#isn't there enough heterosexuality in the world?

[mintharan]

i'm gonna be so real. there are lots of criticisms to make of da4 but complaining about 'choices' not making it from one game to another is so funny to me. bestie i pirated those games. literally there's nothing in da2 that connects to anything i did in origins. to say nothing of inquisition... for me those have always been three different games set in the same world and only loosely connected.

[kiefbowl]

listen to me, this is important. some of you are heterosexual and women and are likely very normal looking, but are convinced you're not attractive. and in some ways you are right, you are like a normal boring person, maybe with a couple odd qualities like a big forehead or snaggle tooth or something. you've probably been teased, perhaps bullied, been told you should "try harder" or are "ugly" or a number of other things that make it seem like you will just always be a normal, boring, ugly person.

okay and probably you will to some degree.

this post isn't about convincing you you're beautiful on the inside, whatever that's your journey I can't convince women who hate how they look not to hate themselves.

this post is warning you about the MEN who will grab hold of you, and try to make you feel lucky that they love you because you are so boring looking and normal and you're just a normal looking every-day person who was called ugly growing up. and they will take you on dates, and be nice enough, and move in with you, be polite to your parents, maybe even marry you. BE FOREWARENED: they are NOT nice!! When someone loves you, you are the sexiest hottest most awoooga person in the world to them. when grown ups love their partners, they want to eat them up slurp them down put their mouth all over everything and they will never ever ever make you feel lucky to have them, they will be like how how how do I have an angel living with me!!!!

YOU! CAN! ALWAYS! DO! BETTER! Do not let lame, boring, unmotivated, exhausting, unskilled, uninteresting, unsexy men catch a free ride on YOUR one wild and crazy life, because they sniffed out the opportunity to grind your self-confidence to dust by guessing that you, like most women, have some body image issues, so that they can guarantee you will be hard pressed to leave them when they "forget" yet again to do their laundry (can you do it?), or pick up their groceries (let's just get pizza), or plan the trip you've been begging them to do for you (I don't know how!). These men will be pleased to give you crumbs, and expect you to lap them up thankfully because you are soooo so so so quote unquote YOU GEE ELL WHY.

NOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You do NOT have to be beautiful to be loved, and you are absolutely capable of not only find a better man, but thriving without any man!!! YES. YOU. ARE. You do not want to wake up, age 40 - and realize my god I've given this man 15 years of my life, and we haven't seen paris, and we haven't adopted dogs, and I haven't written my novel, and we don't have a retirement plan, and now my knees hurt too much and our mortgage is so expensive. You want to wake up tomorrow, 25 years old, and think "I have 55 more years to have earthshattering orgasms every day and do whatever the fuck I want, god be damned to hell" and then go do that at all possible costs. The perfect nose, chin, and eyebrow does not make your clit work any better.

Do you understand what I'm saying?? THE PERFECT NOSE, CHIN, ASS, BOOBS, WEIGHT, OUTFIT, NAILS, AND EYEBROWS DO NOT MAKE YOUR CLIT WORK ANY BETTER.

[moonlightsapphic]

Look, I just need you guys to understand how important queer coming-of-age forbidden romances on internationally accessible platforms like Netflix is, especially to youth in countries where homosexuality still hasn't been legally decriminalised or socially accepted.

That was a mouthful, so let me explain. You, a white American adult with a liberal family, may not relate to a fictional anxious teen Swedish prince grappling with strict familial and societal expectations versus his first love. You may not find anything special in a bunch of queer British teens discovering themselves and figuring out complex relationships that are honestly rather simplistic, in retrospect. It might be a little too trite for you. Like, just a little vanilla without any extra drama. Perhaps corny—cringe, even. Too wholesome.

But you know what that is to me, a desi queer young adult? It's representation, in an unlikely place. My country certainly isn't making movies or shows where I see my secret relationship between me and my girlfriend portrayed. I don't see that happening in the next couple of decades, either, sadly. But you know who’s telling our stories? Alice Oseman. Lisa Ambjörn, Lars Beckung and Camilla Holter. Through fictional storylines that might seem kind of boring to you, I am finally able watch my lived experiences play out on screen.

American media has done such a disservice to queer coming-of-age stories. I want to scream this from the rooftops. Y’all, I’m glad to see more out quirky queer side-characters—I can’t get enough of them—but why is it so rarely their story, in sharp focus, about how they found themselves? I want to know how they overcame internalised homophobia. When was the moment they knew? What is the cost they have to pay for being out? For not being out?

And no, I don’t want it to be dramatic. I don’t need to see violence or betrayals or victorious kisses in public, really. I’m happiest with the teenagers behaving like real teenagers. Innocent, vulnerable, nervous. I want it to be heartfelt, and excruciatingly slow, and authentic. I want to see the small wins and the subtle losses. The quiet mental toll of how much you have to give to a queer relationship—especially your first queer relationship—and how hard that can be to separate from your Identity itself.

Give me that "am I gay?" quiz and genuinely crying at 3:00 AM because you're in a rabbit hole about LGBTQ+ rights in a country where you actually don’t want to be gay and you don’t even know if you “count” anyway. Show me that moment where you're going back and forth from forbidding yourself from seeing the one person that sees and understands you and it's to protect your mental and physical well-being but it's driving you insane. Give me ALL THE YOUNG ADULT BI+ AWAKENINGS where one person strolls into your life and changes everything. No, it’s really not the same as most cis-heterosexual insta-love movies out there, even if it looks that way to you. It doesn’t even cut it close.

The happy ending, the acceptance is only what I can dream of, not what I can expect. The wholesomeness is actually radical to me.

No, we’re not past the need for basic star-crossed queer romances. For most countries in the world (including for many white American teenagers!), we need them as much as ever.

[dee-morris]

Idk Who Needs to Hear This But

realizing that Heaven is Bad doesn't automatically translates to Hell is Good.

The whole point of Good Omens is that both institutions are equally shitty because both of them "mess humans about" and interfere with free will. Both sides tried to pressure a child into destroying the world so they could destroy each other. Both sides installed agents on Earth in order to manipulate mankind and earn brownie points with their bosses. Both sides tried to murder those agents when they soaked up some of that human free will like celestial sponges and rebelled against their designated roles. One did it while looking like an aggressively heterosexual corporate asshole and the other one did it while looking like a Goth punk who never bathes, but that's the only difference.

I really feel like we don't talk about this enough. Heaven certainly isn't the good guys, but neither is Hell. Both sides need to get the smackdown so that humankind and our boys (gn) can have the freedom they deserve.

[m3r1m4r5u333]

I'm getting a bit tired of the fandom's overwhelming consensus that Eddie is surely gay even thought there are plenty reasons why his relationships with women would not have worked out.

Personally bisexuality makes more sense to me, and I feel like that's what the show is trying to show, too. And since the show already had "closeted gay man in a "straight" marriage, I think it would make more sense to go for Bi Eddie.

Because Eddie is different from Buck even if he's also bi. Religion. His family's expectations. Marriage. Parenthood. And I also think - earlier realization of sexuality even though he remains closeted. Fun fact: that's what bisexuals do! Even in supportive environments, we stay in the closet the most and the longest.

I'd really like for Eddie to be bi.

Eddie's the type of bi in disguise that the world is full of and nobody notices because the marriage with a woman would be a true one.

This matters because it seems like there's this odd idea that these bisexuals are doing fine in the closet. Why talk about them?

The reality is actually that according to just about every study, bisexuals are distinctly not fine.

The biphobia and erasure comes from all directions. People expect and understand the concept of heterosexuality and homosexuality well enough. Bisexuals...?

It's called the Double Closet. Expectation to either be straight, or gay, and if you're anything else you're just confused.

Also, bisexuals may not just have shitty parents. They also end up falling in love and marrying people who are biphobic. Fun times.

Anyway, I'm listing my reasons why Eddie being into women and men would make the most sense to me:

He agreed with Shannon that sex was never the issue for them.

His marriage to Shannon failing? He was young, the pregnancy was unplanned, he was pushed to marry a high-school sweetheart at young age and then facing the stress of trying to figure out how to raise a special needs child with her.

He went to a war, and returned traumatized. Trauma tends to make everything even harder.

Their mutual lack of trust and communication.

Meddling parents.

Perhaps... Being a closeted bisexual dating a woman who does not know.

Because that's one way to keep a partner at a distance - by hiding a part of yourself.

Losing a loved one, being afraid to love again.

Being pushed to date too soon after grief and trauma.

Falling for a male friend who he thinks is straight.

Being pushed to date someone else.

Oh and the panic attacks - Learning that his friends have died,

being shot by a sniper and thinking Buck was hurt,

ending up in a rapidly developing relationship with someone who is falling in love with him...

When he just likes her... but feels pressured to keep the relationship going anyway.

Because his son loves that person, and Eddie is programmed to go for marriage in every relationship he ends up in. Catholic guilt... They love marriage.

Family expecting him to be straight. Family pushing him to date despite him saying he isn't ready.

Being totally new in the dating world. No wonder he talks about performance anxiety and feeling like he needs to perform - his heart isn't in it.

Also he's probably never even been on dates. How to act on dates? He's not a teenager anymore, it's embarrassing and awkward to fumble and not know the dating culture.

