#it’s an integral part of queer culture

[buddiebitch]

reading fanfiction: this is so unrealistic, how could they be sharing a bed and cuddling every night and not realize they’re in love? they spend like all their time together this is ridiculous

remembering how every one of my own relationships started: …just give them a minute, i’m sure they’ll figure it out soon

[aeide-thea]

saw a post that was like

'i'm so floored by the fact that this mid-20th century author of historical fiction wrote about queerness as though it was natural and important!'

and it's like. the author in question was queer! queer people have been writing work in which queerness was natural and important since much earlier than the 50s—forster wrote maurice in the 1910s! whitman was writing poetry that celebrated queerness in the mid-19th century! i'm sure that if i did any actual research into the history of queer fiction instead of just whipping out the things that spring immediately to mind for me, many more examples would present themselves!

anyway i just think like. that sort of reflexive naive modern chauvinism is a real mistake (especially considering how things have been going in america lately…), and for anyone who is, or wants to be, a serious student of the past, worth scrutinizing and uprooting in oneself. queerness is present and positively depicted in some of the oldest literature we have; and when we encounter matter-of-fact, even celebratory, representations of it from eras we reflexively conceptualize as more conservative than ours, i think we need to be aware that any startlement we feel at that is an artifact of the repressive, erasive, homophobic thinking inculcated in us by our own particular milieu(x), and not in fact a neutral or historically informed reaction?

[oglegoggle]

Went to nonbinary support group earlier this evening. A fun and silly question was asked, “What’s your non-traditional gender?”. The person asking described their gender as some cigarette butts floating in a gross puddle, another person describing themself as a cigarette butt with lipstick stains on it, my love described themself as a bunny rabbit, and when it came around for me to answer I said I’m a dirty hippy. The person asking then spent ten minutes going off on me about how #problematic hippy culture is, ignoring multiple bids from me to say yeah there are things wrong with it I know full well but they did not relent, eventually remarking that punks look mean but are actually nice and hippies look nice but are actually mean and telling me my gender is pretty much folk punk anyway?? My love stopped the convo by asking the others in the group who didn’t get a chance to answer to do so but the vibe was not great after. This is such a strange and petty encounter but something about it still rubbed me the wrong way in such a way that continues to linger in my mind. What the fuck?

[omgsomeonesomewhereonearth]

I started a whole fucking thinkpiece in the tags and then they told me i was out of tags aaaaaaaaaaaaa

other as in other than your agab, not other than your gender. so for eg a cis woman reading this the question is if you were amab would you be a trans woman do you think

[misscammiedawn]

Thinking about We Know The Devil and Heaven Will Be Mine today. A duology. WKTD the tells the story of accepting you're queer, framed as a horror story of 3 repressed teenagers at a christian summer camp fighting off their inherent queerness and HWBM tells the story of how one accepts their place in society after embracing their queerness.

WKTD uses magical girl tropes in a fairly grounded Midwestern teen experience.

Magical girl stories often involve the struggle of the forces of Good and Evil. Purity and Impurity. Corruption often being a core theme of any girl squad facing down the nightmarish forces. This can be seen from Madoka's approach to the concept which is often referred to as a deconstruction. The Pink Opaque from I Saw The TV Glow overtly uses these themes in the exact same allegory as WKTD with the evil forces attempting to suppress the queerness of the protagonists.

HWBM uses mech anime tropes in an allegorical wonderland where the setting fades away to have the audience engage with the ideas at play rather than the lore. Mech anime often uses the giant robot duels as a method of visualizing ideological struggles. Too often in these shows beam sabers will cross as the pilots yell at one another to embrace ideas of how the concepts of war and prejudice can be battled out of existence.

In HWBM the "war" in play is humans versus space... or more accurately humans versus those who are not of Earth. Versus those who are alien. Versus those who are not human.

The dominant culture versus queer culture.

WKTD frames its tropes via the dating sim mechanics popular within its visual novel medium. But rather than choosing which of the 3 girls the player wishes to romance you must choose which of the 3 you wish to exclude. The idea being to scapegoat one's struggle with queerness by attacking outward, blaming the other, by shaming others into the closet to keep yourself in there.

Lashing outward to prevent reflecting inward.

The only good ending of the game is to accept a polycule dynamic where everyone is seen, accepted and embraced for who they are unconditionally. God's love, in this world, is conditional and one must always be excluded. The devil has room for three.

There is no room in normal society for a polycule. It is inherently queer. The dominant culture is binary and there's no version of a polycule where only a 0 and a 1 are represented. The binary is incompatible.

I recently told a friend that the duology tells the journey of a thousand miles and how it begins with a single step. WKTD is the story of that first and all too important step acceptance.

HWBM is the story of what comes after acceptance. After that first step.

It tells the story of the thousand mile journey.

The ideologies at play are the concepts of assimilation, activism and separationism. In the allegory Earth/Humanity represents the dominant "straight" society and the three characters represent each of these ideologies. Assimilation is to return to Earth, to integrate into the dominant culture and lose some of the inherent joy and "otherness" that being queer brings. It's no coincidence that the character representing this path is a trans woman who is known for defecting from her faction and crossing over to every other side while repeating the mantra "I've never betrayed anyone in my life", it is a coincidence however that her faction's war efforts are lead in part by God's Strongest Chaser herself (as far as I'm aware the Halimede Twitter Account is not affiliated with the game, but I find it funny that the assimilation path is represented by someone who a character whose gimmick account argues "t4t is incest"). It is a life of peace. But it is a life of compromise. Of giving up humanity's dream of the stars. To be grounded and tethered to Earth forever.

The Activism Path represents the idea of staying in Earth's orbit but never surrendering even an ounce of the queer identity for the sake of acceptance. Forcing the dominant culture to argue with us on our terms. Accept us on our terms. It is a life of constant battle but in that battle we will save those on Earth, invite them into the stars, embrace them with acceptance and love. Let them join us or remain where they are. This is a life of constant war, knowing that until all are loved and accepted, no one is and so we continue fighting. Letting people change sides. Nothing changes but maybe it's better that way.

Separation is the idea of abandoning Earth entirely. To become so incompatible with the dominant culture that we are no longer "human" to those who remain tethered. We are unapproachable. Separate. Unique. Other. Queer above anything else and incapable of creating a rational dialogue with the dominant culture. It is picking up your toys and walking away. Going far enough away from the culture war that it will never be able to reach you.

The author of the Halimede account once wrote, while in character, that this is the saddest ending of them all because it's unsustainable and that it does not address the inherent intersectional fighting between communities, allowing wars to simply break out further away from our blue marble in the distant stars. It is a life of abandoning war without embracing peace. To live separate in bubbles apart.

The ending of the game forces you to pick. There is no existing outside of these options. Maybe one day we'll find other ways to be but within the view of this game they are all we have. Embrace Earth, declare war on Earth or abandon Earth.

Choose.

I admit. Since the pandemic and coming out as trans, I've favored Saturn's ideology more than others. Completely giving up on "humanity" and only working within circles of those whose acceptance of queer culture is baked in. I fought so hard to accept who I was and "know the devil", so to speak, that I pulled back and withdrew.

Both games have a lot of themes about the demons ones must face within queer culture and outside of it. The way we hurt ourselves, hurt our allies and how the world outside societal, structural and individual will force us to compromise, to cut away parts of ourselves.

These games are masterpieces.

I wish I found them earlier in my life. I want everyone able to read these words to find them now.

[chroniccoolness]

disability pride ask game

I'm so sleepy but I have persisted anyway bc i am so brave

feel free to reblog, try and send an ask to the person you're reblogging from so the game doesn't die, and absolutely never be pressured to answer anything that feels too personal--this is about/inspiration for what you Want to share about disability and experiences being disabled, not what you feel like you have to! (also: this ask game is PRO SELF DX.)

what disability/ies do you have? (and are they mental, physical, or both?)

how long have you known you're disabled? does that match up with diagnosis?

what, if any, disability aids do you use? (mobility aids, sensory aids, braces, communicative devices, IVs, etc. meds also count here). do you customize them/their containers/outsides?

do you know any disabled people irl? what about online?

if you have multiple disabilities: do they affect each other? how?

what's something good that's come out of being disabled?

what's a struggle you wish more people talked about?

does your disability affect how you experience other parts of your identity? (gender, queerness, culture, even hobbies/life goals you're very passionate about)

how do you measure your energy? (spoons, battery, something else?)

whats something youve come up with or integrated into your life that makes disability easier, besides typical aids?

how would you label your support needs?

what's something (a struggle, a symptom, a weird phenomenon, or even a funny experience) people don't realize about your disability?

whats the most Abled Person Thing someone has said to you?

has there ever been a time where you felt solidarity/community with another disabled person in a situation with you?

what does disability pride mean to you?

free space to talk about whatever disability issue or experience you want !

