#like i think the conversation around the usage of queer is extremely important and should be had

[starlooove]

I need the whole queer discourse thing to progress past interpersonal usage. Whether someone personally refers to themselves as queer or not quite literally does not fucking matter, the only thing worth discussing atp is how widespread that usage may be (calling it the queer community, is it reclaimed enough for ppl outside the community to say it in that specific way, etc.)

[crusty]

literally can’t understand what you’re trying to say with the exclusionist post can you reword it

YEAH, I appreciate u asking, here's the gist:

The terms exclusionist and inclusionist are another example of Tumblr/Twitter trying to put people into categories of GOOD and bad, similar to the usage of anti/proshipper.

It's impossible to put people into binary categories, the usage of "Good" vs. "Bad" never works in any given context. This is also why having a gender binary doesn't work. Humans are very complex!

Now, that being said, this statement should not inherently tell people that I am an 'exclusionist'. That leap of logic does not make sense. Nowhere are the words "Asexuals are not LBGT" (which, to my understanding, is the main signifier of an 'exclusionist) anywhere present on my page or my posts.

That's all I said!

(If you want something deeper than my surface-level thoughts, feel free to click the read-more. I appreciate you asking for clarification.)

What do I believe then, if the terms "inclusionist" and "exclusionist" are overused and continuously abused in Tumblr/Twitter discourse spheres?

It's a nuanced situation. That means both sides are fucking stupid. The notion that inclusionists are DA GOOD GUYS and exclusionists are DA BAD GUYS makes the whole discourse pointless and completely antithetical to what the ace community should be focusing on.

Asexuals are people just like the rest of us. The need to consistently belittle them and claim that they do not exist has been tiring ever since the term first became popular/known in leftist circles. Many people do not feel sexual attraction, and there should absolutely be a conversation to teach others that sex is not the end all be all for a lot of people. The topic of "Sex or No Sex" shouldn't be something people actively care about.

//CW BELOW: r slur, CSA mention, heavy subject matter//

Here is a bit of personal information I feel comfortable sharing now.

I distinctly remember feeling very ostracized as a teen. (FOR MANY REASONS, but for this point, I'm specifically on the subject of sex/sexuality.) Everyone around me was falling prey to the horror that is heterosexuality and society's expectations of sex and the exploitation of young girls.

I actively did not feel sexual attraction at an age many of my peers did. I remember arguing back and forth with my dad in 2014 that there was a small community of people online that didn't feel sexual attraction, both boys and girls, and he called me r*tarded, saying that every man wants to have sex, and every girl wants sex with men. I was mortified by what he said to me. It stuck with me long after that conversation. At this time, I already knew my dad was a sexual predator who had no problem ruining my life, so it makes sense why at first the asexual community resonated with me.

//CW end//

From the time I was 15 to about 20, I considered myself asexual to a specific degree. I was a sex-repulsed ace for many years. I remember IDing as demi as a teen, back when I was stuck in MOGAI hell, and later in my life, I focused more on the bigger LGBT labels, searching for the perfect fit.

Eventually, I grew up and realized it was no one's fucking business how I personally felt about sex and what my relationship to it was. Ace is a modifier label to me. When I realized I was a lesbian who had been ashamed of my attraction to women and nonbinary people I was literally euphoric. That was the most important thing to me. Being able to have lesbian sex was literally more healing than anything else in the fuckin world.

Sex is a really fucking personal thing, and when I hit 21 years old I stopped giving a shit about acecourse. I'm on my own now and I got bills to pay and shit to do.

Even though I personally don't think being ace makes me intrinsically LGBT, I'm smart enough to understand that most who ID as ace are also queer in some way. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

----

Now the biggest reason why I stopped associating with the worst fucking discourse-ridden community on Tumblr.