Also when we first meet Eddie he's only been with one woman. Women aren't carbon copies. Sex can be intimate and awkward with someone new. Of course he'd be nervous.

Then finding out that his girlfriend was almost a nun... and being closeted bisexual!

And so on. Nothing actually says the man MUST be gay, and I feel weirded out by the insistence that he surely is gay.

I feel like... Maybe the show expected this, that people would dismiss his interest towards women, and wanted to make the queer community check their prejudice?

Because that episode which focuses on Eddie's fight club and has that super queer coded ice skating scene??

It's Hansel pushing Gretel away... How gay! Expect then we find out that Hansel was only scared that she would miss out an huge opportunity by staying with her. A role in the big leagues.

And that joke about Bobby being a hockey player and a figure skater??? And saying

"Who says you can't do both?" while a piece composed by Paganini - also famous for mastering both guitar and violin, plays.

The shot shows Buck AND Eddie, and Hen with Chimney looking and pointing at them in amazement.

Saying "We'll google for photos later!"

Maybe the implication of

"Who says you can't do both" being referred to isn't just

"Who says you can't do both women and men?"

.... but ALSO "Who says you can't write both of these characters to be bi?".

[impala124]

So, after I put this ask into the world and went back to minding my own business, @lurkingshan was kind enough to answer it and tag a few of her friends to share their thoughts on the matter. Thanks to everyone who interacted with the post.

In addition to this thoughtful post from @starryalpacasstuff , I feel that in order to understand the near absence of queer media in the Indian media landscape, people need some context as to what the ground realities are in India like.

Decriminalisation of homosexuality in India happened in 2018. In an unanimous decision, the court overturned its previous ruling and declared that any law that criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex is unconstitutional. The public backlash wasn't that huge, but a prominent member of the ruling party questioned if the courts are willing to legalise sexual intercourse with animals in the name of personal liberty.

To understand the relatively less public outrage in this scenario, we need to look at how Indian society functions. Indian culture is very collectivist in nature and having individuality is strongly discouraged. If something becomes a threat to them continuing their traditions, they'll try to beat it into submission. It isn't to suggest that people can't/won't change, it just takes time. As long as something isn't out in the open, they can just ignore it and go on about their lives. PDA is not a common thing in India even between heterosexuals. So, the chance of anyone being 'exposed' to homosexuality is close to zero. Landlords are already wary of renting apartments to guys who live together - the reasons they give is that men won't maintain the house properly, neighbours will complain because of noise, etc. So, nothing significant changes in the life of a layman because of this decision. Housing discrimination isn't faced when its women that are living together (disregarding religion and caste). The bitter truth is that housing in India is deeply segregated on the basis of religion and caste, but that's a discussion for another day.

The big fight will happen when the gays ask for marriage equality. As of 2024, same-sex marriage is not legal in India. The courts have said that existing laws have to revised in order to extend marriage equality to the homosexuals and that process has to go through the Parliament. Given the current state of Indian politics, no political party is going to put marriage equality on their election manifesto.

Keeping all of this in mind, I understand the reasons for the sparse queer media content we've seen in India. Once I started talking to others, I realised that I've severely underestimated the number of teen girls and young adults who watch BLs from several East Asian countries. The producers/creators really need to grow a backbone and create the content that clearly has a market, they are leaving money on the table. In the meantime, we need to engage with the existing queer media to give them irrefutable proof that the audience exists!!!

[celestial-artisan]

Cakes and sexuality

There's a buffet restaurant full of cakes of all sorts- The two most popular ones are the chocolate cake and the cheesecake, but there are many others as well. Cakes are also sorted into two types, ones with a stronger flavor and ones with weaker flavors.

When you enter the restaurant, you get a ticket saying 'typical menu', with one of the popular cakes written on it.

Heterosexual: You eat the cake written on your ticket.

Homosexual: You eat the cake not written on your ticket.

Bisexual: You eat both. It's a buffet, so why not?

Omnisexual: All cakes are great, but you do take note of the flavor before you eat it.

Pansexual: You don't care about what flavor the cake is- Cake is cake. You can even put a blindfold around yourself and eat whatever you feel like.

Polyamorous: You eat two cakes at once, flavor of your choice, because why not? The combination's nice.

Demisexual/demiromantic: You need to know enough about the cake before wanting to eat it. You don't feel the urge to eat random pieces of cake.

Asexual, alloromantic: Cakes with strong flavors aren't to your taste. You go to the line of cakes with weaker flavors and pick one you like.

Asexual, aromantic: Cakes aren't for you. This doesn't mean you hate people who like cakes. You go to a different restaurant and have whatever food you like.

It's that simple. Cakes. Everyone has different preferences, and it's nothing to get worked up about. Basic common sense to simply respect each other, right?

Unfortunately, this isn't what's happening in our world. Just because you eat the cake not written on the ticket, people are condemned, berated, and abused. You're deemed wishy-washy or a fake when you say you like to eat more than one cake. People don't understand when you say weak-flavored cakes are fine- "Why can't you eat the strong ones, then? Those are 'real' cakes!" You're either called a cold-hearted psychopath or swamped with people trying to find you 'the cake' that can 'warm you up' when all you want is no cake.

But I want to tell everyone reading this, you're not alone. Whatever way you want to eat(or not eat) your cake(s), I fully support you. 'Cake is cake', and people who don't like cakes or can't eat them? Cool!

Have a nice day and don't be deterred by whatever may block your way- I'm sending a week full of good luck to you!!!!!! :D

[aa-400]

malevolent and the queer-coded villain trope

*disclaimer please respect the #masked tag. while i'm putting these thoughts out into the ether they're not really meant for harlan to see as i don't want to be put on blast for criticising the show. this is not me attempting to malign this podcast or its creator or to go "it's bad and problematic actually so don't listen to it" because that's a frankly horrible and unhelpful way of engaging with media and the world at large. i'm certainly not going to stop enjoying malevolent wholeheartedly or supporting harlan in his creative endeavours. this is not an accusation, it's an observation.

i've been thinking about the queer-coded villain trope in a separate context recently, but something clicked for me with part 34. horror (and other genre fiction but let's focus on the relevant genre here) has a tradition of placing queer elements within the subtext. it's a means of Othering and used to separate the protagonist from whatever evil entity they're up against in the story, be it man or creature, and where the the tropes of the monstrous queer and the queer-coded villain are born from.

a brief second disclaimer. i'm a queer villain and queer horror enjoyer and here to reclaim every single queer-coded villain and monster ever created but acting like the trope doesn't have a problematic, negative history is a sucky way of engaging with and examining a piece of media so let's not do that.

aaanyway, to the actual meat of this post: i believe malevolent reiterates the monstrous queer / queer-coded villain tropes however unintentionally and they go unexamined in the text.

first, we have kayne. flamboyant, exaggerated kayne who calls arthur—and to an extent john—pet names. i don't really think i have to go into detail for people to know what i'm getting at.

then we have larson. yeah, larson. in particular, i'm referring to the scene where arthur wakes up in the larson estate and his clothes have been removed. larson approaches arthur while he's in bed, vulnerable, and while there's not anything untoward happening in the text, it's still very ... master of the house and the gothic heroine, for lack of a better comparison. actually, think of count dracula and jonathan harker in castle dracula — the dynamic is very reminiscent of that, and dracula is a famously queer coded monster in part for that whole thing.

and finally, there's the butcher. a predator—a serial killer—obsessed with chasing arthur down. and boy did part 34 lay it down thick. i mean, he hears peggy gordon in his head when he hunts arthur and sings it to him when he's come to get him. it's a song about a man's unrequited love and it's pretty obvious the butcher's meant to be the man while arthur is peggy, who slighted him when he escaped from the butcher back in the train. and then as if that wasn't obvious enough he has a line about falling in love with his victims. "it's dedication, devotion, a bond. (laugh) sounds a bit like falling in love, doesn't it? maybe i suppose you could say i've fallen in love with each and every one of them. with each and every animal." which is then followed by more arthur-specific obsessing.

harlan has explicitly stated that arthur isn't queer rep, so unintentionally what's happening in the text is that the heterosexual protagonist is pitted against these queer-coded malevolent entities in a way that's pretty text book.

none of these characters i used as examples are written to be explicitly queer, but the coding is certainly there. again, i'm not saying harlan is a secret queerphobe who is putting this subtext in malevolent intentionally—i can with confidence say that we can safely assume that isn't the case! but, like i said when i was prefacing this post, queer subtext in the monstrous and villainous have a recorded history within horror. it's really easy to reiterate tropes like that if you create within a genre without actively examining your work and its wider context, and i think that's what happening here.

so what was the point of this post? there isn't much of one, really, i just made an observation and wanted to share because i believe in and enjoy examining the things you love critically. and i do love malevolent, with its queer-coded villains and all. i'm not calling for anything to change in the story, or accusing harlan or anyone else of anything; i'm just having thoughts about the wider scope of horror media and where malevolent fits within it and i'm using a cda and queer theory oriented brain to do it.

[welivetodream]

BSD and Shipping

Since Valentine's day was coming I was interested in discussing a huge part of the BSD fandom: Shipping

( ⚠️ RANT INCOMING. DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED ABOUT OPINIONS ON SHIPPING. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL TOWARDS OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS IN COMMENTS AND REBLOGS. ⚠️)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

So where to start?

