#she's so neurodivergent coded in a way they never let female characters be

[rosemarydisaster]

Cassandra Cain is the most character of all times cause everyone around her is like "oh no, we need to explain to her how to people properly" meanwhile her internal monologue is something along the lines of "I'm surrounded by idiots (affectionate) but it's okay, they can't help that I'm better than them".

It's especially hilarious when she's clearly in the wrong. Like I wish we had more female characters like that.

[crabs-with-sticks]

Gotta Infodump About The Lady Trent Series

So I finished reading the Lady Trent series by Marie Brennan (first book is A Natural History of Dragons). And I just can't get this series out of my head, theres just so many really fantastic elements about it.

Basically there series follows Isabella Hendemore throughout her life, as her written memoir (you find out about why she's called Lady Trent later). By the time she is writing it she's much older and super famous for her work. Its set in a Victorian-esq society and Isabella is minor gentry, and wants to become a dragon naturalist. However, as a woman she faces a ton of obstacles. The series chronicles her rise to fame and scholarship.

As a character, Isabella is Highly autistic/neurodivergent coded. And she does the most wild and reckless things in the name of science and I love her for it. OSHA would hate her. Like (spoiler) the woman jumps off a cliff in a makeshift and untested glider and thats not even the wildest case.

There will be some spoilers here btw, but I'll try to keep them light. But honestly, just go read the book (and then message me because I LOVE to yap about books)

One of the most enjoyable parts of this book was the relationship between Isabella and Thomas Wilker. Their relationship starts off thorny as Tom, a lower class man, resents Isabella and makes jabs at her gender, while Isabella, a woman, resents Tom and jabs at his working class status. And while they don't get along in the first book, as they grow and mature as people they become such close friends. They are constant collaborators in the scholarship of the other, they support each other, they are angry about how the other is looked down upon by other scholars for being woman/working class. And there's never ANY sense of romance between the two, but the relationship is I would say the most influential in the series. Moreso even than Isabella's romantic partners and even her son. And like, Tom never has any romantic relationships (not even as an aside like 'and Tom got married and it was a lovely ceremony'), but there is still never any expectation that they would get together because man+woman=romance?? Also I'm claiming Tom and Natalie (she's another character in the series) for the aromantic community fyi.

Theres a certain moment in the last book (SPOILERS btw) where Isabella reunites with Tom and her husband Suheil, and guys. I got a bit teary when I read her and Tom reuniting. To me it was more meaningful even than her relationship with her husband. How her and Tom always had each others backs and never give up on each other. (and don't even get me started on the very last chapter of the series that was just fully teary)

And as well as just being a great relationship, its such a great example of intersectionality in academia and scholarship. Both Tom and Isabella are underdogs for different reasons. So Isabella as gentry is allowed to be granted a peerage, while Tom would never be allowed. But then Tom is granted access to academic institutions which can let in the right type of lower class man, but never a woman. And just! The way that they get so mad on the other's behalf! And (after the first book at least) they don't hold it against the other! Like when Tom is accepted into academic institutions Isabella is really happy for him even though its a space she's rejected from. Because they both understand that their struggles present differently.

I also think its great that Isabella isn't presented as an overly nurturing person or an amazing parent. A lot of times when you get a female character in stem writers will make sure that they're still 'womanly enough', by being nurturing and good mothers and stuff. But that stuff never comes easy to Isabella! But she's never judged by the narrative for it and is able to explain her decisions instead of just feeling bad about it. And the people close to her, and the people that matter also don't judge her for it! But also! Even though it doesn't come naturally she is still able to interact with her son and encourage him and his interests and its still a really interesting and great relationship!

JUST THIS BOOK SERIES OKAY

Every time though she would talk about her scientific discoveries and said 'oh but you readers won't be interested in the exact science and if you are just go read my published articles'. LIKE NO I CAN'T! TELL ME ABOUT THE DRAGON BIOLOGY ISABELLA! TELL ME ABOUT THE MINUTIA OF THEIR EVOLUTION! BECAUSE I CAN'T READ YOUR ARTICLES CAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST IRL

[gregrulzok]

Hello...Do you mind if I ask your top 10 favorite characters (can be male or female) from all of the media that you loved (can be anime/manga, books, movies or tv series)? And why do you love them? Sorry if you've answered this question before.....Thanks...

Hi !!

I wouldn't say I necessarily have a straightforward top 10 list as such ... But I'm not one to pass up and opportunity to infodump on anyone who'll indulge me !

I hope this is what you're looking for and, uh, buckle up. I'll include a TL;DR with each character to make your life easier, because knowing me, this is gonna get LONG.

Also potential spoilers for: Dungeon Meshi, Night in the Woods, Berserk, Devilman Crybaby, Arcane, Jujutsu Kaisen, Dimension 20: Fantasy High, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Golden Wind.

Also note that Berserk and Devilman Crybaby are both NSFW sources. I don't mention anything explicit here, but be mindful when looking into it.

Laios Touden (Dungeon Meshi)

TL;DR: Excellent neurodivergent representation, complex and unique in how interesting he is, also just me IRL

I'll be honest in saying he isn't actually my favourite Dungeon Meshi character (that's probably Chilchuck), but he IS the one I think about the most.

I'm firmly of the opinion that Laios is intentionally written to be neurodivergent-coded, and I say this because he's incredibly nuanced and interesting in the way he portrays symptoms and signs of autism. Most canon autistic representation I see can be boiled down to "slightly quirky" with a dash of the same 3 symptoms, and the background of that, Laios is a breath of fresh air. He's socially inept, but not at all cold or inexpressive - quite the opposite, he's open and enthusiastic and optimistic. He's obsessive, not in a quirky jokey way, nor in the way of being a savant that knows everything off the top of his head - he genuinely feels like he's learning about his interest and ENJOYS learning about it, rather than being robotic in his hyperfixation. On top of that, the thing he's hyperfixated on is EXTREMELY realistic for a neurodivergent person - many of us do find interest in animals, in cryptids, in other living beings that are, well, other, because we spend our whole lives being alienated and separate from our peers and we seek that comfort in other places. Monsters are straightforward, they don't play mindgames. They are powerful, they don't let others push them around (Laios, mind, is also powerful - but he's a human, so his strength alone has never been enough to protect him). And after all, humans already hate him, they already treat him as an unwanted freak. Why shouldn't he find solace in creatures that are treated the same way he is?

I could go on and on about how amazing he is, but honestly a lot of what I have to say could be posts of their own and we'd be here all day. I'll say also that he's just ... Plain and honest relatable. I have not projected so hard onto a character in a long time.

Angus DeLaney (Night in the Woods)

TL;DR: Comfort Character Extraordinare

If Laios is good to my brain because he reminds me of myself, Angus is good to my brain because he reminds me of my boyfriend. This, I cannot deny.

He isn't the most complex character in the world, nor even in NitW - yet I think there's more to him than people give him credit for. I think he's excellent in filling the role he's given - a friend-of-a-friend, a near-stranger, the person in the friend group our protagonist is in, someone she knows, and yet doesn't, likes, and yet doesn't really vibe with. He's nuanced and deep, has a life of his own, and honestly I'm almost glad they didn't explore it fully. By having Mae only get a tiny glimpse into his life, after knowing him for so long and yet never really spending time with him, we get the sense that people are people whether or not they're in Mae's life. It gives a greater sense of depth to the world offered to us by the game. Mae's close friends she knows well aren't the only ones going through tough things, everyone has their own story, and sometimes she only gets a tiny hint of that, and sometimes she gets none at all. I think it's very true to life, and very smart.

As for Angus specifically, well. He's smart, warm, kind. He doesn't let his cynicism get in the way of his friends fun, nor does he let it stop him from taking their worries seriously. He shows affection through cooking, he makes dumb nerdy jokes, he's canonically more charismatic than you'd think, he wants to take care of everyone and doesn't know how to take care of himself, and he has a fantastic ass.

