#if there's been discourse on a topic please assume that i have not seen it

[batsplat]

hello!!! this is going to be a weird question 😭 but do you think vale like the david alonso celebration?

this one: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DBVVyQ-oIPU/?igsh=aGg4Ym0zYW11NWpw

(link) always up for weird questions!! but.... uh. gonna be honest, I have no real insight into valentino's thoughts on mr david alonso's post-race celebrations. is there any indication he had any strong feelings on them either way? I just kinda assume that at this point in the man's life, he has had so many people pay so many tributes to him that it just washes over him. alonso's not even the only high profile racer who paid him a tribute this weekend. ... I was going to say he was hopefully still. like. asleep, but given his sleep schedule there's a decent chance he would've been up for that race anyway lol. and I imagine he did see it, but. like. idk, it's nice I guess, probably he thought it was nice? but also I think if you're valentino rossi you do kind of assume that everyone you meet was some level of fan of you at one point or another, and you're probably right

I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and guess that the reason why someone might think valentino didn't like it was some sort of perceived proximity of alonso to marc? which, I mean. I guess? but also alonso isn't actually a marc protege, right, he's some kid who says he likes marc in interviews and has trained with him a few times. valentino's never been all that big on guilt by association, so I'd assume his feelings on the matter are at most 'slightly more ill-disposed towards the kid than he'd otherwise be', but even there I just. don't feel like he'd care that much. is the other hypothesis that it'd remind valentino of marc's hero worship of him? again, I do just struggle with this because for valentino, hero worship from young riders is such a neutral state of affairs... I mean, part of the problem with the marc/valentino rivalry was that valentino didn't take marc's idolisation of him completely at face value because he'd very much been there, done that. maybe he does care! but unless we get some wild david alonso x valentino rossi beef down the line, I'm gonna stick with my belief he probably hasn't thought about it all that much

[ineffable-romantics]

Some thoughts on why and how I believe Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship would incorporate sex/why I do not read them as wholly asexual:

This is something I've seen the most discourse about in this fandom, and I've had a few thoughts of my own that I really wanted to expand upon in a full meta/character analysis post. I do understand that this can be a contentious topic, so first, let me clarify a few things:

First of all, this is going to be long. Tbh it probably won't be that organized either. I ramble and I'm not very good at editing, so just... you know. Be warned. (*Hi, it's me from 2 days after writing this; I'm really not kidding, it's LONG)

These are all my own thoughts. They might not be hot takes, because recently I've seen more than a few people come to the same conclusions on a lot of these points as I have. But I've also had these notes in my drafts for about a week and a half now, and have been continuously adding to it as things have occurred to me. This post is essentially just somewhere for me to collect the separate but related meta I've been kicking around in my head.

I fully respect anyone who does see and prefer an asexual reading of this relationship. These are my own thoughts and interpretations as someone who is not asexual. I am in the LGBT+ community, so while I do know a few things about the asexuality spectrum, I am by no means an expert.

This is NOT something I expect, need, or even necessarily want the show (or, God forbid, Neil's tumblr ask box) to address. Tonally, it's just not that kind of show. Newt and Anathema's sex scene was very much played for laughs, and it worked for that reason. If the show found a way to address it in a way that was both appropriate for the tone of the show and ultimately satisfying, then great! But there is so much more to this relationship than sex, and I didn't need a kiss to confirm their love, so I certainly don't need a sex scene. As immortal beings (as I assume they'll stay) there is so much of the rest of their lives we'll never get to see. You can headcanon them as asexual and potentially be right. I can headcanon them as not and be equally potentially right. Again, these are just a collection of my own thoughts, because I think the question of sexuality (or lack thereof) is just as interesting a facet of these characters as any other.

Note: Tbh I've been second-guessing this whole post and debated deleting the whole thing several times for being silly or unnecessary, bc I don't want anyone to think that this is the only thing I care about when it comes to this story/characters. But if nothing else, it's inspired me to write in a way that nothing has in a very long time, so I've decided it's worth continuing, if for no other reason than that.

This is going to be a mixed bag of textual reading, subtextual reading, and a full-on reach or two. It's been a while since I've been in an English class, but if my teachers expected me to find a deeper meaning behind blue curtains, you can expect me to read too deeply into the symbolism of a loaded rifle or an ox rib. (This is probably not what my professors had in mind when grading my literary analysis papers but oh well) My point is, if it feels like a reach, I'm as aware of it as you are. I am in no way saying that all (or even any) of my points made were deliberate on the part of Neil or the actors or the writers or the directors. I am no longer the delulu Apple Tree Yard child of my youth, I promise.

If anything said here is in any way offensive or hurtful to anyone in the asexual community, please do not hesitate to message me or comment and let me know exactly what it was. I promise you it is not my intention to do so, and am happy to clarify or outright edit anything that reads that way.

With all that being said, let's talk about why I think Crowley and Aziraphale would absolutely fuck nasty incorporate sex into their relationship.

Note: I am out of practice with essay writing, so I think I'll just go down the bullet points of notes I have been making, and expand on each as best I can

Food

Where better to start than with Aziraphale's introduction to Pleasures Of The Flesh? (Just a heads up, this entire post may feel very Aziraphale-heavy, and with good reason).

This might be the least hot take here. We've all seen the Job minisode. We've all seen That Scene.

Whether this was intentional or not, the symbolism here is off the charts. Eve was tempted by an apple. So why not go a similar route and tempt Aziraphale with another fruit, or cheese, or bread, or literally anything else for his first experience with food? Instead, we go with a huge, glistening slab of fresh meat that he proceeds to absolutely go feral upon, moaning and gasping into his meal while Crowley watches with what definitely doesn't look to be disgust or even satisfaction with a good temptation. There's surprise at the ferocity of Aziraphale's appetite, certainly. But ultimately he looks to be intensely fascinated by it, while the thunder crashes, the music crescendos, and the earth literally shakes around them.

(It's also interesting to note how very little it takes for Crowley to tempt him with the ox rib. One murmured suggestion, a bit of unwavering eye contact, and vavoom Aziraphale immediately meets him in the middle.)

Cut to Aziraphale devouring the rest of the meat with Crowley splayed back on a makeshift bed, drinking wine and continuing to watch him indulge through half-lidded eyes. Outside a thunderstorm rages while they're learning secrets about each other in warm flickering firelight. It's cosy, it's intimate, and if they'd thrown in a bearskin throw blanket, it might as well be a post-coital scene straight out of Game of Thrones.

The next time (chronologically) we see them discuss food is when Aziraphale "tempts" Crowley with oysters in Rome. So Crowley first tempts Aziraphale with meat and then Aziraphale tempts Crowley with what is widely regarded to be an aphrodisiac. Interesting.

And then chronologically after that, the Arrangement begins to form, which has always reeked of a friends with benefits situation. Just to throw that in there.

It's What Humans Do

In the very first episode, we're shown Gabriel's obvious disgust and bewilderment towards Aziraphale eating sushi, calling it "gross matter" and being proud of the fact that he does not sully his body with it. Aziraphale initially tries to defend his own enjoyment in it, before passing it off as something that humans do, as something he simply has to do in order to blend in (which we know very well is not the case).

He does this again in season 2, passing off Nina and Maggie being in love as "something humans do". But it isn't, is it? Angels are beings of love, and can sense it, and understand very well what it is... up to a point. Even romantic love is obviously within their wheelhouse, given what we now know happened between Gabriel and Beelzebub (we'll come back to them).

What the "humans do" that angels wouldn't understand is messy, physical forms of love.

But here's the thing: Aziraphale and Crowley love doing what the humans do. They love drinking, they (or at least Aziraphale) love eating. They love music. Crowley loves driving and sleeping and watching rom-coms and sitcoms. Aziraphale loves reading and doing magic and earning little licenses and certificates for achievement in his various hobbies. They love to playact at being human so much that they've stopped playacting and started building a genuinely human lifestyle for themselves and with each other.

Once together in an unambiguously romantic sense, why do we think they wouldn't also want to explore one of the most prominent, intimate, powerful human expressions of love and desire with each other?

Angels, Demons, & Asexuality

Here's where I really want to clarify that in no way do I mean that sex is necessary for a healthy, fulfilling, and loving romantic relationship, or that the lack of desire for sex makes you any less human. Asexuality is a sexuality as valid and human as any. What I would say is that it is definitely in the human minority compared to allosexuality.

Angels and demons, on the other hand, are predominately asexual. Sexless/genderless unless Making An Effort. (Which, btw, is a concept introduced as early as the original book; why even bring it up as a possibility? Why not keep angels/demons being sexless/asexual as a hard and fast rule, if not to open up the potential for later use? Chekhov's Effort, if you will. And isn't that something that Aziraphale in particular is shown to do time and time again? He makes an effort in French and driving and magic, doesn't he?)

And this is why I don't believe Aziraphale and Crowley necessarily need to be asexual, narratively. There is already a huge amount of ace rep within the angels and demons (and no, not just the horrible ones. Muriel also doesn't "drink the tea" and has no reason or desire thus far to Make An Effort, and there are certainly other angels and demons who aren't horrible like the archangels seem to be who likely wouldn't Make An Effort either).

The central conflict for Aziraphale and Crowley is that they are on their own side, the ones who went native, the ones who are so different in so many ways from their respective hives. It would make sense for them to also break away from traditional angel/demon asexuality.

I say "traditional angel/demon asexuality", because I would also like to note that I would absolutely not rule out demisexuality for either of them. This post is being written to as a response to people who specifically believe that they (like the rest of the angels/demons seem to be) would be sex-averse in a relationship, and that it wouldn't be a factor in their relationship. I could easily read them as demisexual, but I do think there would be no real way of verifying this, because they've never been able to form as close an emotional relationship with anyone else but each other. Certainly not in heaven, and I can't imagine they would be able to form that kind of attachment with any of the humans, who they love and emulate but ultimately regard as the separate species they are. So yes, they could either be allosexual or demisexual, in my opinion.

Then again, now that I think about it, Making An Effort itself could be a great metaphor for demisexuality, since they would be entirely sexless/asexual until they have enough of an emotional connection with someone to consciously manifest otherwise. Since the other angels and demons don't generally form those types of emotional connections with anyone, there hasn't been a precedent for it.

Except...

Brielzebub

We do have a precedent for it now, don't we? Gabriel and Beelzebub fell in love. They are a direct foil for Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship, speedrunning right through their courtship and finding their happily ever after on the other side of things.

For being such a 1 to 1 comparison, it feels deliberate that they did not kiss. They held hands, they were gooey with each other, but they did not kiss. That feels like such a deliberate thing to omit when you know what's to come at the end of the episode between Crowley and Aziraphale.

And going back to the food = sex metaphor for a moment, let's notice how even as they fell in love over the years, even when pints and crisps were there on the table in front of them, they never felt the desire to reach out for them. They didn't need to. It's a date (love story) even if you aren't eating dinner (sleeping together).

Yes, I know Jim liked hot chocolate. No, I am not counting it because I don't consider Jim and Gabriel to be the same person with the same proclivities, and Jim was highly suggestible at the time anyway.

Gabriel and Brielzebub's big happily ever after moment (as of now) was one between two asexual supernatural beings. They did not need to kiss to drive the point home. They showed what Crowley and Aziraphale could have, if they would only acknowledge it.

Crowley & Aziraphale's Dissatisfaction

But they do have that already, don't they? If you really think about it, what do Gabriel and Beelzebub do with each other that Crowley and Aziraphale don't already? They hold hands, they spend time together, they create little rituals, they give gifts, they're visibly and verbally affectionate with each other, etc. They are more or less already in a romantic asexual marriage relationship with each other, aren't they?

And it doesn't seem to be enough for either of them.

At the beginning of the season, Crowley is immediately shown to be unsatisfied with the way things are. Obviously part of it comes from living in his car, but it seems to be more than that (especially since Aziraphale makes it clear that the bookshop is just as much Crowley's as his, implying that he could have been living there the whole time and is choosing not to, for some reason?). You could argue he's feeling unmoored without Hell telling him what to do, but isn't that what he wanted? Isn't that what he still wants, by the end of the season? All season long, he's never indicated the desire for a new job, or a new project. He stopped the apocalypse because he wanted the freedom to openly spend time with Aziraphale, to spend his time on Earth however he sees fit. Until Gabriel arrives, he has exactly that (minus a flat).

So where does the dissatisfaction come from? And if it represents anything to do with his relationship, what does he want out of it that he isn't getting already?

I think Crowley only really comes to the realisation of what he's missing when Nina names it for him, not only putting them in the category of romantic, but physical (outright asking if they are sleeping together). These two posts [1], [2] go into more detail about what I mean, but I think it really pushes him into acknowledging that their relationship is more human than either of them have stopped to consider, and what that might mean as far as everything a human relationship can entail.

After all, Nina and Maggie only advised that he should talk to Aziraphale, make clear his feelings. The decision to kiss him, to tip them over the edge from nonphysical to physical, that was all him. And no, kissing isn't sex, but I wonder how taboo even that might be in the kind of all-encompassing asexuality most angels seem to identify with. (If they're disgusted by food and drink, I can only imagine what they think of snogging, much less sex.)

Aziraphale doesn't have this moment of someone observing their relationship from the outside. He loves Crowley, and as of 1941 probably even knows he's in love with him in a way that Crowley doesn't understand yet. Which makes sense, since love is technically his job, he'd be more likely to recognise it for what it is.