[writinginaforrest]

Yes, I’m Transgender, but I’m not “Trans”

(31st Aug 2024)

When I think about this too much, I always come to the conclusion that I have got some internalised Transphobia. I identify as Male. I use He/Him pronouns. I dress in a way that conforms to the Gendered Norms of my culture. I’m just a guy. When “Trans” is added as a descriptor, not only does that become a thing about me, but it also sets me aside from other men. I’m not a Man, I’m a Trans Man. I’m a pseudo-masculine thing. When people realise I’m Transgender, I feel Castrated. That sounds pretty dang transphobic, doesn’t it. 

The way people have expected me to be Trans often Superseded what Transness is to me. I had a lecturer in college who insisted that my depression was, In part, a result of my going home every day to a family who did not know I was Trans. She sat there and looked me in the eyes and I watched myself in the reflection of her eyes becoming an anecdote in real time. I’ll always be her “Trans Student” who did remarkably well in her class before dropping off in his second year when he got a different teacher. For reference, my family may not have known that I am Trans, but It’s very rare that my deadname is used in my home. I’m referred to by my Middle name almost exclusively. Jeff (Jeffrey). And in reality. Transness was not something that was always on my mind and even now, I can be sure that it was not fueling my depression. My Undealt with sexual trauma? That’s a different story. But my being Trans wasn’t it. I didn’t even think about it that much. I still don’t. It’s not something that is an integral part of me. I would be no different If I had been born Cisgender. 

And that’s the thing. “Trans” carries a lot of weight to it, doesn’t it? A lot of people really connect to it on a level beyond it being simply a descriptor. It’s a culture, an experience, a mindset, an ideology, and what can I say to those people? Well done? Thank you? I don’t really have much to say, and that’s part of my problem. A lot of Trans artists are, at least partly, inspired by their queer experiences. I’m an artist (I yell into the void) and yet nothing about being Queer inspires art within me. I have nothing to say. My art would be the same if I were Cisgender. If I were Allosexual. I would be the same because I am not these descriptors that have been decided for me based on the way I live my life. 

“Trans” has become a commodity that I can’t escape. It’s something I’m supposed to stick on my laptop. It’s something I’m supposed to pin on my wall. It’s a lifestyle. A trait. A Community. A Culture. An Ideology. A Concept. An Abstraction. It’s everything and it’s nothing. I’m supposed to disclose it with pride when I meet new people. I’m supposed to warn Littluns about the dangers of not expressing themselves and being comfortable in their identity when I can’t even deliver on that. I’m supposed to do all these things. 

But no one is asking me to. 

No one is telling me to be “Trans”. 

I’m looking around at all of my Trans brothers and sisters and wondering if that’s behaviour I should emulate because I  have a) no frame of reference and b) no connection to Transess as a concept. I feel like I’m doing a disservice to those who feel a connection to it as a concept, when I only see it as an adjective. When I try to remove myself from it as much as possible. And again here comes the internalised Transphobia knocking at my window.

I’m an artist, A filmmaker, and a writer. I’ve never felt compelled to tell Trans stories. Is it because I don’t want to be pigeonholed into this idea of Transness that again, supersedes my own, or is it because I’m ashamed of it? Am I acknowledging that I am more than a Trans artist or am I just not taking pride in the fact that I’m going to have to live with being Trans for the rest of my life? It’s not something that goes away. Trans doesn’t stop. I Will always be Transgender and I have to cope with that because I am male and I was not born that way. 

I don’t Identify with Queerness. I don’t identify as Transgender. It is something I am, a thing that I cannot help. I Identify as Male, Transgender was just something that came free in the post. I didn't understand the terms and conditions of it. I'm dyslexic, you expect me to read the fine print?

Where does this end? What’s the accumulation of all of this thinking? I do not know. It doesn’t end. The debate where I am my own interlocutor only ends with more questions that I must ask myself. 

[basimdasasonst]

snw spock rant

i've been watching strange new worlds recently, and the prevailing feeling i always leave with, no matter the episode, is that i would like it if not for spock.

don't get me wrong; i'm a tos fan to my core. star trek launched me into a love of sci-fi and space fiction and is the whole reason i'm in university studying astrophysics, why i'm writing a book using said inner astrophysics nerd, why i have any sense of purpose to me, cliche as it is to say. star trek was an integral, important part of my upbringing, and continues to be one of my main interests to this day. i love jim (and i love snw jim! especially after aos kirk (shudders)) and i love bones (i really hope he joins snw soon....leonard mccoy save us....save us leonard mccoy...) and i love scotty and i love spock. but not snw spock.

here's the thing about spock: his internal character conflicts have always had some sort of root in him being not enough/not vulcan enough/not human enough/etc. his struggles with relationships as a result – because, lets face it, both humans and vulcans are social creatures and need friends otherwise society as a whole wouldn't be a thing on either world – make up a core part of his character. in tos, his relationship struggles were nearly purely platonic, with a few offhand remarks about stray crew members having crushes on him (uhura in early first season, chapel in amok time). 

s1e4 "the naked time". spock, right before losing his figurative Marbles, sees "love mankind" written on a wall. later, he goes on to say to jim: "when i feel friendship for you, i'm ashamed." other posts have done and will do better jobs of explaining it, but in conjunction with "sinner" written on the turbolift near jim (about not being able to form lasting relationships with other crewmates because its too much of a power imbalance), the writing on the wall (literally) is that spock is inherently ashamed of his humanity. he has been raised on vulcan to be a vulcan.

his internal conflict is always about him struggling with his human side. he struggles with friendship, he struggles with his humanity, he struggles to be something that people don't immediately deem wrong. as a gay man, and certainly as a young queer child first watching tos, i felt closest to spock not just because of feeling ashamed of part of my cultural heritage, but also because of repression. spock represses these feelings of insecurity, of friendship, of the need for connection in others in a certain way, so much that it causes him pain. growing up gay, his pain was very real to me. writing on the wall. he’s silly and a cool character of course, but he resonated with me in a way that, at the time, i didn’t have anything to resonate with. 

what does this all have to do with me hating snw spock so much? i want to preface this by saying i went into snw really wanting to love it. i saw the intro and the planets and the nebulae and the black hole and the music and was like "damn, this is fucking cool." star trek, to some part of me, was also about the space exploration aspect as much as the characters. the whims of wacky crewmembers and sentient rocks. the impossibly infinite things nature can form on its own. snw looked fun. i really wanted to like it. and you know what? i almost like it.

except for spock. quite literally the only character i have any quarrels with is spock. dehydrated, glistening, oiled up spock. wtf. why is he in a relationship with t'pring? why does he (almost) cheat on her with chapel? and why chapel??????????? chapel has a one-sided (VERY CLEARLY ONE SIDED) crush on him in tos. why is it two sided now. 

what, and i can't stress this enough, the fuck? 

and don't come into my house and tell me "oh you know, it makes sense, because, because then spock gets all hard and Logical and shuts himself off and obviously the reason for that is a breakup–" No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! no no no no. i don't care if it makes “sense” it feels so intrinsically wrong to his character. i’ve had much more character development from losing life-long friends than ending barely a year long relationships. spock wouldn’t immediately shut down because he kissed a girl once and then she said “acshually sowwy my work is more important” when that’s the exact sentiment he echoed to t’pring when they broke up.

more importantly, snw spock barely has friends. he calls pike a friend once or twice, but i hardly believe that they're friends. he barely interacts with la'an or erica, he has a few passing conversations with uhura in season 1 on episodes about her that don't really carry into season 2, and otherwise he's just There. he doesn't have friends in snw. the writers are prioritising him having a romantic relationship over a friendship. snw spock needs a friend way more than he needs a bone buddy. and it really rubs me the wrong way the way the relationship with chapel was portrayed to be first friendly and then romantic. i never believed for a second that he and chapel were friends – despite the screenwriters trying. every time they talked prior to s2e5 there was this odd undercurrent of sexuality that seemed to follow them. lingering looks, touching fingertips, long pauses – it was so unbelievably awkward and obvious that they were setting up a relationship between the two. i mean, for fucks sake, s1e1 uhura calls chapel "spock's girlfriend." boy did my blood boil when i figured out that was where the show was going. s1e5 was actually painful for me to get through (chapel sits down, gives spock relationship advice, giggles, smacks him upside the head, and calls him an idiot. 2017 wattpad is calling, they want their material back) and i had to take two full days to get through s2e5 because i was in anguish the whole time. it was a constant mental barrage of "spock wouldn't say that," and "spock wouldn't do that," and "this is not spock."