For a long time I have been noticing one specific trend in the BSD subreddit. And that are posts that talk about unpopular opinions/Headcanons/fav or least fav ships etc.

What I find interesting about these posts is that one thing is always in the forefront, and it's the debates about the sexualities of the characters in BSD. While Headcanons can be annoying and some people do push their opinions on others, there is nuance that is lacking in the community when discussing some topics. Finding posts about Mori being a pedo and how Dazai is unlikable or overrated is very easy and the discussions surrounding topics like that are always the same. People would pick sides and end up writing a lot about what their opinion is and while that's valid, it also ends up in fandom wars where it's hard to like or dislike something without your head being in the chopping block.

Now let's go to the original topic: shipping. To examine the environment of shipping culture in BSD fandom we have to start with the headcanons that people have adopted for sexualities of the characters.

1. THE PROBLEM WITH HETRO-NORMATIVITY

Now, the posts about shipping often contain a lot of people writing paragraphs and paragraphs about what ships they like or dislike.

One of the ships that takes the most bullets for its existence and popularity is Soukoku or Shin Soukoku. There are lots of comments about these ships that "remind" us that canonically Dazai, Chuuya, Atsushi and Akutagawa are all straight. They should not be shipped with each other because they are straight.....

Dazai flirts with women and wants to commit a double suicide with a beautiful woman. Atsushi is very clearly set up to end up with Lucy. Akutagawa couldn't care less about romance as we see how dismissive he is with Higuchi. And Chuuya.......wears fashionable outfits and has a slutty waist, but we won't comment on that.

Dazai and Chuuya have a lot of queer subtext that anyone can see. Akutagawa and Atsushi are pointed out to complete each other and complement each other several times. These ships don't exist out of thin air.

Now there is nothing WRONG with anyone having the headcanon of any of these (or any other) characters to be straight, after all we are not given enough information about their sexualities. But by stating "Dazai is straight, he likes women" or "this ship doesn't make sense because they are not gay" not only does it imply that characters can't have other preferences but also that being straight is the default, which it isn't.

This is coming from a straight woman from a very conservative country where we don't have exposure to queer media. It took me a long time to stop being so heteronormative. I think assuming someone is straight until they prove to you or tell you directly is just as bad and as assuming someone is gay. I think we have come far along as a community to understand that it shouldn't be our first instinct to assume everything is heterosexual until we get some sort of proof or stamp of approval from its creator.

Asagiri isn't going to stand up in a stage in front of the world and say "yeah Dazai and Chuuya have gay feelings for eachother" because the manga is from Japan. If there were explicit queer characters then BSD would no longer get the label of being universal because of certain censorship laws. Even if it's getting more acceptable in Japan to show queer characters in manga and anime, BSD isn't a romance or slice of life story. It's a seinen, not a BL/GL. Besides, Asagiri shows little to no interest in romantic relationships in his story.

So by saying "______ character is straight because we don't have any other information proving otherwise " isn't a valid excuse to tell shippers not to ship certain characters, it's making it seem like heterosexuality is the default state of being.

That also doesn't mean you can say "Dazai is gay, don't ship him with women" because that's the same thing. If you think Dazai is gay/bi/pan/etc. then that's your opinion, pushing that on others only worsens the rep of skk shippers especially.

You have the right to like or dislike certain ships or have your own Headcanons. This is why even feminising certain characters also isn't as problematic as people call it. It's just a different take on a character (but that time people were correcting those who called Sigma a "he" instead of "they" was genuinely wrong). Headcanons of some random online stranger doesn't make anything canon. So if you find yourself around annoying people like that, just leave the conversation.

2. WHY SUBTEXT MATTERS

Subtext is really important when discussing media; in case of BSD whether it is the anime, manga, anthologies or LNs. BSD is not new to subtext, even from the start of the story there is a lot of queer subtext that people can figure out easily.

When we are introduced to Dazai and Chuuya's partnership in the first season, it's clear as day to see the dynamic and its underlying tension. We can see how close those two are that their relationship can't be explained just as simple partners turned enemies. Time and time again we get so much queer subtext between Skk's interactions. The entire 15 arc and well as Stormbringer shows us the bond and trust between the two as well as the intense amount of gay scenes. At this point I am sure Hoshikawa is a hardcore skk shipper. All of their official art is also gay (that could be queerbating though). Asagiri must know what the public thinks about Skk and still writes subtext about them. It makes sense why this would be a popular ship; it's not made out of thin air with no context (*ahem* Kousano *ahem*) but has actual roots and the proof to back it up too.

SSKK is a similar story, it's not my favourite but it has been growing on me ever since S5. Similar to skk, we get a lot of subtext and homoerotic moments between Aku and Atsushi. They are yin and yang. They are enemies that sought to kill eachother but still team up to fight together. Atsushi is literally the centre of Akutagawa's life since the beginning. Atsushi and Akutagawa grow together as characters and as different as they appear are similarly looking for one thing: validation and acceptance. Their relationship is so compelling in so many levels that it too makes sense why their ship is as popular as it is (especially regarding recent events in the story)

Ranpoe.....let's be real, those two got married a long time ago. They are the definition of "be gay, solve crimes". They are undeniably a cute ship regardless of whether it's one sided or not. Fyolai as well makes complete sense with the context behind Fyodor and Nikolai's relationship, while I also consider it quite one-sided as it's mostly Nikolai that is fascinated by Fyodor (and wants to kiss kill him) Fukumori isn't my cup of tea but it too has enough subtext to back it up, same with FukuFuku.

While I would love to talk about other ships, I wanted to show the reasoning behind the most popular pairings.

Personally, as a multishipper, it's very fun for me to have so many characters to examine and spend time obsessing over.

Now, there are straight ships that I like too as well as ships I don't ship for myself.

The reason I don't like Yosano and Ranpo together is because I see them in the same position as Kyouka and Atsushi. The scene of Ranpo recruiting Yosano (who worked with Mori) into the ADA parallels Atsushi saving Kyouka (who also worked with Mori). I consider them siblings and like how they are platonic instead of it being the typical "a boy and girl can't be besties". Another ship I love and cherish is AtsuLucy because it's so adorable, Lucy is my fav Guild member and her and Atsushi are "Girlboss and Malewife". I ship Tachihara with Gin, Higuchi and Gin as well as Kunikida with Yosano (surprisingly I don't find the appeal of Kunizai; though I still like that ship from time to time, just don't ship it actively). I prefer not to ship Sigma with anyone (he is still a baby to me)

So it's not that BSD doesn't have straight ships, when you make a majority male cast and have them be rivals or enemies, obviously people will ship m/m more. Especially if there is more subtext and tension behind the male characters and they have little to no interactions with women.

And I might get some heat for saying this:

It is okay for most of the BSD characters to be considered queer because if comp het is so normal in anime/manga then why can't the opposite be the case? We already have enough series with little to no representation, so why can't we have a bunch of queer characters?

3. TOXIC SHIPPERS AND THE FALL OF FANDOM CULTURE

I have been raving for the past two sections and defending the shipping community. But it isn't a conversation with nuance if I don't address the problem of a small group of people that take shipping too seriously. The reason why fandom itself gets a bad rep is because of shipping more often than not. I will admit, it's not all sunshine and rainbows when people argue about their fav ships. And a lot of the aforementioned ships are to a point, toxic. Yes, some shippers are annoying and ruin everyone else's fun. There are ships that don't make sense at all.

But that doesn't mean that a small part of people should represent others who are just having harmless fun and don't even believe their ships to ever become canon. Let's be real it's highly unlikely we will have any couples by the end of the show (the closest could be AtsuLucy). Sometimes people are too intense about ships and that goes for both antis and pros. Both of the extreme are toxic. And instead of shoving down our opinions down other people's throats, we should be celebrating the very story that brought us together in the first place.

Yeah it can be hard for those who don't like shipping at all to enjoy the story and have discussions. But we have to remember the roots of fandom culture start with shipping. It's always been the case and it's always been the most popular way to discuss one's favourite fictional work. From Sherlock to Genshin to boy bands to streamers, everything has been shipped and will always be. There is a reason why AO3 works so well.

4. SO WHAT?

The ships are what brought me to BSD in the first place. I wanted to explore the world of BSD because of its characters and their dynamics. And a lot of other people have gotten into this fandom for the exact same reason. While there are unflattering moments in our fandom, that doesn't mean it's not a place for people to come together and have some fun. Whether you ship or not. Whether you like fanfictions or not. We have to accept that there are a lot of pros to shipping too. It brings our ideas together, makes us feel giddy inside or tears our heart apart, it produces beautiful fanarts and fanfictions, it makes us analyse characters, it makes us look deeper into the story....and it makes us wait for what's next to come.

And I want nothing more than to be able to enjoy shipping without the guilt that comes with it.

Shipping isn't free from its flaws, but it is not defined only by its flaws. It might not be for everyone, but it is someone's everything. So even if you don't like it in particular, let's not spoil other people's fun. One's trash is another's treasure.