However, Aziraphale's reference for romance and relationships is Jane Austen. It's chaste. It's dancing and dinner and doing sweet things for each other and roses and candles and handholding. He contextualises his love for Crowley in that soft fantasy sort of way, where it's there, it's obviously there, but it's neat and easy and unspoken. Not to quote Glee in this, the year of our lord 2023, but it's all very "the touch of the fingertips is as sexy as it gets".

Someone should tell that to Aziraphale's face, then.

I'm not going to pretend I know what Michael Sheen's script notes were, but there were definitely some Choices™ made. Because yes, there were plenty of moments in both seasons with Aziraphale looking at Crowley in a sweet, loving, smitten way. And then there were moments that were yearning.

But yearning for what, exactly? All of those sappy Jane Austen tropes already apply to the two of them. So why are there moments where Aziraphale is looking Crowley up and down like the last eclair in the window and licking his lips and visibly exhaling like he's trying to get in control of himself (see: Bastille scene + Crowley telling Muriel to ask him if they have any other questions about love)? Why is Aziraphale not only unconcerned when Crowley shoves him bodily up against a wall in s1, but staring at his lips and a beat too late in noticing Sister Mary's arrival? Why are some of his lines so suggestive? I'm sorry, but the car ride after the church explosion might as well have been the beginning of a Pizza Man porn with a really weird Blitz theme. If even my mother picked up on that vibe, I can't imagine it wasn't intentional on part of both the dialogue and the delivery.

(This section may feel like more of a reach/joke, but I'm really only 20% joking. These are writers and actors who are EXTREMELY good at their jobs; they know what they were doing here.)

More importantly, I don't think Aziraphale is even aware that there is more to what he wants. He lives in the Jane Austen fantasy and it never even occurs to him that he might be interested in anything further. It never even occurs to him that, as an angel, there is anything further to be interested in in the first place. Until Crowley forces it to occur to him. Just like I believe Nina forced Crowley to confront the idea that romantic love is what he's been feeling all along, I believe Crowley forced Aziraphale to confront the idea that physical intimacy is something he's been wanting, without even realising.

Aziraphale's Hedonism

Expanding on Aziraphale for a moment. We talked about his relationship with food, but we all know that Aziraphale is defined by his love of things that Feel Good.

It isn't just that he and Crowley love human things. Aziraphale loves the best of the best, or at least his version of it. He doesn't just love food, he loves going to fancy restaurants. He doesn't just love clothes, he loves soft, cosy, warm, plush clothes, or shiny, flashy, bougie fashion. He loves the warmth of tea and cocoa, loves getting drunk, and sitting in a comfy chair in the sunlight. He doesn't just experience, he indulges.

Given the emphasis put on things that Aziraphale loves just because they Feel Good, it feels narratively strange to assume that he wouldn't enjoy the feeling of being touched, or that he wouldn't be willing to try it, at least once, with someone he cared very deeply for. And just like the ox rib, I think that once he gets the first taste of things, he would absolutely tip over into complete and utter self-indulgence.

Dancing

I also think that dancing could be construed as a huge metaphor here. After all, we're told flat-out that angels don't Dance. Except one.

I would argue that Aziraphale, in fact, Made An Effort to learn how to Dance. He threw himself into the gavotte with delight (at a Victorian gay club; noted) and worked hard to be good at it. He's chomping at the bit to Dance with Crowley, working up the nerve to ask him with undeniably romantic intent and eagerness. So, angels don't Dance... unless they Make An Effort to do so.

We are told that demons, on the other hand, do Dance, but not well. Makes sense, since they're the ones who would want to encourage a deadly sin like lust, but have as little understanding of human love and physical intimacy as the angels. Crowley, however, is shown to be an excellent dancer at the ball, especially in his compatibility with Aziraphale.

(But Aziraphale WandaVisioned the ball so everyone knew how to dance! Yes, he did. However, the rest of the brainwashing doesn't seem to affect Crowley in any way, and they did actually live through the time period where this sort of dancing was a social norm; I'd be surprised if he never needed to learn. After all, the demons can't spell either, and Crowley is at least functionally literate, as far as we know.)

As of today, it's also been confirmed that when Aziraphale asked Crowley to dance, Crowley replied with "you don't dance." Not "WE don't dance". So going along with the metaphor, Crowley is just now discovering that Dancing is something Aziraphale is interested in at all, much less with him, and not denying that he himself is interested in Dancing. In his defense, I believe he was asleep for a few years while Aziraphale was learning the gavotte, so he wasn't exactly aware of Aziraphale's hot girl summer.

Love Languages

I want to expand on that; Crowley and Aziraphale's compatibility. Specifically in regards to their individual love languages.

We all know Crowley's love language is Acts of Service. I don't think there's any debate there. He loves it, Aziraphale loves it, they're both aware of it, we're all aware of it, God and Satan are aware of it, no surprise there.

You may disagree with me, but I believe Aziraphale's love language is Physical Touch, for a number of reasons. One of which being his aforementioned hedonism. Aziraphale likes things that Feel Good, remember? He likes soft clothes, and well-worn books. Neil himself has said that they like holding hands. And any time he is taken by surprise (Brielzebub getting together, the wave of love in Tadfield, etc.) what is the first thing he does? Reaches out for Crowley. He stops him with a hand to the chest in the pub. He leads him by the hand to the dance floor. He guides him by the waist in the graveyard. He reaches out during the entire Brielzebub scene, whether he can reach Crowley or not. Despite his own turmoil, he grasps at Crowley's back during the kiss.

The one time Crowley reaches out for him (not counting the kiss yet; we'll get there), he is aggressively pushed against a wall (by someone he loves and trusts) with a complete and utter lack of concern (and perhaps some interest, depending on how you read it).

And when he isn't reaching out for anyone, or there isn't anyone to reach out to? Well, he's wringing his own hands together, squeezing his own fingers, as if to find that physical comfort in himself.

So. With that theory in mind, we have Aziraphale (Physical Touch) + Crowley (Acts of Service). Throw in 6000+ years of deep love, cherished companionship, and forcibly repressed longing, and there is a very real potential of this combination resulting in fierce sexual compatibility. Where Aziraphale would want to touch and be touched, to indulge in physical pleasure with someone he adores, in the same the way he indulges in every other fine thing in his life. And where Crowley would want to indulge him in return, to give him everything he wants, and to take pleasure in Aziraphale's pleasure, in the same way he enjoys watching him take joy in food everything else.

So Aziraphale is an angel who is insecure about his own less-than-holy desires, who would want to treat Crowley like a luxury to be touched and cherished and adored. And Crowley is a demon who has, over the millennia, been unhappy about how they've been forced to deny even their friendship with each other, who would want Aziraphale to feel comfortable and safe and encouraged to indulge in earthly delights. That sounds like a stunning recipe for sexual compatibility to me.

"You said 'trust me'" / "And you did"

Just like the Job minisode, the Blitz is RIFE with symbolism (intentional or otherwise). This one will be quick, but I did want to touch on it because I thought it was interesting. Maybe I'm reaching at this point, but I'm assuming you read the tin.

First of all, Crowley not wanting to admit to never firing a gun before; comes off as someone who very much does not want to admit to their crush that they're a virgin ("You must have done this lots of times!" / "Umm.... yyyyyeah.")

(You could make the argument that Aziraphale having a firearms license and a Derringer in a hollowed-out book is symbolic of him not being a virgin while Crowley is. I disagree, for reasons I'll go into later, but it's a valid reading. However, I see it more like keeping a condom in your wallet; it's there in case you need it, but the opportunity has not yet risen no pun intended.)

More importantly, the theme of this entire minisode is trust. We already know they trust each other with their lives against the rest of Heaven, Hell, and the world. But specifically, this is about the importance of having complete trust in your partner in a charged, physically vulnerable, intimate moment, where the only danger is between the two of you.

Aziraphale needs to believe Crowley would never hurt him if he can help it. Crowley needs to trust Aziraphale's unwavering blind faith in him. Frankly, it all feels very symbolic of two people deeply in love losing their respective virginities with each other.

The trick is a success, and they share an intimate candlelit dinner in which they reaffirm their faith in each other. Aziraphale also begins to voice his agreement with Crowley, that maybe Heaven's rules shouldn't have to be as black and white as they are, and that there are benefits to... blurring the lines, shades of grey, wink wink (at which point even my mom was like, whoa guys, this is a family show).

Btw also: Can we all agree how much it looked like Crowley was getting ready to get a lapdance in that one scene? You know the one.

Also also: "Aim for my mouth"? Come on.

The Birds & The Bees

Now that I think of it, there's also something to be said for the fact that Crowley and Aziraphale are both obviously familiar with where babies come from (how they're made and how they're born) while the other angels aren't.

Something something Aziraphale and Crowley fundamentally understand sex and reproduction in a way the other angels (and probably demons) very much do not, nor have any desire to.

Probably not important. Just thought it was worth mentioning.

The Kiss™ & Religious Trauma

The Kiss. Where to even begin?

This has definitely been the hardest one to start, because there is so much going on here that I definitely won't be able to cover it all, and will certainly miss a few things here and there.

Aziraphale's reaction to the kiss afterwards is the most interesting to me. And I don't mean directly after, I don't mean the "I forgive you" part. I mean the way he touches his lips when Crowley is no longer in the room and he no longer needs to save face, when he is completely alone. Had it been directly after the kiss, it would have been rightfully read as horror, or disgust, a shield to discourage further action.

It's not. It isn't just a touch, it's a press. As desperate and angry and unexpected and imperfect as the kiss had been, Aziraphale is pressing it into himself, recreating the feeling as best he can. Beneath all the poor timing and shock and hurt from their fight and fallout, I think it's fair to say that it was something he enjoyed. Something he doesn't think he should enjoy, something that Feels Good that he only allows himself to indulge in when completely alone.

Remember, Aziraphale's idea of love is Jane Austen and gentleness and courtship and fantasy. If he'd ever even considered kissing an option, it might have been gentle pecks, cheek kisses, forehead kiss, hand kisses. Soft, safe, chaste affection.

Crowley's kiss turns all of that on its head. He introduces physical intimacy in a very real, very messy, very human way that I don't think Aziraphale ever even considered could apply to them. Considering what other angels are like and what they look down on, even Aziraphale's Jane Austen fantasies probably would have been considered taboo.

So for their first kiss to be rough and desperate and passionate in the way it was, of course he was confused and in shock. It was deeply physical, and as overwhelming and awful as it was in the moment, it Felt Good. Enough that he grasped at Crowley and kissed back, if only just for a moment, before stopping himself. Enough that he actively pressed it into his lips afterwards, in private, to remember.

I adore how Neil has decided to evolve these characters past the first book/season. More so in this season, Aziraphale and Crowley have both become such interesting allegories for queer people on either side of the spectrum of toxic religion. Aziraphale in particular obviously, because he is the side that so desperately wants to believe, to make a difference, and to unlearn all of the propaganda he's been fed over such a long time. Just like so much of organised religion, there is so much that he is told, time and time again, that he should not want, that he is silly or stupid or outright wrong for wanting. It reminds me so much of the severe Catholic guilt one might feel for wanting/engaging in sex for the first time, and the stigma of being queer layered on top of that.

What is so critical to Aziraphale's character is that he goes on wanting, and more than that, actively pursues. He was convinced to go up against Heaven and Hell and stop all of Armageddon because he wanted to go on listening to music and eating lunch and reading books and enjoying the simple company of the person he cares most deeply for, even if that person is supposed to be the enemy.

All this to say that if angels are as generally asexual/sex-averse as I believe them to be, narratively speaking, it would make sense for Aziraphale to be singular in that regard as well. Mirroring his first experience with food, it would make sense for Crowley to be the one to first introduce this new messy, physical, human dynamic between them, for Aziraphale to hesitate (obviously we are at the Hesitation phase at the moment), and then (eventually) for him to dive in wholeheartedly, to absolutely glut himself on this new thing that Feels Good. It would make sense for his character development to show him overcoming his metaphorical Catholic guilt and pursuing the sexual intimacy most (if not all) of the other angels would scorn.

(I can't help but remember that plot idea Neil described from the unwritten sequel, with Aziraphale in a hotel room trying to watch a full porno by way of the free 2-minute teaser clips so he wasn't technically sinning by paying for it. I so hope this is used in season 3, because gosh, I wonder why Aziraphale would suddenly be so interested in observing human physical intimacy after 6,000 years. Lonely and doing a little surreptitious research there, angel?)

Crowley, on the other hand, is the queer person who has broken free from his toxic religion. He prides himself on being his own person, on their his own side. He doesn't have the hang-ups Aziraphale does. He doesn't worry that he's going to be judged or cast aside for wanting things he's not supposed to. So it only makes sense for him to be the first one to suggest/initiate physical intimacy. It makes sense for him to be the one who "goes too fast" (another fantastic example of this dynamic beginning as early as s1; what is that conversation in the car meant to represent, if not Aziraphale being overwhelmed by the intensity of their relationship, and his fear of succumbing to it when he believes he shouldn't? It's also interesting that this is the first conversation to take place in Soho, just after watching Aziraphale realise he's caught feelings for a demon, with the red glow of lust serving as the backdrop).

Do I think the kiss in and of itself was sexual? No. I think it was a passionate and devastating last-ditch effort on Crowley's part to convey the way he feels for Aziraphale. Not just that he loves him, but that he loves him in the most human way possible. But I do think that the kiss represents how they can move forward from here, and what they might want to explore with each other once they feel free enough to do so.

