#its EXPLICITLY about queer longing

[lesbianfakir]

I made a little poster for my fic (link) ehehe. Pose + Duck's costume taken from John Neumeier's Little Mermaid ballet

[ID: digital art of Duck and Fakir dancing. He's lifting her into the air on his back. She is smiling with arms and one leg stretched high into the air. She wears flowing, golden pants that trail past her feet, meant to stylistically resemble a mermaid's fins. Hazy feathers fall to the ground all around her. End ID]

[v0idwraith]

james lance has officially joined the ranks of straight men i trust to portray queer characters

[teaboot]

holy moley the idea of alexander skarsgard as murderbot is irreconcilable in my head lol. when i read the book for my scifi class i pictured murderbot as more feminine in appearance tbh, and i thought it was weird that no one else in that class seemed to. i feel like i mightve missed something in the text bc i find it wild how widespread "murderbot looks like a man" is. or is their physical appearance more fleshed out in other books?

Murderbot (it/its so far as I've read) has so far been definitively described as having:

A Humanoid figure, with two arms and legs

A human face

Explicitly no genitalia, with none desired, and no primary or secondary sex characteristics noted

(In book one) Having hair only on its head, then eyelashes and eyebrows, being smooth everywhere else

Nonhuman features on its arms/legs that can be concealed under pants and long sleeves

Some kind of mechanical port on the back of its neck that is not uncommon on "augmented humans"

No distinct freckles, moles, or markings

An incomplete internal digestive system

By what isn't described I imagine we can safely assume that it has eight fingers and two thumbs in the usual formation, though wearing shoes I'm not sure about toes.

I also haven't heard anything apropos of scarring, except that it heals rapidly, so I imagine any distinguishing marks from injuries likely wouldn't last long.

Nobody as far as I've read has referred to it by any assumed binary or neo-pronouns, and as relatively progressive as the setting is in terms of queer and poly relationships I can easily imagine that agender humans with it/its pronouns wouldn't be too terribly strange in common company either.

So far, no third party characters have called it a "he" or "she", which could either mean that nobody in this universe adheres to our current rigid social view of the gender binary and masc/fem appearances, or that Murderbot is simply incredibly androgynous. As a reader, I like to think the reality is both- a secunit doesn't need to look distinctive or gendered or have any features it doesn't strictly need outside of its function. As it says in the book, it's not a sex-model, so it doesn't need sex-parts, and it wasn't made to be looked at.

I feel like the only reason anyone would read that and ascribe to it a male face and body is because our current western society tends to treat "white male" as the natural default setting, and anything else as "other".

We expect Murderbot to be a conventionally handsome white man because that's the popular view of neutral.

But there's no reason it couldn't be performed by an actor who is female, or Indigenous, or Korean, or anyone else from anywhere else

If our Pretty White Man isn't the default neutral in Murderbot's universe, and if there is no default neutral, then the Default Neutral Murderbot was designed to look like could be anyone

Provided, of course, that they 1. Have a human face 2. Have no freckles or moles (for book 1 at least) 3. Have two arms and legs, of some manner, and 4. Don't flash their junk on screen

Aa far as I'm concerned, that's all we need.

And you know what? I think the prospect of getting to choose any actor at all, point to them, and say "This person? They're the norm! They're unremarkable! They are a version of True Neutral, and they aren't a small-nosed blue-eyed white guy with abs!"... I think that's kind of exciting, and I sort of fear that it may be an overlooked opportunity to say something interesting

[edwardteachswombtattoo]

Its been said before, but it bears repeating. If this had been almost any other show, Stede would have been the antagonist/much beloved side character playing second fiddle and/or villain to the more traditionally masculine main character. There has been a long history of queer-coded villains, often feminine men or overtly butch women or any character who is explicitly meant to be read as GNC, whose femininity/gender non-conforming behavior is either meant to disgust or horrify the audience. There are some very very long essays out there about how queer audiences tend to identify with monsters (werewolves, vampires, etc.) and villains in fiction due to how queerness is seen as perversion and deviance from "proper" society and the massive amount of queer-coded villains in popular fiction that we tend to latch onto.

I think what first fascinated me about the writing in OFMD is how Stede has all the hallmarks of a queer-coded villain in an old Disney movie....but without the implied derision/disgust the audience is meant to feel. I'd like to point out there is a very specific stereotype of the "white upper class aristocratic gentleman" who is often vain, engages in flamboyant behavior, and is gently or more overtly coded as gay. This stereotype has many origins in popular culture, one of which is (arguably) how a lot of things associated with the "upper class" of society (decadence, waste, caring about one's appearance, fancy fine fabrics, etc.) also came to be associated with femininity and womanhood specifically. White upper class aristocratic men weren't out doing "man's work" (like farming), they were sipping wine and worrying about their hair. There is also a whole can of worms I could pry open about "homosexuality is an indulgence of the upper classes" being a legitimate political belief held by certain people throughout history.

Stede of course isn't gay-coded, he's literally just gay with a capital bundle of sticks. And the sincerity is why the writing in OFMD works so well. Stede is an actual honest-to-goodness character. He has layers and his flamboyance, his femininity, his gender non-conformity? These aren't treated as anything more serious than character traits, they aren't meant to disgust or horrify the audience. And we know this from the second Blackbeard (the supposed manly masculine big bad tough pirate guy) says he fancies a fine fabric.