There are a group of asexuals that have been some of the most tone-deaf, obnoxious, bigoted pieces of shit I've ever seen on the internet. The push amongst this very specific portion of aces on the internet to demonize sex completely, lump the LGBT community (a community that is largely filled with people who are, you guessed it, not asexual) with cishets solely on the basis that they are 'Sex Havers' (which is... extremely weird and invasive in general), consistently harassing lesbians and leaving them out of any sort of pride posts/merch, and misusing terms like TERF (a term that should ONLY be used when talking about transmisogynistic radical feminists.... an actual fascist hate group that has caused the real deaths of real women), is not something other aces should be actively supporting, and it should not be up to your fellow LGBTs to teach you shit you should already know. ESPECIALLY if you're fucking white and your main target of harassment is against black and brown people. You got all that time to bitch about shit and somehow no time to reblog a person of colors donation post. Okay.

I'm way past the point of giving a fuck, so please, if you disagree with any of my points, gladly grow up and leave my page. I shouldn't have to hide my thoughts to please a small minority of idiots on the internet. I'm too fucking old for this and so are y'all.

[alorenawrites]

On Words and Meaning

So I've been thinking a lot about how Loki is being discussed and the words used, particularly by Hiddleston, given his bent for using literary language in his descriptions. There are three words I want to touch on in this little post, one of them definitely rooted in his usage.

So the first I want to touch on is the term "romance." We've heard (often from Hiddleston), that Loki is, at heart, a romance. I think there's a dimension of the discussion missing in these conversations in that is important to consider.

To the layman, a romance is simply a love story, sometimes with a sexual undertone. But in the literary sense, a romance is a much deeper genre. I want to consider that this layer may also be present in Hiddleston's intent on using the term in describing the story arc. It certainly is in mine, as someone with a fascination with literary form and also with an English degree who has spent way too much time exploring genre.

So firstly, we need to define "romance." From literaryterms.net:

I. What is Romance?

In the strictest academic terms, a romance is a narrative genre in literature that involves a mysterious, adventurous, or spiritual story line where the focus is on a quest that involves bravery and strong values, not always a love interest. However, modern definitions of romance also include stories that have a relationship issue as the main focus.

II. Examples of Romance

In the academic sense, an example of a romance is a story in which the main character is a hero who must conquer various challenges as part of a quest. Each challenge could be its own story and can be taken out of the overall story without harming the plot.

Example 1

A knight who wishes to prove himself by recovering a stolen heirloom from an enemy may find himself attempting to make his way through a dangerous wood filled with thieves.

Once he has accomplished this challenge, he may find himself climbing a tall mountain on which a group of people are in trouble. He would save the group somehow, and then move on.

Then the final stage: the enemy’s kingdom. There may be a fair maiden whom he meets and somehow helps or rescues, or perhaps she helps him.

But the fair maiden is not the focus of the story – his quest is the focus. Each story can be taken out, yet each builds the hero’s strength to face his final quest. These stories tend to be serious rather than humorous and touch on strong values.

In considering this, I've thought about Loki's arc as a quest that does, indeed, involve the discovery and exploration of strong values with a three part quest, though I don't think the quests entirely stand on their own. The overarching theme is about Loki discovering his sense of self- his quest to become a full person, not just a trope for the universe to exploit so others can reach their better selves. I divide the show up in to three quests. The first, in episodes 1 and 2, is Loki finding a sense of purpose in the new world- his quest is to discover who this new variant is and where they are hiding. This is resolved by the end of that second episode. The second arc takes place in the next two episodes- Loki discovering his empathy for others is the continuation of the overarching personal development plot, while his quest is to discover Sylvie's goals and to uncover/share the truth behind the TVA. And in our third section, episodes 5 and 6, we get the culmination of the personal growth arc in his ultimate discovery of different facets of himself (illuminated by the different elements of self shown in the multitude of variant Lokis) while the quest is to uncover who is in control of the Sacred Timeline and why. The differences in colour palettes, settings, tones, etc. between the three episode pairings is a part of how I started to distinguish my thoughts on each. And regardless of the visual distinctions, I most definitely see the entire arc as exploring strong values and bravery, though the bravery is multi-layered, showing not only the visible bravery of facing down an apocalypse, Alioth, etc., but the internal bravery of challenging one's self and digging deep into discovering who one really is. This is a theme of queerness that I see lingering in this series- discovering who we are is a process, not an outcome.