He reminds me of my boyfriend. What more can I ask for.

Griffith (Berserk) & Ryo Asuka (Devilman Crybaby)

TL;DR: Incredibly nuanced villains that I want to put on a little dish and dissect. Themes of light and purity as something evil, of good intentions (Griffith) and love (Ryo) as something horrifying.

I figure I could just combine these two, given how much they've impacted each-other's writing.

Griffith AND Ryo are both infinitely nuanced characters, in ways that are complimentary and yet still different enough.

I've made a few posts about Griffith (if only because I recently finished Berserk), and my opinion on him can be summarised as such: I think he's the best villain in fiction, in that he is afforded nuance and complexity, without having to take away his teeth and make him ultimately pathetic, unintimidating, or a sexyman. I think the most interesting part of Griffith is his politics, his drive to change the world, his willingness to sacrifice everything to the greater good to the point where it becomes apocalyptic. It's fascinating to watch a character be so wrapped in genuine and honest good intentions, to the point of destroying everything.

I don't think I've talked much about Ryo (I should rewatch Crybaby), which is really a shame because he's no less interesting. He takes an aspect of Griffith that I haven't talked much about (rather, Griffith takes an aspect of Ryo) - obsessive love and devotion to the point of destruction - and amps it up to an infinite degree. Unlike Griffith, who pushes aside his love for his political motivation, Ryo destroys everything and anything in his path to the one he loves - including that very person. He's possessive and obsessive, in a way that does end up feeling genuine, and his entire humanity is concentrated on his feelings to this one person.

Together, these characters represent a trope that I personally love - purity, beauty and light as something evil, something vile, something overwhelming and possessive (as contrasted by something dirty, something crude, something rough being real and human and kind).

I just find them fascinating.

Ekko (Arcane)

TL;DR: mmmm community centric anarchist punk king.

This is possibly the most self indulgent one. Arcane is a wonderful show entirely full of fascinating characters I love, and each one of them deserves an amount of words that even I don't possess to describe their greatness.

Ekko is no less cool and interesting for having less screen time, but if we're just being honest here for a second ...

I just love his vibe.

I love that he was a rowdy, shitty little kid that antagonised everyone he could. I love that as he grew, he got more serious, took on an air of responsibility, but he didn't lose his friendliness, his humour, his artistry. I love that he prioritizes fun and growth and community, not just survival. I love that he has authority as a leader, not through fear but through confidence, through respect. I love his scene with Vi, where he bites back at her for the first time, I love their hug, I love their bond. I love his fight with Jinx, I love that for a moment they're just kids playing a game, I love seeing the reality crash over him like a wave. I love the little tidbits we get of him as a kid, playing dumb pranks, practicing his punches.

And to be completely clear: HE IS THE ONLY CHARACTER THAT WAS CORRECT.

Heimerdinger, Jayce, Silco, Vander, Mel, every single leader in this show is either too preoccupied trying to preserve broken pieces of the past or they're speeding towards a future they don't understand.

Ekko says NONE OF THAT SHIT, takes up the punk anarchist mantel, and says "I am going to take care of the injured, the indisposed, the homeless, the sick, the children, because blind ideals mean nothing in the face of real poverty and struggle".

...Which is why I say it's self indulgent on my part. It's just because I fully agree with his ideologies.

Geto Suguru (Jujutsu Kaisen)

TL;DR: Another villain I absolutely love analyzing and dissecting. Beautifully written ideology and motivation that is fully understandable even if it's something any sane human would viscerally disagree with.

I've written post upon post on Geto, so I won't get too into it, but I still wanted to mention him. Another reason I won't talk too much here is because I've ultimately fallen out of love with JJK - sad, but true. In my opinion, the most interesting part of the show was, in fact, Geto.

Geto's ideology is incredibly well written. So, so many little details end up playing into it, it's set up so carefully and expertly that in the end it's incredibly easy to see how he ended up in the place he did. The death of his friends, the responsibility of Mimiko and Nanako, the way he's treated, the way his best friend is treated... Some of these things are big, some more subtle, but they all lay a brick in the foundation of one of the best villain arcs I can name. And if you can't tell, I'm a big fan of villains that genuinely believe what they preach. There's an air of sincerity about him, despite being a manipulative asshole, he isn't a selfish one.

I just think he's fascinating.

Fabian Aramais Seacaster (Dimension 20: Fantasy High)

TL;DR: Incredibly entertaining, and has informed the way I play my TTRPG characters.

A bit of a random one, and a more light-hearted one - I just love this silly little man.

Fabian is so unabashedly loud, silly, over the top. He makes such obvious, catastrophic mistakes, often after delivering such confident speeches about how awesome he is. And then he's allowed to have quiet moments - he can be somber, soft, sad, tragic. He loves his friends, but he can't bring himself to be obvious about it, but he wants so badly to express it. He has repressed trauma that we don't really get told - instead it's expressed through every desperate cry for attention and every subsequent moment of quiet reflection.

I've been playing TTRPGs for a little while now, but Fabian has fundamentally inspired me to be more confident, more nuanced, to take up more space at my table, and to not be scared to change the way my characters act based on the scene and mood and circumstance.

I just think he's neat !

Panacotta Fugo (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Golden Wind + Purple Haze Feedback)

TL;DR: An underrated character that showcases burnout, gifted kid syndrome, and abandonment issues in a way I find particularly painful.

God. Where do I even start.

Fugo speaks very deeply to some of my own trauma. The gutteral, albeit brief depiction of gifted child syndrome and the subsequent burnout that follows it felt incredibly, palpably real not only in the episodes we see his backstory in, but also in his general behaviour. In the way he still tries to act proper and composed, in the barely-restrained rage that bubbles over once in a while, in the severe guilt felt through these outbursts. Pretty much any time Fugo is on screen is a testament to his pain and his sheer desire to overcome it, which (as amazing this show is) I can't exactly say for most JJBA characters.

The abandonment issues are more personal to me than I'd like to get too deeply into - suffice it to say, being left behind without a thought, looking at people you came to think of as your family turn their backs on you and walk away, and realising for the first time that you weren't, in fact, a needed and cherished presence in their lives, but rather something easily parted with ... That shit hurts, and it hurts me very personally.

Araki has gone on record stating that he fell in love with Fugo as a character and came to see him as a personal friend. I believe him, if the genuine and subtle care poured into every crevice of his character is anything to go by.

Purple Haze Feedback isn't canon, but it is Araki-approved, and its the exact amount and type of Fugo content I was starving for after his extremely undercut role in part 5.

And I think that's it!

Was that 10? Who knows.

Either way sorry if this isn't what you were looking for - i think one look at my blog will tell you that I'm very prone to infodumping especially as it pertains to character analysis.

And if you read it this far... Holy shit, thank you !!

To be honest as I've fallen out of fandom spaces it's become incredibly hard to come up with characters I actually like, rather than ones I've projected my own stories onto and changed fundamentally.

Playing DND has NOT been helpful, it's increasingly difficult not to spend four hours talking about a PC I made that I really love instead of any actual character haha.

Either way thank you for the ask !! Like I said I love a good opportunity to infodump.

[longtimewish]

Ok I'm half wat through the Lockwood and co show and I have Opinions. I've read the first four books of the saga (gonna start the final one after I finish my current reading) and I loved them so I do have a bias against changes in the adaptation, I won't deny it. Still, I had hopes for the show since the books are very adaptation friendly. So here are my thoughts on the first four episodes. Spoilers ahead!

Episodes 1-3 aka The Screaming Staircase adaptation

- Ok the guy who plays Lockwood? Literally perfect casting. He's EXACTLY how I imagine him when I read the books: acting all charming and mature, always trying to be in control and yet you look at him and you can tell that he's just a teen boy. He completely nailed the character.

- First disappointment: how the ghosts look like. Stroud created a lore with dozens of different looking ghosts and they went with CGI transparent smokey shadows??? Personally I would've love if they used make up and practical effects for the ghost, with CGI only for the action parts.