~Peace out 🕊️✌️

[cl0ckworkqueerness]

[trigger warning: mention of sexual assault]

the specific breed of queer queerphobia is just as if not more frightening than non-queer queerphobia, specifically in this case as it relates to acespec/arospec people (terms which will hence be combined into "aspec" for the sake of clarity, see the tags for a quick note about this)

if it's not already clear from my posts, i am very supportive of the silenced, erased, and shunned parts of the queer community. i involve myself a great deal in breaking down the walls that queer people have decided to erect in order to determine who does and doesn't get to call themselves "queer". nothing breaks my heart more than seeing other people who experience the world in a way starkly different from perisex, allosexual, alloromantic, cisgender, heterosexual people, get shunned from a family who also experiences the world in such a difference way, simply because it's not different "enough", or not different in the way they want to be different

aspec people will always unquestionably be queer, regardless of anything else that would or wouldn't make them queer. period.

aspec people should not and should never need to "justify" themselves to attend pride, not just "as an ally", but as someone whose relationship with romance and sex (the act) differs from what is expected of a "normal" person. they are inherently different, they are inherently queer. full stop.

aphobia exists, regardless of whether or not you follow your blatant bigotry with "no it doesn't". you cannot erase your shittiness by following up your shittiness with "by the way, I'm not being shitty". and if you know you are being aphobic, and you are proud of such a thing, rethink the way you see queerness as a whole. you are a vile human being, and should unlearn the oppression olympics. you not only are an athlete in it, but you are the obstacles. you are the fucking problem.

aspec people regularly face discrimination and harassment for being aspec. the comments of "why do you refuse to give me grandkids" and "maybe you just haven't found the right person yet" and "you're broken" and "you're going through a phase" have all been said about gay people, about lesbians, and about aspec people. aspec people face violence for being aspec. aspec people face corrective rape for being aspec. aspec people face crocodile tears claws that intend to "help", aspec people face blood and claws that intend to hurt, aspec people face real, visible hatred. and even if they weren't "oppressed enough", WHICH THEY UNDENIABLY ARE, 1) there isn't an oppression goal someone needs to hit to become valid, and 2) queer people should not be defined by the oppression we face, anyway.

"b-b-but what about cishet asexual people!!!" i have never seen a sentence less scary in my life. cishet people can be queer, you know? cishet people can be intersex (if they choose to identify as queer), cis people can be asexual and aromantic, pericishet people can in fact be demisexual and heteroromantic, and guess what? they're still queer. they still differ from what's "normal". they're still allowed to pride, because pride is not meant to gatekeep.

pride is meant to celebrate our differences, to fight against those who try to suppress us, and to unite those who feel crushed by the heel of normality.

so don't fucking do their job for them.

[commiegoth]

Interview with nonbinary trans author Kate Bornstein, promoting her book Gender Outlaw (Mondo 2000 #13, 1995)

Full text under cut

I‘m walking down 16th Street minding my own business. This good looking woman is coming toward me. She's got on baggy unbuttoned overalls and an orange tank top. Her arms look good, her shoulders look good, and what I can see of her stomach looks good. Two guys are standing on the sidewalk. As she passes them, one says to the other, “I'd like to take that one home.” The other guy agrees. The woman keeps walking. Now it's my turn to pass 'em. “I'd like to take that one home and knock A her around a little bit,” the first guy says. I keep walking. The other guy answers. “That's a her?”

But enough about me. This is supposed to be about Kate Bornstein who wants you to read her new book Gender Outlaw. Bornstein used to be a man; now she’s not. Bornstein used to be a heterosexual; now she isn't. Bornstein used to have a dick; now she doesn’t.

She’s a “used-to-be-a-man, three husbands, father, first mate on an ocean-going yacht, minister, high-powered IBM sales type, Pierre Cardin three-piece suitor, bar-mitzvah’d, circumcised yuppie from the East Coast… a used-to-be politically correct, wanna-be butch, dyke phone sex hostess, smooth talking, telemarketing, love slave, art slut, pagan Tarot reader, maybe soon a grandmother, crystal palming, incense burning, not man, not always a woman, fast becoming a Marxist.”

All that’s not what makes her an outlaw. What makes her an outlaw is she sees a time when folks will look at the binary gender system and throw back their heads and laugh— ha ha ha. Males and females and that’s it? Ha ha ha. Get the fuck outta here.

Bornstein’s looking forward to us all living in what author Marjorie Garber (Vested Interests, Routledge) calls the Third Space. “This whole concept of three is so beautiful,” Kate says, “because it includes the first two. I don’t say there’s a third space that exists between men and women. I say there’s a third space outside of the Binary which leaves the Binary as this construct off to the side, very fragile and apt to fall apart.”

If I were a man, everything about me that brings me grief in the world—the way | walk, the way I talk, the way I think, the way | stand, the way I sit, the way I dress, the way | cut my hair, how much I weigh, how much weight I lift—would not only be acceptable, it would be revered. If we lived in the Third Space, it wouldn't even matter.

Bornstein had to learn a lot of rules in order to fit in. Like when a man walks down the street he looks people in the eye; when a woman walks down the street she looks at the ground. And women talk different. They have higher, breathier voices and their speech is more modulated. In mixed conversations, it’s the woman's job to laugh at the bad jokes and fill in the awkward silences. They smile constantly while they’re talking and use tag questions to qualify sentences, like “you know what I mean?”

“All of these customs are forms of self-deprecation,” says Bornstein, “like learning how to keep my knees together and not putting my arm across the back of my seat in the subway train. A lot of that was not so much to be a woman as to pass as a woman, so that I wouldn't call attention to myself.”

If we lived in the Third Space, she wouldn't have had to worry. In fact, if we lived in the Third Space, she might not even have had penile conversion surgery.

“I don’t do well with might-have-beens,” she says. “I resent that I was manipulated into that surgery by every signpost in the culture. I was not aware of other possibilities at the time. I was a total subscriber to the Binary and to the genitals by which it stands.

“I knew I wasn’t BOY, I knew I wasn’t MAN. Neither of those categories fit for me. It didn’t feel right, I have no idea why. I tried for thirty some odd years and it didn’t work. The only other option I saw in the culture was GIRL, or WOMAN. Nowhere did I see that it was okay to be a “real woman”—which I believed in—with a penis! So the next step was get rid of the penis. This insistence on the Binary and the genital imperative that signals the Binary coerced me into that. If I knew everything that I know now, would I do it again? Yes. Absolutely yes, because sex is so much more fun now.”

Back to this idea of the Third Space, how do we get there?

“Cyberspace would be a doorway into the Third Space,” according to Bornstein. “Cyberspace frees us up from the restrictions placed on identity by our bodies. It allows us to explore more kinds of relationships.

“I can go online as anything. I go online as various kinds of women. I've gone online as a guy a couple of times; I’m playing a stable boy in a vampire scenario now. I’ve gone online as different monsters. I’ve gone online as Mr. Spock in a ‘Star Trek’ scenario.

“Cross-gender identity surfing online is so telling: Men slum and women step into the trappings of power as men. You talk to a man after he’s been a woman online and he'll usually laugh and describe some kind of sex he had, usually lesbian sex. But you talk to a woman who's been surfing as a man, there’s this spark there. There’s this wonder. There's this—'They really do have this power!’ As soon as men cop to the idea that women are learning this, they’re gonna be more frightened.”

Bingo.

In Gender Outlaw, Bornstein asks: “If wealth and power are important, and if in this world wealth and power belong to men, then why did I cease being a man and give up that wealth and power?"

Some male-to-female transsexuals argue—often in response to being excluded from women-born-women only clubs—that they didn’t have a real male experience because they were never real males. Bornstein’s not buying it. “I had a bona fide male experience—of course I did. I’ve been bar-mitzvah’d. I hated it. Being male and hating it sets up a fugue experience. It’s definitely a form of madness. | think one way of dealing with the madness is to say it never really happened. That’s a legitimate way of dealing with it, but the fact of the matter is, I spent over thirty years of my life as a man or boy. I did not like it. I hated it. I drank a lot. I did a lot of drugs. I played a lot of arcade games.”

Once you've altered your gender, it’s gotta seem like anything’s possible. The whole world must open up. Does that mean that transgender stuff is the final frontier? Bornstein doesn’t think so.

She believes that once people get a grip on the idea of the Third Space, and transgender stuff becomes passé, we're probably gonna have to look at other binary divisions. “What are the differences between animals and humans? What are the differences between plants and animals? What about artificial intelligence, androids like Data from “Star Trek?” They're gonna be around. | think the gender binary is the one most firmly entrenched in our culture simply because it’s the one that capitalism trades on the most, other than class. We haven't confronted class. A minor communist uprising in Eastern Europe is not dealing with class. Certainly, the United States has never dealt with class. I think the fact that my book actually got published by a respectable publisher is an indicator that the culture is ready to chew on gender, whereas I don’t think the American culture is as ready to chew on class.

“I'd say gender is the last apparent frontier. It’s the frontier that’s just become illuminated. It’s titillating. In public relations terms it’s sexy. In sex terms it’s sexy. It’s a movement, a real live movement—ready or not, here we come!”

Meanwhile, back on 16th Street.

I take a few more steps, then my brain turns over and I say to myself, “Fuck this shit.”

I stop, turn around, walk back, and stand in front of the first guy. “You say something to me?”

He’s shocked. He starts stuttering and shaking his head.

“Uh…uh…no…I was just…I mean…he was just…I mean…he wanted to know—"

I interrupt him.

“Something about knocking somebody around?”