I think that this definition of a romance, in the classical sense, is a little oversimplified, as there is often a theme of discovery of self or improvement of self along the way. In a Gothic romance, themes of "the people are the real monsters" come into play (Crimson Peak is an excellent example of this)- there may be elements of the supernatural, but the real thing of which the viewer/reader should be afraid is the person behind the curtain. Gothic romances also often do include a love story arc, but it is often deeply flawed on some level and often also includes some sort of sexual or romantic awakening, often by a female lead, that leads to the discovery of whatever darker is taking place (Crimson Peak turns this on its head in that it is Thomas' awakening with Edith that leads to his turning point and Edith's realization that the Sharpe siblings are the monsters, not the ghosts in the hall). The themes of discovery of self, or of the fortitude of moral values, or of the journey of a person's development, play into both a Gothic romance and its foundations in a classical romance.

So. There's part 1 of this ramble.

On to part 2!

The next word I want to examine is the term "relationship" and its companion, "love." Now, mind you, I come at this from a queer perspective as a demisexual, demiromantic individual, so these two words are ones I've spent a LOT of time pondering, in the quest to define my own identity.

We've heard the term "relationship" tossed around so often with only a romantic implication attached, but in truth, this word is so much more broad than this. You are in a relationship with your barber. You are in a relationship with your cat. You are in a relationship with a spiritual advisor, a professor, your best friend, your partner. Just because it is so heavily used in this way doesn't mean the relationship is only an intimate one (though intimate relationships are also not inherently sexual or romantic in nature, either, so let's remember this as well). Now if we break down what a relationship is, it's just a consistent interaction with someone based on some common interest or goal. It's a remarkably benign word. Its connotations, however, take it in a multitude of directions.

So let's look at it through the lens of an intimate relationship and add in the component of love. We'll start with just a blanket statement that love is not only one single thing. It isn't just romantic. It is our family, our friends, our pets, pie, the colour blue, that feeling of perfection when the waves of a warm lake brush over your calves...love is embedded in the experiences of these things. We love them. Love it as vast and broad as relationships. We love places, people, things, and experiences. We love ourselves (or we try to learn to).

In my world, through my particular brand of queerness, love changes in intimate relationships on a regular basis. I love my partner dearly. But on some days, that love is to my best friend, while other days, it is a romantic love and on others, sexual expression may be involved, but they may overlap in different ways. Sexual expression is independent of romantic attraction and the degree of each isn't tied together in any way. If we can separate these things, I think we can see the relationships in our everyday lives in different lights and with greater complexity.

I also think that looking at these things through the lens of diverse sexual and romantic experiences can inform how we interpret the Loki x Sylvie pairing and why some of us just aren't bothered by it (though certainly not the only reason people aren't).

We've been told Loki loves Sylvie. That much is beautifully clear. But love (and being in a relationship) doesn't automatically mean that 1) both parties are experiencing it in the same way, 2) both parties have the same approach or priorities, 3) the level of romance is necessarily the same between the people involved, 4) that sexual attraction exists at all.

Sometimes a kiss is a form of communication and not tied to the want to shag someone.

So this is where my interpretation of this particular pairing comes into play. I do see the story as a romance, in the classical sense, but also with a slight streak of the more modern sense involved. The focus is still on the quest, even when the love story emerges. And that is where I see the priorities of these characters and their definitions of the relationship differing and I analyze it through these different dimensions of love and relationship orientations.

Loki actually embodies one of the traits I've seen listed for demisexuals- we hold our friendships extremely close and because we hold our friendships the way we do, it isn't uncommon for us to end up with crushes on our best friends (and no, they don't generally develop into other forms of relationships, but they could). This is the phase in which I see Loki by episode 6. He has formed this intense bond, unlike any other it seems he's had, and his heart is breaking over the thought of losing her to her own rage. All he wants is for her to be OK, remember? This isn't a selfish action. But I think it is significant that while he tries to stop her, he's not the one who initiates the kiss. All his actions here are ones that a close friend would also do for their best friend. Like, I'd try to stop my besties from inadvertently destroying the universe. I'd even throw down over it. And for the exact same reasons- the risks are too great, we need to think, and I want them to be OK. Almost everything Loki does throughout his growing closeness to Sylvie is something I'd do for one of the people I've told I'd defend- as in, I literally told some of these people, "anybody messes with you, I'll cut a bitch- just tell me who and I'm there."