for the most part, i couldn't figure out why spock and chapel's relationship specifically bothered me so much. i mean i have my quarrels with la'an and jim, and i really don't give much of a care about pike and batel so why was spock and chapel grating on me so badly? was it because it was being shoved in my face? was the writing that much more atrocious than the others? was it the decimation of spock's character?

it was, i found, a product of all of those and the issue of queerness. 

look; i've survived sherlock bbc, i’ve survived the golden age of quotev fandom in 2016, i've bared witness to so much queerbaiting in my life that i don't even bother trying to hope for any sort of main character queer representation anymore. we’re going to be a footnote until someone does something about it. unfortunately, that’s not going to be me because i’m not a film director. so i look the other way and steam about it on twitter or tumblr or whatever hoping that i, like many other frustrated queer people, get noticed one day in the far future when it’s ok to have a queer romance in mainstream, it’s ok to have a queer main character, and it’s ok to let it simmer slowly and burn instead of jumping into it to say “look guys we’re woke!!!!!” (star trek literally was the pioneer for most of these things back in the day. but that’s another discussion on the heterosexualisation of progressive media that i wont get into. it just feels bitterly funny that this is happening to star trek of all things.) these days i just pretend the relationships dont exist and skip over them when they happen. i've developed a sixth sense for when weird, forced heterosexuality is about to be shoved down my oesophagus. i've just gotten used to it. 

but sphapel (or whatever it's called) burned through me. i've never felt quite this angry at an on screen relationship. and, trust me, i saw AOS. i didn't like spuhura then and i don't like it now but i wasn't angry so much as i was just tired and annoyed. but spock was – and always is to me, confused, queer 10 year old me – a queer character. his struggle with humanity, with friendship, with fitting in, with just being as a perceived "other" was what made him an interesting character to me to begin with. he was a certain outlet to vent that frustration for being "wrong" in society no matter how hard you try to conform one way or another. the knowledge that even if you are different, you still have people backing you up. his fucking friendships, guys. jim and bones. yes i know his friendship with jim is also inherently romantic dont worry im spirk #1 shipper but that’s not relevant here because, and forgive me for being pessimistic, i don’t believe for a second that these writers are going to lean into spirk anytime soon. their relationship went beyond friendship or romance or any of that stuff. coughs in the roddenberry footnote.

what i’m trying to say here, in layman’s terms, is that giving a friendless character a romantic relationship is exactly how you alienate a character. name one person you know in real life that can survive healthily with one single relation, that being their romantic partner that they have no friendly base of. you can’t. that’s a toxic relationship. that’s not romance, that’s alienation. that’s isolation. that’s loneliness. and that’s the OPPOSITE OF WHAT EXPLORING SPOCK’S HUMAN SIDE IS SUPPOSED TO DO TO HIM .

by stripping spock of his friends, and forcing his arc to be purely romantic, you have essentially stripped the character of all he is. i'd be mad if chapel was a dude, too, honestly speaking. but beyond that, corralling spock of all people into a heterosexual romantic relationship is – well. it's a choice i don't think i can ever agree with. the best way i can describe such a choice is like a dissonant chord – you can pluck the notes and they'll sound fine on their own, but when you put them together they will clash. there is nothing you can do with your fingers to play the same notes and not cause the clash. they will always clash. it is dissonance ringing through you, an inherent wrongness coupled with writing that is lazy and clearly meant for a very specific audience. snw spock is bad writing, fanservice, and extraordinarily out of character. notes i can tolerate on their own, but strung together – dissonant.

i really want to like snw. fuck, i love la'an, i love erica, i love jim (!!! thank you paul wesley for making him a nerd, and kind (glares at AOS), and generally a jim kirk that i can look at and say, "yeah, that's jim alright"), i love uhura, i love una, i love m'benga and i love pike but i hate spock. i really, truly, cannot like snw when i have to pause the show and take an irritated deep breath in every time i see chapel approach spock. it's – frustrating, and alienating, and wrong. so, so wrong. 

[percheduphere]

LET’S TALK ABOUT EXPLORING LOKI & MOBIUS THROUGH THE LENS OF QUEER EXPERIENCE

Thank you for this request, @nabananab 

Before I dig into this juicy ask, I think it’s important to note (however obvious the fact maybe) that an individual’s unique engagement with art is an inherent and integral part of art. The intention of the artist and the sociopolitical influence of culture, while important in our interpretation of a work, are not the sole source of drawing the work’s meaning. We are all artists in one form or another. I consider myself one of the pen, and nothing is more important to me than art giving someone a sense of emotional connection. I should hope other artists would agree, and for this reason I am an ardent believer in art taking on a life of its own once it has been created. The creator’s word, while it matters to some degree, does not supersede an individual’s relationship with the creation. Our histories, our desires, our fears, our likes, our dislikes, indeed our infiniteness as fragile human beings, allow us to create an elevated, spiritual interpretation beyond the confines of original intent. With art, there is no such thing as “reaching” or “reading too deeply”. 

I leave this message with all of you as we look at these beloved characters through the lens of queer experience. 

LOKI 

Culture influences what we see and hear, which in turn influences artistic portrayal. Setting aside Norse myth, Marvel’s Loki is a classic example of a queer-coded villain (later canonized as a queer antihero). Deception, daggers, sexual temptation, transformation, and magic are all culturally tied to the “immoral” facets of femininity. Just as a strong, independent woman untethered to the control of man is deemed a “wicked woman”, a man demonstrating gender ambiguity and like qualities is similarly judged. Only masculinity is viewed as pure and good, and this no doubt was—and continues to be—a key force in white, western colonization’s destructiveness. It all but crushed our rich global history of divine femininity, gender diversity, and romantic and sexual expression. 

Asgard, as Marvel portrays it, is without a doubt a masculine-dominant warrior society. Only two women feature prominently: Queen Frigga and Lady Sif. Whereas Sif embraces her masculine qualities and fits in easily with Thor and the Warriors Three, Queen Frigga embraces her feminine powers, though her authority is submissive to the All-Father, Odin. Her influence is most heavily seen in her adopted son, Loki, with whom she shared and taught magic in hopes that Loki might “feel some sun on himself” despite the “long shadows [Thor] and [Odin]” cast. The magic that Frigga gifts Loki, however, attracts scorn. The subtext here is that Loki’s specialness, his individuality, comes from feminine powers despite presenting as a man, and a gender ambiguous one at that. Unlike Thor and Odin, he is not masculine. While strong, he does not exhibit Thor’s brute strength. He is cautious, thoughtful, another feminine quality, whereas Thor’s courageousness often veers toward foolhardy and brash.  

Thus, if Loki cannot be loved and accepted as he is (a queer person of another race), he will force love and acceptance through the power of the throne. Kings oft inspire fear, coercing subjects to love them whether they wish to or not. But we know Loki never truly wanted the throne. The throne is a mere distraction from, perhaps even a poor replacement for, what he truly wants: genuine love and acceptance that cannot be bought. Unfortunately, Loki believes he will never get these things, which is why, when Mobius questions him, Loki’s desire for control (Loki, King of the Midgard; Loki, King of the Nine Realms; Loki, King of Space) can never be satiated. Mobius challenges Loki for the exact purpose of revealing this to him. What do you really want? At this point, Loki does not have the words to form an answer. In S2E5, Syvlie raises the question Mobius originally asked in S1E1. It is then, after experiencing Mobius’s friendship and the other relationships that come to being as a result (including Sylvie’s), that Loki can articulate his answer. 

Loki’s othering, even before the discovery of his true identity as a Jotun (an allegory for a villainized foreign race), creates a lonely environment in which Loki’s potential for goodness is quashed by centuries of resentment, bitterness, and jealousy. His attempts at masculinity take the form of violence, all of which are, as Loki admits in S1E1, “part of the illusion; the cruel elaborate trick conjured by the weak to inspire fear.”  

Loneliness and the desire for love and acceptance are a universal human experience, but they are felt far more acutely within our intersectional queer communities. 

MOBIUS 

His fascination with Loki is compelling because there are many things we can infer about its reasons. The first, most obvious explanation is Mobius’s “soft spot for broken things”, which is in some ways tied to his qualities as a compassionate, forgiving, and supportive father. A secondary explanation is a wish for partnership. We know from S1 that Mobius’s friendship with Ravonna spanned eons. We later learn in S2E6 that he and Ravonna started out as peers, hunters. They were partners on the field, but where Mobius “failed” because of his humanity, Ravonna “advanced” because of her ruthlessness. This change in relational dynamics left him partner-less. Finally, a third, less obvious reason is Mobius’s desire to express himself in ways Loki does so effortlessly. That desire may come from the suppression and repression of his own softspoken queerness in order to survive the fascist culture of the TVA. 