In Conclusion

I am sure, deep in my bones (unless we are explicitly told otherwise), that this was both of their first kisses no, I'm not counting the gavotte, and that neither of them have ever thought to do anything else physical with the humans while they have been on Earth. Like I said before, they adore the human race and lifestyle in general, but ultimately view them as a separate species altogether, and they seem mostly happy to keep to themselves and each other, unless otherwise necessary. I just can't see either of them being drawn enough to a human to pursue anything close to sex. If Crowley in particular has had anything to do with sex in the context of temptations, I'm positive he would be inciting lust amongst the humans themselves, not involving himself directly. At least not that directly.

So, like every other human experience they've had on Earth, sex is something new that they could explore together, just the two of them, on their own side. A deeply intimate, tangible declaration of their love and everything they've gone through to earn it. A visceral finger to give both Heaven and Hell. A renewed appreciation for their corporations and for each other's. A enjoyable method for immortal beings to simply pass the time in each other's company. A new and exciting way to Feel Good, and all the variations that come with it.

You might agree with this post, or you might not. Whether this is something that is ever addressed or not, it doesn't matter to me. This is a brilliant love story either way, and I genuinely feel so privileged to witness it.

But I just can't find it in myself to imagine, given everything we know about these two characters, that sex isn't an experience they would both consume with wholehearted enthusiasm, curiosity, and profound, ineffable adoration.

___________________________________

Bonus feature: the very silly notes I made to myself that inspired this post

[pinkyjulien]

It's been rotating in my head all morning and since I have to wait a few hours to get my day started, might as well throw my two cents in a proper post

We really should talk about Kerry Eurodyne

Now before you run off, I think it's important to point something out; As a fandom veteran who been here since early 2021, I think others will agree when I say that the discourse surrounding Kerry has always been a hot topic that comes back around every few weeks- but why does it keep coming back?

I'm well placed to know that ignoring a problem and not talking about it publicly doesn't solve anything; everyone is quick to throw assumption and accusations, to make "callout" post, to blow things out of proportions, to take someones's squick as personal attack, and the mob mentality does the rest; everyone follow whoever is going to be the loudest about an ongoing "fandom drama"

This isn't an attempt to show anyone that they're "wrong" or "right"; there is no right or wrong in this recurring discourse. This post is an attempt at opening an healthy and mature conversation! I come in peace gfhgfh

Prefacing this by saying that I'm not a Kerry fan, and I'm not bisexual. So why the hell do I care? Well to be frank, I don't particularly care, I have my own opinions on the character, but I do care (to an extent) about this "community" and I hate seeing what happened to me happen to others, especially new commers who never meant anything wrong. Nobody deserves to be bullied out of a fandom for sharing their opinions on their own blog/space!

Alright this intro was long but let's get on it- buckle up cause this is going to be a looooot of rambling

━

Through the years/months, I've noticed something rather sad; this isn't a debate between bisexual people vs biphobic people, as a lot of people might think and assume; this has always been queer people sharing, sometimes in a really awkward and hurtful way, their interpretation of a character (don't block me yet, please hear me out)

Those who know me knows that I personally care a lot about the canon and writers's visions, so first I want to share some posts about Kerry made by his literal "parents"

Mateusz Tomaszkiewicz, Narrative Designer at CDPR, shared informations on the different romance interest back in December 2020, on the game's release day

When asked about a MLM relationship option, here what he states:

(don't leave just yet)

On a now-deleted comment, RTalsorianGames, original creator of the Cyberpunk tabletop game and by definition original creator of Kerry Eurodyne, stated the following:

Please note that CDPR did in fact consult with Mike himself about Kerry being a MLM exclusive romance!

(Also this isn't a debate about if Kerry cares about V or not, let's not derail this conversation, remember that everyone is allowed to interpret a character and a relationship as they wish)

I wanted to share these tweets to point something really important; there is no "right" or "wrong" label for Kerry, and it all boils down to interpretation < key word

Kerry have multiple states; we HAVE to remember Kerry exist in some kind of cyberpunk multiverse!

We have his 2020 and 2023 self that are confirmed to be bisexual; this is the Kerry Mike and RTalsorian created, the Kerry they have full control and say over; the same young Kerry we see in Johnny's flashback

And then comes his 2077 self, which we see confirmed above as labeled as Homosexual (which again as been approved by Mike himself)

I personally think it's important to start with what his different creators have to say; Kerry is both Mike's and CDPR's character; Kerry is both labeled as being Bisexual and Homosexual

There is a lot of reasons why this change / evolution was made, even tho we all know the main reason; they needed a MLM romance in the game to complete the LI roster. But why take an already established character, a Bi character even, for the Gay romance?

I've seen a lot of people saying that CDPR erased his bisexuality, I understand why it might feel like this, but I don't think it's true or fair! Again, remember that Mike gave his OK for this; he could've at any moment said no, Kerry is HIS baby first and foremost

In game, we learn about Kerry's ex wife and kids; this is something CDPR could've not included at all (and THIS would've been erasing his bisexuality imo) it's not even something that is said out loud, but something to be found by dedicated fans; it's here on purpose, to give depth to the character and to his personal life!

We also see a couple of feminine clothes around his villa; let's not assume anything here, clothes have no genders especially in the 2077 setting, but it can also well point at one-night stand with women and/or multi-gender orgies for example

But, this won't be anything new or controversial, Kerry pushes femV advances in game- this is simply a fact! Like it or not, that's how CDPR's writers, RTAL and Mike decided to evolve Kerry's character for the game; everyone was ok with this

━

Now comes the root of the debate; Is it homophobic to mod Kerry to be romanceable by a femV? and is it biphobic to not be comfortable with this?

No, and no - (don't leave just yet, please read a bit more)

Remember that I'm "just" a gay man, I've had discussion with friends of all gender and orientation about this topic and it's been enlightning to hear the different opinions on the matter!

As previously mentioned, it all boils down to Interpretation.

The discourse recently came back because someone shared their uncomfortableness regarding mods that change Kerry's preferences; in the post tags, OP made sure to say that everyone was free to do anything, to ship anything, and that this was just their opinion; but obviously the fandom didn't read that part and started to throw accusation around, and here we are (I shouldn't have to remind people that we all are free to share whatever on our respective blogs, if it hurts you just block the person, don't jump them)

OP is a Bisexual Man; a lot of other Bisexual Men related to this post and rebloged it, sharing their thoughts in the tags (I also rebloged it, I know it caused a few people to back off and block me as a result, which I respect totally)

Going to pick up my questions back up to hopefully state my opinions and "analyses" of the situation as clear as possible

Is it homophobic to mod Kerry to be romanceable by a femV?

No, it's not

Kerry is bisexual, he was married to a women, and potentially still have sex with women and fem individuals, these infos are all canon in game.

Kerry pushes femV flirts away; but since he experience attraction to women, who is to say that in someone's own canon, their fem OC isn't a V, and doesn't have Johnny involved, changing how Kerry and their OC meet drastically; Kerry could fall in love with her! He could; he's bisexual after all.

Is it biphobic to not be comfortable with this?

No, it's not

Kerry has a clear preference for men; CDPR choose to show this multiple time in the game, during Johnny's flashback we can see him make out with a masc fan, we can see him being vulnerable with Johnny (imo, his lil crush is showing hard)

I personally haven't seen it/heard it in game, but I've been told that after learning about Kerry's ex-wife, Johnny has a vocal, surprised reaction, has if imagining Kerry with a woman is strange to him

However, there is a lot of biphobic things being said in the discourse, and not in the way you might think of

I thankfully never see the full extent of it; I don't see the obviously biphobic takes, stating that Kerry SHOULD NEVER be with a femV, people being nasty and ATTACKING femV/Kerry shippers; this is never ok, these have been blocked for a long time now

But I sadly see the other takes, which always icked me a bit; the takes that say, "you bisexuality isn't worth of respect if it isn't a 50/50 attraction at all time", takes that are sadly biphobic in nature (making it clear that I'm not pointing finger at anyone, nor am I accusing anyone of being biphobic)

This is what it boils down to, I think, this is the root of the problem

As mentioned before, a lot of Bisexual Men expressed their uncomfort when it comes to femV/Kerry mods; it invalidated Kerry's preference. But this isn't about Kerry, he's fictional, he CANT be hurt by anything, by mods or art or whatever; It invalidate Bisexual Men that share the same preference in Men, Bisexual men that related to Kerry for X or Y.

Bisexuality is a spectrum, queer people has been fighting against Bi erasure for years, but also against Bi stereotypes; and I think this is one of them? (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

Bisexuality isn't a strict 50/50 split preference- it can be! But 60/40, 20/80 and even 99/1 attractions are still Bisexual attractions. I've met a lot of queer people who, despite being bisexual by definition, choose not to label as such (prefering to label as straight or gay depending on their preferences) just because of this "bisexual police" imposing a strict 50/50; "How can you be bisexual, you've only dated men/women" etc

This is what is being imposed in the fandom, this is how it might looks like to people; when you attack a Bisexual Man sharing his uncomfort in seeing people not respecting a Bisexual character's preference, you're telling them "Hey, your bisexuality isn't valid if you have a preference". You're telling them "Your bisexuality isn't correct". You're showing them that you "fixed" a "flawed" bisexual character "that got erased as gay for having a preference" by "modding his bisexuality back"

Kerry being written as MLM exclusive in Cyberpunk 2077 isn't bi erasure; he's still Bisexual, he simply has a strong preference for Men. A preference that he always had, but that can also be amplified after his divorce with his ex wife, for multiple reasons; I also don't have to point out how many queer people in real life explored their homosexuality after being in a hetero-marriage for most of their lives! And that's ok, queer love is an ever evolving spectrum, and I think it's awesome we get more fleshed out characters that explore this in depth

I've seen people compare Kerry to Johnny, and I don't think it's fair; for the simple reason that Kerry is a romance option and Johnny is not.

Johnny express a clear preference for women; however he replies to V (and flirt, in some case) the same way regardless of gender! Kerry on the other end, as previously said, pushed femV's advanced away. Something Johnny can't do since he's not a romance option; tho if he was, and if he was pushing mascV advances away, it would be the exact same situation and same problematic!

Another character that is canonly bisexual is Goro; he replies to V's flirt through text messages the exact same way, he doesn't seem to express any preferences (and no, his "obligation in japan" isn't necessarily a wife, this is heteronormative and another problem all together, not the subject here)

People can express being uncomfortable seeing Johnny with a given gender, or Goro with a given gender; but there isn't any """reason""" to it outside of personal preferences

Kerry situation is problematic because it lies in his clearly, canonly stated preference, how people decide to interpret it, and how it can come off to other queer people who might share sexuality and/or preference with the character

━

Everyone is free to ship whoever however they want

But please; remember that everyone is different. People being uncomfortable with a character bisexuality preference being ""fixed"" shouldn't be too surprising; and if it is, please re-read my post/ You have to be ok with this fact, it's OK to make content that might be uncomfortable for others; this is fiction!

There isn't any Right or Wrong way to be bisexual, to be queer Kerry's bisexuality is perfectly fine; unmodded or modded Everyone is Different; Every Queer experiences is different People relate to characters in different way

Nobody is being misoginist; there isn't any double standard at play

Bisexual people sharing their opinions on their own blogs on how a fandom handle a character's bisexuality isn't biphobic, or an attack to anyone who interpret the character differently!

I promise you nobody is attacking anyone, and a lot of things being said accidently comes off as biphobic on both sides of this eternal "debate"

It all comes down to respecting others interpretations, and agreeing to disagree! Tumblr's filtering system work great, you can easily filter and block tags, or even people if needed

I might've said things awkwardly, and for this I apologise; but don't put words I didn't say into my mouth! If you don't agree, that's fine, and you're more than welcome to filter/block me if needed; but please do not paint me as biphobic or misoginist, same goes to everyone who shared their thoughts on the matter, these are serious accusation and can wrongfully hurt a lot of people

Ship and let Ship, take care of yourselves and remember to curate your space 🙏

[longing-for-rain]

Just so you know, some of your anons are coming from a blog called @mal3vol3nt

I do not know if you’re aware, but she’s chronically obsessed with you and has also been sharing your ao3 on Twitter and inciting harassment there too, saying you’re “racist” and a “degenerate” and accusing you of writing underage. Her blog lately is mainly posts about you and it sounds very similar to some of your anons

I had to check this out for myself and...wow. All I can say is just...wow 🤣

No, I actually had no idea who this person was but from the looks of it she's been obsessed with me for months? I guess that explains the anons, I knew these people were mad, but apparently they've been over here steaming over my takes and are legitimately terrified of me. And I didn't even know them! Didn't realize I've been doing numbers on Twitter (or X whatever it is now) despite never having an account.

(The rest is below; please don't click if you do not wish to see insensitive discussions of rape or if you are not in the mood to read opinions so malformed they will melt your brain)

I guess I have another angry little troll who doesn't know what a captial letter is obsessed with me. Wish I could say it was the first time, but alas. A lot of particularly funny things here though.

> Advertising your terrible ragebait Twitter like anyone finds you important

Lmao.

> "write fanfiction of katara being raped so zuko can save her"

What a terrible misread of the point of that story, but then again, I don't expect much else from a terminally online crybaby who exclusively consumes media for children. If you can't handle adult discussions about adult topics, maybe don't read stories that are clearly marked 18+ and with far more extensive trigger warnings than any mainstream media will give you.

> "measuring the size of her breasts and hips"

Lmao. I said she is drawn differently in different scenes. That's it. You guys are another level of unhinged.