He starts stuttering again.

“Uh…no…uh, I was just… I mean, he just… I mean, I was just saying—"

I interrupt him again.

“You know what it sounded like you said? It sounded like you said you wanted to suck my dick.”

“Uh…uh… your dick?” He looks at my crotch to see if I have one.

(I do, but it’s back at my apartment.)

“Yeah,” I say, “that’s what it sounded like you said. I think you want to suck my dick, don't you?”

He looks at my crotch again, then he looks back at my face. He grins, still stuttering.

Uh...well...I, I, I... I wouldn't mind.”

“That's what I thought,” I say, and walk away.

For an almost complete collection of Bornsteiniana, start with Gender Outlaw (Routledge), go directly to The Last Sex, Arthur and Mary-Louise Kroker (St. Martins Press), and keep an eye out for performances of Hidden: A Gender and Virtually Yours. The unsatisfied can obsessively watch for guest appearances on Geraldo.

[aishabellasbigblogofeverything]

No, but can we talk about how, despite allegedly being a "feminist" movie, Barbie 2023 actually mocks the idea of a female fantasy and Barbie being an inspirational role model for young girls?

It's so upsetting that not enough people bring this up, even the other haters of Barbie, but it needs to be addressed. Barbie was meant to provide an empowering fantasy for young girls. A lot of people have differing opinions on whether Barbie is feminist or not and what she represents. But at the end of the day, Barbie was designed to give girls a role model to see themselves in, to show them that they could pursue any career, that they can be the heroines of their own story, and reach their fullest potential. She was meant to tell girls that anything is possible. And the movie not only shits all over that, it makes that feminist message out to be something unrealistic and bad, and even worse, portrays it as something that oppresses men and makes THEM victims, because everything needs to be about men. And it's fucking disgusting. Allow me to explain how.

(spoilers for the Barbie movie below...I mean, if you even care, lol.)

We start out at the beginning of the movie with an introduction to the magical world of Barbieland that our well-known and universally familiar dolls live in. Barbieland is a feminist utopia, one that many women would be eager to live in. Women have all the power, are well-respected, can and do pursue any career, and support and uplift each other rather than tear each other down over their differences(aside from Weird Barbie, who they do apologize to in the end). They are happy and free in their female-empowering land, they don't fear the leers and catcalls from men as they walk down the streets, they dance together happily late at night, and they are confident in their bodies. There is diversity in the Barbieland. There is a plus-sized Barbie, a transfem Barbie, a wheelchair Barbie, and plenty of Barbies of color. The President of Barbieland is a Black woman. And none of these differences hold the Barbies back from being able to have power and they are not treated any differently from the other Barbies.

Femininity isn't seen as a weakness. Neither is expressing emotion, and in fact the fat Barbie even has a miniature speech about how she can balance her emotion with her logic and this makes her a smarter person, which the other Barbies support. It's a world where women are empowered and have unlimited potential to achieve their dreams and live freely without fear of their oppressors. Stereotypical Barbie isn't even afraid to reject Beach Ken's advances, she doesn't fear being stalked, raped, or killed by him for saying no. She just turns him down, and not only that, but she turns him down in favor of having girls' night, showing that in this world, girls support each other and value their female friendships over heterosexual relationships with guys(I'll touch on this point again later). I don't know about you, but that sure as hell does sound like a world that I dream of living in. Minus the fact that all the food and drinks are fake.

But the story doesn't frame this matriarchy as empowering, like they should. It portrays it instead as something ridiculous and far-fetched, something that the audience is meant to laugh at rather than support, which becomes more blatant as the movie progresses.

And then we get to the "real" world. Where men instead rule over women in a patriarchy, and we see Barbie experience misogyny for the first time. And this was the moment I started fully hating the movie, and realized it for the sloppy, anti-feminist mess that it is. The first part of the movie set in Barbieland was campy and fun and happy and feel-good, providing the exact type of feel that Barbie brings. But the moment she steps into the real world, everything becomes sad and hopeless and cynical.

And I get that the patriarchy does exist and women are oppressed by it every day, but the way the movie executed this was really overexaggerated and cringeworthy. They made it seem as if women are constantly and completely powerless in every aspect of life, like seriously they didn't even show ANY women in positions of power and the only women we did see with jobs besides a female doctor, were Gloria who works an office job at Mattel and Ruth who is already dead and is for all extents and purposes relegated to the fucking kitchen. They made the world out to be a complete and total dystopia where women aren't capable of achieving anything and the only two women of importance who are from the real world are Sasha and her mother Gloria, the former is portrayed as bitter, cynical, and constantly angry, the latter is portrayed as stressed-out, depressed, and somewhat suicidal with her thoughts about death. Is this all that the Barbie movie thinks that women can achieve in our world? Being miserable and frustrated with no hope of achieving our dreams and desires? With no power or satisfaction in our day to day lives? Is this all that this shithole movie thinks that women can amount to?

And the worst part is how Barbie is derided and mocked for thinking that she has provided a female role model for women and girls. The start of the movie mocks Barbie for thinking that it solved all women's problems and completely advanced women's rights/feminism, even though Barbie/Mattel has never claimed that. Yes, she was meant to be a role model. But she was never portrayed as the be-all, end-all of feminism. Even people who look up to Barbie and were encouraged by her aren't naive enough to think that a twelve-inch tall plastic doll is enough to smash the patriarchy. The movie makes this up solely so they can tear down Barbie for something that it never claimed to do in the first place. When our main Barbie leaves to go to the real world, the other Barbies encourage her(as Barbies tend to do) by saying that they bet all the women in the real world will thank her for giving them rights. Which is obviously meant to be an overexaggerated and satirical jab at Barbie once again, for thinking that it has created feminism or whatever, and that sexism is over solely thanks to the Barbie franchise. Cute. Too bad no version of the Barbie brand has ever claimed that in the first place. Again, it's a ridiculous and false claim that only exists to further unnecessarily jab at Barbie and propel this backwards-thinking message.

And then when she gets to the human world she is mocked even more. Sasha and her friends laugh at her when she claims to be Barbie and asks them to thank you for inspiring them, and then when she says she loves and wants to help women, Sasha aggressively informs her that EVERYONE hates women. This movie actually has a pretty nihilistic view of womanhood, when you think about it. The Barbie world is portrayed as an empowering world where women can achieve anything that they set their minds to, and aren't held back by sexism, causing them to have full power, reflecting the female fantasy that Barbie was always supposed to represent. But that's just a fantasy land, and is portrayed as cheesy and superficial. When Barbie gets to the real world, she is confronted with the supposed "reality" of being a woman, and comes to realize that it's not actually about empowerment and being smart and capable after all, but about suffering and never having your voice respected, and never having any power and freedom but instead losing your idealism and optimism as you age, causing her to break down in tears upon realizing how stressful it is to be a woman and that she never actually empowered them like she hoped. Seriously, whose idea was it to make Barbie constantly crying and miserable and incapable of doing anything on her own? Is this the Barbie I know? No, it's a pathetic, nonsensical knockoff. I'm telling you, they were TRYING to tear Barbie down.

This is especially true when Gloria gives her entire speech to Barbie about how contradictory and painful being a woman is, ending it with "not only are you doing everything wrong, but also, everything is your fault!" Come on! What is this? It's such a painful and harsh message to try to send through BARBIE of all things, that the essence of being a woman is just pain, pain, pain and guess what else? More pain! How being a woman sucks because all you do is get hated by everyone and treated as an object worthy of scorn and ridicule. It's just so unnecessarily cruel, how they violently ripped away any feminist empowerment Barbie was meant to possess in favor of forcing her into a depressive world where women have no rights or value, and had the nerve to portray this as "realistic", because obviously more negative automatically means more realistic, right?

Rather than provide a middle ground where women face hardships and adversity but are still capable of rising above their struggles and finding the strength within them to make their voices heard and get what they want in society, they opt instead for a stupid false dichotomy: the world is either a stupid frivolous Amazon utopia wrapped in pink and glitter with girl power up the wazoo or a bleak, heartless, and grey dystopia where nothing good ever happens to a woman and only men can do anything important. And it portrays the second one as clearly more realistic and the "better" option. Which, in doing so, sends the message that a world where women rule and are respected and have power and are encouraged to have ambition and pursue any goal they want in life...is unrealistic and impossible, if not outright deserving of scorn. It's so miserable and aggravating. When Barbie said "the cognitive dissonance required to be a woman under the patriarchy" I had to resist the urge to roll my eyes. THAT'S how badly the movie annoyed me with its nihilistic and negative preaching. I watched the movie in two days and when I stopped watching it on the first day I felt such a frustrated, hollow feeling in my stomach. I felt so unsatisfied. Like, is this it? Is this all I can dream of having as a woman? All that praise this shitty capitalist crapfest received for being so feminist and eye-opening, ultimately led up to this? For real? So disappointing.

But that's not even the worst part. The worst part is when the movie introduces the KENdom, aka, when Ken brings about the patriarchy...and if the movie hadn't already been hot stinkin' ASS, this is when it would've REALLY started to drag, and where it REALLY reinforces the idea that women can never have any actual power and authority and must instead constantly suffer under the patriarchal status quo.