Mobius is captivating for many reasons. Whereas Loki is a textbook example of culture viewing “queerness as evil”, “queerness as flamboyance”, “queerness as stylishness”, “queerness as loudness”, “queerness as sexual promiscuity and deviance”, “queerness as chaos”, Mobius very much aligns with the image of a straight-passing, repressed queer individual. This is an identity that does not get as much attention or presence in artistic media as it deserves, for there are many who need this representation to reflect them. He is not stereotypically queer by any means: he is not colorful. He is not stylish, flamboyant, or loud. His sex appeal primarily derives from the viewers’ attraction to his personality, though it certainly helps that Owen Wilson is quite handsome.  

Combine these three reasons, and it becomes easy to see how a character (or person!) like Mobius might fall in love with a character (or person!) like Loki.  

There is a certain amount of beautiful irony in how Loki and Mobius affect one another and consequently their identities. Mobius, feeling compassion toward an individual who has been brutally othered and oppressed, seeks to free Loki from the confines of his narrative, as determined by the “Time Keepers”.  The only feasible way to do this is to bring a variant of Loki out of the timeline and into the TVA. Mobius then provides Loki with the opportunity to change by: acknowledging Loki’s strengths, giving Loki the chance to use his strengths in productive ways, praising Loki when he does well, listening to Loki, believing in Loki, calling out Loki, and accepting Loki as he is, with all his history, without judgement. Mobius does not try to force change like Thor or Odin. Rather, he creates an environment in which change could happen naturally. This kindness and, indeed, what becomes unconditional love by the end of S1E4, allows Loki to embrace his authentic queerness with self-love and use his feminine powers for altruism rather than masking them with self-hatred and masculine rage. 

FREEING LOKI 

In S1E1, Mobius is enthralled with Loki’s hijinks as the handsome, charming, devil-may-care, D.B. Cooper. This minor escapade in Loki’s life, which was likely only intended for laughs by the writer, reveals something interesting about Mobius: Loki’s mischievousness, his magic, his cunning, are all quite endearing to him when no real harm is being inflicted. That is, Loki, when not under duress, is someone to be admired when he’s being himself. We admire in people what we wish we had in ourselves, and this, at times, may lead to powerful attraction. 

Loki, for his part, does much the same for Mobius. The environment (the TVA) which allowed Loki to thrive is also the same environment that has abused and constrained Mobius. 

The heat that Ravonna presses upon Mobius, however, changes his tone with Loki himself. When Loki asks Mobius why he “[sticks] his neck out for [him]”, Mobius provides Loki with two options to choose from: “A. He sees a scared little boy shivering in the cold, or B. He will say whatever he needs to say to get the job done”. Option A, while insulting, has compassion layered beneath the barb. Loki, an expert at cloaking truth with meanness, sees through this and indirectly chooses what he believes to be true in the cafeteria scene: that Mobius feels sympathy for Loki’s painful childhood. The subtext of this acknowledgement is that the true means to the end is reversed: Mobius doesn’t need Loki to catch the Variant on the timelines. Mobius needs the Variant to free Loki from the timelines. The Variant is an excuse and another agent of poetic irony: when Sylvie unleashes the multiverse, she literally frees Loki of his predetermined narrative. 

The conceit of S1E1 is that Mobius intends to use Loki for the “good” of the Sacred Timeline. It is important to remember that characters, while not real, are meant to mirror human complexity. Multiple, seemingly conflicting things may be true concurrently. In S1E2, we see in Mobius’s conversations with Ravonna that he deeply believes in Loki’a capacity to be a wonderful person and wants him to have the opportunity to change. His enthusiasm for these things outshines his desire to catch Sylvie.  

And, because the Variant is Loki, because Sylvie is Loki, because, as she says, “[they] are the same”, Mobius’s own freeing of Loki, his unconditional love for him, cascades from Loki to Sylvie. Sylvie would not be free to live as she pleases if not for Mobius’s compassion for Loki in the first place. 

In S1E4, Loki reveals the TVA’s sham. Mobius’s sense of self becomes fragile alongside his sense of partnership with Loki. But because of our sociopolitical culture’s influence on capitalism, the creative voices of the Loki series self-censures what could be (what is) a queer romance. This self-censureship makes itself known in Mobius’s own self-censureship. His jealousy and heartbreak cannot be spoken directly. It must be spoken through the words of a woman, someone who presents as the opposite sex. Through a looping memory of a scornful Sif telling Loki, “You are alone and always will be”, Mobius makes known the nature of his feelings for him.  

BUT WHO WILL FREE MOBIUS? 

In the same cafeteria scene in S1E2, Loki asks Mobius if he’s ever ridden a jet ski. Mobius’s response is demure, saying him riding one would “cause a branch for sure”. The jet ski gives the audience another clue as to what Mobius seeks in life: something fun, thrilling, and reckless. Yet Mobius sets aside his desires for what he believes is for the good of the TVA, and thus humanity. This suppression and repression of authentic selfhood mirrors the queer experience of living within a heteronormative culture, especially one with religious doctrines that equate pleasure with sinfulness.  

Because Mobius extended his heart, his partnership, his love (symbolized by twin daggers hidden in his locker [a closet]; notably a male phallic symbol of which there are a pair [partners]) and was soundly rejected, Mobius retaliates with the loneliness he himself feels. This loneliness may be interpreted as an allegory for the loneliness of being closeted as opposed to the loneliness of being out but othered. 

Ultimately, Mobius’s love for Loki shifts from selfish desire to unconditional love when he chooses to help Loki save Sylvie. In S1E5, it is conspicuous that after delivering Sylvie safely to Loki’s side, Mobius’s partings words are, “Guess you got away again”, to which Loki replies, “I always do”, which echos the lover’s trope of “the one that got away”. 

[It drives me absolutely bananas that I can't find the specific gif I need when I literally saw it multiple times earlier this week but didn't need it THEN]

Owen’s acting choice is interesting here. He laughs, smiles, then looks down before looking up again, his eyes shifting from fondness to what feels like longing. Mobius extends his hand, a sensible choice for someone who believes his love is unrequited and is unsure of how Loki defines their relationship. Loki, appreciating what Mobius has done for him, closes the distance with an embrace and thanks Mobius for his friendship. 

In S2E1, upon Loki’s time-slipping into the war room, whatever apprehensions Mobius had about physical contact was wiped away by the collapse of the TVA and the memory of Loki’s hug. In this scene, it becomes clear to Mobius that Loki is panicking. He makes the executive decision to use his physical contact as a grounding force, relocates Loki to a quiet environment, asks after Sylvie with no bitterness in his voice, then prioritizes Loki’s physical well-being. Perhaps, in Mobius’s view, his love is unrequited, but there is nothing in place to stop him from expressing that love more freely while honoring Loki’s feelings for Sylvie. This regard, which may be construed as platonic, may also be viewed romantic, courtly love. 

The fight between Loki and Sylvie in S1E6 sets the stage for Mobius to receive Loki and become a refuge for heartbreak.  

S2E2 and S2E3 has Loki’s and Mobius’s temperaments when it comes to investigating flipped. In S1, Mobius was focused on the mission and often had to reign in Loki. In S2, Mobius is more casual, more willing to take his time and enjoy the sleuthing as it unfolds, while Loki administers pressure to stay focused. The question is why? 

In S2E2, Brad attacks Mobius’s sense of self. He points out how weird it is that Mobius is not at all curious about looking at his timeline and stresses that the TVA, and everything in it, isn’t real. Brad calls into question Mobius’s reason for staying. Knowing that the answer is Loki, we can surmise through the queer lens that Brad also corners Mobius into potentially outing himself in front of the object of his affections, someone he believes does not return his feelings, and whose knowledge of those feelings may threaten their friendship. This is a traumatic experience for queer people in the real world, and this extra layer of emotional conflict adds depth to Mobius’s violent response.  

Mobius influenced Loki in a myriad of ways. One that has not been discussed yet is an appreciation for focus and order. Loki, in turn, has cracked the door open for Mobius to explore pleasure. We can speculate that, in his own way, Mobius is testing what happiness could look like living a life between the TVA and the timelines. For him, this means cocktails at the theater, cracker jacks, and exploring the World’s Fair, all of which are pleasurable on their own but are even more so with Loki’s company. His queerness, once again, is quiet, mundane, but playful in its own right, and finally brave enough to explore. These scenes suggest that Mobius is indeed happy at the TVA and, as we see in the finale, this happiness is solely rooted in his relationship with Loki and the emotional intimacy they share together. 