> "obviously fetishes and racism"

It's kind of creepy how they sexualize Zutara, while simultaneously accusing us of doing that. Why do you assume a fetish is the only reason behind someone liking a ship? Why would you say this about a group of people including many black, brown, and indigenous women? And minors? And if you want to get into the whole fetish thing, don't even get me started on the shit I've seen from the kataang fandom. Hint: when I say some of you have a "mommy fetish" I mean it in a very literal sense. Not to mention the whole kataang rape discord debacle.

> "sick fantasies about these minor characters"

I have never depicted a minor in a sexual situation. I make a point to explicitly avoid doing that, and all characters are depicted as adults. Your lack of media literacy isn't an argument. If you're going to criticize my writing, at least read it, which you clearly didn't. And if the content is too upsetting for you, you clearly lack the maturity to engage in these kinds of discussions.

Imagine treating ship discourse this seriously, actually unhinged. Who said that Ember Island Players is the real Katara? What? She talks a big number about coke-fueled rants, must have given it a try herself. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you never say anything of substance and screech "racism" or "colonizer" every other word but can't even articulate the significance of those terms? Honestly, at this point you sound like a right-winger who thinks saying "but I'm [identity] and I agree with [opinion]" is a golden ticket to winning every argument.

And look at this: apparently I deserved all the things she and her friends sent me? Actually I respect this take, at least she's honest about it unlike the people who cry and backpeddle when they get caught red-handed.

I'm actually cackling at this one. Genuinely laughing; my neighbors are probably concerned. It's like you took every single Bad Person Allegation and threw it into a blender. And to top it all off, apparently 24 is "pushing 30" now LMAO. And apparently I, a lesbian, could only possibly like Zutara because I think Zuko is hot. Not to mention the way they entirely miss the point of Zutara, but ATLA itself, by insisting that Zuko is a "violent imperialist" who is apparently unworthy of love by anyone who does not share his skin tone. Kind of ironic coming from the people crying that I'm a racist who doesn't understand the show. Next level clownery.

This is so funny. These people are absolutely terrified of me, no amount of unhinged anons will hide that. It's fine for men to tell me I deserve rape and death, that I'm a dirty pervert for daring to speak out about sexual trauma, and that women's sexual trauma is nothing but a fetish, but if I respond to that man telling him he should die for being so disrespectful and misogynistic to rape victims, I'm the monster? I stand by it. If you think what he said about rape and rape victims is acceptable, especially if you're a man, die! Hang from ropes, as I said.🥰

I guess I should be really scared though. This is clearly a very influential figure in the fandom who is renowned for her enlightened wisdom on the plight of fictional cartoon characters against evil imperialists like me (adult with job).

...oh wait. I was excited for a minute, I thought I was dealing with a celebrity. But even the "callouts" struggle to hit 20 notes :/

And to everyone sending me positivity during this time, thank you very much! But I wanted to show you this to assure you I'm doing just fine. People can act as weird as they want behind a gray face, but after seeing the kinds of whiny little brats they are in reality, it's pretty hard to take it seriously. "I got my plane ticket" my ass, that would require you to leave your decaying, trash-filled apartment.

[olderthannetfic]

So I'm new to fandom, despite being of fairly advanced years (relatively speaking) and it's been a strange and fascinating experience. It's been fun and liberating but a lot of things were quite new to me. The sheer volume of terms I was coming across at the beginning that I had never heard before could (and I'm assuming probably does) fill a dictionary. And I had no idea what shipping discourse was (I do miss not knowing).

I'm not sure how correct this is but I feel like to some degree, certain puritanical attitudes are quite wide-spread. I've seen it in fics I've come across, in the notes the author leaves, in the way they write certain topics and ideas. (I don't mean content warnings or tags) Being unfamiliar with these spaces and trying my best to take cues from what I see, the impression I got early on was that people expected everything to be prim and proper and "not problematic". I don't know if this is a reflection of our current media landscape and societal attitudes in general or if this has always been the case in fandom. I try to just write what satisfies me, engage with what pleases me and just generally try to live and let live, but I am genuinely curious if this has always been a thing.

--

People like that have always existed. They used to mostly hang out in het spaces though. AO3 was built to house the nasty porn and is intended for adults who understand how to operate the back button.

[golden--goofball]

Hello :D (Anon since I’m a tiny bit nervous to ask, even though we are mutuals)

So you seem fairly educated on the topic of proshipping and the stuff involving it, and also like a pretty nice human being and I’ve been a bit confused about certain things regarding the topic so I thought I may as well ask

(Just to make it clear if anything in this comes off as mean-spirited or condescending you have my genuine apology I mean everything in this neutrally, I’m still new to the whole discourse so yeah if I’m accidentally misusing terms here or something correct me)

What exactly defines “proship” media? Like, what’s all that falls under the term? Because I had for the longest time assumed it was just adult x child, incest and other ships like that, but I’ve seen (on the very unreliable source that is Pinterest) that people call shipping yourself with fictional characters proship as well?? Which I just kinda assumed was normal- And stuff like bully x victim, some enemies to lovers tropes and even just kinks in general too, so yeah I’m very confused about what exactly “proship” even is at this point.

Also, adding onto the previous question, does all media that includes themes of s/a, incest etc. count as proship? Not just works that romanticise it but also stories that have characters that do such things even when the story portrays them as an immoral character? Or is it only when it’s portrayed in a good light?

Sorry for the long ask I’m just genuinely confused and curious, thank you in advance if you ever decide to answer <3

Have a wonderful day/evening/night

WOO okidoki this is a lot but i will do my best!! no worries about the length!! ^^

so, i'm sure you've seen it already, but i'm gonna put this chart image thingy here, just for convenience sake.

soooo letsss try to tackle this

please keep in mind (while i do appreciate you seeing me as super educated!! thank you!!! ^^ /gen) i am not actually the most knowledgeable individual and might get some stuff wrong, word things wrong, or not be able to answer certain things! especially since a lot of this stuff is very subjective and dependant on who you ask :3

"what exactly defines proship media?" if i'm being in 100% honest here, i don't really know! kind of an anticlimactic one to start on, i know, but i'll still try to answer. proship content, to me, is defined as content made by a proship individual or group of proship individuals with the intent of being for fellow proship individuals. this content may be completely normal fandom content that just happens to be made by someone who's proship, or may contain and explore dark themes. REAL PROSHIP CONTENT ACCEPTED BY THE WIDER COMMUNITY WILL NEVER ENCOURAGE OR PROMOTE THE BEHAVIOR DEPICTED IN THE DARKER CONTENT!!! actively promoting things like r*pe, pro-contact pedophilia, etc is NOT a proship value and its strongly discouraged and disliked by the general community.

not all media that explores these themes is considered proship. as i've said a lot of it depends on who you ask! unfortunately i really can't answer more than that :((

i hope this still helps out though!! thank you so much for the ask, anon!! (^o^)丿

[telleroftime]

It is a spectrum though. You’re literally ignoring your own people and trying to shut them down because they’re not EXACTLY like you. I’m ace and have been married for 15 years. Love my husband dearly, still ace. People like me exist and I’m fucking tired of a bunch of teenagers yelling about how we don’t, and that people are wrong for bringing up that we do. Literally fuck off, we are not all the same.

Okayy, this is regarding the Alastor post I assume so let's get straight into that.

The two posts I have made about the issue are both about me advocating that asexuality is a spectrum and that people jumping on the defensive and claiming how "Alastor can't be in a relationship" and "Alastor is ace so he can't have sex" are inherently wrong. Naturally there are people that are aceflux, demisexual, etc. and asexuality is beyond what the stereotype dictates. Some ace people are sex repulsed, others are hypersexual. Some feel little sexual attraction and some feel none at all yet still engage with sexual relationships. There isn't one little box that all asexuals fit under, and the same goes to the aromantic spectrum.

I thought I made this view clear in my recent post but I suppose I should have worded it better. I'm the one commenting that "he can engage in those sorts of relationships." There are too many people that comment the fact Alastor is asexual as a sort of shut-down of Alastor thirst-traps and edits. So much that it gets irritating. Most are people that want to don the white-knight armour and defend the illusion of what they think being asexual is, whilst others are people that don't understand that asexuality does not mean sex-repulsion. Arguing back with those people is amusing to me and at the same time I hope to break through some of the miss-information and stereotypes that non-asexual people seem to hold.

I completely understand if you haven't read over the comments under the other post seeing as I think you came from the more recent one - I don't expect that you have read them so please don't see this as an attack, I understand if you haven't - but I've made my stand on this pretty clear and inline with what you've sent in:

"We're not told what type of ace he is and where he fits under the umbrella. The most we've seen in regards to his opinion is the "haha, never going to happen" comment. Like with any label, asexuality is a spectrum. He could be be aceflux or demisexual."

"People need to understand that having an ace character fuck or headcanoning them to be somewhere else on the ace spectrum is not erasure."

And yeah, that post was regarding that whole "ace erasure" discourse but I'm not going to get into that again. I'll only directly quote the main body of that post: "An asexual person can fuck. Just... in case people didn't know. They can because libido is not exclusive to sexual attraction. Just saying." (Once again, I'm not expecting you to have read that before sending the ask in).

Overall I'm sorry that you felt personally attacked over that and sorry that the way I worded the post seemed to have brought on some confusion. I know asexuality is a spectrum. I know each asexual person is different. I wish other people understood that before throwing Alastor into a neatly defined box and bashing others when they take him out of it. Once again, I'm sorry that my wording caused confusion.

(Although, I would have been happy to simply discuss this topic with you, but if cursing at me makes you feel better then I supposed you can go ahead. Not like I really mind.)

[wonder2realities]

You never mentioned you were disabled in your original reply to that ask. It’s also not on your pinned post. How in the world were they supposed to know that the response came from a disabled person? And before you say you’ve mentioned it on your blog before (which I have no idea if you have or not) how do you know they would have seen it? They most likely found your response through the notes on the ask post. And just FYI, you can educate someone without calling them “icky” or degrading them in any manner. They asked if the way they thought was bad, you could have said yes and explained why instead of calling them icky and assuming they would know your disabled. At the end of the day it’s just a damn opinion on the matter. Opinion is not fact just because it came from someone in the group in question.

so much to unpack this is insane im losing my mind this is gonna be a long ass response

op was geniune, i gave my opinion saying its a bit icky - thats not degrading??? i never called them an ableist, never said they were an awful person, i said in my opinion i think its icky - i didnt even direct it towards the person. i never said "youre an awful person for doing that." - i literally said "its moreso the fact that scripting out disabilities is icky"...

please point to the degrading. point to the meanness and evilness, the harshness...point to it. unless the person who originally made the ask to that confessions acc wants to come into my dms or my inbox and say they were personally offended, i really dont see how it could be degrading. maybe its the alexithymia but i dont see it, i dont get it.

ive talked abt being disabled on this blog frequently, literally i make a blog at least once a week talking abt being autistic : even if they were unable to find that out and assumed i was not disabled then they can simply take my opinion as something else i wouldnt care as much about that however i literally MENTIONED THAT YOU CAN SEARCH UP AND ASK DISABLED PEOPLE AND LOOK INTO SIMILAR DISCOURSE because then youd be able to see it from different perspectives as the term disabled is a large umbrella term. so i not only said my opinion as a disabled person who has frequently talked abt being autistic and has literally made blogs talking abt keeping my disabilities in my drs but i also gave advice on where to find other perspectives that will go more into detail of why disabled people dont feel comfortable with the whole "heal everyone!! we're gonna heal all disabilities to save them!!" mindset.

you have no right to say whether an opinion is a "fact" or not when your opinion on the topic is automatically invalid because you arent disabled - dont try to pull that shit on me when you know for a fact that being disabled means that id have more of an understanding on the social aspect of what its like to be disabled...because i experience it and i wont let any ablebodied person or any neurotypical person try to speak over me on that. also, ive mentioned im autistic AND have physical disabilities multiple times on here - even if its not mentioned in my original post i quite literally said if youre confused you can look into discourse regarding the whole "disabled people cant be in fantasy because fantasy = utopia which = everyone being healthy" thing because there are disabled people who have talked abt this multiple times and in my eyes there are similarities to that and the idea of scripting out disabled people because they have similar reasons.

also if youre who i think you are aka the person who deactivated the second i responded : if youre able to go that far into my blog to find a post where i said i was gonna go on a social media detox - you wouldve been able to find a post on me talking abt being autistic because i literally made a post a FEW DAYS AGO talking abt being a blk autistic.

^ incase u dont believe me for whatever reason, this was literally 2 days ago.

also im not an educator never claimed to eductae the person i gave an opinion - it is not my job to educate people. you are twisting a small paragraph of me saying "scripting out disabilities is a bit icky" into me being this harsh and awful person because i...didnt write an essay educating the person when i never claimed to educate them in the first place????

and again, i never attacked op the only person i attacked (which could be u if ure that account but im too lazy to do the whole "finding out whos behind the anon ask" thing) was the person who randomly responded to me, went through my entire blog to find a post of me saying i deleted twt for a social media detox and painted it as if im this limited person who "doesnt believe shifting is limitless and has a bad mindset" (which is insane???)

so to conclude this

speaking over disabled people where someone is asking disabled people for their opinion is weird. dont come into my inbox with this weird shit, unless its an apology because this is slowly creeping into ableism territory (before u even try to argue that its not - downplaying a disabled persons opinion on a topic that revolves around being disabled and speaking over them to then try to disregard their opinion being going "just because youre apart of a group doesnt mean your opinion is a fact" is insane. that is insane. call me crazy, idc thats insane.)

[daydreamerwonderkid]

Just a general blanket PSA for my new followers or basically anyone that stumbles onto my blog:

Please don't try to engage me in topping vs bottoming discourse.