Ken comes back to Barbieland and introduces the other Kens and Barbies to the patriarchy and horses(ig no one told him that horses are a matriarchal animal, but whatevs), and within hours, revamps the world into a patriarchal hell, just like the real world(except it's portrayed as very childish and simplistic because the witers don't actually take the patriarchy seriously and think it's just "boys think girls have cooties".). And the other dolls instantly buy into it? First of all, am I really expected to believe that the Barbies, who have been established as champions of strength, power and dominance, and who have always ruled the Barbie world, would instantly and easily give in to Ken's brainwashing and allow all of their power to be ripped out of their hands, becoming the happy devoted sexy slaves of the Kens? You think they would casually be like "I for one, welcome our new male overlords!" and let the Kens have all the power? Am I really supposed to accept that shit? And am I also supposed to accept that the other Kens in Kenland, including the Asian one who competes with the white Ken over Barbie, would easily leap at the chance to oppress their female counterparts, rather than laugh at Ken for being silly and tell him to sit his ass down somewhere? Really? Don't piss me off.

The only way you could accept this series of unfortunate events as plausible is if you accept the fact that we're supposed to laugh at Barbieland for being a girl power feminist matriarchy in the first place. If we're meant to laugh at the women for being in power and at this imagined society for being so gynocentric and girl-positive, then of COURSE we're meant to laugh at them for getting their power ripped away that easily, as women could never hold power for so long realistically! Eventually the men would realize their true potential and make society work in favor of them! It's natural and inevitable! The Barbie movie said so!!! And so we watch as the intended "humorous" scenes go on and on, of the men happily running around, flaunting their muscles, and chugging down beers like it's going out of style, while the women happily submit to this newfound male authority, massaging men's feet and serving them drinks. Because obviously a matriarchy could never last long, women are so weak and fragile that any sense of power that they think they possess could easily be ripped away from them within a moment's notice. Peak feminism, everybody.

But it's cool, because eventually the Barbies prove me wrong. They DO get their power back, and establish their rights again. But how do they do it? Do they stage a coup and violently and angrily fight the Kens? Do they march for their rights, as real life feminists have done? Do they balance logic and emotion, as fat Barbie praised herself for doing in the beginning of the movie, and reason with the Kens that oppressing the Barbies is not the right thing to do? No, no, they...put on sexy skimpy outfits and pretend to be dumb bimbos so as to lull the Kens into a false sense of security and think that THEY are in control. And later on they let the Kens sing to them a song about how they want to control women, before turning them against each other by pretending to be in love with different Kens than the ones they were originally listening to. Are you kidding me? This is supposed to be a feminist revolution! But instead of actually using their genuine power to put the men back in their place, they instead use their feminine wiles and dumb themselves down so that the men can feel strong. It is literally leaning into the sexist trope that the only weapon women have, especially against men, is their sexuality, and that this is the only way that women can get their way. Despite this going against EVERYTHING that Barbie stands for! She is supposed to be a strong, smart, and capable woman who can do it all and look glamorous while doing it! She is NOT supposed to be a fucking femme fatale, vamp, or sex object!

So not only do they have their matriarchy easily ripped away from them, but they also are forced to abandon their actual female empowerment and instead conform to the patriarchal status quo to get ahead. By using their bodies, stroking men's egos, and allowing men to mansplain to them. Because the only weapons women are capable of using are the ones men gave us. Because women are just bodies. And this is portrayed as a GOOD thing. Seriously, two of the Barbies even high five each other as they trade Kens at the fireplace, as if to say, "go girl, you are doing it!" Like, seriously, are we supposed to see this as a girlboss moment? Because I sure don't. It's giving "weaponized femininity". It's giving "eyeliner so sharp it could kill a man". It's giving "men are visual creatures." It's giving "kill me with a chainsaw right fucking now because I'm done with this shit." Oh, and don't even get me STARTED on how the Kens have a violent manly war, while the women only get to flutter their eyelashes and use their sex appeal. Because men are strong, women are pretty. Of course.

And then the worst part in the entire movie, the part that really infuriated me and let me know that this movie was the antithesis of feminism, arrives...the Barbies get their matriarchy back and are in power again, and everybody cheers and is happy, except for Beach Ken, who runs away to go sulk. And then...Barbie...fucking apologizes to him. She apologizes to him for casting him aside and making him feel unwanted and unvalued, and even says outright, "not every night has to be a girl's night." Why the fuck, movie? Do you remember earlier in this post when I mentioned how Barbie blows off Ken to hang out with her female friends, because it's girls' night, and female friends matter more than a guy? Sisters before misters, and all that jazz? Well, fuck that. Near the end of the movie, Barbie ends up apologizing to Ken for having a girl's night all the time, as if she was a bad person for not seeing how much she owed him and not hanging out with him all the time when she simply didn't want to. Here we have a woman apologizing for putting her girl friends over a man. The man doesn't apologize for making women his and his brethren's personal slaves. The woman apologizes for making him feel the need to go there by not catering to him, by being too focused on herself to the point where she ignores him, by being so empowered and strong that she makes him feel overshadowed, dare I say, emasculated, and thus need to reassert his fragile, threatened masculinity.

Because this isn't a feminist movie, not really. This is an MRA movie. This is a movie that, rather than focus specifically on the women and their problems, brushes their problems under the rug so as to remind the audience that "men matter too" "men have issues too" "men also suffer under the patriarchy!" And other such claptrap. I don't understand why the fuck cishet Reddit incels/conservatives/right-wingers/other such reactionary groups hate this movie and think that it's anti-men when actually it is pro-men and aligns fucking PERFECTLY with their bullshit line of thinking. That feminism oppresses and victimizes men, that men are the REAL victims of sexism/oppression, that women being granted rights is ultimately more harmful to MEN, that women need to be nicer to and pacify men and apologize for having too much power, that we all need to be quiet and listen to MEN and their experiences more. And I FUCKING HATE that. MEN have been listened to ENOUGH. And I am SICK of being forced to include them and their viewpoints more. How about instead of centering the Kens, we focus more on the Barbies and exploring THEIR issues, and using THEM as templates to convey issues about misogyny? Instead of focusing on Ken and his issues and his unrequited love for Barbie??? Instead, it was made all about the Kens and how oppressed they feel because the women are at the top of the hierarchy, to the point where THEY got the fun little dance number near the climax, RATHER than the actual fucking BARBIES that this movie was NAMED after. Because last time I checked, this WAS the BARBIE movie. NOT THE KEN MOVIE!!!

Oh, and don't even get me STARTED on that shitty ass parallel the movie tries to pull between the Barbieland matriarchy and the real world patriarchy. The movie tries to make the claim that the Barbies being dominant and the most powerful in the Barbie world is just the same as men being dominant and the most powerful in the real world, because the Barbies oppressed Kens just like men oppress women in our world. It also tries to raise the point that the Kens felt insecure and overshadowed by the Barbies and were treated as second-class citizens, thus they installed the Kendom. AND I FUCKING HATE THAT comparison for two reasons. The first is that the Barbies never oppressed the Kens or treated them as inferior in any way. They were simply more important because...it's the BARBIE company. Not the KEN company. Barbies are toys meant to be sold to little girls to inspire THEM. So of course the women are going to be the ones in charge! Why is that such a bad thing?

And the second reason is because I haaaaate the dumb fucking trope of "matriarchy bad because woman oppressing man is just as bad as man oppressing woman!" that this movie and countless, endless other pieces of media also try to push. Like, do you know why female-dominated societies(particularly utopias/positively portrayed ones) are so often represented in media??? Because the world we live in is so heavily male-dominated in almost every society and culture, and has been this way for centuries!!! Sure, there are and have been a few matriarchal cultures in society, but they are few and far between. The overwhelming majority of the world is run by men! Sad but true! And this allegedly feminist movie is for real gonna sit down and tell me "okay, but we can't allow ourselves to dream of a world where women are the ones with positions of power and men are not the privileged ones"? Hell no, fuck that. This movie is giving multiple people, both men and women alike, the opportunity to argue that sexism against men is "just as bad".

But women should be allowed to dream of our matriarchy. We should be allowed to fantasize about a world where we are in charge. We should be allowed to dream about a world where we are protected, respected, and catered to, and can live freely and without fear and oppression, without being told to "think of the men." It doesn't mean that men should be abused, mistreated, or oppressed just like women are and have been. But then again, the Barbies didn't even do that either, like I said. This movie, in its shallow attempts to "critique" the matriarchy(lol) ends up reinforcing exactly why the two aren't comparable in the first place. When the Barbies were in charge, they didn't oppress the Kens or treat them as second-class citizens. They simply lived their lives, going about their day and having fun while pursuing awesome careers.

The Kens, on the other hand, actively oppressed Barbies when they were in charge. The second they were given power, they leaped at the chance to treat Barbies like garbage, the same way that they somehow believed that they had always been treated. They treated the Barbies worse than the Barbies ever actually treated them, to be quite honest. They were the real oppressors, not Barbies. It ironically enough sends the accidental message that the world actually IS better off with women in charge. Can you really blame the Barbies for taking their matriarchy back again(I certainly was happy when they did!)? But no. Instead, the movie expects us to sympathize with the Kens, after everything they've done, and tries to portray the idea of a matriarchy as "just as bad" as a patriarchy. And if that's not an EXCELLENT example of a false equivalence, then man, I don't know what is. Don't even get me started on the audacious slap in the face that was "the Kens will one day have as much power as women do in the real world." As if women got rights and seats in high office because they asked the men kindly? Barf.