Loki expresses concern for Mobius, noting that he has “never seen him like that before.” Mobius, interestingly, deflects every concern by absurdly blaming Loki: “He got under your skin”, “I was following you!” The psychological undercurrent here is that Loki is the reason why Brad got under Mobius skin. Loki is the person that Mobius will follow.  

Loki takes Mobius’s distress in stride, responding in a way the Mobius normally would. However, Brad’s question piques his interest, and his own care for Mobius prompts him to gently challenge Mobius’s lack of interest in his own timeline. Mobius’s reason for avoidance is, “What if it’s something good?” 

In S2E5, it’s interesting that “good” in this narrative is defined as a heteronormative fantasy of a house, two kids, and (possibly) a puppy and a snake. The “good” in Mobius’s original timeline, however, is imperfect. There is a partner that is missing (partners being a recurring theme in the series, particularly in S2E3), pronounced gone not once but twice. The entire scene between Don and Loki has been discussed at length by many, so there’s no need to reiterate it here. However, let’s bring our attention to Mobius’s avoidance of this “good” because this avoidance resonates with another queer experience. 

The TVA, for Mobius, is the place where he studied, saved, and developed a close relationship with Loki. The fear of the “something good” is the fear of being confronted with something Mobius “should” want more than the TVA, and therefore “should” want more Loki. The fear is wanting something (or feeling pressured to want something) other than a queer relationship with no children. The question of “choice” is impacted by what is considered the “norm”. 

S2E5 very pointedly focuses on the concern of choice, especially Mobius’s choice, in the bar scene between Loki and Sylvie. “Mobius should get a choice now, no?” At this point, Loki’s regard for Mobius has finally caught up with the romantic nature of Mobius’s feelings for him. And Loki, living his own queer experience, is also afraid of his true desires like Mobius. In being part of the intersectional queer community, the psychological need to guard against disappointment is high and commonplace. Desires are easily disappointed by the expectations of oppressive social mores. This survival tactic manifests itself with our hope and heartbreak with mainstream media, Loki the series being among them. 

But Sylvie, the harbinger of true and absolute freedom, takes on the role of supportive ex and challenges Loki to answer Mobius’s question in S1E1: “What do you want?”  

In this, Mobius and Loki’s individual relationships with the TVA are identical. It was never about where (the TVA), when (time works differently at the TVA), or why (the timelines). It was about who. It was about each other. The TVA represents a liminal space which became home by virtue of the people who brought love into it. The TVA is code for Loki and Mobius when each speaks of it. 

Again, the artists behind the media must self-censure. In this, Loki also self-censures while giving the truth. “I don’t want to be alone. I want my friends back.” It cannot be denied that Mobius is Loki’s first truest and closest friend. “I don’t want to be alone. I want Mobius back.” Sylvie appreciates and validates this desire, but also points out that showing the TVA is something that cannot be unseen. The implication of this response suggests that Sylvie believes that Loki’s friends will feel compelled to join the TVA out of moral pressure. She reiterates the true lives that are being lived, and Loki, loving his friends, loving Mobius, elects to not take that away from them. “You are just fine without the TVA.” 

Yet, Loki must choose an act of profound selfless love to save everyone. In doing so, he saves and frees Mobius in the way Mobius saved and freed him. The tragedy and, once again, poetic irony is that they both would have chosen each other. In giving everyone freedom, the true freedom of Loki and Mobius is sacrificed. This double-standard reflects in our reality between those who identify as cis and heterosexual and those who do not. 

When Mobius looks at his timeline in S2E6, he does so for one reason: that timeline survived because of Loki’s sacrifice. He must honor that sacrifice and see what Loki protected. Mobius appreciates what he finds, but he doesn’t belong there. It is not what he ultimately longs for. And there must be worry, shame, in recognizing he would prefer to give up the house and two children if a life with Loki were a viable choice. 

We all experience loss in our lives. Loss without a goodbye is also commonplace but is another pain that is more acute within the intersectional queer community. I speak of missed opportunities for happiness due to external forces. I speak of loss of self. I speak of loss of friends and family and home. I speak of death, losing a loved one without a goodbye, because same-sex lovers are not considered next of kin, an impossibility without marriage. Marriage echoes back to Don, who has no spouse, and Mobius, who has no partner. 

[i-heart-hxh]

What if gon and killua and all the subtext r queerbait??do u think they might be

I've answered this kind of thing before, but why not do a refresher? I keep this image on my desktop for when someone doubts Togashi's intentions.

This was well before HxH was created, before even Yu Yu Hakusho was created. Note that he says he wanted to create this gay, crossdressing manga based on his own "personal interest" and that he grew "deeply attached" to it.

Togashi has noted himself to be a fan of Patalliro!, a BL series written by Mineo Maya--one of the few male BL authors, and Patalliro! was the first BL series to be adapted to anime. He has stated that Hiei's hair was inspired by a character from Patalliro!

Togashi has discussed enjoying putting "shojo manga elements" in his work as well. This can, and likely does, refer at least in part to all the gay subtext.

He put Sensui and Itsuki in Yu Yu Hakusho, who somewhat ambiguously seem to be in a romantic relationship. See this line:

He's even said Itsuki is one of his favorite characters in Yu Yu Hakusho.

He's also married to the Naoko Takeuchi, the creator of Sailor Moon, who famously has also included lesbian relationships in her manga.

Looking at how multifaceted and fully integrated into the characters themselves/the story the "hints" of romantic feelings between Gon and Killua are, I have trouble believing Togashi would just be doing this out of "queerbaiting," which is a complex topic in the first place when it comes to anime and manga, because the culture in Japan is different and the anime/manga industries have a long complicated history with queer themes.

He's grown up in a fairly conservative culture that has changed only gradually, and he has been working in decades in the most mainstream manga publication out there, which I'm certain has rules around what he can and can't portray (though the degree to which he's bound by those rules at this point is unknown). It makes sense, therefore, that he's accustomed to using subtext and ambiguity rather than portraying gay relationships in a way that is 100% undeniably canon. He's not writing for BL publications, after all.

To me, the romantic aspect of Gon and Killua's relationship feels very genuine and heartfelt. It's built into who the characters are and how they're set up as characters in the first place (like Killua's birthday, for instance), and what they mean to each other is one of the main emotional cores of the series. The way he weaves this concept into the series in many, many different ways has emotional weight and meaning. It does not feel at all like something he casually added as fanservice or for the hell of it as an afterthought. I think it's left ambiguous on purpose, but the repeated and sometimes quite blatant hints are there for those who want to connect the dots.

As time has gone by and I've read more of Togashi's own words and discussions of his influences as well as considering just how much queer subtext exists in the series (and not just with Gon and Killua by any means--Alluka, LeoPika, HisoIllu, PariGing, etc.) AND in his other series as well, it's only made me more and more certain that he includes all this stuff with full intention, and coming at least in a large part from his own personal desire to include these elements.

[wakeupthemembersofbylernation]

It is not even that Mlvns are homophobic. I mean, many of the toxic ones are. We’ve all seen them and interacted with them and received hate anons from them. When Noah’s article officially confirming Will’s sexuality dropped during the summer, people were literally tweeting slurs and fantasizing about him being hate-crimed or dying from AIDS. (It’s probably unfair to group Mlvns in with these people, as lots of them weren’t even Mlvns, just bigoted GA members and trolls). But still. It was bleak. There’s a deep darkness within the ST fandom undeniably.

But I’m sure many Mlvns/Byler-antis are the types of people who genuinely have no problem with queer people in real life. When we call them out on their bigotry and homophobia, they get confused and say, “But I have gay friends! How am I homophobic for not liking Byler?” And they mean it 100%. They really do have gay friends. They probably consider themselves allies and yada yada.

The issue is that A) they are deeply heteronormative without realizing it, and B) they simply aren’t the target audience for the show, and as such, they don’t really understand or connect to the themes of the show. The thing is, lots of people, many Milkvans included, are simply normies. Now I love Steve as a character, so this is literally no hate to Steve, but lots of people are Steves. And people who are like Steve: popular, straight, attractive, used to dating the types of people they want, into ‘normal’ interests like sports (not that Steve is hyper into sports, but you know what I mean), likely to go down ‘normal’ paths and live fairly conventional lives like their parents, etc. are simply not the target audience for the show.

Obviously, the show centers on outcasts, nerds, queer characters, characters with disabilities, black characters, etc. Most people recognize this on some level, but they recognize it in more of a general sense like, “Of course the protagonists are nerds/outcasts, just like all the classic 80s teen protagonists. I just love how nostalgic ST is!” And they leave it at that. Because they are normies, they don’t really connect to the themes of the show other than a surface-level, power of friendship sense. They don’t see how Byler is more aligned with the show’s message than Milkvan at this point. They don’t see that the outcast status of most of the characters is more than just a throwaway personality trait… its deeply integral to the point of the show itself and closely connected to the supernatural storyline.