So because of all this, I don't see this relationship as sexual in any way. Romantic? Possibly. But not necessarily. Even being in love with one another doesn't mean a relationship has to have a sexual component.

Looking at Sylvie, I see her also as having found companionship with Loki, but her overriding goal is, ultimately, not to bond with someone- it's her mission. And she has sacrificed her entire life because of the TVA to this mission. She tells him repeatedly, in one way or another, that the mission comes first. Yes, she does care about him, but I don't think the way she cares about him is the same as the way he cares about her because they have differing priorities and needs (and hence why she feels betrayed by him when he tries to stop her). Or at least she hasn't allowed herself to express that. When she falls to the ground after she's killed He Who Remains, I think we get a glimpse of what Loki meant to her- she is alone, she grieves, and there is no meaning left to her story. She's done what she dedicated her entire life to and the person who could have given it other meaning is no longer beside her.

I still don't think that the first thing they would do upon seeing each other is suck face and have wild sex. Would that bother me? No, not really. I can headcanon something different than what actually happens, I'm fine with that (just look at all this glorious headcanoning happening right here!) I'd like it to stay a romantic friendship (queer platonic relationships for the win- they're squishes!) because I don't think we hardly ever see those types of relationships and queer platonic relationships are incredibly beautiful and powerful and yes, based on love and maybe even romance, in their own way. They are defined by the people in them, as are all relationships.

And now to address "but she kissed him!"

Yes, she did. And I've kissed my partner when there wasn't romance involved because I wanted to share a moment, to express something deeper than I had words for (yes, even on one of my aromantic leaning days), or just because it's fun. And it doesn't have to "match" up with how the other partner feels it, either, so long as the message itself is what comes across. This is how I read the Sylvie x Loki kiss. It was a message of worthiness. Loki's entire arc, including in that scene, is in discovering if he's anyone different than the monster he's made himself out to be (and encouraged others to see him as). He tells Sylvie that he can't be trusted, falling back on the habit of characterizing himself as the professional liar, the one who can't form those attachments which are built on trust. He also identifies her as someone incapable of trust in that moment, which I think is also a projection of how he sees himself. He tells Mobius he can only trust himself and the show slowly shows Loki coming to trust others, but in this moment in the Citadel, he's falling back on a different perception of himself.

This is where the kiss comes in, for me. Sylvie isn't trying to tell him she'd jump him right then and there, if things were different. Sylvie is trying to tell him that she does trust him, that he can be trusted, and that he is worthy of the affection of a friend, even if she can't have him in her way. She is prioritizing her mission, yes, but not without giving him some sort of reassurance, in her own way, that this rejection isn't personal. That he isn't too broken to be loved. It doesn't have to go into romance (not saying it couldn't, just saying it isn't a requirement). It doesn't have to go into sexual relationship territory.

Maybe I see this so vastly differently because of my experiences exploring gender, sexuality, and romantic orientation. Maybe I see this so differently because at this stage in my life, I would absolutely kiss a friend if I felt something so heavy was going to break them. I have a friend I say "I love you" to every time we talk on the phone or video chat- we've been together for 20 years. I've got photo proof of a snuggle pile of friends when I was a young adult. I've shared a bed with a friend with no reason other than that we didn't want to sleep on the floor and why not. I've had friendships that were awkward to start and intense once they got going that are absolutely still important in my life. I've had crushes on friends that have faded and just shown me another dimension of what it is to love someone. I've watched adults who struggle to make connections to other people discover those moments of awkward "how do I do friend mode?" and come out stronger for them, with that huge sense of victory hidden behind a small smile they don't want to share with anyone else quite yet.

