH BETTER than being 1) alone, OR 2) in a monogamous relationship EVER WOULD BE?

it is Extremely Stressful for my family to deal with me being this sick. i am aware of that. but i haven't had to bear the brunt of it. not only do they support me, but they also all communicate with and support each other. so no one person is bearing the entire weight of the stress or pain or fear. and i don't have to comfort people over my own symptoms, which most disabled ppl i think would agree is.... exhausting

when i'm too fucked up to speak aloud, let alone support my partners the way i usually do, they ALWAYS have EACH OTHER as a safety net.

this safety net has been beyond vital for me personally, too. round-the-clock care from a single partner is insane and exhausting and leads to unraveling tempers. but when you live with two partners who can help cover your chores and cook and make sure you don't die of your Symptoms (TM)? that's much more doable.

it's HARD, bc literally everyone in the house is disabled to some degree, but it's doable. (it being hard is part of why my QPR is going to move in with us soon. extra hands!)

a few weeks ago, rafi (partner of 7ish years) went on a short vacation to visit family in california. and justice (QPR of 3ish years, best friend of 8ish years) booked an impromptu next-day plane ticket to come stay with me and vi (partner of 11ish years) while rafi was gone. because i was Very Sick. i was flaring horribly the whole time she was here, and she made meals and cleaned and ran errands and picked up medications and returned phone calls and lay in bed with me watching low-stakes tv shows and made sure i didn't stroke out without anyone there to help.

this meant that i basically got to stay in bed the whole time, which was very very Very needed. and vi -- who has a bad back -- wasn't unduly taxed with Literally All of the household upkeep in rafi's absence.

the same principle has applied when i've needed my partners to help cover my share of bills or my household chores or my errands or whatever. since there are three other people involved, the Immediate Support Net is much wider than in a monogamous relationship. especially bc all three of them have their own familial and friend support networks to reach out to!

having more people around is actually awesome for me. i don't feel like i'm expending a lot more energy than i would in a monogamous relationship, but i AM receiving a TON more support and care and love than would be possible in a monogamous relationship.

i guess the conclusion i'd make is: no man is an island, humans are hardwired to build large social support groups, and in a good relationship, you'll receive At Least as much as you give. right now i'm receiving a SHIT TON MORE than i give, and i do often feel pretty bad about it despite knowing it's not my fault.

but these people have chosen to be my family. and if they ever want to stop choosing me then they absolutely can. and if they need more from me or they need something Different from me, then they'll literally just tell me.

(i know they will literally just tell me because all three of them have literally just told me in the past. they're three people i can implicitly trust to say things like "hey, this thing you said made me sad / was unhelpful" and "hey, i'm really stressed out about [x thing], can we make a plan to deal with it?" and "hey, this situation is pretty serious and i know that you don't want to face it but i really need you to. i will take on whatever i can for you and support you the whole time")

so: yes it has been hard to some extent, managing three relationships while also being sick. but it is also a wonderful setup with a million unthought-of advantages & i am much better cared-for and much better AT caring because of it & i fucking Shudder to think how horrific being sick would be without them.

i love my family so much.

[faejilly]

a while ago i watched someone react to 1.03 and were praising izzy for being an ally and like i love izzy but almost every time she brought up alec’s sexuality it made me super uncomfortable bc who would really want to be constantly in fear that your sibling is going to out you in a very homophobic society while trying to be supportive? and like there’s no way that izzy doesn’t know that the clave is homophobic and she still brings up it up all the time, it just seems weird that she can understand that the clave is racist but can’t comprehend that it is also homophobic, and she never really dropped the topic despite alec being uncomfortable with it

#mood

HOWEVER

The question arises... was Alec uncomfortable, or were pretty much all the queer viewers uncomfortable?

There's a thing with most media, but TV shows & movies especially, which have so many people involved in making them, and so many constraints behind the scenes that we the viewers may or may not know anything about, that sometimes the way a scene appears to the viewer is NOT the way it was intended/the way the characters take it.

Shadowhunters is a particularly egregious example of this, being a (relatively) cheap YA melodrama on a third-rate network whose entire production staff got swapped out between seasons 1 and 2, so 'lol what is consistency or planning?!?' is visible everywhere.

SO.

Is Izzy in-universe actually clueless/dangerous Straight People™️or were the writers/showrunners clueless Straight/White People™️who had no idea that half of their 'rule of cool' / 'quick banter' / etc. came across as micro-aggressions to the audience?

You can go either way, it's all a question of which you think is more fun/interesting/necessary for your own peace of mind/enjoyment of canon. (Fandom is supposed to be fun after all.)

A lot of people settle on 'they are that bad in canon' and write a lot of fix-it fic or 'nephilim have to deal with CONSEQUENCES!' fanworks, and those are great! A lot of other people go with "clearly everyone else in canon acts like they have positive relationships, so this is a failure of execution and I'm going to write fic/make art assuming that these people are who they SAY they are, and figure out what that looks like to me" and those are also great!

Just decide which one you're doing when you start, because combining both in one fic gets... a little weird? Hard to follow, at least. 🤣

SO: Is Alec uncomfortable? How does he deal with that, what does that say about his relationship with Izzy, with other nephilim, with the Clave & Council & Alicante? How does that contrast with how he feels interacting with the downworld, which is canonically a lot more self-aware and accepting of queer people and minorities?

If Alec isn't uncomfortable with Izzy's behavior, if no one else seems to pick up on it, why? Do we go with other people's reactions in canon and assume that she is in fact very careful with what she says where and it seems overt to us the viewers because we're allowed to see it? (Much like inter-party banter over comms in heist movies or tv shows; no one else ever hears it or sees it, so we can see and hear it for storytelling purposes, not for 'reality' purposes.)

If that's the case, what does their relationship look like to people in public? How different are public-facing Alec & Jace & Isabelle from what we the viewers see of their private relationships to each other?

Do you want to assume some mish-mash of both? It's more subtle in the setting than it seems so we can see it, and also Alec knows she means well even if we don't? OR SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY?

IDK, I have no conclusions here. I mostly assume that the show is a disaster, and these people all seem to like each other, so how can I write them that fits the results rather than all the dumb-ass details? (I like a lot of authors/artists who go the other way though.) This is encouraged by the fact that the technical/magical worldbuilding is nonsense so I'm making up shit all the time anyway, might as well add characterization to that too! 🤣🤣🤣