I literally do not care what your preference is when it comes to any kind of ship. But please do not assume that just because I don't have a horse in this race that I'd actually want to talk horses with y'all.

You're perfectly entitled to your own preferences, but I don't have an interest in debating anyone and if I happen to use a particular tag for a ship pairing, please do not assume I'm making an actual statement in regards to that pairing.

I will repeat: Just because I use a particular tag for a ship pairing doesn't mean I am making a statement regarding who I think is topping or bottoming.

Gonna be real with y'all, I find this kind of "debate" very uncomfortable in the first place as a queer person. I understand where people are coming from when they prefer a certain name order for their ship, but the emphasis on trying to dictate which character gives and who receives ... idk it makes me very uncomfortable and it brings up a lot of homophobic/transphobic related memories and discourse from my earlier stints into fandom spaces.

I'm only bringing this up because I've been noticing certain tags on my ship related posts going into the weeds of this exact topic as well as certain replies I've seen my own followers putting on other people's art.

Again, you're valid in your opinion, but I personally find it rude and unnecessary to dictate to other people (especially on someone else's art) which naming order they should use for a certain ship on their own posts.

Idk I thought I had left this kind of discourse all the way back in 2012, but here we are.

Anyway that's the end of my PSA. Please be respectful to each other and please stop trying to drag me into these kind of discussions.

I hope you all have a great day 💗

[azuremist]

i don't really care if you post this or not, up to you, but regarding the creator of the sun/moon bi flags (assuming you mean a blog name starting with b, ending with cat, and has a hypen in the middle), i'm also friends with them directly!

anyways it's worth mentioning that gothamspride (VERY popular icon edit blog) has a lot to do with this rumor. they're unnecessarily petty about punishing flag creators that they disagree with over minor topics and like to write original posts putting them on blast just because they don't hate certain types of queer people. they created their own sun/moon bi flags out of spite, which it sounds like you already know about, and in the original version - which i should have a reblogged version of - before it was edited, they specifically mentioned that blog and i thought it was distasteful.

they even harassed a couple of new blogs the other day about "stealing" the ___spride url format and copying an editing style they think they "own" despite the fact that they made it clear they would never make a tutorial and show others how to do what they do, so how could it have been copied? plus it's really easy and i've seen a million blogs know how to do it already. the people they sent that ask to debunked all their claims and i just find it all ridiculous. nobody should be taking that seriously, i hope.

just thought you'd wanna know some of this if you weren't already aware. gothamspride treats people poorly for not acting like they're the authority over everything queer and editing and they have a lot of followers so i'm afraid of calling them out or saying anything on main. if you want my url for trust purposes or whatever let me know and i'll come back off anon but please don't answer that publicly if i do!

Yeah, seeing their post straight-up lying on the internet about the sun and moon bi flags was what inspired my post about it.

I didn’t know about all that other stuff though. I guess it makes sense. Average LGBT+ discourse enjoyer.

[mekatrio]

this got so long smiless

"this discourse is stupid to begin with" no its not bc its reasonable for ppl to not want to see fancontent between a child and a (perceived) adult

"assuming hobie is an adult is a racist assumption based on the problematic stereotype of adultifying black youth" fair that is an issue but most people ive seen* who say they view hobie as an adult mean they view him in the 18 - 20 yr old range, which is a reasonable assumption considering his maturity in the film (very cool and composed demeanor, looks out after both gwen and miles in a way tht resembles a big brother to some, etc). assuming that hes older than that would be racist but that has been a very uncommon assumption

*(forgive the anecdote but theres isnt a surefire way to measure general public consensus on this topic and this is just what ive observed both irl and online)

also shipping teenagers with age gap between them is its own thing and different people have different comfort levels the same way some ppl even think that 21 yr olds and 25 yr olds is weird. so even if hobie is 17 ppl still might find it weird to ship a say, 15 year old miles with a 17 year old hobie. and this discomfort is valid! who cares! but its a grey zone thats different for everyone and very nuanced between genders and culture and bla bla blabla bla

and also the overall idea that people are problematic for disliking ships w hobie bc its racist/homophobic/etc as if shipping something is a form of activism, and i get there is more nuance to online fandom culture and context is very important but honestly hes been predominantly featured in m/m fancontent which is so normalized and not revolutionary or whatever and there are legit reasons for one to be uncomfy with it (like aforementioned perceived age gap), but on the other hand shipping is (mostly) harmless and there is no hard confirmation on hobie's age and personal interpretations matter so it isnt fucking deranged for some ppl to think hobie is 16/17, the same way its harmless for ppl to assume gwen is trans (which is not canon btw) (and also of course context fucking mattersss headcanons are not inherently harmless but in these two contexts then yes, its just a matter of harmless! personal interpretation)

but also the overall need to ship characters together in the first place is its own thing where like yes its (mostly) harmless but also fandomfication is a whole thing where ppl are unable to engage with a media without breaking it apart like a toy where aspects that are not central to the narrative (like a character's gender and sexuality is a common one) are projected onto. which can be harmless but can also be insidious when it ends up eclipsing over the message of the media itself like theres a nuance to this topic. its harmless until it isnt. it has the potential to be insidious. i wont get so deep into it here but iykyk.

and sexualization of cartoon characters also fit into the culture of fandomfication. kinda. it overlaps. but thats again a whole other can of worm bc its not inherently unnatural to find illustrated characters hot and sometimes they are designed w that intention but also this is a character created for children etc etc etc but honestly if u dont know whether a character is an adult or not dont sexualize them? but some ppl are beyond help so whatever

and lastly just overall illiteracy regarding ppls ability to research like first a quote was taken out of context to prove hobie was an adult (he is not proven to be an adult) and recently ppl are saying bc the japanese artbook refers to him as 男の子 it means hes a teenager like dude the film was not produced in a japanese enviroment translations are NEVER primary sources and translations are not infallible. please.

like this topic is stupid but it isnt. it isnt deep but it is. like theres so much nuance tht people are just being obtuse about. also i hate fandomfication but its also natural except not really bc its kinda a byproduct of social media algorithms but thats an idea to be explored for another day.

hobie age discourse is so stupid... from every angle...

[wheel-of-fish]

Saturday Streams FAQ

I probably should've done this years ago, but here we are! It wouldn't hurt to read it, even if you're a regular!

Why do these streams exist? They're an opportunity to showcase different, sometimes less accessible actors and productions, and I especially love the sense of community that comes with a regular get-together. It's basically just a fun hangout.

Which version(s) of Phantom do you stream? Usually the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, any time from 1988 to present day. It's often from the U.S. or UK, but I do international productions, too. There are no subtitles for those, but if you've got a decent understanding of the show, you'll still have a good time!

Sometimes I'll stream a different Phantom adaptation altogether, but that's harder to do with CyTube mostly restricted to YouTube videos.

Can anyone attend? Yes, within reason. Please do not come to hate-watch. I also reserve the right to boot people who are disruptive or combative.

Is there an age restriction? Technically no, as that's not something I can enforce. However, the vast majority of attendees are adults; if you're uncomfortable with adult conversation, it might not be the best environment for you. Hiding the chat is an option, however.

How does a stream work? Fifteen minutes before the start time, I open a private room on CyTube by posting the link and a stream-specific password here on tumblr. CyTube is available on both desktop and mobile, but desktop seems to be generally preferred among streamers. You can sign up for a free account beforehand if you'd like, but it's not necessary!

If you're logged in when you enter the password, you'll show up under your registered username. Otherwise, you'll join anonymously. If you'd like to participate in the chat without an account, there's a "Guest login" box at the bottom of the chat where you can enter a temporary username.

How long does it last? Depends on when you arrive and how long you stay! I provide pre-stream entertainment once the room opens. The show runs about two hours, and there's a 10-minute intermission at the end of act 1. Some people also stick around to chat and watch videos after!

Can I watch anonymously? Yes! See logistics above for details.

Am I expected to participate in discussion if I'm off anon? Nope! I'll be notified that you've joined and there's a decent chance you'll be greeted by name, but otherwise, you're free to fade into the background.

What if I can only attend part of the stream? You can join and/or leave at any time—multiple times, even. I will be notified when you join the chat (assuming you're not anonymous), but not when you leave.

How many people attend? Anywhere from 40-60 on average (the record is 92), including anons. Most people are from tumblr, since that's where I advertise.

What can I expect from the chat? We're pretty laid back and are happy to answer any stream- or Phantom-related questions. Chat moves at a fast pace, so messages can sometimes be overlooked or forgotten—it's not personal!

And again, we're mostly adults kicking back for the night. If you're bothered by the possibility of language, alcohol, other adult themes, and/or general thirst, this might not be the place for you.

Is there a general code of conduct? My latest mantra is "good vibes." Please show up with good intentions and assume others have them as well. We're there to enjoy a video and each other's company, so it's not really a good venue for serious discourse.

Please leave negativity toward characters, ships, headcanons, actors, and/or adaptations at the door—and yes, that includes hot-button topics such as the 2004 film, Ramin/Sierra, and Raoul. Everyone comes in with different tastes and experiences. Some people have had limited exposure, while others have been around for years and seen every debate or hot take in existence. Shaming for any reason is not OK. When we do watch a more questionable production, we aim to have fun with it rather than tear it apart.

We strongly encourage building up the things you like and ignoring those you don't! Just please avoid spamming/monopolizing the chat, and remember that your headcanons, interpretations, and/or preferences might not be universally shared.

Also, we're not perfect! Please feel free to address things that make you particularly upset or uncomfortable.

Can I talk about things unrelated to the stream? To a point! Discussion will absolutely wander, but any extended analyses, one-on-one conversations, and/or off-topic discussions should be moved elsewhere if possible. (CyTube does have a direct message function!) Please also be mindful of sensitive topics that can potentially be upsetting.

What if I don't like someone's contributions to the chat? If they're bad enough that you can't ignore, you have a few options: 1) Mute the user, 2) respectfully address your concerns with the person in chat/DM as appropriate, or 3) DM me (if it's an issue you think is more broadly disruptive).

What about additional CyTube questions I have? Please see the CyTube FAQ or user guide.

Can I make requests? Please let me know if there's someone/something you'd really like to see, and I'll put it on the request list (which is long, so no guarantees that I'll get to it right away)!

I take VERY LIMITED rewind requests during streams; please ask for them sparingly! I don't take requests for pre-show or intermission videos anymore (they can get overwhelming), but you can ask for whatever you'd like to be played post-stream.

Are there stream traditions or inside jokes I should know about? I was specifically asked to include some of these in the FAQ, so here you go:

We named the mannequin Barbara (Barb).

It's common to yell SECURE or its foreign-language equivalent when the police chief in act 2 asks whether the doors are secured.

There's a running joke that Piangi is only napping when the Phantom takes over in "Point of No Return," so there's an "N for nap" trend in the chat when he's discovered.

You might see an M for "moisten" when Raoul jumps into the lake, as he is literally moistened backstage afterward.

We've headcanoned a 500k slow-burn camping AU (affectionately known as the CAU) for Raoul/Mme Giry based on some weird tension that occasionally crops up in their scenes together. idk.

Any references to @glassprism being married to a certain restaged tour actor are most definitely a joke.

We also joke about her having a portrait in the attic that ages any time someone complains about the Phantom not catching Christine at the mirror (which is not typical outside of London due to safety concerns). This happens often.

We're playfully divided on whether "fathering" or "far-reaching" is better. It gets talked about a lot.

We often reference past performances or actors we've seen. If there's something you'd like clarified, you can ask! We won't mind!

Where do the bootlegs come from? Resident bootleg queen, trader, and expert @glassprism has been kind enough to share her collection nearly every week for years, and I am forever grateful.

Aren't bootlegs illegal and bad? This is a debate for another place and time, but from my perspective, bootlegs are helping the theater community more than hurting it. They provide access for people who can't otherwise afford or travel to see shows, they expand fans' knowledge of/appreciation for specific actors/productions, and they have immense archival value as well.

No one is going to choose a bootleg over a live show if the latter is an option, and I think you'll find that this crowd would happily throw tons of cash at the production if it were an option. (In fact, a lot of us have and will continue to do so.)

Please feel free to DM/ask/comment if you have additional questions! I will likely tweak this post as necessary.

[mondfahrt]

Questions About Art

In the last couple of weeks, you've probably seen a few twitter threads like these (or their re-posts on tumblr) about the "decline" of art and architecture. Now, these kinds of posts (and people like The Cultural Tutor especially) have a lot of fascist red flags that other people have pointed out much more eloquently than I ever could, but I'd like to give my own two cents about why this view on art, architecture and their history proposes a lot of problems but also some questions that are worth getting into.

Some of the problems I'll be talking about are directly from these twitter threads, some I saw in the comments of these threads, and some I've encountered in my daily life. I'm not saying these are all fascist! In fact, a lot could just be labelled as "things you learn about art history when you don't spend years studying it". This mindset and this kind of bias are, as you will see, very very old and there are reasons why we still struggle with them today.

I kind of want people to know about arguments I rarely see talked about in non-academic spaces. Diversify the public discourse, if you will. I know some of these things tend to get complicated but I've tried to keep it as simple as possible. But if you have any questions about any of this, please ask! I can talk about art all day every day.

Also, I'm not claiming to know everything. If nothing here seems to make sense to you, that's fine, too. I'd really like to know your opinion, though! And if I've made mistakes and you know better: Please tell me!