This is because nerd culture is somewhat mainstream now, and lots of “normies” like it too. Star Wars, Marvel, LOTR, Harry Potter, etc. These are all major parts of society and billion dollar franchises, even more so than they were in the 80s. Because of this, people don’t realize that in the context of the world of the show, they wouldn’t have been friends with the Party most likely. It is far more statistically likely that they would’ve rolled with Angela’s friend group or joined Jason’s human hunting squad. Or even if they weren’t outright bullies, it’s far more likely that they would’ve been one of the nameless background characters in Hawkins High, just kind of floating by in a conventionally comfortable existence, entirely oblivious to government lab conspiracies and alternate dimensions. The characters in ST are outcasts in a deeper, existential sense. Society is against them.

And so many people can’t relate, especially to the queer themes. They can’t even see the queer themes. Because the show is not for them. That’s why you see so many baffling takes on the show:

“Will is so whiny all the time, and I don’t like him!”

“Mike was right in the rain fight! S3 is about growing up, and Will was acting like a baby.”

“Tbh I don’t care that much about the Party dynamics. My favorite part of the show is Steve and Dustin being funny together. And my second favorite part is Hopper being a cool action hero.”

“B*lly is overhated! I mean, he’s so hot and misunderstood! He could’ve redeemed himself.”

“I don’t get Byler. It barely seems like Mike and Will are even friends.”

To be clear, it doesn’t mean they don’t enjoy the genre of the show. Being horror/sci-fi, its core fans are a smaller pool of people than, say, fans of The Office or Friends or other popular sitcoms. So the Mlvns who watched it since the beginning probably do have some avant-garde tastes in terms of genre-preferences, since lots of people wouldn’t touch horror with a ten-foot pole. But it does mean they don’t pick up on the themes of the show and the arc of the characters.

(Of course, many newer fans now are just watching it cause it’s popular, regardless of which genres they typically prefer. This opens the show up to lots of people who don’t connect to anything about the show, not just its themes but also its darker content. A lot of newer fans sound like this: “Like, I just love that Mike was in love with El from the day he found her in the woods, and it’s so cute that El is Mike’s superhero, and Eddie is so cool and badass; I wish he could’ve told Chrissy how he felt, and I’m anxiously awaiting S5 to see who Nancy chooses but I hope she chooses Steve… Stancy 4ever!” This is because Stancy is like every other conventionally attractive couple in media).

I’m rambling, but a lot of people are into Milkvan because of their expectations that “pretty boy and pretty girl go together,” and that’s all there is to it. Finn is attractive and Millie is attractive, and they play the protagonists, so of course Mike and El are endgame. Why wouldn’t they be? This is true for the girls who project themselves onto Millie and see Finn/Mike as a dream boyfriend, and it’s true for the guys who project themselves onto Finn and who would want nothing more than to have a cool, superpowered girlfriend.

This is the way of nature. In a normie worldview, there’s no deviation from this path. A lot of fans basically take The Kissing Booth/To All the Boys I Loved Before and slap a sci-fi/horror filter on it, and they think that’s what Stranger Things is. It’s a cool show where kids fight monsters, and there are normal, heterosexual romances like Mlvn to root for, and there’s a badass superhero main character at the center.

Oh, there’s a gay character too? Well, that’s weird. I mean, y’all already have Robin, but whatever. I’m not homophobic! I’m cool with Will being gay… as long as he stays over there. Oh, he’s in love with Mike? Well, that’s even weirder. Why would the writers do that? I suppose that’s fine, as long as it’s just a little crush, and as long as it doesn’t get in the way of “the main storyline” and my OTP. I’m not homophobic, I swear! I have gay friends!

And they do. And they might not actively be against LGBTQ+ people in real life. They may really be telling the truth. But because they are Steves, this is where heteronormativity comes into play and blinds them. Main couples in shows are always straight, so the cool sci-fi, monster show they love must also be. They’re fine with Kevin Kellers, but queer Mike doesn’t fit the box that they allot to gay characters. So Mike must be the straightest character of all time to fight back against “weird delusional Byler theories” that would “come out of nowhere.” It’s not that they’re actively anti-gay; it’s that they are profoundly closed-minded and have a very myopic view of sexuality/storytelling/their favorite characters/their favorite shows. This is very similar to the XO, Kitty situation and people who were upset that Kitty was ‘suddenly’ bi and had a crush on Yuri.

WHAT?! Where did this come from? I thought I was watching a normal rom-com! I was fine with the gay characters on it who were clearly televised from the beginning! But Kitty? No! Kitty’s my self-insert. How can she like girls too? It must be a phase and be “less real” than her male love interests. This isn’t Heartstopper. The same weird energy is present in the ST fandom.

Byler being semi-canon isn’t seen as confirmation of a love triangle; it’s seen as a disruption to the norm and the foregone conclusion that Mike and El will be together forever and get married and have telekinetic children because the show owes that to them for all they’ve been through. “But why is Will inserted into their scenes?” we ask them, begging them to see reason. “Idk, but he should know his place and stop being a homewrecker and go find a new boy to like. Just leave the soulmates alone. Mike has already made clear he’s straight and that Will is nothing more than a friend. He said it in the roller rink!” This is how heteronormativity works.

That’s why Byler endgame will be so important because it will shatter preconceived notions and open people’s eyes to the beautiful tapestry of humanity. And they will see that this powerful, queer, coming-of-age, love story was right there, under their noses, in their “fun sci-fi monster show” this whole time. *Mind Blown*

[alphajocklover]

What about a G2S story about greasers? There's so few of those.

Imagine: A very lonely gay guy meets a rockabilly, greaser gang. They take him under their wing, which gay guy appreciates because of his loneliness. But slowly they start changing him, making him just like them.

In the end the lonely gay guy becomes a James Dean, Danny Zuco-wannabe with the gang becoming his new found family.

A lot of people think that Alphas and Betas are a relatively new thing. It makes sense to assume so in a way. Alphas as we know them are pretty new, but that’s only because Alpha culture has changed over time, just like ours. There were Alphas in the old west, in the ancient world, and even going back to the beginning of civilization as we know it. Recently I discovered an old book where someone had written down a number of stories about Alphas from the past. I guess I’m not the first person to document their behavior. One story in particular stuck with me though, so I’ve transcribed it here. Hope you enjoy.

Caleb Sparrow was a complete and utter nerd. An unhip clyde with a reputation for being a bit of a spaz. The kind of goof all the cool cats completely ignored. He was only really good at one thing: not standing out. A part of him hated that he was the way he was, that he was a loser with no friends. But a part of him was grateful. For a secretly queer man living in 1955, he was actually pretty lucky. No one bullied him (mainly because no one noticed him), his secret desires hadn’t been found out, and he had a good future ahead of him. He knew that eventually he’d land a steady job, find a swell gal who he could get along with well enough to marry, and live the traditional life his parents had always wanted of him. A part of him was grateful. But a part of him still hated it all. Hated how lonely he was, how he’d never find someone he’d really love, how his entire life was always going to be a lie. But he was resigned to it. Until… he met an Alpha named Biff.

Biff was everything Caleb wasn’t. He was the hippest greaser in town, with a handsome face, manly muscles, a souped up rag top and a gang of fellow greasers to hang with. Biff had it all. Sure all the squares all said he was bad news, but he didn’t care. He had it made in the shade. He had a different betty with him every night. That’s what made it so weird to everyone when Biff suddenly started being so friendly with Caleb. Caleb didn’t know what to make of it at first, and was pretty sure he was going to end up getting beat, but Biff was… well he was dreamy, so Caleb let himself believe that he really wanted to be his friend. He had no idea that Biff was just looking for a new Beta. Turning Caleb into the perfect Beta took less time than you’d expect. Caleb integrated into the gang with surprising ease, all of the other members treating him like they had been friends for life, and as he began to grow closer to the group and Biff, he began to change.

At first it was a slight change in style and lingo, trying to keep up with his new crew. Then he shot up several inches and began to pack on muscle, which the 19 year old brushed off as an overdue growth spurt. But over time the style changes became more and more drastic and his body grew at an even faster rate. Soon he wasn’t just the new kid, he was the second in command, right after Biff. That’s why everyone started calling him Deuce. Just like everyone else in the gang Deuce was muscular, cool, loved cars and was obsessed with Biff. Deuce eventually even came out to Biff and confessed his love, but Biff didn’t wanna deal with all the issues that came with having a queer beta, so he ‘suggested’ that Deuce was actually a pussy hound like him. Considering how many gals Deuce has played backseat bingo with I think Biff might have overdone it, but just like always he got what he wanted. Another manly, muscular, straight greaser for his gang.