- The first Big Adaptation Change: Lucy's backstory. I have encountered feelings with this one. I understand why they thought the changes were needed, but I feel that these changes also unavoidably change Lucy's entire characterization. She was mostly just distant towards her mother and sisters in the books, here she has a physically and emotionally abusive mother. She had a borderline irrational dislikeness towards girls in the books, here she has a female best friend. And here is the thing: I wasn't crazy about Lucy in the first book. I thought she was a good protagonist and I was rooting for her, but her Not Like The Other Girls moments were both annoying and frustrating. So as I said, I understand why they thought that it was better to change that aspect of Lucy's character, I didn't like it either. But this will also take away seeing Lucy grow up as a person and leave this mentality behind, which we obviously won't have in the show. I just have no idea what to think of Lucy here, because she feels like a brand new character.

- Speaking of Lucy's characterization, I'm not a fan either of her wearing make up and nice outfits. My girl is a mess who only sometimes brushes her hair and proudly dresses like a 2005 Disney sitcom star. Also the make up ages up Ruby Stokes and it becomes a bit hard to suspend my disbelief and buy that she's sixteen.

- Why did they cut out that Lockwood got ghost-touched in the first mission? I actually went back to read that part because I couldn't believe it didn't make it to the show. What better way to show us why ghosts are dangerous and how they can kill people than that?

-My feelings towards George are way less conflicted. I love that he's played by an actor of color (love the books but they def need a bit more of diversity), I love that he is very neurodivergent-coded, and I love that neither of this things make him drastically different to his book counterpart. He is still the sarcastic, intelectual boy that loves researching and experimenting (though we don't actually see any of his experiments on screen, sadly). But George is described as being fat more than once in the books. It's like producers think that there's some sort of limit to diversity, like yes you can have a poc George but he can't also be fat, that's just too much. Which I just find frustrating. Still I like the actor and I think he nailed the role too.

- I find it SO WEIRD that they curse here. On the one hand it took me by surprise because they never do so in the books, but on the other hand well given the life threatening situations they live daily why wouldn't they curse? Anyway let George say fuck.

- Same goes with the drinking why they have beers my kids only drink tea!!

- Speaking of kids, where are the night watch kids? Actually, where are the kids at all? I'm writing this four episodes into the show and no child has appeared, which is odd given that adults using and putting at risk the lives of literal children, many which are in need, is a huge theme in the story.

- Ok so here's the thing: at some point while I was reading the books I realized that I'm weirdly in love with Kipps, probably a combination of him being the only character of my age in the whole saga and his midlife crisis being kinda relatable. So all that is to say that I approve the casting choice and that I watch his scenes very respectfully.

- It annoys me that the characters are so open and argue all the time, specially Lucy and Lockwood. It feels ooc, they're too emotionally repressed for that in the books lol, they just bottled up their feeling and never talk about it until they're in literal danger of dying.

- I think that overall the first two episodes adapted the book pretty nicely in terms of pacing (even if I wasn't crazy about some choices) but they kinda dropped the ball hard on the third one. Like in the book the whole sequence of them in the house is quite creepy and you genuinely fear for their lives - even when you know that this is only the first installment and obviously nothing bad will happen to them. But I just wasn't feeling it in the show? Like there was no build up to the mystery! No emotion in the reveal! The conflict with DEPRAC was portrayed as being more threatening than Fairfax literally trying to kill them!! It all just happened super fast. My guess is that they just wanted to get done with the first book quickly so they could move on to the more character driven plot lines of the second book but honestly it was disappointing.

- I feel that someone on Netflix should go to jail for cutting out the scene at the end of The Screaming Staircase of Lucy hearing Lockwood's laugh from the kitchen and suddenly feeling sad because she wasn't in the room laughing with him.

Episode 4 aka first episode of The Whispering Skull adaptation

- So they're not doing the half-year time skip of the book. Good decision, it would be bothersome for the audience to suddenly have a huge batch of time off-screened not even half-way into the show.

- Seriously WHERE ARE THE KIDS??? I was looking forward the rude night watch boy and he was nowhere to be seen.

- You know I was conflicted about the changes so far but none of them made me actually mad. Untill the scene Lucy tells Lockwood and George that the Skull talked to her. That scene made me angry. Lockwood and George would NEVER treat Lucy as if she was insane. They would NEVER call her a liar. This is how Lockwood and George reacted: "Lockwood and George, when I told them about my encounter, had reacted at first with vast excitement. They raced to the basement, took out the jar and swung the lever; the face in the jar said nothing." They immediately believed her and trusted her. They all tried to make the Skull talk again right away. That whole argument was so out of character for everyone that I had to fight the urge to skip the scene altogether.

- But then they immediately give me Lockwood tenderly treating Lucy's wounds and I can't be mad any longer. Lowkey jealous of show only folks that get this kind of moment so early into the story, we book readers had to go through literal hundred of pages of the slowest of burns to get to the "we held hands longer than necessary and now we are embarrased and can't even look in the eye despite the fact that deep down we want to continue holding hands" awkward moment.

- Kipps having beef with literal teenagers is so funny like sir what are you doing you're in your twenties!! He's so pathetic I love him.

I know I focused too much on the negatives but so far I do not think this is a bad adaptation, in fact it's better than others that have come out recently (Netflix's The Empress gave me unreparable damage). I think the leads have great chemistry, I love how many scenes are straight out of the book, I love how well they captured the vibe of the world building. The team behind the show seems to have real respect for the source material, something that sadly is lacking in more popular adaptations. I'm being picky, I know it. If I had to boil down my criticism my main problem is that the adaptation seems to be lacking of the subtlety of the books. It really does annoy me that the character talk about their feelings all the time. We know what the characters are going through not because we can deduce it from their actions, but because they explicitly tells us what they feel. And they tell this to each other! Which changes a lot the early dynamic of the group, and the main conflict of Lockwood being a mystery because he doesn't want to open up about what he feels. I don't want Lockwood to say that he doesn't want to talk about his past because it's hard for him, I want Lockwood actively avoiding at all cost to talk about his past. I just don't like being explained everything word by word as if I wouldn't be able to understand what's going on with the characters otherwise.

My second problem would be Whatever Is Going On with Lucy's characterization, but I'm going to finish the show first before giving a final verdict on this.

All in all it was a solid 7/10 for me, I had fun watching it and I think there is potential for the show to be even better, even if some of the adaptation decisions were frustrating and made me want to shake one or two Netflix producers.

[merp-blerp]

For me it might've been My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, but even then I feel odd saying it. It was more of an extended, ongoing separation that's been going on for roughly 7 years, maybe more, I forget. I was already into generation 3 of the franchise and at around age 8 I discovered Friendship is Magic and was confused (I didn't know the concept of non-episodic shows or different reboots of shows at the time, being so young), but super intrigued. I eventually got the hang of how to watch it properly on my own and got really hooked. I can't stress enough how obsessed I was. It was basically my first really big hyperfixation/special interest. I began to watch other past generations of MLP too, so I've seen at least a smidge of every MLP show ever except for the latest one. It was a huge part of me and helped me discover aspects of myself. Even my sexuality in a weird way, seeing mostly female characters interact in very tight-knit friendly ways (and sometimes queer-coded ways—looking at you Lyrabon, Appledah, etc.) without any serious male gaze or sexism draped over it taught me how beautiful girls can be in an appreciative way (not in the sense that I was attracted to horses, eww). I guess it’s also notable that I was in 1st grade and was being bullied by classmates and my teacher a lot and making plenty of fair-weather friends, so I guess the show gave me something good and sweet to cling to instead of being bitter or something like that. It was almost all I was into and all I talked about when it came to media. I had other interests but nothing did it for me like MLP at the time. Therefore over the years and as I got older family, friends, and peers started openly expressing the fact that they were tired of me liking it so much. Maybe they were joking, but my neurodivergent brain doesn't know the difference sometimes. They weren't my kind of jokes. So I became increasingly embarrassed about my strong enjoyment of the show.