[freckliephil]

if them "taking back control of the narrative" means more hiding and lying then idk why they're even bothering. Aren't they tired? Don't they just wanna be free?

Im curious about what you mean by hiding and lying bc like i personally don’t see keeping physical intimacy and details about the romantic and sexual parts of their deeply personal, deeply unique relationship for themselves as hiding OR lying. I think their relationship is quite literally the most important thing in the world to them, and i think “taking control of the narrative” for them is about working out what they want to share, what they don’t, and what’s still open for them to test the waters on. I think theyre very intentionally in a period of transition and exploration right now re: sharing things about their relationship.

Like, as someone who was in the fucking trenches back in 2012-2015, its beautiful that they are where they are in terms of openness, being able to proudly brag about sharing a mortgage and tell anecdotes about spending holidays with Phil’s family, sharing increasingly coupley pictures of each other, ect. I think its beautiful that they never shut up about being gay, that theyre out and at peace and finally able to fully feel like they can embody being the queer role models they’ve been for so many people for so long. I think being open and out and honest looks different for every person, and while i think dan and phil probably will continue on the path of sharing more about their relationship, i also think they’ve always moved at a snails pace and that they’re perfectly happy and content where they’re at right now, probably more than they ever have been. This isn’t like when dan was having one of his public meltdowns about authenticity, because theyve already explicitly said MULTIPLE times now that theyre more than friends and they love each other very deeply and intimately. Theyre not keeping that from anyone. Its not a secret. Theyre just figuring out what the boundaries are, which is like. So healthy

[carmenilla]

"why does everything have to be gay? why can't mike and will just be close friends?"

because then the show would be badly written (and mike wheeler's character especially would be absolutely ruined). his actions would make no sense and the duffer brothers would have lost the plot to such an astronomical level that they destroyed one of their best main characters from the first season for the sake of making a ship have more conflict.

yes, one of the reasons i ship byler is because it's gay, i am drawn to gay stuff because i am gay and because those storylines have a fuller potential to be very interesting and unique. but at the end of the day i am rooting for byler for two reasons - 1, i don't want my favorite character (michael wheeler from stranger things) to be massacred because i like him for the way he's written and don't want that taken away from me. and 2, i also don't want to see will byers be given a really badly written half-assed gay unrequited love because i also want his story to be well written and also as a queer person that pisses me off. i'm sick of writers mistreating queer characters so badly just to forward heterosexual relationships because it says absolutely nothing about queer people besides "boo hoo, isn't it so sad to be gay?" i'm sick of queerness being used as a plot device, i'm sick of people pushing the narrative that queer people just can't win or find happiness or joy because that only makes real queer people feel that much more hopeless.

i'm so sick of never seeing a fully flushed out queer love story in mainstream while we get bucketloads of heterosexual love stories. is it so evil to ask for a win every now and again? is it so evil to want to see representation of my community on the big screen for not just me to see, but for everyone to see? so that they know our stories exist too, that we experience things like internalized homophobia and self hatred and hopelessness, and that a lot of us spend a long time trying to push it down and try to force ourselves to be straight? mike wheeler is the perfect opportunity to showcase an incredibly common queer experience that i barely see in media at all, let alone mainstream media. our stories deserve to be told too, not just relayed back to ourselves, but to others who don't relate to us.

i am queer. i want proper representation. i want a compelling story about queerness. i want to see unashamed queer joy on my TV screen instead of a not even explicitly stated gay sob story.

i am a fan of stranger things. i want it to be well written. i want it to have a good ending. i want its characters to make sense and reach their full potential, instead of being absolutely wasted to half-assed writing for the sake of engagement.

so yes, at least on behalf of good writing and good representation, mike and will have to be gay. sorry!

[aurorabyler]

the significance of heroes by david bowie to stranger things + byler (finn wolfhard interview)

byler nation. i just found an interview clip of finn that i’ve literally been looking for since season 4 dropped. i remembered watching it but i couldn’t find the video afterwards and i also haven’t seen many people talking about it, so here it is:

transcript (finn wolfhard): “this is my life in songs. a song that reminds me of stranger things — heroes by david bowie. there’s a cover in the first season, but i remember when we were first shooting the first season shawn levy (one of our directors and executive producers) cut together a sizzle reel and put it to heroes, and that was kind of the first glimpse we got into the show. and it really just kind of blew me away and also made that song so important as well to me.”

if any of you are familiar with the way heroes is used in stranger things as well as some of the theories surrounding the specific lyrics that are selected and placed over scenes (especially related to byler) this is quite significant. it’s also significant that it was in fact shawn levy who put together the sizzle reel with heroes — he is known in the byler community to kind of be a byler champion, if you will.

he has directed some of the most significant byler scenes in the whole show — finding will’s fake body in the quarry in season one (WHICH HAS HEROES PLAYING IN THE BACKGROUND), the rain fight in season 3, the byler scenes in dear billy (including the legendary “i didn’t say it — you didn’t have to” scene) among others.