**hey there guys! Never done anything with Greasers before, so it’s probably not as good as my usual stuff, but I had fun with it. Hope you all enjoy. Might revisit the idea of Alphas throughout history sometime**

[solitaryandwandering]

A Ramble: Love in the Big City Eps 3-4

Okay, so I finished this episode like half an hour ago and I am still processing. I am so impressed with this show's ability to showcase different shades of grief. I feel like I'll probably cry at the end of every section but it will feel completely different every time. Please do not expect anything less than a LONG ramble.

Again, I just have to admire the direction - each part so far has felt completely distinct but not in big, showy ways. Part 1 of this show was a more traditional coming-of-age with warmer, brighter colors and more dynamic editing, camera movement/angles and blocking. I'll have to go back and study this more but it felt like there were more eye level and overhead shots, too. Part 2 is darker, slower, with more frequent use of stationary camera/static shots and wide angle shots. There were a couple of striking long takes as well. We linger in wide, empty spaces, forced to be still as we watch what unfolds.

Many of us talked about queer loneliness in the last episodes which is obviously going to be a present theme throughout the entirety of the show, but I was struck with how different the loneliness felt in these episodes. Especially in episode 4, as Young gets further entangled with Noh Young Soo, he becomes isolated in a way he wasn't in Part 1. Then, he was lonely but surrounded by people. In Part 2 he is removed from his community and so his loneliness is more starkly evident. The direction reinforces this by literally isolating him or keeping him at a visual distance. We don't get as many intimate close-ups as we do in episodes 1 and 2.

And again, I may be totally wrong, but I think we can actually see a kind of transition in style in the way episode 3 opens up. Episode 2 ends with the lighting on Young's face becoming gradually darker, then I believe the episode begins with a dolly shot moving backwards as we face Young running. It's a more active camera with movement within the frame. Yet, the colors are relatively muted and Young is looking down the barrel of the lens with an exhausted expression. It's distancing instead of inviting. After that unhurried shot we then cut to a grounded static shot where Young runs from one side of the frame to the other. From then on, I don't think we get very many, if any, moments of similar movement. Other dolly shots I can think of are when he's pushing his mom in a wheelchair - not exactly a high speed chase and still within the framework of a long take. There's certainly none of the quick editing from Part 1. The score is also way more melancholy.

Moving on, what these episodes really had me ruminating on was the concept of ownership. As queer people I think one of the reasons why Pride has become such a big part of our culture is because it gives us a space to own ourselves publicly in a way we often aren't able. We can't always show up as our full selves, with all our history, community connections, complex relationships with our identities, etc. Young is a cool character to watch because it seems at the beginning of the show that he is self-actualized, totally in charge of his queerness and integrated with his community (as Yeong Soo also believes). But of course, it is a lot more complicated for him (and for most of us). In these episodes we could see more of what he has (and continues to) sacrifice in an effort to own himself. It is in spite of people determined to steal his spirit. It is an active fight, one he feels helpless in the face of when he attempts to take his own life in episode 4. And that attempt is also, in a way, a claim he lays on his life. Only he owns it, only he gets to end it. I don't think that was his thought process obviously but it did strike me. It was also interesting to me how he attempted in the apartment he used to share with his best friend, a relationship he no longer has.

More broadly there was a lot going on in this section about how we approach taking ownership of our own experiences. How we shape them to fit in with a narrative we want to believe about ourselves and our lives or a narrative others would want for us. At the end of episode 4 Yeong Soo sends Young his observations on homosexuality (his way to distance himself and claim a different more "objective" or "correct" perspective of his own life). He literally tells Young he hopes his reshaping of their experiences would inform Young's future work. He is both refusing ownership and attempting to control Young's self-expression. In the entirety of their relationship he did much of the same, refusing to claim Young as his boyfriend in the way he wanted or recognize him as a full person while presuming he knew everything he needed to know about him and life in general. Young is restricted to the same experiences over and over, going out to eat the same foods, playing the same song, hiding himself away. Quite literally, his ability to experience everything he loves about life is stunted.

These episodes also had me reflecting on how we give up ownership or have it taken away. Young Soo treats Young as his dog, stifling his (and his own) identity and sense of freedom. He isolates Young from friends and community. What's devastating about their relationship is that Young wants some kind of ownership; he wants to belong to Young Soo and for him to belong to Young. At the very least, he wants recognition. But this becomes twisted up in Young Soo's self-hatred. Young Soo has elected to give up ownership of his identity in favor of a particular mold. He favors comfort and has chosen very specific things he can own and love as a part of his identity to replace genuine connection. Rather than own his feelings he observes others'; he tries to own Young and his experience, to live vicariously but also to shape him. He envies Young's ability to own himself and his sexuality but is afraid of it. He has dedicated himself so much to a particular picture of reality that he can't conceive of Young ever facing legitimate danger or opposition because of his sexuality. If he hates himself, it is only natural, an extension of the life he lives and who he is (a "macho" intellectual). He owns and then marinates in his negative experiences to validate his refusal to engage with a wider reality, one in which joy can exist in a homophobic society. Even in his attempts to own Young he fails because it is impossible for him to draw any closer to himself. Yeong Soo can't own someone who refuses to give himself up. He doesn't bother to get to know Young beyond his assumptions (he can "see right through him," after all). He strips self-ownership from Young in the same way he keeps it from himself.

And then there's Young's mom, who has fabricated and owned her own set of experiences in a similar way to Yeong Soo. She devotes herself to heterosexual and Christian ideals, believing that God and marriage are true north even as her own marriage fails. She claims ownership over her narrative and attempts to justify her approach in asking her son to believe in and own the same kind of life. When he threatens her sense of ownership over her own life (already threatened by her husband's infidelity) she scrambles to 'correct' him by sending him to (I'm assuming) conversion camp or some kind of psychiatric institution. In doing this she has cut Young off from owning his own life and experiences. She essentially makes it clear to him that his life is not his own. He is stealing from hers. And so, steals from his to prove a point. He gives up so much of his time to care for her but she doesn't acknowledge this at all, more focused on the ways in which he fails to give up parts of himself she's dissatisfied with. His mom writes Bible verses by hand, to ask her life to conform to what she has chosen for it. To her, ownership is absolute: one God, one true way. Even as she is aware she doesn't own her son's life.

How do we reclaim ourselves as others tell us to throw it all away? What do we do, as queer people, with what is forced on us? Do we choose to own our lives, our identities, or do we give up parts of ourselves to survive? At the end of episode 4, Young takes the manuscript Yeong Soo sent him and instead of recycling throws it in the trash. He tells his mom, "It's not my trash." I saw this as him choosing himself again. He does not have to carry self-hate as Yeong Soo does. He does not have to take the sum of his experiences and let them pile up in a corner of his mind. Yeong Soo treats Young as a possession and so does his mother - someone who exists for their benefit. But he doesn't - Young lives for himself. And isn't that so, so lonely?

Last thing, but this was the moment in the episode that first got me crying. When his friends show up at the hospital after his suicide attempt. Young's friends own themselves and their community and don't ask of anything else from him. They show up for him as who he is and allow him to repossess his community even as they are kept from him, on the other side of glass. Even as his mother looks on, disapproving. Their friendship may be more superficial but that doesn't make it any less meaningful.

If you actually read this whole thing, congratulations. I wasn't kidding when I said it was a ramble! I'm actually okay with waiting until next week for the new episodes this time, I don't know if I can handle much more waaahhh

[familyabolisher]

you mentioned something about knights when you were talking about Joan of arc and i was wondering if you could expand on it? or link something that shared your perspective?

a lot of what people are drawing on when they talk about eg. "butch knights" or otherwise use knights as an articulation of a particular (generally non-normative) mode of gender is located within the chivalric imaginary. broadly speaking, chivalry as a european cultural phenomenon emerged in the literature of the late crusading era, largely fermented in the chrysalis of nostalgia for christian conquest and rule of the so-termed 'holy land' in west asia; crusading, in turn, was of course a bloodthirsty practice of christian conquest leading to the slaughter of vast swathes of muslim and jewish populations—cf. for example, the rhinelands pogroms or the aftermath of the siege of jerusalem in 1099, or the siege of maarat in 1098. chivalry as a cultural construct was significantly steeped in a desire to reconcile the military practices of knights with the guidance of the church, and the paradigmatic 'chivalric knight' was one whose military prowess or whatever could be matched by his piety. we see this effort to reconcile the 'worldly' with the spiritual as a galvanising force in much of the key works of chivalric lit; chrétien de troyes' perceval being a key example, or the narrative tensions around lancelot and galahad throughout the arthurian canon. the point is: chivalry is a phenomenon loyal to medieval european christianity, and deference to a medieval imaginary is most often reactionary. (cf., for example, the weight held by nostalgia for the 'chivalric era' in the ruling class of the antebellum american south.)