The final nail in the coffin for me oddly enough was me beginning to realize that MLP was made to sell toys. Which is obvious—I bought several of those toys with my weekly allowance, but I guess as I grew out of toys the fact that I was being marketed to became more clear and it got annoying for my freshly angsty early teen self. Maybe I felt talked down to in a sense. It suddenly felt like the show was suddenly going “Ooh, look at these shiny horses on screen, wanna buy one at your local Walmart this weekend???” constantly, even though it wasn't sudden, it had always been like that and that was okay, but it was the first time I felt advertise to and it felt like… I don't know, a trick??? It's silly, but I was tired of that. There were also some other personal things in my life that just… changed me too, I guess, like mental illness, my then recently diagnosed ADHD/ADD, shitty 6th grade, and other complexes. I wasn't that 8 year old anymore. Ultimately the show reminded me of a “simpler” (not actually that simple) time I couldn't return to, and no one I knew wanted me to anyway. I remember sadly telling my best friend at the time that I thought I was getting over MLP, something that had shaped me so strongly, and she went “GOOD!” Being a pathological people pleaser, angsty, and things in myself just changing, I just let the love die.

But now nearing the end of my teens I've been kind of rediscovering old media I used to love and looking at it through and adult lens, usually falling in love with it and respecting it even more than I had when I was a kid. So I've been considering revisiting MLP:FIM. I miss it sometimes. I never actually finished the show and I have no clue where it ended, so maybe I will one of these days. Make the kid inside me a bit happier. Now that I say it out loud, it really does sound like a separated marriage or something, ha!

what's the first show (or movie, book, whatever) you ever had a bad breakup with. like something you sincerely loved and devoted a lot of time and energy towards, only for it to end in bitter, bitter heartache.

[autisminfiction]

Thoughts on My Little Pony: A New Generation

The show My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is special to me for it’s portrayal of autistic coded characters, and I’d argue it was a pivotal phenomenon in autistic culture. It has since completed it’s run, and the pilot for it’s successor just aired yesterday in the form of the movie My Little Pony: A New Generation. Let’s make it clear from that from get go it’s apparent that this show is not going to be as significant to the autistic community as the previous show was as all it’s characters have less autistic traits than those in the original show. We’ve had our time in the limelight, so it’s fine that now the focus is placed on a different, but I’m still going to miss what we had.

It makes sense that this show is different from the previous one in this regard, as thematically this show focuses on cross-group relational problems rather than in-group ones like the previous show, which is more of a concern for neurotypicals than it is for autistic people since they have a much stronger in-group bias. We can see this change in theme from the first scene, where we see Sunny Starscout, the new lead who kinda feels like a neurotypical version of Twilight Sparkle, interprets Twilight Sparkle as being sent to make friends more as a diplomatic mission between pony races that a personal assignment to develop her social skills. Sunny longs to befriend other pony races (unicorns and pegasi, since shes’s an earth pony) and is only ostracized because such beliefs are considered to be heterodox in her community, contrasting with Twilight who never say the point in pursuing friendship with anyone. While intelligent, well-educated, and a little bit geeky, she lacks Twilight’s intensity while maintaining a social intuition that Twilight lacks, and so on.

There is one character though appears to be neurodivergent, if not autistic coded. That is Izzy Moonbow, the unicorn who Sunny befriends. What intrigues me about Izzy Moonbow is that despite being the comic relief she may actually be the most complex character in the movie, with her deeper character appearing almost as an inversion of her superficial presentation. For example, she appears oblivious to her surroundings, but proves to often be the first to come up with a practical solution from their environment, while bubbly she was socially isolated, and while her descriptions of other pony’s “luminescence” (aura) suggests a New Age archetype, she actually contrasts with other unicorns in the show in that she is NOT superstitious. In particular, she also initially appeared to be the opposite of autistic, but it was later shown that she finds it difficult to relate to her peers because she processes the world around her in a different way then they do.

Izzy Moonbow does not appear to be autistic coded as she has been shown to be quite responsive to the emotions of other ponies. There was at least one gag where she directly reacted to another pony’s facial expression, and she appears to describe other’s emotional states and personalities using can colorful metaphors. However, she also demonstrates limited understanding of what is appropriate behavior in various social contexts, so maybe autism is more plausible than it initially appears. One wonders if maybe her descriptions of luminescence is not a metaphor, but her attempting to describe how she experiences the emotions of others, which she is unable to describe in the way neurotypicals do because she doesn’t experience them in the same way.

Let’s get to the essence of her character. Officially her gimmick is that she likes crafts. However, her crafts are shown to be of remarkable mechanical complexity. She is not just an artist, but a tinker, and the only reason that aspect is masked is because her presentation is more feminine than the stereotype of this archetype. The tinker archetype is closely associated fictional depictions of autism, often under the guise of being more interested in machines than people. That description certainly doesn’t apply to Izzy, but it also isn’t an accurate description of autism, and in many depictions of the autistic tinker they are shown as emphasizing with machines as a result of being rejected by their organic peers despite longing to be accepted by them. Izzy is a bit a different, instead desiring to show her contraptions to friends she never had, but there is still a common thread of social desire persisting after rejection.

There is another link between the tinker archetype and autism that also applies to Izzy. The tinker is highly intelligent, but they find it difficult to express this intelligence through words, and instead demonstrate it through their ability to work with their hands. This certainly applies to some autistic people, though others are the opposite. As for Izzy, her comments tend to confuse others, but she has shown to be very competent at solving problems when she can go straight to using her hooves and horn, such as when she created a bridge from a tree while the rest of the group was complaining about being unable to cross a chasm. I think this is most of all what gets to the essence of Izzy’s character. She does not see the world like others do, but it cannot be denied that her perspective if just as valid because she proves it is through what she does.

Many people have compared Izzy Moonglow to Pinkie Pie, both being social comic characters who are very obviously neurodivergent, but I find Izzy Moonglow to be a much more realistic depiction of someoen who is neurogivergent, while Pinkie Pie is more just a comic character without depth. Both would be difficult to label with any real-world disorder, but while the reason for Pinkie Pie is because there simply is nothing beneath the surface connecting her diverse behaviors, with Izzy it’s because she’s meant to be a individual with personal depth rather than checking of a list of traits. I also wonder if some of the difficulty in identifying what is going on comes from the path that she has a very feminine presentation, but her way of processing things has traditionally been associated with males, and thus sexism in the psychiatric community would lead to them failing to identify her underlying thought processes. That’s certainly the case for many autistic women, and it could very well extend to someone like Izzy.

That’s all my thoughts about how autism and neurodiversity relate to this incarnation of My Little Pony for now. There is going to be a full series following the movie, so I’m looking forward to watching it, and particularly seeing more of Izzy. Depending on how she’s portrayed in episodes I may even decide to give her an actual profile. As for now though, I just think it’s really interesting how both Izzy Moonglow and Twilight Sparkle are purple unicorns who can ambiguously be interpreted as being autistic, but have completely different personalities. Izzy is breaking new ground, as while Twilight Sparkle’s personality was pretty common for fictional depictions of autistic males prior to her being a female instance of it, Izzy’s is one that hasn’t been depicted much at all, and I wonder if any autistic girls relate to her in a way they haven’t related to characters before. So even while the show has a whole is less neurodiversity focused then the previous one, it still has something in it for us, and that can be enough.

[meteor-cities]

i find it hilarious that margaret (@featherrwbyrnjr) who i guess has me blocked now would assume a lot of things especially because i was in no way hostile in my recent post.

the image i sent her in her ask box was actually one sent to me per someone else.

margaret and her friends have all been monitored by twitter countless times and suspended for abuse and harrassment. this includes monty (margaret's friend) telling me he hopes i get hit with a car, and promptly getting suspended afterwards.

margaret has said extendedly homophobic, ableist, and transphobic things towards several of my friends, including my current boyfriend. monty has stolen art from one of my friends.

monty and margaret are adults. ADULTS. who have been harassing people who are as young as 13 over a ship.

here's a link to margaret's response on my last post

let's unpack just a little bit.