And then at the end of the movie, Barbie of course leaves the false, silly matriarchal utopia to live as a boring ass regular human in the "real" world. She no longer gets to live in a world where she is fully liberated and empowered and not relegated to a lesser human being with lower status. She now must live in the "real" world, the hopeless, bleak, and oppressing real world where she will be faced with relentless misogyny and looked down upon by men and society. The movie could have had her form a bridge between the Barbie world and the human world, trying to mend the problems in both worlds while still staying true to who she is at her core. But instead, she is forced to say goodbye to her past life, abandon all her female friends and her old home, in favor of living in a world where she is denigrated to a second-class status in society. Because the female empowerment Barbieland trumped? Is a lie. Nothing short of a sweet, comforting lie designed to shield girls from the bleak and cynical realities that womanhood actually entails. Real womanhood is adorned with thorns at every corner.

But it's all right, because at least she gets to see the gynecologist! That's her ultimate ending. Not actually improving life for others and herself and making the world a more equitable place for women with the help of the other Barbies, as well as Gloria and Sasha. It's going to the gynecologist. Because having a vagina makes you a woman. Yay! Some people have tried to reclaim this as a trans metaphor, but I highly doubt a movie as shallow and lacking in intersectionality as this was aiming for anything near close to that. And it's a crying shame that this is what the movie thinks is an empowering and satisfying ending to Barbie's arc. How pitiful, sad, and pathetic.

It's such a shame, as well, because the Barbie movie could have actually had genuine critiques of the patriarchy and how it affects women without making everything out to be pessimistic and dreary, and without trying to center the Kens and coddle their male fragility. It could have discussed beauty standards and the expectations to always be conventionally attractive and perfectly presentable to a tee for women(something that Barbie has oft been criticized for, and with good reason, and has also been brought up in the movie too, but of course got dropped and barely mentioned again). It could have tackled gender norms and compulsory femininity, and showed Barbies who subvert or have complex/unique relationships with femininity(esp women of color and queer Barbies, who have different relationships to femininity than white and/or cishet women), even include some masculine/tomboyish/butch Barbies who aren't portrayed by the narrative as the butt of the joke. It could have used Weird Barbie to portray both of these messages and given her a more complex arc and concrete role in the narrative besides being just a comic relief character who gets called ugly all the time(by both other Barbies and herself, which is just sad, self-deprecation much?) and then at the end of the movie gets an apology thrown at her by President Barbie(and also, who was she before she became Weird Barbie? The movie doesn't say, and that is such a let-down, that we never get to know who she was before.).

They could have showed lesbian and sapphic and aroace Barbies, whose characters could be used to challenge amato/heteronormativity and compulsory heterosexuality. They could have explored what Barbie meant for women of color, trans women, fat women, disabled women, and mayyybe not? Cast a conventionally attractive white cis thin blonde woman as the main/regular Barbie? Especially if they were going to make that joke about how a woman who looks like that shouldn't be casted for a character who cries that she's ugly(which raises unfortunate implications as to what type of woman would be correct to cast in that role...but like every other genuine aspect of feminism in this movie, it gets forgotten about and erased as soon as it's brought up.) But they didn't do any of that. Because this is a white "feminist" movie written by a white woman and created in partnership with a capitalist company for one specific purpose: To sell toys.

Which wouldn't be as much of a problem if they didn't try to slap a feminist message on top of that, and then fail at delivering their message, hard, so hard in fact that they sideways-shuffle all the way into (trans)misogyny. For all the hype this movie gained(from the same people who will then turn around and silence genuine critique of the movie's shallow portrayal of feminism with "it's not that deep, it's just comedy, you shouldn't have expected Barbie to ACTUALLY be introspective and profound despite everyone claiming that it was!"), the actual contents therein gave us NOTHING to chew on. Just an empty parody of feminism that was more about the Kens than the actual Barbies, and portrayed suffering in silence and manipulating men with your looks as the ultimate pinnacle of womanhood.

I can't say I'm surprised. I'm just disappointed.

[biscoffbeagle]

Do you really think this is a normal Tuesday afternoon? No. We're going to right a wrong in this world. You, me, a few thousand random volunteers I've manipulated to follow me to the ends of the Earth. Where are we going? Netflix HQ. We're on a suicide mission, the random volunteers can and will suffocate the security guards with their bodies, what about the lazers? you ask, I answer. We bring AK-47s, a LOT of AK-47s. Except, uh oh! we don't know how to use a gun! Not to worry, I throw the bullets instead. The bullets don't hit the sensors, but the lazers go away anyways. But what about the motherboard? Not to worry, I've seen Cyberchase. I romance the motherboard, telling her that I'll convert to heterosexuality for her, a lie, but she'll fall for the large imprint in my pants, except, uh oh! it's store bought, I'm transgender. We get to the board room, the leader of the Netflix cult has a dark shadow over his face, he's been expecting us. "Don't tell me this is about Community. Do you think this would work? Others have tried before you, and they have fallen." I clench my butt cheeks in anxiety, we've been found out, guess we haven't been stealthy enough. But our mission isn't over, no, it's just begun. "What gives you the right to take beloved media off widely available streaming services?!" I shout, hands full of bullets just itching to be thrown. Nope, that itching is my balls. I won't let him know that though. The leader takes off his hood, cackling as he does so, revealing his shiny bald head. The dark shadow unveils dead looking eyes, we gasp, Jeff Bezos?! "Why don't you just buy it on Amazon Prime?" He cackles, thinking he's got us in a corner. I don't have a rebuttal, but I do have the power of breakdancing. I bust into my moves, spinning on my head on the comedically long table mr. Bezos was on the other side of. While he's distracted with my impeccable moves, I pull out a flame thrower. while I'm spinning it's hard to aim, but I use the glare from his shiny bald head to find him. After third degree burns on all of our parties, the battle is over. We've won. Bezos is gone. Except, I've been so wrapped up in the thrill of the mission I forgot our objective. Community still isn't on Netflix, what are we supposed to do? You come up with a great idea, we take a dvd case of all six seasons and walk back to the motherboard, I tell her I'm about to show her a good time, but really, I'm gonna shove the CDs into whatever opening I can find. It works, I give motherboard a juicy kiss, and we're out of there. We walk out of Netflix HQ with a smile on our face.

Mission Accomplished.

[wilcze-kudly]

Beifong babies appreciation post

This is gonna be a more self indulgent post. But if you spend any time on my blog, you know how much I adore the Beifong family, particularly Suyin and her children. And you know what I don't see enough appreciation for Suyin's babies, which makes sense, since they're side characters, but here's a lil ramble about them and some reasons why I love them.

Baatar Jr

Actually, I think Baatar is actually a very underutilised character for being Kuvira's supposed right hand man, as well as her fiancé.

He's technically the brains behind Kuvira's collosus, and probably much more.

As damaging as living in his father's shadow was for him, I do find it extremely adorable how he engineered all Baatar Sr's projects, it's really cute!

His loyalty to Kuvira and his love for her is admirable. It's honestly adorable, how much she means to him.

Btw mans stared into Korra's eyes while she threatened him im the Avatar state and laughed. Say what you want about him but he has balls.

The angst surrounding his involvement with Kuvira is absolutely delicious.

Like imagine turning your back on everyone you know and love for one person, only for then to turn on you and try to kill you with upur own creation?

And then everything you've worked for for 3 years is null and void? Gnarly

Also him being under house arrest with the family he betrayed? You could argue he got off really easy, which he did... but goodness gracious the angst.

Huan

I'm like 75% sure that he's a reference to The Dark One, one of Toph's metalbending students, which is actually really fun I love you emo metalbenders.

I always found non combative benders very interesting, especially when they use their bending for things like art, it's very cool.

While I think a Huan's character is made to mock "tortured abstract artists" a bit, he actually isn't terribly caricaturised?

Like... he has a pretty clear ideology and moral compass, and he sticks to his guns, even when threatened. He clearly values personal freedom and freedom of expression, and is willing to stand up for it.

I also love headcanoning that he had a close relationship with Aiwei. Since some of Huan's ideals match up more or less with Red Lotus ideology, which makes me wonder if Aiwei did subtly indoctrinate Suyin's children.

Huan and Ikki's friendship is really cute too lol.

His design is also really cool ngl

Opal

MY BABY AHHH 🧡 honestly my fave female tlok character.

Free her from the heterosexual love interest dimension she deserves so much better lol.

Like, I really dislike Bopal as a ship, and part of it is because of how much of a disservice it does to both characters. But most anti Bopal takes I see are also horrifically anti Opal.

Honestly, Opal just gets a surprisingly large amount of hate in genral? Like why? People call her annoying and a brat/ a knockoff Korra and she's barely done anything lmao

Opal's is very interesting, her journey to independence, her unseen development between B3 and B4, her firece loyalty to her family despite her separation from them

A lot of people criticise her attitude towards Kuvira, but honestly, she was quite rational in her anger? I also think she should have been allowed to hold a grudge against Bolin for longer, like yes he redeemed himswlf somewhat when rescuing her family, but it does feel really shallow and a fast way of tying up a pretty complex storyline.