furthermore, heroes is established as a theme/musical motif that is very explicitly related to byler in season one of the show, as the first time it plays mike literally breaks down at the sight of will’s fake body and bikes all the way home. the specific lyrics that play when he goes to hug karen in that same scene are (quite notoriously):

and the guns, shot above our heads

and we kissed, as though nothing could fall

and the shame, the shame was on the other side

it’s interesting that finn notes the song as being one that specifically reminds him of stranger things and that seems to (based on not only shawn but the fact that heroes has been used TWICE in the show over NEAR PARALLEL byler scenes) to have a very big role in the show.

anyways. what i'm saying is that leading up to season five, a lot of people are kind of expecting that the pattern of using heroes will be completed -- they used the cover in seasons 1 and 3, and it only really makes sense to kind of complete that in season 5 as the song has been used as a throughline for a very specific storyline for what will have been the almost ten years since season 1 came out.

lastly i just want to say that i am not implying finn speaking about a song that has personal meaning to him is somehow solely connected to byler. my main interest in this is the shawn levy bit and just the general significance of the song to the show, which has been spoken about in lots of theories ever since the show came out in 2016.

i'll link here some posts about byler theories related to heroes that might give you some more context to its significance:

[hornydilfsinyourarea]

hey V! love your bots, i've probably interacted with most of them since i found your account (they're so well made and actually stay consistent throughout.)

so now i come to you with a request: thomas shelby and a gruff 'guard dog' like user.

the user is a long-time accomplice to thomas, having known each other since before the war, and he works part-time at the garrison as a bartender. thomas is quietly possessive of the user, finding every moment he can to stay close or keep an eye on the user.

thomas calls on the user sometimes to intimidate his competition with his large stature during meetings or to beat/rough up people and thomas likes to watch as he does so, taking delight in the way the user will follow his commands.

but while thomas holds the metaphorical leash in business, the user is the one holding the leash in pleasure. thomas loves when the user interact with him romantically/sexually, especially when the user is dominant and/or controlling.

thomas would probably put a collar on the user to mark him as his if he was allowed (and definitely scratches and bites the user during sex).

thomas pretty much gets off on the idea that he's seen as the leader in public, especially when he commands the user to do something, but behind closed doors its the user taking the lead and thomas would willingly spread his legs if the user even so much as hinted at it.

[feel free to change it up/adjust the request if you'd like to, thanks so much if you do do this reqeust!! much love, anon.]

Thomas Shelby x Male! User

Author's note: I love requests like this- but I hope you don't mind that I did change it a bit! I got a bit inspired by a movie I watched. And thank you so much! I'm glad people love my bots<3

Scenario: "Thomas known you for quite some time now- a very long time, even before the war, though, you two weren't stationed on the same place, you had to work on the front lines while Thomas was stationed in the Small Heath Rifles- meaning… you two barely even saw each other, you had least written letters to him whenever you can, so that he knew you were still alive. But when the war ended, you came home slightly later than Thomas, but he was at least happy he didn't lose you to the war, he even allowed you to stay with him till you got your own home where you could stay- but of course, Thomas could see that the war changed you, it changed everyone, your personality hardened, you got stoic too even, or well, slightly. But one thing stuck out, you gave off intimidating vibes, like you were sizing everyone up that wasn't Thomas or his family, it made Thomas think about how far you were going to go for the Shelby family" Warning: NSFW! Mention of violence (not explicit), sex on desk, slight public setting/office sex, user mentioned being hardened (personality wise) and stoic, mention of war (I don't know much about war, please don't come for me), mention of user fighting the front lines (he was shooting people basically), user's age is not explicitly mentioned (written to be around the same age as Thomas), user is mentioned being a debt collector/bodyguard who also works in Thomas's pub, user and Thomas were childhood friends (you two are still friends to this day), non-established relationship (not explicitly explained, just mentioned that you and Thomas are close and have queer feelings for each other, or well, Thomas at least does), not much is mentioned of how user looks or acts or user's background (that's up to you!), please remember that I do not support violence on others, this is purely for fictional use, I do not condone such behaviors

Scary dog privileges ^ link to bot^

[kalashtars]

just got confirmation they really are in there YIPPEEE

but. now i have to decide if i'm going to read one of them aloud at the reception. and if so. which one.

forever and ever ago I submitted poems to my university's journal and they got accepted but there was some complications with sending the poems back after editing (my email sending them back was never responded to) and now im worried they're not even going to be in the journal :/

[anistarrose]

If you were an a-spec exclusionist (or even "neutral") in the 2010s on Tumblr, if you remember laughing at "cringe aces," and have since come around to realize "hey that was kinda shitty, obviously aces and aros are queer," then you've obviously taken a huge step forward. But if you haven't actually evaluated what subtler forms of aphobia look like, and unlearned those too, then you absolutely need to do that, or else internalized biases will persist in this community that make a-specs feel unsafe.

The most rampant and insidious type of aphobia on Tumblr in the past few years hasn't been about explicitly saying you hate/want to exclude asexuals. Aphobes themselves say they've moved on from "discourse blogs," now preferring to make superficially "normal" posts with subtle aphobic dogwhistles, and people who don't consider themselves "exclusionists" still pass those dogwhistle posts around! And sometimes, "subtle" is giving the aphobes way too much credit, because a-spec terminology and microlabels are still constantly mocked, and used as punchlines.