1: you deciding that shuake and shuakes as a whole are bad people because of your bad experience with your ex friends is your own fault.

2: do you even know what yaoi means? yaoi is the sexual fetishization of mlm couples and generally mlm people. the people who usually create yaoi content are usually straight women. a huge majority of shuakes are mlm/nblm, wlw/nblw, trans, etc. this includes myself, apollo, briar, cyber, kayla, and literally EVERYONE who you have attacked on twitter and verbally abused and sent threats to.

3: you repost shuake content with the intent to attack others for shipping shuake. YOU are the instigator. you don't know how to mind your business even if it could save your life.

4: i was actually referencing to a twitch stream in which robbie commented on shuake. get your shit straight.

5: you throw around the term biphobia like fucking CRAZY dude. biphobia this biphobia that do you understand that akechi's entire dialogue is gay coded? do you understand that, even in atlus' attempts to be homophobic in other contexts, you can still have lgbtq undertones? atlus is also notoriously bigoted in more ways than just homophobia yet has several autism coded and otherwise neurodivergent characters in the entire persona series.

6: shutaba is fucking vile, as well as akesumi. these are ships involving characters who are minors shipped with characters who either are portrayed as a sibling figure and/or an adult. akesumi is the equivalent to a senior in hs dating a freshman in hs. shutaba is a literal fucking stepbro x stepsis type ship and it is disgusting. futaba shouldn't even have been a romance route but atlus made her one because apparently female characters in persona games have to be dependent on the male main character.

margaret only ever mentions her autism when someone brings up a valid point - even in a very civil way - just so she has something to pin against the people who are telling her she is wrong.

margaret has told shuakes that she HOPES GORO AKECHI KILLS THEIR PETS, which is an extremely sensitive topic to me and my osdd system as a whole, hence i said some ugly things due to a persecutor's reaction, which i later owned up to and apologized for. upon people telling her sending death threats to ANIMALS was disgusting and uncalled for, she DISMISSED IT and said "goro said it not me".

she denies the fact that a huge majority of shuakes are disabled and/or lgbtq, including myself, and continues to call shuakes who have had it with her vile behavior ableist and homophobic.

upon people who tell her she's in the wrong, she blames it on being autistic, and when someone says "i also have autism/am disabled and i have never said shit like this", she attempts to privilege check people by saying things like "i don't have access to health insurance" or "i work several jobs" etc etc. (also known as the oppression olympics).

margaret and monty both have targeted several minors under the age of 16 to attack them for shipping shuake, including on tweets that do not say a single thing about shuakes or them in general.

they consistently have been caught gatekeeping (i.e. you can't kin/stan futaba if you're not autistic) characters.

are there bad shuakes? absolutely! but when you are fucking told that you are in the wrong, the appropriate response isn't to call people insulting names, wishing death on them and/or pets then denying it, being endlessly ableist and disgusting, or to force your agenda of bisexual goro onto people. you can't have a civil conversation for shit. the only reason you're on the internet is so you can go into the shuake tags and insult and belittle people who don't even fucking know you.

for the sake of keeping the tags clear, i won't be tagging this post, but i just wanted to clear that up.

[ghosthunthq]

Oliver is autistic, I will die on this hill

by @snavej

Noun

hill to die on (plural hills to die on)

(idiomatic) An issue to pursue with wholehearted conviction and/or single-minded focus, with little or no regard to the cost.

X~X~X

And so our story begins…

Okay, so if you’ve been around the fandom on Tumblr/Fanfiction.net, you will probably have seen me write “Oliver is autistic, I will die on this hill” on a post or story. If you have not, then, you have now. Congrats.

I came to this revelation maybe three years ago now. I had been in a discussion with some fandom friends and something in the conversation had made me wonder if Oliver was autistic.

We’ve all seen the cliche representations of autistic people in the media, especially those coded as such without explicit confirmation. For example, Sheldon Cooper from the Big Bang Theory. These characters are often there for comedic value, where we, the audience, laugh at them for their disability. The shows get away with it because they never explicitly state the character is autistic. 

I’m getting off track already.

So after the discussion mentioned before, I went away and began my research - to Google! Now, I have to admit, part of my curiosity regarding this matter is because I have been told I write Oliver well. Personally, I feel I write him a little OOC, but I like how I write him so it doesn’t bother me. I write Oliver as a version of myself. So my thought patterns at the time were that if Oliver was autistic, could I be too?

Oh yes, you thought you were just here for an educational piece about autism? Nope, you’re getting the whole damn story as to why I will die on this hill.

So I did my research and I found lists of signs of autism. I devoured internet articles and soon it was all I was interested in. I even bought a book titled ‘Aspergirls’ by Rudy Simone (who is autistic). If any of you read this piece and start wondering if you’re autistic (and you’re female, more on gender later!), I cannot recommend this book highly enough. I literally cried reading it.

The signs!

Okay so what are all these signs, let’s start a list! Autistic people can have:

Rituals that they refuse to change,

Odd or repetitive movements,

Unusual sensory reactions,

Be clumsy or awkward,

Nervous in large social groups,

Have a hard time making friends,

Speak in unusual ways or with an odd tone of voice,

Talk only about themselves/their interests,

Have narrow, often obsessive interests,

Want to be alone, or want to interact but not know how,

Avoid eye contact,

Have a hard time understanding body language,

Have trouble understanding other people’s feelings or talking about their own feelings,

Poor/abnormal posture, often sit on chairs oddly,

Trouble with left, right and other directions,

Large or unique vocabulary,

Lack of organisation,

Intense compassion/empathy,

Intense anger or no anger at all,

Connections with animals,

Difficulty understanding pop culture, styles, trends, etc.

Rigid in their ways,

Easily distressed,

Delayed speech and language,

Lack of imitation of others or imaginative play,

Indifferent to the feelings of others,

Sensitive to light and sound,

Self-stimulatory behaviours (stimming)

Echolalia (repeating or echoing words or phrases)

Unusual emotional responses,

Meltdowns,

Responds adversely to physical affections,

Does not initiate conversation,

Very poor diet,

Frequently walks on tiptoes,

Socially withdrawn/socially awkward,

Self-injurious behaviour,

Makes irrelevant remarks,

Difficulty with abstract language and concepts,

Need for sameness,

Severe upset when routines are disrupted,

Attachment to unusual objects,

Fascination with spinning objects,

Good memory for repeating lists or facts,

Unlikely to discriminate against someone on basis of race/gender/age etc.

Unlikely to give superior status to the wealthy or those high up in an organisation,

Have their own set of values,

Can hyperfocus,

Struggle to separate themselves from their work,

Lack the ability to filter information received, 

Alexithymia - the inability to describe emotions in a verbal manner,

Likes patterns, putting things in order,

Often limits diet,

Often wears the same clothes,

Black or white thinking,

Auditory processing disorder…

Okay, I’ll stop there. I could probably go on if I wanted to, because although I’ve written a lot of things there, these are all manifestations of the clinical diagnosis criteria.

X~X~X

Diagnostic Criteria for 299.00 Autism Spectrum Disorder

Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts, as manifested by the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text):

Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, for example, from abnormal social approach and failure of normal back-and-forth conversation; to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions.

Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviours used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication.

Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understand relationships, ranging, for example, from difficulties adjusting behaviour to suit various social contexts; to difficulties in sharing imaginative play or in making friends; to absence of interest in peers.

Specify current severity:

Severity is based on social communication impairments and restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour.

Restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour, interests, or activities, as manifested by at least two of the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text):

Stereotyped or repetitive motor movements, use of objects, or speech (e.g., simple motor stereotypes, lining up toys or flipping objects, echolalia, idiosyncratic phrases).

Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behaviour (e.g., extreme distress at small changes, difficulties with transitions, rigid thinking patterns, greeting rituals, need to take same route or eat same food every day).

Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus (e.g., strong attachment to or preoccupation with unusual objects, excessively circumscribed or perseverative interests).

Hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input or unusual interest in sensory aspects of the environment (e.g. apparent indifference to pain/temperature, adverse response to specific sounds or textures, excessive smelling or touching of objects, visual fascination with lights or movement).

Specify current severity:

Severity is based on social communication impairments and restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour.

Symptoms must be present in the early developmental period (but may not become fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities, or may be masked by learned strategies in later life).

Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning.

These disturbances are not better explained by intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder) or global developmental delay. Intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder frequently co-occur; to make comorbid diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability, social communication should be below that expected for general developmental level.

Note: Individuals with a well-established DSM-IV diagnosis of autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified should be given the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Individuals who have marked deficits in social communication, but whose symptoms do not otherwise meet criteria for autism spectrum disorder, should be evaluated for social (pragmatic) communication disorder.

Taken from: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html

X~X~X

Back to the story

So I went to my doctor after all of this reading. I was convinced. Nothing had ever made so much sense to me in my entire life as reading about autism.

I was, at this point, what people in the autism community call “self-diagnosed”. Now I was lucky, I could go on to get a “proper” diagnosis. Not everyone is as lucky. Many doctors do not believe that girls/women can be autistic. Many doctors do not believe that ethnic minorities can be autistic. Many doctors do not believe adults can be autistic. In some countries, people do not have free healthcare and so they cannot afford a diagnosis. There are many reasons why people can’t/won’t get diagnosed.

The point I’m trying to make is that if you see someone posting about being self-diagnosed, don’t be all “oh but a doctor hasn’t said it so you’re not”, because that person does not need your doubt and it does not help anyone. Their self-diagnosis helps them to navigate their life and it does not hurt anyone. Honestly, the amount of people that are “wrong” about their self-diagnosis is probably very small, and those that are probably have some other kind of neurodivergent condition such as ADHD.

Anyway, my doctor gave me a form to fill in, a questionnaire. A series of questions aimed very much at the male expression of autism. I felt horrible at the time, because I knew exactly how to answer these questions to fill the boxes required. I knew because I had read so much about autism that I knew what they wanted to hear.

I filled it in honestly. I scored highly enough anyway.

My doctor did not know who to refer me to. She had never had to refer an adult before. She asked around and found out what to do; I got put on a waiting list.

A while later, at work, I found out I could get tested privately and work would pay for it. Oh, how I love my job. I spoke to someone who had been the manager of another employee who had gone through the process. That helped.

I talked to the man who was supposed to be the disability advisor, he made me fill in the same questionnaire that my doctor did. I filled it in again.

I was on another waiting list.

The advisor had also recommended me a book, which I bought and read and hated. The language used very much implied that I would never be ‘great’, just ‘coping’. It was written by a neurotypical person. I told the advisor by email that this book was stupid and damaging. He did not reply.

Months later, the private assessment happened. I spent an entire day with a clinical psychologist and a speech and language therapist. My parents and manager came too. I answered questions, had to explain things to them, made up stories with random objects. My parents, mainly my mother, talked about my childhood.

At the end of it all, they decided I was autistic.

I was ecstatic.

The day before, a person at work said I was a hypochondriac. One of those people who read about conditions on the internet and convince myself that I have them. I still do not talk to that person.

Finally, everything made sense. Finally, I had a reason why people made fun of me for reasons I could not fathom. Finally, my weirdness had a name.

X~X~X

The Gender Issue

So there is a ‘gender issue’ with autism and it’s diagnosis. Everything is aimed at young (white) boys. It’s designed for the stereotype of the young boy who likes to collect trains. And that’s why there are five times as many autistic boys in comparison with girls.

People of colour, women and girls are very often undiagnosed or misdiagnosed.

Generalised anxiety disorder, depression, OCD, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, various eating disorders, borderline personality disorder, ADHD…

The list goes on.

Now, that’s not to say many girls don’t have these things. Often they do. But often they have those and autism.

I very much doubt there is five times as many autistic boys. I think there are just a hell of a lot of women and girls who are undiagnosed.

Why this disparity? Well, autism presents differently in girls, or perhaps, society sees it differently.

When a young boy is quiet and withdrawn, happy to play by themselves, something is wrong. When a girl is quiet and withdrawn, she’s just shy. There’s also a lot of evidence to suggest that girls are a lot better at masking their autism.

Essentially, due to the societal pressure on young girls, they hide their autism and mimic their peers. That’s why the most common time for a woman to get diagnosed with autism is when she has children of her own and they’re getting diagnosed.

Is it genetic? There’s no strict evidence of an ‘autistic’ gene, I don’t think. But its quite common. When I was getting tested, I gave the previously mentioned book to my mother and said, “Hey, can you read this, I think I have this”. My mother read the book and told me she thought she had given it to me. She got tested two months ago.

I also look at my father and see many of the traits. But he has no interest in getting tested.

If you’re intersted, google “autism in girls” or something similar, there are plenty of resources.

The result

So I have my diagnosis, my work is fully informed. I am now protected by the Disability Act. I can’t use disabled parking spaces, but some autistic people can, if they need it.

What does this mean for me? It means that my employer has to make adjustments for me to make me comfortable for work. Changing the lighting, giving me a quiet place to work, working with me on deadlines and stuff. They know now (officially) that I have issues with auditory processing, and that they should take that into account.

I’m lucky, my employer has been good about this, and it is in their interest to. Autistic people can be an asset to any company. They are often experts in their chosen field and will work solidly on stuff they enjoy.

Lots of autistic people are not as lucky. They are one of the highest unemployed groups. Workplaces are full of unwritten rules that are hard for autistic people. This brings me on to…

Autism Acceptance Month

April is Autism Acceptance Month. You may see this as Autism Awareness Month in some places. But I don’t like that. “Awareness months” and “awareness days” are often reserved for horrible diseases like cancer, for which we want a cure.

There are a lot of resources out there from damaging institutions this month, such as Autism Speaks. They are advocating for a cure and also promote ABA (a type of ‘therapy’ that is disgusting and should not be allowed). If you take anything from all this, please do not support Autism Speaks.

There is no cure for Autism. It is a developmental disorder. It’s not a disease.

If you wanna do something for Autism Acceptance Month, there are some resources here: https://www.autism.org.uk/get-involved/world-autism-awareness-week.aspx

But what about the vaccines?

Of course, I cannot talk about autism without mentioning the vaccines!

In the 90s, about 1 in 150 children were diagnosed with autism, by the early 2000’s, this went up to 1 in 68. One of the big things that had changed in this time was the number of vaccines children had. 

There have been many studies regarding autism and vaccines. And there was one that said there was a link between autism and vaccines. In this study, there were 12 subjects.

Now I do statistics for a day job. So I can tell you categorically, that 12 subjects for a study is not enough for decisive proof. The person who did this study was struck off and rightly so.

But the media got hold of this idea.

And so the anti-vaxxers rose up, refusing to vaccinate their children from deadly diseases because obviously, being autistic was worse than being dead.

In summary, vaccinate your children.

Side note, I, as an autistic person, am allowed to make jokes about vaccines. For example, I received some vaccinations before travelling and joked with the nurse that I was ‘topping up my autism’. This is funny because we both knew it was wrong.

‘Autistic person’ vs ‘person with autism’

This one is a tricky one. I’ve seen arguments both ways.

‘Person with autism’ puts the person first, but also makes the autism sound like an accessory. 

‘Autistic person’ puts the disability first, but you can’t separate the person from the autism, it’s intrinsic to who they are.

Basically, this is up to the person. If they prefer one way or the other, use it. It’s like pronouns, you use what the person you’re talking about asks you to use.

Personally, I’m not too fussy, but I lean towards ‘autistic person’. 