I see so much possibility in how we interpret a television show reduced to "it's a romance and that's sick and incest and he wants to fuck himself!" and it just saddens me that so many people have such a limited understanding and experience of the depth and breadth of human relationships and of how people love one another.

[buildarocketboys]

April 3rd: How do you feel about dating/romantic relationships? Have you dated in the past/are you currently in a relationship/do you eventually want one? Do you feel that your experience of autism/stereotypes around autism and relationships impacts this?

I've currently been in a relationship with my girlfriend for a little over 4 years! My girlfriend is so accepting and accommodating and understanding of me and actually being in a relationship with her and living with her is so good for my mental health as opposed to living with people who aren't understanding/accommodating, it's so nice to have someone take me seriously and actually listen to me when I'm having trouble. That said, it obviously hasn't always been easy (meltdowns and hyperempathy means we both find it really difficult when the other gets upset, especially if it's about something one of us did) but we mostly deal with it pretty OK, and we've gotten better at communicating with each other I think. There's also other things like my sensory issues that can make certain aspects of living together hard (e.g. my sound sensitivity to snoring and other small noises - not to call you out babe, I know I snore as well - has been really hard at times when sharing a bed. Luckily it's not been such an issue lately, but ultimately I think I would like to have my own bedroom/space to go to when I need). I think we're probably better at communicating than a lot of fully allistic (and straight) couples which may at least partly be down to me being autistic and less bound to social rules if I feel safe and comfy with someone, but probably also just us both being queer tumblr weirdos (tumblr queerdos?) means we're less beholden to toxic heterosexist miscommunication.

I've never really traditionally "dated" and I don't think I'd want to; all my relationships (even very short lived ones) have been people I've been friends with first and fallen for, and my past three romantic experiences (ie including my current girlfriend) have been with people I've met via tumblr. Dating seems to have so many social rules around it and especially with someone I didn't really know/feel comfortable with, I don't think it would be something that'd really work out for me. Luckily I don't have to worry about that though!

April 4th: Are there any topics regarding autism that you feel don’t get discussed enough?

Well I'm currently working on an essay about my experiences as an autistic languages student and the year abroad I took as part of my university course, which was kind of my autistic origin story and is something that's really affected me and I'm only just coming to terms with. It's also something I've never seen discussed (outside autistics having language learning as their special interest) and while I don't think it's a Big Issue or anything, on a personal level it's something really important to me and that I'd like to hear other people's experiences with to know that I'm not alone (I hope).

Outside that...in general I think there's kind of a lack of nuance in general in the autistic advocacy movement, especially when it comes to the language you should/shouldn't use about autistic people (ie high functioning/low functioning, person first v identity first etc). I generally agree with the points made about these language usages by autistic advocates and I understand why they get held up as so important (because allistics are like little babies when it comes to actually knowing shit about autism and they need their hand held to be talked through basic respect of autistics and our community). But the fact remains that these things aren't the most important things in terms of actually fighting for justice and accommodation for autistics in society, and not all autistics line up with the majority opinion (and that doesn't make them bad autistics or necessarily bad advocates). Additionally, the lack of nuance in some discussions - such as the swing from the stereotype of 'autistics have no/low empathy' to the autistic advocated opposite extreme of 'autistics have all the empathy! so much empathy! hyperempathy!' is troubling to say the least, because it doesn't actually help people understand us any better (better things to talk about is how we experience or don't experience empathy, why, how do we show it or why do we find it difficult to show it) and just kind of shits on autistics who do have no/low empathy (or whose empathy fluctuates depending on the situation - hi! That's me!). This might partly be my autistic trait of detail orientation coming through, but honestly nuance and complexity around these conversations are important, and we shouldn't be simplifying this stuff just for the sake of allistics, they should be turning up and listening to what we have to say and experience. And they can't really understand it unless they actually get exposed to the nuance and different extremes of autism anyway.

Sorry that these ended up being such a ramble/rant haha I wanted to answer these but my brain is all over the place rn