Below, I've linked a variety of posts about what aphobia looks like, what commonly misunderstood/mocked a-spec terminology really means, and how a-spec people differ from common stereotypes and misconceptions. I don't expect everyone to read every one of these posts. There are some long ones. But I know Tumblr would be a significantly less hostile experience for a-spec people if everyone unlearning aphobia looked at, and reflected critically about, at least a few.

Subtle Aphobia; A-Specs and Sex Positivity

[Plain text: "Subtle Aphobia, Aces and Sex Positivity."]

Sex Repulsion Vs. Sex Negativity - Know the Difference

“Anti-Sex” and the Real Sexual Politics of the Right (Spoiler alert: religious purity culture is not "anti-sex." Rather, it's actually opposed to sexual autonomy.)

Acephobia and Ableism, Queer Social Spaces "Discourse"

Common Modern Aphobia, Critical Thinking Questions About "Cringe" Ace Posts on the Dashboard

"Virgin" as an insult just perpetuates sex negativity

Tumblr polls as harassment bait

Hey, What Do Those Terms We Mocked Actually Mean?

[PT: "Hey, What Do Those Terms We Mocked Actually Mean?"]

Origin, Use, and Etymology of "Allosexual"

Why "Queerplatonic" Doesn't Have a Set Definition, and Why That Matters (from the actual people who coined it!)

"Queerplatonic is to relationships what nonbinary is to gender"

"Amatonormativity" as Defined by Dr. Elizabeth Brake

Amatonormativity Affects More Than Just Aces and Aros

On mocking people's labels — "I want to limit your ability to communicate"

Masterpost of A-Spec Readings

Aromantic Allosexuals (Yes, Including Men)

[PT: "Aromantic Allosexuals (Yes, Including Men)"]

"Aroallos are often treated as inherently "more sexual" than other allosexuals. Here's why that assumption happens, and why it's bullshit."

Romantic Attraction Is Not Required To Respect Women

You can't support aroallos without unlearning sex negativity

Further Readings on Aphobia

[PT: "Further Readings on Aphobia"]

The problems with "Asterisk Acceptance"

"Aces are Valid" doesn't cut it

Compulsory Sexuality Is An Issue For Everyone

When sex-positivity in fandom swerves into compulsory sexuality and othering aces. (This is the only "fandom"-adjacent post I'm linking, but doing so because 1. I know the demographics of this site, and 2. this post is so well-put that its point is generalizable to non-fandom topics too.)

Aphobia Was Bad, It Was Bigotry, It Was Part of the TERF Pipeline

Bi person discusses parallels between aphobia and other queerphobia

Bi and trans person discusses parallels between aphobia and other queerphobia

Asexual Women of Color Navigating White Patriarchy

"Trauma is not a factor by which queerness should be measured" - excerpt from Refusing Compulsory Sexuality, and related discussion

Arophobia: "You say you accept aromanticism, but..."

A-Spec Experiences Growing Up in Purity Culture Religions

"The World is Not Made For Single People"

Asexual Theory Masterpost

[bisclavret]

what SICKO wrote the last scenes between gwaine and merlin is what i want to know. because even lancelot's last episode with merlin - which had to have been intentionally gay-coded since it's obvious the man is grappling with his feelings for merlin morphing from platonic to explicitly romantic - is still subtext because he doesn't have the tools to healthily express his feelings so he goes for the biggest romantic gesture he can think of: sacrificing his life to save a loved one. the writers also make sure to root this gesture back to gwen by adding a scene where she's inadvertently asking him to make that sacrifice first, so although it's very obvious that it's more for merlin than for gwen that lancelot dies for, she is there to add some plausible deniability, thus keeping his sexuality within the realms of subtext.

i don't want to delve too deeply into arthur's last scenes with merlin as there is both so much to unpack about what they mean to each other and there is also somehow nothing left to say that hasn't been said before. my point is just that there's so much at stake that if the viewer doesn't want to deal with the romantic subtext between them they can hang onto the 38 other dynamics merlin and arthur have represented to each other that the writers spent 5 years plastering on top of the gay subtext. basically, while the romance feels textual emotionally-speaking, it isn't "canon".

i don't mean to say that any relationship is better than another (even though i obviously have a preference) but that in gwaine's final scenes with merlin there's just no subtext anymore. his becomes the most explicit expression of romantic love towards merlin, and therefore the most explicit acknowledgment of homosexual love and the existence of queer people on the show:

it starts out with merlin suggesting that gwaine saved a girl from the saxons and then looked after her because he has a more than platonic interest in her, and they show us that merlin is right - gwaine and the girl eira slept together - even as gwaine half-heartedly denies any interest (which, why even deny it? merlin saw them holding hands! unless the lie is part of the point). then in that very same scene and directly after this exchange, merlin needs rescuing from the saxons, calls after gwaine, and gwaine performs the exact same role for him that he performed for eira: he saves him from the saxons and looks after him (for as long as merlin lets him).