(I also really understand that engaging with these kinds of arguments is maybe kind of pointless. People will see and like and think what they will see and like and think. Art has always been devisive. But I love talking about art and I think I do have some perspective on this topic. And the discussion is kind of the point here. Also, if you read those threads on twitter, most comments are actually saying some good stuff. Not everything is mindblowingly wrong. I'm elaborating on some of it.)

Okay, let's get this thing going!

1. What is supreme?

There are several problems here: The choice of vocabulary is probably the least offensive. But this person presents their opinion (and it is simply that) as fact while assigning subjective values to the Pietá. What is extraordinary? What is beauty? Why is it surpreme? Is it because of the assumed value of marble, historically taken as a luxurious material when it isn't really any better than any other stone... Is in fact worse under certain circumstances because it really doesn't like getting wet... But I don't think this person wants to talk about that here. I think what they really mean is: It takes skill to make stone look like flesh or fabric.

Now, the problem with this is: It's a myth. Granted, we'll maybe have to leave Michelangelo out of it, because apparently he did do a lot of the work himself, but... a lot of artists did not. In fact, the artist as this unique genius working on his own, all by himself, is a narrative that's been pretty much established because of Michelangelo and the way art history has literally been built on top of his legacy. But most artists, before, during, and after Michelangelo's time, had whole workshops and teams of people working for and with them. We don't know a lot of medieval artists today because they didn't think it was important who had done the work. They shared their skills and time and resources to make and build and craft. Same goes for artists during the 17th century, because most of them still needed the help of craftspeople to make a bronze cast, for example. Sometimes we still can't decide if something is "by Leonardo da Vinci" or by one of his students or made in his workshop because sometimes an artist had an idea, drew a sketch and let other people do things like the background or details he didn't have the time for because he was busy inventing planes. And no one really cared because it was still from his workshop and having him paint the whole thing would've cost a lot more. Not only money but also time.

What we can see here, over time, is the development of the narrative of the artist as genius, and the devaluaziation of workshops and crafts in comparison to art.

2. What is an artist?

This is funny because idea, concept, and intellectual work in general are initially what seperated art and craft. The male artist as genius who creates something (the Pietá) out of nothing (a block of marble) is an important narrative! Saying that Jeff Koons' works are worse because he didn't do it himself is kind of ridiculous because it's nothing new. Artists have done this for centuries. And devaluing his work because it's only an idea/a concept is even funnier because that's one of the most important aspects of art in the early modern period.

For comparison: This is one of Jeff Koons' Balloon Dogs, mirror-polished stainless steel with transparent color coating (here in magenta), 121 x 143 x 45 inches (307.3 x 363.2 x 114.3 cm), made between 1994-2000.

Douglas Crimp says,

"The extraordinary status that has accrued to the work of art during the modern period is, in part, a consequence of the romantic myth of the artist as the most highly specialized, indeed unique producer. That this myth obscures the social division of labor was recognized by Minimal artists. Traditional sculpture's specialized craft and highly fetishized materials were opposed by Minimalism with the introduction of objects industrially fabricated of ordinary manufactured materials." (1)

Jeff Koons is not a Minimalist. Their works from the 1950s and 1960s looks more like this.

This is Carl Andre's 4 Square 4 Void, installation 2018, 12 unit hollow square on floor, 0.5 x 160 x 160 cm.

Minimalists like Andre intended to completely erase the hand of the artist by using materials that had to be very obviously made with machines. This is where another art myth comes in as well: "I could have done that." Yes, that's the point. Minimal art is supposed to let you reflect on the way we lift artists to higher standards. Why would you treat Andre's metal squares differently than the concrete floor their lying on? You're actually even invited to walk on these! To reflect the way you experience the room around you, with the artwork and your body in it... (The Minimalists had a whole thing going on relationships between art, space and viewer as a critique of the supposedly "neutral" gallery or museum space but that's a topic for another day.)

The Minimalists (Carl Andre, Sol LeWitt, Dan Flavin, Donald Judd...) also did these high finishes like Koons, very shiny surfaces that show no traces of brushes or chisels. You're not supposed to think these have been done by one person. And if they're not done by a person but by a machine, or by a whole group of people working these machines, then who is the artist? What is an artist? And can anyone be an artist?

3. Is it art if you (don't) need to explain it?

They also wanted to make art accessible. Since the kind of art the Minimalists did was pretty much completely new and unheard of in the 1960s, no one understood it, which meant that everyone started on the same level. You're just supposed to feel their art, its position in the room and in relation to your body. Everyone can do that. No academic advantage. Some critics were furious about that.

Of course, this concept falls apart a bit when you think about art historians and critics engaging much more with art in general, talking to artists and other historians, knowing about materials etc. You'll never get a completely even playing field, if you ask me, but at least the Minimalists tried to do something.

In contrast: The twitter post above claims that the Pietá needs no explanation or context. But that's not exactly true, is it? Sure, you can appreciate it without knowing anything about it. Pain like that translates well in any case, I think. But being at least culturally Christian puts you miles ahead of everyone else already. Knowing that that's the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, who's lying in her arms, dead... otherwise these two people could be lovers, or siblings, or friends. It's also placed in a church, you can't really get close to it, which could make it hard to even see that the man in the woman's arms is dead, at first glance he could just be unconscious, even sleeping. Not having this context doesn't make this work less impressive, on a skill-level, but it does add some things.

Context matters.

Which takes me to one point in the discussion on twitter that actually makes me angry.

4. What is context?

The OP says that they don't know what to think about these sculptures. Maybe you don't either, that's completely fair! Let me add some context:

On the left: Veronica Ryan's Custard Apple (Annonaceae), Breadfruit (Moraceae), and Soursop (Annonaceae), all from 2021. Now, I had to research this but it was fairly easy. I just used Google. The titles suggest that these are fruit. The fact that they are the UK's first public sculpture dedicated to the Windrush generation makes me think that they're probably culturally and historically important to these people specifically. People from the Caribbean, where the artist was born and where these fruits are common, who migrated to the UK.

I like this anecdote from an article in iNews on the day the sculpture was unveiled in London:

"On a wet October morning, shoppers wheeling trolleys nodded in recognition as they passed the work. A mother fielded questions from her young daughter, identifying the soursop for her and explaining what it was as they walked away. As Ryan posed for photographers, a young man sped past, pointed at the marble sculpture and shouted “sugar-apple!” - “That’s right!” the artist shouted back, beaming." (2)

I know what the Pietá is depicting, I've learned about it from growing up as a Christian and studying art history. I had to google what a soursop was, but other people have grown up with them and look at this sculpture, already knowing what it means.

Context matters.

I also think it's important to know that this is the first public sculpture in the UK by a Black woman. And I love that Ryan says she wants these sculptures of fruits to be a part of the community, to bring people together like food tends to do, to remind people of good things, to give them a place to sit or rest or climb on.

The Pietá sits high and mighty, untouchable, holy, and that's for a reason, too. But I like that sculpture like Ryan's, made from marble and bronze just like so many sculptures from the Renaissance, can also be like this, public and warm.

I don't have to understand everything about it. I have never eaten a sugar-apple, or a breadfruit. This is not art made for me. It does not need to be. But I can still find something in it, if I open my mind, do a bit of research, and don't expect everything to be spelled out for me.

Now, the sculpture on the right is a bit more complicated: It's Heather Phillipson's THE END, 2020, and it was placed in Trafalgar Square, London, on the so-called Fourth Plinth. The Fourth Plinth is a public art project intended to diversify the monuments in London. The other three plinths on Trafalgar Square all carry statues of white British men (two generals and one king). The fourth plinth was supposed to carry another general but the funds ran out and it remained empty until the 1990s, when it was decided that it would instead show different works of contemporary art temporarily, specifically commissioned for this place. Phillipson's work is supposed to look playful, joyful, even tasty, but with a darker twist. The drone on top of the whipped cream sculpture is recording a live feed of Trafalgar Square, a commentary on surveillance in public spaces, even - or especially - if those public spaces are places for people to come together and enjoy life and culture. The sculpture is not taking itself very seriously, just as it is poking fun at the seriousness of other (public) art, like the generals and kings surrounding it, or the paintings in the National Gallery behind it, but it's also political. Who does a public square belong to? Do we know who's watching us at any given moment? But also: Who are we watching? Everyone can watch the sculpture's live feed, all the people on the square, but also every statue of a dead white man there.

5. Do you need to be told this is art?

At this point, I do think OP is arguing in bad faith here. I'm not saying you have to like any of these artworks. Or that you have to understand them immediately, or get anything out of them. But they are so much more than just "shock factor". Actually, most of modern, postmodern and contemporary art is about so much more than shock factor, especially public sculptures. I've only talked about those here because the OP on twitter only talked about those but it's also my field of study. And I still needed to research a lot to write this, so I don't expect anyone to understand anything immediately. But when it comes to art, I urge people to keep an open mind. Most artworks are much more meaningful than you'd expect and I bet I could actually tell you a lot about Michelangelo's Pietá you didn't know that would change its interpretation to you.

Here are a few just for fun:

This is the only statue by Michelangelo with a signature. We're not sure why exactly that is. Because he saw this as a great work and was proud of himself? Or because he was only at the beginning of his career when he made it and needed to build a reputation?

Mary looks much too young in this to have an adult son. It's an anachronism that's maybe pointing towards her later ascension. Or towards some kind of "beautiful people are moral and good" metaphor that was very prominent during the Renaissance. Or maybe Michelangelo just didn't want to make an older woman.

This work is a masterpiece of composition: You don't even realise that Mary is much larger than Jesus because she's sitting and because her dress is so voluminous. But it's also only brilliant when you're looking at it from the front. It's placed in a church, in front of a wall, so you can't even see behind it. That means, Michelangelo didn't need to do a full piece that's amazing and interesting from all sides - which is, incidentally, a factor that becomes very popular during the Late Renaissance.

I think that last point is interesting because sculptures like those by Phillipson and Ryan do need to be interesting from all sides, since their placed in an open space. They need to do something with the space around them, not just with one wall in a church.

These sculptures are not random. Not even when you don't know what the artists wanted to do with them. If you get something else out of THE END or Custard Apple, that's fine! That's not random, that's just one way to look at art, it's interaction, it's dialogue.

6. What is the conceptual foundation of art?

We can disagree on this but I don't think the "conceptual foundation of modern art" is to question accepted standards of what art can be. (Setting aside that OP is most likely mixing up modern and contemporary art here.) There are hundreds of movements, styles, and theories in art. Andre, Koons, Phillipson and Ryan are just four artists out of thousands, and each one wants to do something different with their art. Yes, some of them want to question what art can be. Some want to question the assumed neutrality of the gallery. Some want us to think about our bodies in space. Some want to make political statements about surveillance. Some want to see their heritage represented in public.

Some of my favourite artists want to make you think about life and death and all the love we share in between. How we interact with people daily. Or how the world around us keeps moving and changing. Some want to make statements about gender and bodies, or the environment, or colonialism, or capitalism. Some want you to see all the shadows on a white canvas. Some just really like a certain shade of blue.

Art can be so many different things. I love Medieval art, and Renaissance art, and art from the Enlightenment... (I even have friends who study these periods in art history!) No work of art, no period in art history, is superior to another.

OP of the thread - as well as commenters like Mike Brook - assume that contemporary art is only one thing. They argue that idea and concept and meaning trump everything in contemporary art, that form has become meaningless. That's true for some artworks, concept art in particular, or art that can be reproduced again and again. Looking down at that art, criticizing it as meaningless or only interesting because of its shock factor, misses the point, though. And it is - and this is important - incredibly elitist.

7. What is art?

This is an argument we've had since the beginnings of art history - when one of Michelangelo's friends, Giorgio Vasari, published biographies of artists, likening them to nobles and popes and highlighting their unique skills in order to make them out to be geniuses. That meant, in turn, that you couldn't simply become an artist, but that you were born to be one.

Vasari had such an influence on art history - he's actually said to be the "father of art history" - that we still have to unravel these narratives today. Because when Vasari wrote these biographies, these stories, he only included the (in his opinion) greatest artists of all, with Michelangelo coming out on top. He's the reason we have an art historic canon, a set of artists who are considered important and great and worthy of study and admiration and remembrance. Of course, Vasari mostly included Italian artists because most art from north of the Alps was not as great. And anyone before Michelangelo couldn't be as great as Michelangelo because you needed to show progress, that art was moving forward, becoming better and better. Art made by women was always depicted as being less good than that made by men. And so on, and so forth...

The same narrative goes for understanding art. There are several instances throughout art history when people (mostly old white men) cried about the supposed "end of art". It happened with the Impressionists, with the Dadaists, with the Minimalists, with concept art and installation art and so on.

In 1967, art critic Michael Fried published an essay called "Art and Objecthood" in which he criticized Minimal art (especially in comparison to Modernist art) as being literal and theatrical. It is one of the most cited essays on contemporary art in recent decades. You might ask yourself, what about Carl Andre's metal plates on the floor could be theatrical? Literal can be understood: They are literally metal squares on the floor. They don't pretend to be anything else, like how Michelangelo's marble pretends to be Jesus, or how Ryan's bronze pretends to be fruit. In this way, they can be understood by everyone. You don't have to have read the Bible or been to the Caribbean to "understand" a metal square. You are simply supposed to experience your body in relation to it. That also means that the artwork speaks to every person differently and individually, because no one can experience art out of any body other than their own.

"Theatricality" to Fried means superficiality, deception, and emptiness of meaning. If a work of art doesn't claim to be anything else than what it is, it's superficial. If anyone can find different, individual meaning in a work of art, no one can really know what the artist wants to say, so it's deceptive. And if the artist doesn't care about universal meaning being found in their work, it must be meaningless.