Asperger’s vs Autism

Asperger’s was merged into the general Autism diagnosis criteria a while back. Asperger’s is what is sometimes called ‘high functioning autism’. The autism community do not like the term ‘high functioning’ because it denies aid, in the same way that ‘low functioning’ denies agency. The criteria for ‘low functioning’ is having an IQ under 70. So it’s quite broad.

Also people who have been classified as ‘high functioning’ don’t necessarily function well in everyday life without help.

Also, Hans Asperger’s was a bit of a knobhead, so a lot of people don’t like using his name.

Headcanons

A headcanon is a fan’s personal, idiosyncratic interpretation of canon, such as habits of a character, the backstory of a character, or the nature of relationships between characters. The term comes from the fact that it is the canon that exists in a fan’s head.

So when I say ‘Oliver is autistic’, this is my personal headcanon. Do I want it to become fanon? Yes, of course, I do. In the same way, I love that Yasuhara x Gene has become popular (for which I take full responsibility).

But if you disagree with it, that’s fine. You’re allowed to do that. I will not think any less of you for it. Because at the end of the day, the author has not come out and said ‘Oliver is autistic’.

Personally, as an autistic writer, who has always written some of her characters as autistic, whether she knew it or not, I suspect the author of Ghost Hunt might be an undiagnosed autistic person. Because Oliver is not the only person I recognise traits in… But that’s for another day.

If you only take one thing away from reading all of this, then let it be this:

If you’ve met one autistic person, that’s it. You have met ONE autistic person.

We’re all different, just like everyone else.

And now for what you’ve all been waiting for…

Continued in Part TWO 

[itsclydebitches]

I can’t help but notice that when you look at the characters who get the most visceral hatred, it’s not usually the villains but instead the inherently flawed yet good at heart characters who are trying their best. I’ve never understood that with this fndm (examples being, Ozpin/ Jaune / Tai )

It’s super fascinating to my mind because it’s kind of the opposite of what tends to occur in most fandoms? Keep in mind I’m only now trying to articulate something I’ve been thinking vaguely about for a few years now—no real arguments or supporting evidence yet—but in my experience fandoms tend to focus their efforts on excusing the villains/non-traditional heroes. Whether it’s justifying Sherlock’s horrifying behavior towards John, claiming that Bakugo isn’t at fault for his violence, or just going on about how wonderful Kylo Ren is, it’s a fandom tradition to take the worst character in the series and bend over backwards to woobify them. Why this happens is a whole other complex conversation covering the 100% legit “I identify/am interested in this villain for a variety of reasons—often because they’re coded as queer, neurodivergent, etc.—and my enjoyment of them is separate from any real life feelings I would have about their actions” to the much more serious “You’ll note that most of these characters are hot white guys and it says something about our culture that we go to such lengths to excuse their objectively horrifying behavior, but chuck anyone else under the bus for the slightest mistake.”

Now yes, when it comes to RWBY we do see this dynamic playing out to an extent. Adam is a prime example of a villain whose actions are excused because he had a Sad Childhood. Abusing Blake for years? Cutting off Yang’s arm? Continually trying to kill them? Well yeah that’s bad but you can’t hold him responsible after all he’s suffered! That’s a pretty classic fandom reaction. Where things get more interesting is with Salem, someone whose actions are also excused… but not because she was locked in a tower and screwed over by gods. The fandom excuses Salem’s murder of her children (I’m still in shock over this holy shit) and her genocidal plans (again: holy shit) not because they adore HER, but because they despise OZPIN. Defending Salem is more of a byproduct of hating Ozpin. It’s not so much that people seem to actually believe she’s blameless, but it comes across that way because they want to blame Ozpin for something. So if he’s in the wrong for not stopping her, leaving her, trying to take the kids, whatever, then by extension Salem must be “right.” 

Which brings us to RWBY’s fascinating gender aspect. It’s no secret that there aren’t many U.S. shows out there with such a large female cast. Let alone shows outside of specific genres like comedy dramas. Let alone shows that have gained this much notoriety. RWBY is… kinda rare. Granted yes, there are plenty of animes out there with all women teams that RWBY is clearly drawing inspiration from, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s an American produced series and, particularly six years ago, it felt really fresh. Having a kick-ass team of women who were given fantastic characterization, and agency, and weren’t nearly as sexualized, resonated with people and in time I think the feminist leanings in the show became a core part of many fans��� love of it… to the extent that (as always happens in fandoms) things grew extreme and it became a “Men are evil” sort of deal. 

So what does this mean in regards to your ask, anon? Just that I think gender plays a crucial role in the fandom’s reaction. Normally women would be the ones crucified for the tiniest mistake and the hot guys would be defended; in RWBY there’s such a focus on women that they get all the excuses and the hot guys are thrown under the bus. To my mind, RWBY’s specific culture and focus have caused a bit of a reversal of traditional fandom dynamics. It’s no surprise to us now that Raven can abandon her daughter and straight up murder people but is still beloved, while Tai cares for Yang in a way she as an individual needs and is crucified for it. It’s no shocker that Salem is adored as a complex character while Ozpin is one of the most hated across the whole fandom. It makes perfect sense that in a group of 8 the 6 women are faves, the one man coded as feminine (Ren) is also loved, but the other more traditionally masculine guy (Jaune) is despised. Jaune is seen as a threat to what RWBY is “supposed” to be. 

In the end none of these fandoms prioritize what the characters actually do. Most of the time you see hot guys defended because they’re just… hot guys. In RWBY’s case the focus is so heavily on women that now any guy is seen as a potential threat and is immediately treated with suspicion, if not outright hatred by the fandom. Like most women in other series, they exist under a “one strike and you’re out” policy. 

(and we can also think about that “threat” in terms of shipping and how normally women are despised in fandoms because they’re “getting in the way” of slash ships, but RWBY has so many women in it—thereby dominating all the major ships—that suddenly guys like Jaune are “getting in the way” of relationships like whiterose, increasing the fandom’s vitriol, and what I’m SAYING is it’s all fascinating and I’m kinda tempted to write a paper) 

[honestfutures]

skill and creation in hacf

I’ve seen a lot about who’s the “smartest” or “most creative” in HACF (often paired with Donna hate…), and while of course it’s always more complicated than simple character stats, I thought it might be fun to look at the various ways the characters are skilled and how they differ. So let’s break down these characters like Pokemon, shall we?

Hard skills: by this I basically mean strictly technical proficiency and knowledge. This is what most people think when they consider the characters’ “intelligence”.

Donna: Based solely on what’s plainly stated in dialogue, Donna is a skilled engineer with a computer science degree. In terms of “hard” skills, she has at minimum THE SAME credentials as Gordon. Like I’m tired of hearing about this.

Gordon: He has the same degree as Donna. I mean, there’s not much to say here because it’s sort of matter-of-fact, he is evidently good at what he does and I would say it’s by far his strongest area out of the 3 I’m looking at.

Cam: Cameron is more slippery to pin down, but we’re meant to understand her as exceptionally bright, a prodigy, in the sort of nebulous good-at-everything way TV likes to depict prodigies.

Joe: He has other skills, more specifically he is good at selling, influencing, and encouraging, but he is not knowledgeable about computers by his own admission, and as evidenced repeatedly. He’s the least technically skilled of the group.

Something to consider is how in this one area, the skills of the characters go against the typical distribution of tech skills in media, gender role-wise: both women are very talented re: hard skills, and the least talented person is a man, who in other ways, small and large, is an outsider and goes against typical gender norms. Someone who is not me write an essay on this. Anyway, moving on...

Soft skills: Soft skills encompass things like organization, time management, communicating with others, etc. Unlike hard skills they’re harder to teach or quantify, because they’re usually not considered job skills, just someone’s personality, or, in a more unspoken way, “feminine” skills.

Donna: She’s skilled at these because she needs to be, as a mother and wife, and because she is by default the only person who really has these skills at Mutiny and is therefore forced to step into that role- to deal with the power company, to prevent coders from attacking each other, to organize, etc. She’s the most classic example of someone with good soft skills.