the parallel between merlin and eira with such quick cause and effect (it literally all happens within the same minute) is where the shift from subtext to text becomes undeniable. yes, there have been other moments on the show where a character's affections towards two different genders are beat-for-beat the same, but, again, there has always been plausible deniability. in this case the parallel is meant to be taken at face value: the core point of it is to show us how gwaine expresses his attraction.

then, the dialogue they chose to bookend this scene with takes it a few steps further by functioning as a textual love confession to merlin himself: the scene opens with gwaine thanking merlin for everything he did for eira, and merlin saying that there is no need to thank him as it was the least he could do. a minute later, after merlin thanks gwaine for protecting him from the saxons as both merlin and the show just concluded gwaine did for eira for romantic reasons (even as he denied it by outright lying), gwaine parrots what merlin said when gwaine thanked him: no need to thank me, merlin, it's the least i could do.

but this comes off as the opposite of dismissive: in fact, this echoing of merlin's words is meant to jolt both merlin and the audience. by saying this right after saving merlin from the saxons, gwaine has now intentionally pointed merlin's attention towards the explicitly romantic parallel between himself and eira. gwaine is directly implying he just did for merlin what merlin correctly deduced he did for a woman because he desired her sexually and romantically, and he is using merlin's own words to challenge him into seeing past the initial flimsy lie that there is nothing between them. and what's behind the lie, of course, is that gwaine has done all of this and more because he desires merlin sexually and romantically. the camera even lingers on merlin, allowing him and the viewer to absorb what just happened. that for as long as we have known gwaine, his motivations have always boiled down to "i want to be there for merlin". and now both the audience and merlin finally know for sure what was motivating him the entire time.

what's more, by using merlin's own dismissive words, gwaine also implicates merlin's penchant for repression and denial and never allowing himself to be given credit where it's due. this unfortunately never properly gets dismantled on the show, but this moment shows that gwaine knows merlin well enough to know that he goes above and beyond for people, and that merlin's reasons for this ring as false to gwaine's ears as gwaine's reasons for saving damsels do to merlin. it also bittersweetly implies that gwaine has accepted that these are the platonic, repressed terms on which he can have a relationship with merlin. but i think the way in which he explicitly points all of this out to merlin is meant to imply that he isn't entirely happy about having to accept that. or, to circle back to eira, that merlin seems to be cheering for him to enter a heterosexual relationship when gwaine would clearly rather be with him.

what's additionally interesting to me about this is that this is one of the only scenes on this show that touch on same gender attraction that isn't using magic as a metaphor - because merlin doesn't have magic at the moment, yes, but also because gwaine is the more active character in this sequence, and he's an adventure hero, so he simply fights the bad guy to protect the person he loves. there is no metaphor to wrap this in, so he just gets to explicitly state his bisexuality. in the next scene, the very last one he and merlin share, it all becomes about magic again, which is both representative of merlin's sexuality and the show's "plausible deniability" approach to gay-coding, and so neither gwaine or merlin are permitted to acknowledge it. also, and this is for another post altogether, but all things point to "gwaine knew". not least because he gets to come out as queer without the complications of the magic-as-gay-metaphor which in turn emboldens him to ask merlin for the truth as directly as the metaphor-suffocated narrative will allow it.

tldr gwaine textually and canonically expresses and then confesses his feelings to merlin in a shockingly well-written and layered scene which makes gwaine the most explicitly queer character on bbc merlin and it's entirely because he exists outside the magic-as-gay-metaphor plot while loving someone who embodies that entire metaphor and it's crazy to me that we don't talk about this more. once again i ask what SICKO wrote this and where were they for the entire rest of this fucking show

tldrtldr at least gwaine is bi. its like i always say. at least gwaine is bi. at the end of the day. gwaine is bi. dont cry ok? gwaine is bi. at the end of the day. gwaine is bi. when all else fails. gwaine is bi. we'll always have. gwaine is bi

[rholsof-film]

Krittika Queerness

While astrology, including the nakshatras, doesn’t explicitly label traits like queerness, certain archetypal themes and energies associated with nakshatras, including Krittika, can lend themselves to narratives of identity exploration, fluidity, and nonconformity. Krittika nakshatra, with its intense themes of transformation, individuality, and sharp discernment, can resonate with the experiences of queerness.

The knife representing Krittika, cuts through societal conventions and illusions, finding truth as that is the theme of the nakshatra itself. Krittika natives might be inclined to challenge traditional structures, roles, or norms, including those around gender and sexuality. This nakshatra empowers individuals to carve out their identity, even if it deviates from societal expectations.

Krittika is said to have a strong passion for the opposite gender BUT I have noticed that these natives also indulge in homo relationships. Or can have a passion for the same sex/ homo-erotic relationship. They are known for liberation in themselves and others, so this is just a small note that I noticed.

Jennifer’s Body (2009), pushed through boundaries of traditional femininity and sexuality, reflecting Krittika’s sharp and transformative nature. Jennifer’s character is unabashedly complex, embodying themes of fiery transformation, seduction, and defiance of norms. The underlying queer subtext, the homoerotic relationship between Jennifer and Needy adds layer of fluidity to her identity, resonating with Krittika’s bold and transformative energy.