Christa Noel Robbins says on Fried's essay:

In catering to each viewer in their turn, the ability of the work of art to transcend atomized taste and enter into something like a community of meaning making is foreclosed. Absent that community, Fried has long argued, a work of art has no real meaning; it is particularized, isolating the viewer in their own individuated field of experience. (3)

If a work of art doesn't transcend to give us some higher meaning, a meaning that's the same for everyone, is it art? Or is it an object?

That's basically what people who question any and all contemporary art, who ask "what is an artist?", have problems with. They don't want to see that a sculpture is just a block of marble, no matter the form. The form doesn't make it any less a block of marble, something very normal, and earthly, and not "supreme" at all. And not everyone will find (or needs to find) higher meaning in that block. Only if someone does find higher meaning in it, does it become art at all - Michelangelo's sculpture needs the viewer, just like the metal squares need the viewer to make them into art. Into more than objects. But this process is extremely subjective, for Michelangelo just as much as for Andre or Ryan.

"Anything can be art," complains The Cultural Tutor in another tweet. But that's not the real problem they have. The problem is: If anything can be art, and I don't like some of that art and I don't even think it's art, who's to say that Michelangelo's Pietá is art? If I can question contemporary art, isn't everything else in danger to be questioned as well?

(1) Douglas Crimp: "Serra's Public Sculpture", in: Rosalind Krauss (ed.): Richard Serra/Sculpture, New York 1986, pp. 40-56, p. 44. (2) Hettie Judah: "Veronica Ryan’s celebratory giant fruit are a lesson in how to do public sculpture well", in: iNews, 10/01/2021, URL: https://inews.co.uk/culture/arts/veronica-ryan-windrush-monument-fruit-sculpture-hackney-london-review-1227786. (3) Christa Noel Robinson: "The Sensibility of Michael Fried", in: Criticism 60:4 (2018), pp. 429-454, p. 432.

[gallifrey1sburning]

Hi, I've seen your reply to jalesidor's post on how fandom becomes ever more important the more one realises how disappointing jkr is. In it, you spoke about how both Harry and Draco are queer-coded in canon. Would you mind to expand on that? Or if you already have, would you mind linking that post or the tag under which I can find it? Absolutely no pressure to do so, just if you like! Thank you!

Hi anon! Sorry for the delay in answering; I wanted to do the question justice. I could have thrown some stuff at you off the top of my head, but that didn’t feel right—at my core, I am a Ravenclaw, and I could not bring myself to half-ass this. (For those who haven’t seen the referenced post, you can find it here)

Before I get into my personal analysis, I want to note that there has been a lot of discourse on this topic over the years, so many of my ideas didn’t actually originate with me, they just got incorporated into my mental cache of HP analysis. If you search the tags “canon drarry” or “drarry in canon” or any variation thereon, you’ll get a bunch of posts where people pull excerpts and explain how extremely not heterosexual the things happening in them are. @iamnmbr3 in particular has written a ton of these (which I didn’t realize were all by the same person until I started trying to track them down!), a few favorites being Arthur Weasley clearly thinking Harry’s got a crush, this hilarious list of canonical interactions, Narcissa’s very accurate understanding of how aware Harry and Draco are of each other, and that time Harry got beaned in the head by luggage because he was watching Draco change. Others classics include when @big-draco-energy got an ask about how Harry assumed that Draco must be a Death Eater if he was preoccupied enough to not care about their rivalry (and was right) and when @northward had a great observation about their obsessions with each other.

Seriously, this scene, y’all!

Possibly the most quoted line in Drarry fandom

And now, on to my own thoughts!

So first off, I want to say that some of the things that I’m going to flag as unintentional queer coding are rooted in stereotypes, and that that doesn’t mean that I believe in or condone said stereotypes. However, media often uses stereotyping as a lazy shorthand, and I think that that should be taken into account in this context, because it means there’s a reasonable assumption that people would interpret some character traits and scenes through that lens.

Secondly, so much credit to my amazing friend @mxmaneater, who actually HAS A FOLDER of photos of super gay moments from the books, which saved me a lot of time trying to dig up quotes that I knew existed but wouldn’t have been able to easily track down.

And finally, these are my personal interpretations. I’m not any sort of academic, and we’re all aware that JKR does not believe that she wrote Harry or Draco as queer. I’m hoping folks can be chill and take this in the spirit that it’s intended: as one possible reading. Your beliefs about the series and the characters are your own, and I’m not here to tell you you’re wrong just because they aren’t mine, so please extend me the same courtesy!

Now, without further ado, here we go:

Let’s start with Harry, because that’s the easier lift here. The Harry Potter books are written from a third person limited perspective, which means we only see things from Harry’s point of view and are privy to his thoughts. I can’t find a link, but I know that it’s widely quoted that JKR at some point used the fact that the books are from Harry’s perspective as justification for the ways in which some people or events were portrayed. The answers on this Quora post about pro-Gryffindor bias in the books do a good job of explaining the idea of Harry’s point of view skewing the point of view of the series.

So if we accept that the books reflect Harry’s thoughts and feelings about things, we’re left with the unmistakable fact that he frequently observes how handsome various boys and men are. We have physical descriptions of Cedric Diggory, Bill Weasley, Sirius Black, and even Tom Riddle that clearly illustrate admiration. Additionally, although it’s largely unflattering, it’s often noted amongst fans that we get full physical descriptions of Draco extremely regularly—we know his hair and eye color pretty much from the get go and hear about them often, as well as his outfits, his swagger, his smirking and ‘leering’ (yes, she really uses that word), etc.

Some very heterosexual observations on men from the perspective of one Harry James Potter

Sure, Harry never explicitly says he’s into men, but let’s keep in mind the time period the books were placed in and the type of family that Harry was raised by: there is a very real chance that Harry wouldn’t have been aware of the idea of bisexuality and therefore would never have questioned his own orientation. Because he knew he liked girls, so of course he wasn’t gay! To many folks who later realized they were some form of not-straight, particularly bisexual and/or pansexual folks, this is a pretty common experience: not really registering that checking out people of multiple genders is not actually something that everyone does. *Stares vaguely into the distance while pondering all of the girls I didn’t realize I was crushing on until many years later*

Plus, as I’ve mentioned before, there’s the symbolism of the whole ‘literally being raised in a closet, abused for being a ‘freak’, and forced to keep his truth a secret because the people he lived with were ashamed of him’ thing. To queer people raised by homophobes (or anyone who knew people in that situation), this isn’t even the slightest bit subtle, and the fact that JKR either didn’t notice or is in denial about it is truly bizarre to me.

Draco is a little harder to pin down without delving into stereotyping, so I’m just gonna go for it: Draco is a textbook Drama Gay™. He’s performative in his speech, using a lot of flamboyant gestures; he constantly performs over the top reenactments for his friends; he makes buttons and sews costumes and does drawings and generally just goes through a lot of effort to pick on his ‘rival’. The only scenes where we see him in something that could be read as a heterosexual romantic relationship are with Pansy Parkinson, whom he doesn’t seem remotely interested in; she reads more like a prop that he puts up with to project a particular image. Also, at one point we see him flopped across her lap to have his hair pet, which is definitely a thing that I remember happening during rehearsals back when I was involved in high school theater (and almost never by people with compatible orientations).

And then there’s this scene:

Someone once made a post about just how gay this whole thing is: pointedly grabbing the biggest bowtruckle, whispering in Harry’s ear, smirking over his shoulder while walking away, etc. (If anyone can find it, please send me the link and I’ll add it to the list of other people’s thoughts that contributed to all of this.)

So, that’s what I’ve got for you! Someone could probably write a whole research paper on this (and hell, maybe they have), but hopefully this at least somewhat explains my assertions of queer coding. As a reward for reading all of this, please enjoy a bonus scene of Harry NOT being attracted to a man:

Poor Ron. Maybe next time, buddy.

[twistedtummies2]

if you run a kink/fetish blog you really shouldnt be putting stuff in the main tags. the main tags are not an 18+ space, theyre for minors and adults alike, and kink stuff doesnt belong there. i havent reported you yet because i want to give you a chance to reflect and change your behavior, but if i keep seeing you in the main/character tags, i will flag the posts and your blog as sensetive content. as someone who was affected by seeing a lot of fetish stuff at a young age bc of irresponsible fandoms, im very passionate about this topic. i dont care if you publish this or not.

I was never aware that the tags apparently are "age managed." Plenty of people do things of this nature without having to worry about stuff like this. I also was not (and am not) aware of what "main tags" are. So I sincerely do not know what you are referring to, specifically. And if you wish to call me out and claim I'm playing dumb...no, I'm not playing, I sincerely have no clue. I honestly have never seen any reason or known of any reason to monitor my tags, so I have not done so for that reason above all else. IF, from the way you're speaking, this is some sort of unspoken rule on Tumblr, or if I perhaps missed something way, way back when I joined the site, then I apologize and I am perfectly willing to "change my behavior," as you put it, because the last thing I want is to scar young innocent people for life, the way you claim happened to you. However, having said that, I would like to say two more things. One, there is no reason to threaten me with reporting like this. One other person came to me some time ago to tell me that, evidently, the "g/t" tag is one that is meant for all ages, so I shouldn't use it. I thanked them, apologized, and I no longer use that tag. They, in turn, thanked me, apologized in case they seemed rude, and then moved on with their life. Like I said, I am totally willing to change my practices if that is something that HAS to happen; I do not like breaking the rules. But your rudeness is not appreciated, by seemingly assuming that I am doing this maliciously. A simple "you shouldn't use these specific tags" would have been well and good, then I'd know to either change how I manage that matter, or stop wielding them altogether. Two, and most importantly...if this stuff offends you and bothers you so much, then you have no reason to look at my page. And I do not believe my little kink blog is some blight upon whatever taglines you're referring to; if by "main tags" you're referring to things like my more analytical pieces that have nothing to do with kinks, there's not much I can do there, especially since those AREN'T kink-based. As far as I can perceive, those are doing no harm. If by "main tags" you're referring to character names or whatever...I can search a character name and find tons upon tons of stuff that has nothing to do with kinks long before I run into anything related to my interests. I know, I've tried. My work and others doesn't really pop up too often, UNLESS I'm specifically looking for the kink in conjunction. Also, I should think that anyone reading it will realize it's not for them and turn away.

I appreciate your concern, and I understand it...but do not dictate things like this to me as if you run the website, or have the right to decide what people will or will not post. If you would care to discuss this in a civil and polite manner, please feel free to contact me via PM, so we can engage in such discourse. Until then, I will continue to tag things the way I always have, not because I am trying to hurt anyone, but because it simply the most obvious way I know how. If that bothers you so much, then tell me how to fix it, don't simply say "stop it or I'll report you" when I'm not even really sure what I'm doing wrong. There are many others like me. We are not animals. We are not monsters. And we are not out to hurt anyone. We just want to write our silly, kinky nonsense and keep to ourselves. Do not engage in witch hunts as if we are some hideous plague upon the universe. Most of us are just lonely geeks who want a place to express our darker side. Thank you.

[mybg3notebook]

Gale: Hypothesis and Analogies – Part 1

Here, I compile several hypotheses that are pretty common to find around, expressing my opinion on them and showing what EA has given us so far to justify them or not. 

Disclaimer Game Version: All these analyses were written up to the game version v4.1.104.3536 (Early access). As long as new content is added, and as long as I have free time for that, I will try to keep updating this information. Written in June 2021.

Disclaimer about interpretations of Real Life concepts: I’m not a fan of bringing real life issues into plain analogies/allegories in a game which intention in doing so was not made explicit, but the fandom seems to like this aspect and therefore I would like to share those opinions here as well since some seems reasonable despite not being of my taste. This topic may be sensitive for some people. Be aware of it.

Hypothesis: Gale was groomed

Concept

Grooming is building a relationship, trust, and emotional connection with a child or young person (and sometimes their family as well) to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse. Grooming allows offenders to slowly overcome natural boundaries long before sexual abuse occurs. On the surface, grooming a child can look like a close relationship between the offending adult, the targeted child and (potentially) the child’s caregivers. The grooming process is often misleading because the offender may be well-known or highly regarded in the community. As a result, it’s easy to trust them. Although grooming is more common among children, it may happen with adults too, especially in work environments.

Stages: First, perpetrators may target and exploit a child’s perceived vulnerabilities: emotional neediness, isolation, neglect, a chaotic home life, or lack of parental oversight, etc. They work to gain the trust of parents/caregivers to lower suspicion.

Once the perpetrator begins to fill the child's needs, they may assume a more important role in the child's life. Perpetrators utilize tactics such as gift giving, flattery, gifting money, and meeting other basic needs. Tactics may also include increased attention and affection towards the targeted child. The perpetrator uses isolation tactics to reinforce their relationship with the child by creating situations in which they are alone together or by cultivating a sense that they love and understand the child in a way that others, even their parents, cannot. 

Once emotional dependence and trust have been built, the perpetrator progressively sexualizes the relationship. When sexual abuse is occurring, perpetrators commonly use emotional manipulation; they make the child believe they are the only person who can meet their emotional and material needs. The child may feel that the loss of the relationship, or the consequences of exposing it, will be more damaging and humiliating than continuing the unhealthy relationship. 

Behavioural consequence

The consequences on victims of grooming tend to be very different depending on the victim's age, personality, and psychology, but some broad leftover traits or behaviours can be summarised as:

They are too eager to please and have a great avoidance of angering others.

Big desire for privacy: they know others will not understand what they lived.