Her arc reminds me very much of Toph's in atla, which is bittersweet since we see how that ended for Toph.

I love her lil pouty face ahh.

Wei and Wing

Genuinely. Might be my fave underdeveloped side characters.

Avatar has a habit of making very interesting twin duos and these two are no exception.

I really like their strong bond with their mother, they really are the most mamma's boys to ever mamma's boy.

Similarly to Opal, the twins' firece loyalty to their family and city is really sweet, but also there's a lot of potential for angst here. Like, Opal gets to see the world and adventure, but the twins are probably stuck in Zaofu forever.

The twins also are the only ones of their siblings upholding that "Beifong metalbender" archetype that Toph started. I think there is a bit of pressure on them, ad they are the "golden boys" of the family

I'm also a sucker for when benders work together/combine their skills so seeing the twins work together is really sweet.

Also. Gay™️. [Insert longass ramble about weilin lol]

I actually find the small differences in personality between them that we are shown. Where Wei is a bit more snooty and competitive, Wing is very playful and outward with himself. I like picking their differences apart.

Okk.. that's it my ramble for today us over 😭 I love the Beifong babies so much and wish there was more appreciation of them lol

[sejianismodding]

☠️ REMINDER: Double-check the OP for updates!

[EP16] CAS Overrides for Lovestruck + 7 Addons - The End is Nigh!

🙀 8/14/2024 - There's a texture issue with some of my Addons in Live. I'll sort it out and push an update after I initial release AXGW.

⚔️ Requires TS4: Lovestruck Expansion Pack

🚀 Initial Release - 8/1/2024

🔄 Update 8/8/2024 - [✔️] I'm afraid to say EAxis will likely never fix CAS properly, so don't hold your breath. This isn't a new thing. It's been a problem for 10 years.

🎁 SFS - http://www.simfileshare.net/download/4832424/

🎁 CF - https://www.curseforge.com/sims4/mods/cas-overrides-for-ep16-lovestruck

✒️ CAS is a mess. All of CAS is a mess. Every content release is a mess of wrong PartFlags that primarily affect transframe sims but also affect cisframe female and male sims. Ever noticed distortions on your clothing? That's cause you're wearing the wrong frame item because EAxis tagged it incorrectly or tagged something made with the male frame for female sims or vice versa because they couldn't be arsed to make two items.

🥂 This is the first major release under the new Endgame moniker. It feels good to be back. I will update all previous CAS Overrides but coming next is my initial release for AnimXGenWear and I'm hella excited!

🗺️ Progress & Discussions Post: https://www.patreon.com/posts/108830917

💎 The Endgame Master Post: https://www.patreon.com/posts/106702719

🗺️ Modding Announcements Post: https://www.patreon.com/posts/109291501

💬 The very last image was edited to include the female and male icons for my CF thumbnail to give a simplistic visual representation of what to expect with this mod. I'm considering doing an actual in-game overlay.

🙀 I forgot to say what this does! In these DLC overrides that I do, I try to fix everything I find that needs fixing if I can fix it. If I can't fix it, I add a note for it in my big Endgame master post on Patreon for future tinkering. The fixes include but are not limited to, incorrect PartFlags, missing PartFlags, mesh errors, busted texture maps, removing Randomization from Accessories, Hats, Makeup, Skin Details, Tattoos, etc. AKA all the things that give us ridiculous-looking townies - it has evolved from just fixing the incorrect Restrict Opposite PartFlags that screw with transframe sims, to fixing everything. It needs a more detailed explanation, but for now, this should give you a fair enough idea what to expect. The main thing to note is that clothing no longer follows any real-world gender-stereotype nonsense. If it's made with the female frame it will show under the Feminine Fashion / Clothing filter and if it's made with the male frame it will show under the Masculine Fashion / Clothing filter. All clothing items are unrestricted, so you can choose to wear whatever you want. Use the appropriate filter or both or none. Makes sense? With heterosexual cis male sims in mind, I removed Randomization from "traditionally feminine" clothing, meaning you'll see dresses and skirts under the Masculine filter, but they won't randomize onto every male sim in the game. I'm gender-nonconforming so I don't care but I understand some simmers might so I've tried to configure this as inclusive as I can for everyone. This is what The Endgame is - it's CAS the way it should have been shipped. Not the mess that it currently is.

[quetzalpapalotl]

In regard to IDW1!Sentinel Prime’s repulsion towards romance, I legit thought his hatred of such concepts was meant to make him homophobic or along the lines of “ugh gay people”. Was there an instance of him also hating heterosexual romance or at least all kinds as well? The more I learn about Sentinel through this blog, the more I realize I’ve been missing out on a lot of things (and the more I am going to simp for him) 💦

Well, he doesn't go out of his way to say he thinks het relationships are gross too. It's normal that his comments would reminds us of homophobia as that's a sort of equivalent in our society, that's probably what's evoking, and I do call him homophobic as a joke but homophobia is ultimately a human concept. Sentinel is not homophobic because Cybertron as a society forgot the concept of gender, everyone is male by default, the only Cybertronian women are people like Arcee who are old enough to remember when women were a thing or the lugnodes who developed a concept of gender after traveling the galaxy. Sentinel says "only the terminally sentimental had sparkmates" he's not talking about homosexual relationships, he's talking about romance itself, which is mostly homosexual due to the society they live in.

And okay, yeah, Sentinel turns out to be quite old, he would have known about women, but still, it would be really weird that his problem with romance turned out to be that it isn't straight! That makes no sense! Not only he doesn't make any comments to indicate that's the issue, but Transformers don't have any of the material conditions that led to the development of homophobia in our societies. They're not human. They wouldn't have a concept of "straight" or "gay", if they were to put social constrains on attraction or were to taxonomize it, it would be based on something that has actual bearing in their society like class or alt mode.

Indeed, Skids flirts with Firestar even when he's still getting used to use she/her pronouns, people from the colonies, who never forgot about gender, get involved in both same and different gender relationships with no issue. And the colonies retain some of the bigotries of old Cybertron. There really isn't anything in the text to support the idea that homophobia would even be a concept for these people.

So if homophobia isn't the issue, then what the fuck is Sentinel's problem?

(Mtmte #56-57)

These are the instances where Sentinel displays... amatophobia, I guess. But is this just one example of a societal trend or does Sentinel have some very radical ideas? I think it's a bit of both.

This just doesn't sound like the kind of idea one develops in a vacuum, especially with how the language resembles real-world homphobia, I think it is meant to indicate that there used to be some sort of bigotry against romance.

Cybertronian society is just not amatonormative the way ours are, Brainstorm mentions that having a conjunx is rare and that's no surpsise. These people live so long, it's quite the commitment to attach yourself to someone for that lifespan. Though, the fact that both Skids and Getaway casually flirt with Firestar right after meeting her makes me think that casual romantic dalliances among Cybertronians are a thing. It doesn't expect monogamy or the kind of prioritizing our society demands. But that's just my headcanon and me projecting a bit, anyway.

A conjunx ceremony only requires the two people to be married and is carried out in private, but the fact that Rewind has Chromedome listed as his conjunx endura and this grants him the ability to make medical decisions for an unconscious Rewind shows that you can legally register a conjunx status and this grants you special rights much like a human marriage. Now, this is under Optimus' rule who is far more chill and maybe things were different under Sentinel.

Speaking of, here's a panel of officer Orion Pax during Zeta's time asking Tappet if the guy that was killed by the police was his conjunx and that it's totally okay if that's the case because they're totally not bigots anymore (OP #1)

More evidence for amatophobia being a thing when Sentinel was Prime (and given that this is Barber instead of JRo, two writers making reference to it make it a more solid piece of lore). But when exactly did conjunx endura gained legal status instead of being just a two-people arragement? It's hard to say, it could have been under Optimus, Zeta, maybe it was a thing under Sentinel but frowned upon, maybe it had always been a thing but it got outlawed under Nominus or Sentinel before getting restored under Zeta or Orion. Since the colonies do have a concept of conjunx endura, meaning it predates Nova's rule, my guess is that this amatophobia was a later development and that conjunxes had legal status before that being removed and later restored.

That being said, Sentinel does seem... radical in his beliefs. Look how he says in his time people had "peers and colleagues, associates", that sounds kinda impersonal, he doesn't use a word like friends. Surely, even if people thought getting involved in romance was weird, the average Cybertronian wouldn't have anything against the concept of friends. Sentinel kinda sounds like those super homophobic guys who are disgusted at any level of male intimacy because that's gay. I think Sentinel is particulary opposite to interpersonal relationships and an extreme example of the normal attitude.

That still doesn't answer why is he like this tho. If I had to answer what purpose does this bigotry serve, I think it has to do with how Cybertron developed this culture of "you're all cogs in the machine" for the benefit of the ruling classes. You should serve your purpose of making Cybertron great, it's an offense that you'd choose to give your devotion to a single, common Cybertronian instead of like, the planet or a Prime (Sentinel has not problem fanboying over Onyx Prime). Look at all the things Sentinel complains about, not just conjunxes doing PDA, he has a kinda fascist idea of what Cybertron should be, nice and orderly with a disregard for differences. Transformers don't have sexual reproduction or nuclear families, so romance doesn't serve The Powers That Be in any way and is just a display of individualism.