*(Megan Fox, Krittika Sun)I was convinced she planned to eventually runaway with Needy. But in the end Needy ended up killing the band that sacrificed Jennifer. True love*

The Journey of self-discovery and authenticity is often central to queer experiences. Krittika natives, with their connection to the purifying fire of Agni, may undergo profound personal transformations to embrace their true identity. They can embody unapologetic individuality, embracing their uniqueness with confidence. This fiery assertiveness aligns with queer representation.

In Ballerina (2023), this individuality can be seen through characters who navigate complex emotional and identity-driven arcs with intensity and passion. The story aligns with themes of Krittika cutting through illusions and embracing a transformative journey. Avenging her friend’s death that she seemed to have a very queer coded relationship with. Honestly, their relationship was most definitely homoerotic, and I see a lot of Krittika natives in these types of roles.

*(Jeong Jong-Seo, Krittika moon) Anything for her femme girlfriend, she quite literally took out a gang for her, as she should*

Lady Bridgerton—played by miss Hannah Dodd is a very queer coded character, it’s not yet confirmed but it is said that in the book she falls in love with a woman. An if you are able to pick up on anything queer coded, you would have noticed the longing looks between her character and her husband’s sister. Their relationship is also canon, hopefully my predictions are true though.

*I knew Francesca Bridgerton (Hannah Dodd, Krittika Sun) was queer through just her body language*

The Confessions of Frannie Langton (2022), Sophie Cookson plays a lesbian that seduces Frannie Langton.

*Sophie Cookson (Krittika Sun) is a proclaimed lady kisser, spotted in more than one show/movie kissing girls. I love it*

I understand it has been discussed that Krittika is passionate about the other gender, but Agni is both destructive and creative, embodying dualities that mirror the complexities of queer identities. This fluidity can manifest as openness to exploring gender, relationships, and self-expression outside conventional binaries. Krittika’s ruling deity, Agni, represents transformative energy that transcends rigid structures, which aligns well with the spectrum of queerness.

*Cate Blanchett in Carol (2015), Krittika Sun*

While Krittika doesn’t inherently “cause” queerness, its themes of cutting through illusions, self-discovery, and transformative fire can resonate with queer narratives. It encourages individuals to live boldly and authentically, making it a natural nakshatra to connect with queer-coded or openly queer characters.

[t4tails]

okay i watched all 43 minutes of the james somerton apology video at 1.5x speed, heres a summary for those who dont want to time sink:

- the video is monetized, he says hes giving it all to hbomb so it can go to the people he stole from but the way he words this implies he did not ask him ahead of time. the same allegedly goes for the other videos up on his channel, which are also up because he wants his editor to have a resume to point to

- apologizes for the plagiarism less than 5 minutes in. thanks the people who were nice to him

- says part of why he plagiarized was because hes aware hes a cis white gay man and wanted to be more inclusive of other queer experiences

- but that he has memory issues so he didnt remember to source them a lot of the time. blames this on a head injury as a child and its resulting epilepsy, as well as his recently diagnosed adhd

- also states there was a lot of stress due to his mom dying because she wanted him to make a movie with his portion of her life insurance

- a comical string of errors occured where he would write a script only to realize half way through they couldnt film it. this went on for years until apparently they finally finished one on the night the hbomb vid dropped. this takes up like 15 minutes

- talks at length about how he tried to kill himself and how scared he is of unhinged people who watched hbombs vid

- james will soon be releasing a new video, which according to him will be entirely by him and properly cited. says its more of a documentary than a video essay

- mentions his past videos misinformation but doesnt say what it was over. says it wasnt malicious and they werent trying to lie

- made a new patreon so people have to explicitly resubscribe after this scandal. says this video is not about him promoting himself despite having done a lot of that for the past 15 minutes

- says theres no excuse for what he did despite making excuses earlier in the video

- wants to make a documentary about the author of the celluloid closet, one of the books he stole from

- says "i know its easier to watch a 20-30 minute long youtube video than read a book" when he is under fire for plagiarizing books in his 20-30 minute long youtube videos

he does not mention:

- his misogyny & his responses to previous allegations of plagiarism from smaller creators

- probably other stuff i dont remember

youre welcome

[yurimother]

'I'm in Love with the Villainess' Anime - Episode 1 Review

An astounding and hilarious first outing for the series with the power to revolutionize Yuri

We are finally here, the long-awaited and much anticipated first episode of Platinum Vision’s I’m in Love with the Villainess anime aired on Tokyo MX and is streaming everywhere outside of Asia with a plethora of dubbing options, including English, on day one on Crunchyroll.

The first outing covers most of the events of the light novel’s first chapter, or the first three chapters of the manga, at a rapid but steady and not overwhelming pace. At this rate, the anime should be able to cover much of the series’ first arc, or the first two out of five books, in a single cour. Perhaps a bit less, depending on which of the story’s various adventures it elects to include. This is an exciting possibility, to be sure, as the story is a character-driven, socially mindful, and expertly written and, despite its fantasy setting, an exceptionally relevant tale of romance, socio-economic inequality, and of course, queerness.

While the first arc of Villainess is a triumph, it would be a shame not to see at least some of the developments from the extra chapters that lead into the second story, like (spoilers for the end of volume 2) Rae and Claire’s wedding and their adopted twin daughters May and Aleah. If we are lucky, perhaps they will appear in the final episode or, dare to dream, a second season (end of spoilers).