The victim becomes withdrawn, or they may seem troubled by something but unwilling to talk about it. Alternatively, their emotions might become more volatile.

They tend to be unaware of the abuse for a long while even after the relationship ended. 

If they are aware, they tend to display shame and embarrassment for what happened.

They can suffer abandonment issues depending on the way this relationship ended. 

They tend to develop difficulties to maintain relationships.

This situation tends to be particularly invisible or dismissed for men and boys due to social norms about masculinity.

Inside the context of BG3

First, it's important to estimate Gale's age. More or less the fandom agrees he is currently (1492DR) in his early 30s. Mystra returned in 1479DR (read the post about "Mystra and her Chosen ones" for details), so Mystra may have lured Gale into serving her as Chosen when he was around 17 years old (this depends on every player’s perception of Gale’s age)

This gives us a good estimation of the context: When Mystra returned thanks to Elminster—who gave her most of his Silver Fire—she immediately started to strengthen her network of Chosen ones and to work on repairing the Weave to its original state. Due to this unique context, Gale may have been observed by Mystra as a precious asset: a very young wizard who could not only control the Weave but compose it: a great skill to repair a still weak Weave. Furthermore, in the novel Dead Masks (1491DR), it is stated that the best way to cast a spell with a weakened Weave is to "twist" it instead of using it for tapping into the Raw Magic. In this book it is not clear if this is a skill that only Chosen ones have, but it has a strong similarity with Gale's skills.

Although we don't know much about Gale's childhood, if he was neglected or not as a child to be more easily lured by the Goddess, we can agree that it's most likely that Mystra has been watching him as a potential candidate since a child. Gale explicitly says: "I’ve been in touch with the Weave for as long as I can remember". And as far as Forgotten Realms lore goes, Weave and Mystra are the same. We also know that this is a common behaviour of Mystra who has been watching precocious, skilful wizards before choosing them for her goals: for example, Midnight. 

When Gale reached an age that could be considered a "(very) young man", she seduced him, using his passion and love for Magic to lure him. She offered him a deep connection with her and with the Weave: with Magic itself. After seeing Gale's passion for magic, it is understandable that he—as a teenager or a young man—must have been dazzled by her and her proposal. We know that, in the novel Elminster: a mage in the making, she offered to Elminster exactly what he wanted the most: power to make his revenge possible . By the end of the encounter, Elminster became “charmed” by her despite hating her throughout all his life, turning into her devotee. This situation can be interpreted as another example of how Mystra works: she seems to lure her potential Chosen with the promise of giving them what they are most passionate about.

Once Mystra slept with her Chosen, and imbued her divine essence on them, she left them to their own devices, making them wait for her commands. In Elminster’s and Sammaster ��s case, both were put under tests, being forced—by their own drive to please the Goddess—to develop more magic and personal skills to serve her. In the process, both developed an obsession for her. Elminster's seems to be less self-destructive than Sammaster's, but the latter could be understandable since he always suffered from madness. My point is, the pattern continues with Gale: driven by this obsession of wanting Mystra close, to please her, Gale tried to control an ancient magic, and failed, being abandoned by Mystra due to this mistake.

Gale, according to this interpretation as a victim of grooming, is still stuck in the process: he wants to please Mystra, wants to right his wrongs, even though in some scenes he seems to have been over her, in others he still seems to be very attached to her (it's hard to know which is the most accurate since it's EA and Gale was rushed), he keeps all this trouble in private because he knows nobody will understand.

Unlike an adult who realised he was victim of grooming, Gale seems to be still not over that relationship, showing many of the behavioural consequences: 

Gale is a person who is always eager to please and avoid confrontations. If there is no choice he will use violent means, but he will always push for diplomatic approaches [1,2]. This trait seems to favour this interpretation.

He has a strong sense of privacy to the point that he is considered "shady". A lot of that desire for privacy may come from the fact that he knows no one will understand the unique relationship he had with a bigger entity. This can be seen by choosing the meanest options during the Weave and the Loss. Despite his many troubles, he remains secretive, acknowledging that "some things can't be spoken". 

He is completely unaware of having been a victim of such power imbalance. He doesn't see abuse in it, and he is not performative about this fact, since he is very private on the topic until very late in game.

Nobody can deny his abandonment issues (which are even explicitly pointed out in the dev's notes) [20]

We can infer, by all the information given, that Mystra has been his first (and presumably only) relationship so far, giving a possible hint that he may have decided not to enter another relationship again or may have felt apprehensive about it (even though I personally think this impediment is mainly caused by the “orb”).

I don't completely subscribe to this interpretation because I don’t think Mystra’s main goal has been sexual abuse, but the creation of servants and devotees that allow her to expand her power. To do so, she uses sex as part of the “ritual” that transforms certain mortals into Chosen Ones. The way in which this is indirectly explained in the novels makes me remember the concept of Zeus and his abuse of mortals: he spreads part of his divinity in the form of demi-god offspring. In Mystra’s case, she seems to leave part of her divinity in the Chosen one that slept with her: the “seed” of semi-divinity. 

However, it’s not clear if sleeping with her Chosen ones is a procedure she always does. Her daughters may have inherited her divinity when she conceived them while possessing a mortal body, but other female Chosen Ones seemed to be out of this process. Ed Greedwood also has a constant discourse in his novels where he explains that magic is “better” understood or much easily wielded by females because “they are connected to their emotions” and another stereotype of this kind. What seems to be clear is that Forgotten Realm lore hides as much as possible its queerness, and when it comes to Mystra, this habit of sleeping with her Chosen seems to apply (or at least make it more explicit) only to male mortals. So in short, her main goal was to catch another useful mortal to her group of Chosen Ones, and to do so, she lured Gale with all what she could offer. I also believe gods are gods, and they are immensely overpowered and entitled to do whatever they want in this fantasy world. They don't follow mortal rules, so they may have little scruples to do anything they see necessary to achieve their own goals, no matter if the consequences of their actions affect children, teenagers, or adults. 

Mystra in particular has been a very neutral goddess (due to her many rebirths), not particularly cruel as an evil deity could be, but not completely selfless either: she has conceived her daughters using a mortal vessel who previously gave her consent but without knowing the consequences of giving birth each year for a decade while containing a goddess inside. Mystra also profited off of Sammaster's madness (some Harpers who wrote Sammaster’s reports suspect she could have been able to cure him): she may have actively decided not to in order to let his genius madness increase her realm of power/magic. Therefore, Mystra may have had little scruples to use a very young Gale enamoured with magic to turn him into another Chosen whose skills could fix the Weave given the context that it had been severely weakened after the Spellplague. So the grooming is not completely misplaced in my opinion.

Gale's Chosen selection process is not different to what we can read in the book of the Cult of the Dragon, where Sammaster became obsessed with Mystra after sleeping with her and developed metamagic as a consequence to impress her. Or in the novel Elminster, the making of a mage, where Elmister originally despised Mystra and every magic user. However, after being in her presence, he fell for her charm, and never could get over his "love" for her, suffering a lot of painful circumstances to just be a "good devotee" and serve her.

Mystra is written in most novels as the living allegory of the beautiful "mean" woman who will always ask for more from her poor captivated men, but she will never be completely satisfied, no matter how much they sacrifice. She acknowledges the effort, but she is always asking for more. Only with Elminster she actively tried to save him from the Hells, showing, for a change, that her Chosen can be a bit more than mere pawns in the big game of divine power. However, it's important to highlight that the last rebirth of Mystra has changed her: in the novel Dead Masks some of the Seven Sisters explicitly say that Mystra has turned paranoid, asking each of her Chosen to do missions that the others cannot know. She has become more secretive and cryptic than ever. 

Mystra's actions seem to have worse connotation if we think that she can have visions of the future, as she had when she decided that Sammaster had to be her Chosen: she had foresaw the death of another Chosen and she wanted him to fill that vacuum before the event happened. So she may have foreseen Gale’s actions in his naive way to impress her. Maybe she wanted him to do it, so she could have a new piece of magic in her realm. But this is mere speculation, we will need the full release of the game to have the answer.

As I explained, despite not being a fan of it, the interpretation of grooming is not a bad one. It fits mostly if it's applied to a teenage boy, and probably it would have been taken a bit more seriously and less prone to jokes inside the fandom if Gale were a female character and Mystra a male God. 

Hypothesis: Gale has abandonment Issues

Concept

Abandonment issues arise when an individual has a strong fear of losing loved ones. A fear of abandonment is a form of anxiety. It often begins in childhood when a child experiences a traumatic loss. Children who go through this experience may then begin to fear losing other important people in their lives. Some individuals continue to fear abandonment as they grow older. Although it is less common, abandonment issues can also sometimes begin in adulthood. 

The loss often stems from a trauma, such as a death or divorce. Emotional abandonment, where a parent or caregiver is physically present but emotionally absent, may also give rise to abandonment issues later in life. It is not clear what makes one person develop this fear, since not all humans who have experienced similar losses do it. Trauma — potentially from abuse or poverty — may play a role, as may the level of emotional support that a person receives following a loss. These issues can have a significant effect on a person’s life and relationships because they fear that the other person will leave them at any moment. 

Behavioural signs/consequences

Being overly eager to please ( a “people pleaser”) 

Pushing others away to avoid rejection

Jealousy of the partner or the others when in a relationship.

Trouble trusting their partner's intentions.

Feeling insecure about their relationships.

Codependency

Need for continuous reassurance that others love them and will stay with them

Persisting in unhealthy relationships

Inability to maintain relationships: or moving quickly from one relationship to another or sabotaging them

Inside the context of BG3

I'm not going to explain this in great detail since it's spread in most of the posts I’ve done about Gale's analysis. What it's clear is that Gale has a constant fear for abandonment once he starts caring for Tav as a friend or/and lover, and this fear makes him prone to do things of poor taste. This fear seems to make him look for acceptance that only through a night of intimacy can give him. This information is apparently in the book he read, making us guess that his experience with relationships is rather poor if nonexistent. Dev's notes also reinforce the idea that Gale fears abandonment:

Gale: It is my truth, finally revealed. It is this folly that led Mystra to abandon me completely. I can only hope you won’t abandon me as well. After all we’ve been through. After the night we spent together. Surely we can brave even this side by side Dev's note: Solemn. Full of yearning, his news will not lead to him being abandoned by the player. 

Gale: Loyalty is such a… such a very rare commodity. Dev's note: The reference to loyalty foreshadows Mystra leaving him. 

So far in EA, we can see that Gale checks some behavioural consequences of this fear: he is always eager to please, approaching Tav with courtesy and jovial manners, only displaying his most acidic side to a Tav whose actions are evil. In that case, Gale cares little if Tav leaves him. With the Loss scene we can see that it is hard for him to give his trust to others, pushing them away because they would not understand the grave mistake he made. His trust demands constant progression from the Stew scene, to the Weave, to the Loss scene. If he is romanced, he asks several times if Tav is thinking of the Weave moment. When Tav asks him this question, Gale will deflect, always asking back to have Tav’s answer first before giving his: it could be interpreted as Gale looking for constant reassurance in the blooming relationship. 

However, in my opinion, the best situation that shows his abandonment issues is during our meeting with Gandrel. Gale disapproves of handing over Astarion, by telling Tav about an anecdote of a dog turning old and mean: how his friend got rid of the animal just because it was an inconvenience. This is very curious since Gale's mistrust for Astarion is not a secret: he stated many times that Astarion is a danger to the group, and his wickedness causes him to strongly dislike him. The reason for this is quite obvious if we see both lists of approvals: mostly what one approves the other disapproves. Despite all this, Gale strongly judges Tav for handing Astarion over, and his disapproval for doing it shows that Gale is not lying on the matter: the meta-knowledge is trustworthy information. 

This can be understood better when Tav defends Astarion against Gandrel: Gale approves twice of defending him. If Astarion is not in the group when meeting the monster hunter, the first approval happens when Tav recognises that Astarion is part of their companions/friends (therefore, Tav is showing care for their group). The second approval happens when Tav reinforces their loyalty to Astarion insisting that they won’t give his location (this is a clear display of loyalty that Gale acknowledges as rare. See the post of "Gale Hypotheses- Part 2", section: "Proposition to Cheat" for more details). Although Gale will explicitly question this decision, he secretly approved it (the approvals we saw are meta-knowledge: only the player sees them). Considering the undeniable context that Gale deeply dislikes Astarion, we may interpret this as Gale seeing in Tav a loyal person who will not abandon someone they care for, even if that person endangers them. Loyalty is something that resounds deeply in Gale due to his abandonment issues. 

 Another detail on this matter can be seen during the party. If Tav arranges spending the night with a companion and then asks (non-romanced) Gale the same, he will answer:

Gale: You are all too quick to abandon the one you promised yourself to. It’s not a quality I admire.

This line shows that first, Gale is not interested in casual sex; he needs the connection that the Weave provides and Tav’s explicit, previous romantic interest in it. Second, when Gale is romanced but Tav sleeps with someone else, Gale will not interfere in that affair, but he may not like it (due to his, I suppose, jealous comment since he doesn’t display an approval penalty for this). However, he seems to equate loyalty with commitment, understanding that affair as a fling but believing he still holds the romantic interest of Tav, hence his proposition the next day. More details in the post of "Gale Hypotheses- Part 2", section: "Proposition to Cheat".

---------

Sources for both parts:

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( 5V)

Some concepts were summarised from: https://melcrowecounsellor.com www.d2l.org/child-grooming-signs-behavior-awareness/

This post was written in June 2021. → For more Gale: Analysis Series Index