in chivalry and violence in medieval europe, richard kaeuper writes against the impetus to take the romantic image of the chivalric knight (as we may find in, say, chrétien de troyes) at face value, and urges us as historians to understand instead that many of our sources on the chivalric imaginary were produced as part of a reform effort promoting this idealised cultural construct. the natural follow-on here, of course, is that a reform effort must have a particular political tempering, and—imo—a meaningful queer politic of gender should be capable of understanding and reckoning with that political tempering which continues to hold currency in the present day rather than borrowing what we like and discarding what we don't.

like…knights are a state militia, chivalry is a social relation constructed around that fact, steeped in the presumed supremacy of the church, and loyal to the primary governing power. these very vague ideas around deference to 'ladies' (drawing on a romanticisation of the ruling class, ofc) can't really be separated from their broader social setting and the relations of power that chivalry sought to articulate and affirm. in short: it's very very white and it's very very goyish.

this isn't to say that like, everyone who does this has to Stop Immediately or else they're directly endorsing the ideological thorniness that chivalry invokes, but i do think it's worth spending some time with what it is that makes these cultural histories a) hold currency in the present discourse and b) appeal specifically to a lesbian/butch/transmasc/etc. imaginary. what are we trying to integrate ourselves into and what ideological hegemons are we trying to resist, and are we succeeding? can we be more imaginative?

[also—this was a very broad overview off the top of my largely unqualified head. would recommend going away and reading more about the history of chivalry + chivalric lit + the crusades if you're interested; the kaeuper text is a good starting-point.]

[multiplicity-positivity]

Here’s some positivity for indigenous systems who are affected by or involved with the MMEIP/MMIGW2S+ movements!

Indigenous systems have always been and will always be important, beloved, and integral members of the plural community! May 5 was an Action day for Murdered, Missing, and Exploited Indigenous Peoples (MMEIP) and Murdered and Missing Indigenous Girls, Women, and 2 Spirit (MMIGW2S+) folks. Those systems who are involved in these movements deserve our unwavering support and should be embraced, accepted, centered, and uplifted in our spaces! So here’s to all the indigenous systems who are affected by these movements!

🌕 Shoutout to traumagenic indigenous systems whose were traumatized by being exploited in some way!

🌿 Shoutout to indigenous systems who are active members of MMIGW2S+ or MMEIP movements, whether locally or online!

✨ Shoutout to indigenous systems who are trafficking survivors, RAMCOA/OEA survivors, or survivors of complex trauma!

🌷 Shoutout to indigenous systems who are mourning the loss of a missing or murdered friend, family member, or loved one!

🍃 Shoutout to indigenous systems who live in fear due to the prevalence of indigenous people being murdered, abducted, abused, or exploited!

☀️ Shoutout to indigenous systems who raise awareness about the MMIGW2S+ and MMEIP movements in their own spaces!

🌺 Shoutout to indigenous systems who struggle with not being believed or taken seriously by others when they voice concerns over their loved ones being murdered, exploited, or going missing!

☘️ Shoutout to indigenous systems who have lost faith in or have been traumatized by the criminal justice system!

☁️ Shoutout to indigenous systems who share resources, build support networks, and have strong solidarity with other indigenous folks to help each other cope with the harsh realities of being multiply marginalized!

🌼 Shoutout to indigenous systems who wish the plural community was more receptive and invested in raising awareness about the MMIGW2S+ and MMEIP movements!

🌱 Shoutout to indigenous systems who are mourning, grieving, broken-hearted, angry, anxious, frustrated, or numb about the propensity for indigenous women, children, and 2 spirit folks to be murdered, exploited, or go missing!

🌹 Shoutout to indigenous systems who need support, who need access to specialized services and healthcare, but who aren’t able to receive that care for any reason!

💐 Shoutout to indigenous systems, especially women, children, and 2 spirit folks, who are fighting to preserve their cultural heritage, traditions, and way of life in the face of colonization, genocide, and cultural appropriation!

🌟 Shoutout to indigenous systems who celebrate the lives and legacies of the women, children, queer, trans, fem, and 2 spirit folks in their own tribes, families, and communities!

Indigenous systems, we cannot claim to know or understand your experience or what it is like to live with the knowledge of how common it is for your people to be murdered, exploited, or go missing. Still, know that our heart goes out to you, we want to be your ally and advocate for you, we want to uplift your voices however we can. You belong in our spaces, and you are a crucial part of the plural community just the way you are.

We hope that every indigenous system who reads this can have a wonderful day today. We hope your future is filled with peace, rest, happiness, comfort, justice, and fulfillment! If there is anything at all we can do to be a better ally to you, please let us know. Do your best to take care of yourself and your system! We’re rooting for you, we care about you, and we’re wishing you the very best in all that you do!

‼️ Non-indigenous systems are welcome and encouraged to reblog, but DO NOT derail or try to center your voice over actual indigenous systems and those who are actually affected by MMEIP and MMIW2S+ movements! ‼️

[librarycards]

The term “social transition” has a non-trans history in the psychology of adolescence. In the 1980s, it was an operative metaphor for describing adolescence through the American trope of a rocky period of self-making, what one psychologist in 1978 termed “the difficulty of adolescence as a transitional period.” The primary “transition” that concerned psychologists at the time was school, where social shifts in friend groups and hierarchies from middle school to high school affected a young person’s self-esteem and mental integrity, resulting either in positive self-actualization or, if the social transition went poorly, “problem behavior.”³

The term “social transition” was only later adopted by psychologists and psychiatrists looking to powerfully expand their jurisdiction over trans youth to include entirely non-medical practices that often spur parents to reject or harm their kids: wearing a dress, cutting or growing out hair, wearing a binder or a bra, wearing makeup, or adopting a new name and pronouns. Making those banal but concrete practices of changing gender into psychiatric events was intended to convince anxious and angry parents that they shouldn’t put down their children. By the same token, tying practices of clothing and self-description to healthy development overinflated them with a pathological degree of significance, upping the ante and creating a lucrative target, both for parents of trans youth who wanted to stop their children from transitioning and, now, politicians.

I don’t mean to imply that psychiatry directly caused HB 2885, just that it clearly holds one part of the blame for inventing the root vulnerability that Gragg has taken advantage of in Missouri. If anything, the attachment of sex offender felonies to a teacher complimenting a teenager’s haircut exposes, once and for all, how fraudulent the medicalization of transition has been all along. Gragg can claim the right of the state to control children’s dress and speech (masquerading as the rights of parents) through teachers and counselors, in part, because psychiatry and medicine first claimed the right to regulate trans youth’s practices of transition.

Still, the causal events that led to HB 2885 run far deeper than the shallow history of “social transition” as an especially foolish psychiatric fiction. Here lies the far bigger problem raised by this bill. Not only will psychiatrists prove to be the least effective political allies of trans youth in Missouri, but contemporary queer and transgender culture’s elevation of the private right to dress as the sine qua non of politics is also quite useless as a political strategy.

Part of what I gather stuns in bills like HB 2885 is their audacity. The law would target the most conservative, least politically subversive of all transgender practices: individual style, identification, and language-use. In the case of minors, “social transition” is also a cheap compromise offered to young people who are refused blockers and hormones by disapproving parents and doctors, but that compromise is offered in a broader queer and transgender culture that has elevated self-identification through style as the ultimate arbiter of being transgender, making it much harder to advocate for a genuine right to transition for anyone, teenager or adult.

[...]

Students have very limited First Amendment rights on school campuses, meaning that they cannot present themselves as private individuals enjoying the right to dress as they please.⁷Their self-expression is governed from the outset by a competing set of custodians, from parents to schoolteachers, to psychiatrists and doctors, to the Missouri House of Representatives. Trans youth’s interests are therefore materially extraneous to the mainline of contemporary queer and transgender culture, whose architects were wealthy, college-educated adults whose prior enjoyment of full-citizenship was the very reason they demanded only the affirmation of a right to dress.

I suspect that part of the genuine shock of bills like HB 2885 is that most people reasoned that LGBT liberalism’s elevation of the private individual over all other political concerns would inoculate dress and language from state interference. It evidently has not. What perhaps has been misunderstood, then, is how the state exercises power. The law cannot prohibit being transgender, for there is no such state of being. The state has no need to target people’s interior selves, either, for the law can seize people where it always has, in concrete social practices that it simply declares are the undesirable traits of transgender people—namely, practices of transition.

Jules Gill-Peterson, The Unimportance of Wearing Clothes. [emphasis added]