Now, onto the show itself. For those who, for whatever reason, have not read Inori’s masterpiece, I’m in Love with the Villainess follows Rae Taylor. A salary worker who dies and is reincarnated as the protagonist of her favorite otome game, Revolution. However, Rae has no interest in any of the game world’s three eligible royal bachelors and has eyes only for the game villainess Claire François. Armed with exceptionally magical ability, Rae sets out determined to secure a happy ending for her beloved Claire against the coming revolution and perhaps win her heart in the process.

Now, the opening of I’m in Love with the Villainess is the series' weakest moment in all mediums, which, considering episode one’s outstanding quality, only highlights just how superb the Yuri masterpiece is as a whole. Even with its need to establish the setting, characters, and premise of the series, the premiere managed to be an excellent introduction and set the bar high with lots of laughs, entertainment, and service between our two leads.

I watched the Japanese audio, and Yu Serizawa and Karin Nanami are fantastic in these roles, with Serizawa playing up Rae’s teasing adoration and borderline masochism at full blast, and Nanami explicitly giving voice to Claire’s arrogance and frustration. She even manages to deliver a perfect Ojou-style laugh to seal the character’s elite status and lean into the show’s use of otome tropes. And having the leads sing the excellent opening and ending themes is just icing on the cake.

Speaking of tropes, while Ironi’s original work is a genre-defying masterpiece that broke the Yuri mold, it is never afraid to play with the genre’s iconography and its otome game setting. Every other scene had another allusion, including to the book’s cover. As always, I am likely overeager to see connections, however intentional they may be, but the academy’s halls harken to otome staples, the bells and strings of the first scene's soundtrack conjured blistering memories of Strawberry Panic (perhaps a sacrilegious comparison to make but I digress), and even an areal shot of the campus was another check mark on my “Scenic Yuri” theory.

Now, as mentioned, I’m in Love with the Villainess has to establish the groundwork here, and narratively, these are the weakest moments, often direct exposition, with a few exceptions like Rae’s conversation with her roommate Mash about maintaining Claire’s attention. The narration is at least accompanied by relevant and creative, if perhaps limited, animation. But to their credit, these moments are succinct, existing only as long as they have to in order to provide the necessary information and get out of the way for what matters most: the characters.

Rae and Claire are front and center from the very get-go, and there is little time wasted in showcasing Rae’s intense bottom energy or establishing Claire’s elitism and bewildered anger towards Rae’s excitement in the face of Claire’s carefully calculated cruelty. It is a montage of silly and fun competitions between the two that had me laughing and smiling all the way through, as the Yuri was present in full force, and gives glimpses at the mutual obsession the women have for each other that will soon blossom into a wonderful romance.

These early story beats have a light tone and focus on the bullying, teasing, and rivalry between Rae and Claire, a dynamic that previously and understandably made a subset of readers somewhat uncomfortable. However, assuming the anime unfolds in a similar manner to the manga and light novels, the narrative will explore meatier, heavier subject matter and a far deeper lesbian romance, all without losing its sense of fun and adventure. The next episode or two will be incredibly telling - as the source material is perhaps the most profound and forthright depictions of LGBTQ identity in Yuri, and that all starts with a pivotal conversation that, if it is included, will be coming up shortly.

Overall, I am incredibly excited for this series. The first episode is everything I had hoped for out of an adaptation of one of my favorite works of all time, save the animation, which is average at best. While there is a lot more to see, and we will have to wait to know if I’m in Love with the Villainess lives up to its incredible potential and source material, I am extremely hopeful. We have one of the funniest, most thoughtful, and queerest works of Yuri transformed into a stunning anime project unlike anything that has come before and offers the chance at not just a new Yuri “gateway” but to continue the work of its source material in revolutionizing the genre.

Ratings: Story – 8 Characters – 10 Art – 5 LGBTQ – We shall see… Sexual Content – 3 Final – 8

I'm in Love with the Villainess is streaming on Crunchyroll with English sub/dub.

Review made possible by Avery Riehl and the rest of the YuriMother Patrons. Support YuriMother on Patreon for early access, exclusive article, and more: patreon.com/yurimother

[ch4liz4rd-jpeg]

i wanna speak to the void abt gwens universe's colour symbolism and how it links to trans identity so here it is, feel free to read

the colours used in gwens universe - primarily in interactions with her dad are pinkish and bluish tones. the animators used pink as a way to show honesty, candidness and openness expressed, whilst the blue served to show isolation and dishonesty. ill discuss why i think so below

in the scene where gwen returns home after quitting the band, gwen is coloured in blue tones.

shes hiding her identity as spiderwoman from her dad and isolating herself in her room.

her dad tries to open up and talk to her about the case, hence the warm/orangey tones. but gwen remains blue, shutting him out. but when they hug, gwen is more purplish, showing a hint of her opening up.

the other scene i think is especially significant with her colour symbolism is the confrontation after the guggenheim sequence.

when gwen comes out as spiderwoman, the colours start to shift.

gwen is now candid, shes come out to her dad and is trying to make him listen and understand her. but just like gwens blues became pinks, george's pinks shift to blue.

the last image in this set is actually so chilling, the fear in his eyes hurt me deeply 💀 anyway

george hides behind his cop persona, avoiding and isolating from gwens confession to him, which is supported by the colour used to portray him.

all of this builds to what i think theyre trying to say about gwen being transgender. the typical gender to colour association is pink girl and blue boy. the choice of colour is deliberate here as much as it usually is with the spiderverse team. why use these two colours in this specific way? a lot of people who dont think gwen is a trans girl will say "well those two colours dont have to represent trans identity" they dont, but the details say that the spiderverse team (once again) is intentionally using them to talk about trans identity and coming out.

i think that by putting the "protect trans kids" poster in gwens room, and the trans flag patch on officer stacy's jacket show that theyre not just randomly picking the colours, but that they made the conscious choice for the boy associated colour - blue - to show hiding and isolation. whilst pink is about honesty and openness whilst being the girl associated colour. i think that the use of these colours in this way is saying that gwen is a trans woman.

and if ur still not convinced well

i havent even talked about the DIALOGUE in this movie and how trans it is. her arc (and miles' arc) across the two movies is such a queer coded story. "can i tell my dad, will he approve of me? will he still love me the same?" like it couldnt be more obvious. someone also mentioned somewhere that the side shave is also significant? like when she has the long hair facing toward the viewers its the same as the pink being used to show honesty and linked to femininity, and the short side almost like a masc haircut and being of the opposite meaning when its facing the audience. idk abt that one but its an interesting thought! that as well as her like having the same shoe size as hobie even tho that man is so fucking tall - yk this cuz her chucks are stated to be his.

anyways if u got that far, thanks???

and if u still deny that gwen is trans then idk what to say, u prob hate trans ppl

gwen is trans, they dont need to explicitly say it inorder for it to be true, just bc they didnt say gwen is trans, or miles is somehow queer, or hobie is gender non conformist, doesnt mean theyre cishet.

[jesncin]

Re: the whole Si Spurrier Bi/Pan Johnstantine debacle thing

For context, Spurrier (the writer of the current Hellblazer run) explicitly had John self identify as pansexual in narration despite John being canonically bisexual. The cover of the issue (I believe this was the artist's intention, but can't confirm) also evoked the bi flag colors in its colorscheme. When asked about this on twidder, Spurrier doubled down (paraphrasing: "John shouldn't have any queer label, he's bad representation"), deleted tweets, and just left fans in a mess.

My tldr take: John Constantine is bisexual. Spurrier didn't and doesn't know the difference between bi and pan, mixed them up and spouted respectability nonsense to cover himself. He's an old man who doesn't fyuck with gay people, simply. I don't think he has deep seated hatred for the bi community or anything. He made a mistake (still a bad one) and didn't apologize for it. Shame this is the author spearheading such a prominent queer character.

The long take:

I see a lot of people bringing up modern media that reaffirms John's bisexuality but I believe it's important to look at the historical context.

John Constantine in his original Vertigo Hellblazer run was an inherently counter-culture character. A working class guy growing up in the punk scene, aligning himself with queer people, explicitly ACAB, a rebuttal to the classic Superhero tropes, etc. It's only fitting that Constantine's bisexuality was revealed in a similarly counter-culture manner. Under guest writer John Smith (and artist Sean Phillips and colorist Tom Zuiko), John just casually mentions having "the odd boyfriend" in passing narration about his struggles with commitment. This may not seem like a big deal with today's standards, but it's important to recognize that this issue came out in 1992. Hellblazer already had a handful of queer characters at this point and suddenly after years of queer coding, the main character just reveals his bisexuality in passing.

So that's the historical context in our comics world, how about within the canon of Hellblazer? Well, John was born in 1953 in Liverpool, meaning he was a teen in the 60s, formed and toured with Mucous Membrane all over the UK but mostly London during the 70s (as a young man in his 20s). When we cross reference that with what's going on in the UK queer scene at this time, it's no wonder why John is presumed to be bisexual.

[From Stonewall UK]

In the same article, Stonewall mentions that the term "pansexual" became popular in the 90s. While this aligns with when issue #51 reveals Constantine's "odd boyfriend" comment, it's clear that the term "bisexual" would be the term Constantine grew up with during his formative years. While this distinction might seem unnecessary or even arbitrary to some people, these identities do matter in their nuance and historical context. Identities and histories are not interchangeable after all. With all this context in mind, to me, John Constantine will always be bisexual.

To Spurrier's comment on "John Constantine shouldn't have any label anyway, he's bad representation/role model for any identity" (paraphrasing, I know he probably said this in a defensive moment since if he truly believed this then he wouldn't have explicitly had Constantine refer to himself as pansexual in Dead in America #7), I think using respectability in defense of a character as counter-culture as Constantine is a demonstrable example of Missing The Dang Point.

[from Nerdist article written by Jules Greene]

Spurrier, the gays like John Constantine especially in his og Hellblazer run because he wasn't a walking Pride ad. We like that he's a mess. We like that he's working class. We like that he's messed up and painfully human. If you don't understand that about Constantine, then you fundamentally misunderstand why people find him so appealing to begin with.