Gordon: He sucks at this. He’s got some brain stuff going on, but mostly he’s a man in the 1980’s who has never developed these skills because he’s never needed to; he’s got Donna. Of note is the fact that even in season 1, Donna is performing these duties for Gordon at home with no pay. YMMV on how much of that is normal in a relationship, but the fact is the Giant project would never have gotten off the ground if Gordon had to take on 50% of childcare, event planning and other household responsibilities, and this is true of many families.

Cameron: Bless her heart, she is also garbage at these, in a more overt way than Gordon. Part trauma, part possible autism/adhd/other neurodivergence, part “is literally 19 at the start of the series”.

Joe: This is tricky. He is very skilled, but in a restricted and relatively short term way, that is to say he burns bridges as fast as he can build them. This is one of the areas he learns to improve over time.

Though you might not consider these things when comparing the characters’ smarts or talents, they’re definitely part of that equation. These are all skills that are undervalued but that in real life are crucial, and no project can succeed without them; if you can’t talk to people you can’t work in a team, secure funding, etc. They may not be impressive skills like coding, but they are crucial, and this is where most of the tension between Cam and Donna comes from in season 2 and 3: Cameron doesn’t understand this and feels judged, and Donna resents being made to fill that role. If you don’t consider soft skills as valuable, time-consuming and challenging, most of Donna’s character development and personal struggles will be lost on you.

Creativity: This is a little more difficult to define. It’s not just ideas, and as anyone in a creative field will tell you, everyone hates the “idea guy”; typically a dude, who thinks his ideas are great, but has no concept of how to follow through on them. Creativity implies an understanding of how your idea can be implemented, if not the personal know-how to do it.

Cameron: She is of course the main creative: the friendly OS, Mutiny, Space Bike, etc. She can both imagine her ideas, and has the know-how to execute these ideas personally.

Donna: Her main idea in the series is Community, and again, she both imagines the idea AND knows how to implement it and develop it further as the concept grows. She is building on the Mutiny concept, of course, in the same way Cameron’s Mutiny concept was building on the existing framework of phone lines. Aside from that, Donna, creatively, is the one most likely to come up with fixes for specific problems (think the piggybacked layout of the Giant and the trick to convince Joe they had ported Mutiny to UNIX), which is interesting considering that’s her role in the plot socially as well.

Joe: At the outset, he is absolutely, 100%, the Idea Guy. Possibly the best example is the scene in season 1 where he writes 2x faster, 2x cheaper on the whiteboard and expects Cam and Gordon to reverse engineer that into reality. In real life this kind of behavior doesn’t impress anyone. Like, anyone, really anyone, can do that. I can tell you I have an idea for an app that lets you talk to your cat, but if my whole idea is “an app that lets you talk to your cat”, I’m very clearly full of shit and my idea is pointless. So while Joe is outwardly creative he is, creatively, the least useful. Again, Joe evolves here, as the writers realized “Mad Men clone” was a bad look for their show, and as he naturally learns more about the industry his ideas get more grounded.

Gordon: He has… some ideas, notably Sonaris and his garage-based computer business, but both flop badly and immediately and he lacks the vision to polish them into something functional. I would say Gordon is the least “creative” of the main four, but this brings me to another thing:

Gordon and Joe: They typically arrive at ideas together, the Giant most prominently (Cam’s OS is almost entirely separate from the Joe/Gordon back and forth on the hardware), their business in season 4, and I would argue Sonaris/MacMillan Utility. Joe suggests an idea with no technical basis, and Gordon is the one who figures out the execution, or vice versa: Gordon invents unsellable, impractical software, and Joe figures out how to use and sell it.

This is crucial: I can’t count Joe’s Giant concept as an independent idea, because he himself has no clue how something like that would work, whereas it's not fully Gordon’s because he’s not capable of that kind of initial creative drive. Their ideas only really reach fruition when both are involved. What’s fascinating is seeing how he and Gordon mesh together as partners, both equally crucial. There’s tension there, but ultimately they're uniquely well-matched and rarely work without the other. Even when Joe starts his company without Gordon, he’s using his software. Comparatively, Cam and Donna do work together but can create independently; it's less meshed at that creative level because they are individually more well-rounded.

In conclusion I guess, while all these nuances are definitely explored in a way that many shows don’t do, HACF definitely falls into that trap of attributing ideas and achievements to individuals rather than teams, and specifically those individuals who have skills understood as valuable in a capitalist, white man-centric culture. Here that means coders and engineers, with other disciplines that Cardiff or Mutiny would definitely need, like visual and sound artists, HR staff and yeah, janitorial staff, happening automatically in the background.

Part of this is because of the obvious fact that you need central characters to root for, but it’s worth keeping in mind because this is definitely a mindset that affects the workforce particularly for lower-paid, majority female and nonwhite jobs. Appreciate these people!

Thanks for reading!

[lodelss]

Soraya Roberts | Longreads | May 2020 | 10 minutes (2,500 words)

Isolation is horny as fuck. Not for everyone, obviously, but if you’re single and you live alone. . . I mean, I have never thought this much about sex in my life. Not even in high school. Although this does kind of feel like high school: snacking, jerking off, sort-of working, snacking, jerking off. Or maybe we’re regressing to a point in history when we were exclusively driven by our basest instincts: horny, hungry, trying not to die. In between we binge-stream. And through this fogged up lockdown-induced lens, the horniness of what we are watching is compounded by our own.

Normal People is the big one. The Hulu adaptation of Sally Rooney’s critically felated millennial romance is softcore for hipsters: an outcast girl and a sensitive jock, both of them equally brilliant (of course), having some messy, bildungsroman-style sex over the years (to Imogen Heap, in Malick-ian light) like that’s all the world is. The sex is hot, but everything that happens right before it is hotter. All that staring, all that sizzle — by the time they actually do it, it’s almost an afterthought. Almost. The same goes for Run, the HBO series by Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s creative partner, Vicky Jones, about two ex-lovers fleeing their lives to the kind of loin-tingling wit that got us through the Hays Code. Here, once again, the foreplay is the sex. Then there’s Portrait of a Lady on Fire, the French period piece in which two women, with their eyes alone, strip, fuck, and share a cigarette before they physically do all three.

This is the kind of hot — leg-crossing, side-eying — where you don’t have to say it out loud, you feel it. The kind of hot spun by women from Europe, where sex doesn’t have the same moral implications it does in America. But more than that, it’s a hotness related to a wider move toward women reclaiming their own stories, their own sex. We all know by now that sex under the male gaze tends to objectify women — hotness, in the hands of men, is predominantly naked women getting fucked. Permission is neither here nor there. Under the female gaze, sure, naked women get fucked too, but there’s also enthusiastic consent. Great sex is not orgasm upon orgasm so much as agreement upon agreement, through looks and gestures and breaths and talk — the personification of ongoing accord, no permission slips or questions necessary. The point being that sex isn’t sexy unless it’s between people, not just their bodies; people who change their minds as well as their positions. In isolation, where you have nothing to do but wait for it, it only makes you hotter to watch not only the physical restraint and psychological tease, but every move, every look, every word that says “Yes!” before it’s screamed aloud.

* * *

I have no idea where or when I first heard the term “edging,” but I think it was a couple of years ago. I recall being told that it came from teenagers who used it to describe holding off orgasm deliberately to make it that much stronger in the end, a kind of pleasure binge that seemed to fit that generation (if everything sucks, might as well overdose on suckage). Which is not to say that climax control is new; it goes back to Tantric and Taoist traditions, where it’s less about splooging as hard as you can and more about a kind of physical transcendence. But the idea of mindful sex, of really feeling everything — together — instead of just trying to get yourself off as quickly as possible, didn’t really hit conservative America until the sixties. Masters of Sex reintroduced us to William Masters and Virginia Johnson, the couple responsible for the huge human sexuality study published in 1966 that identified the four-stage sex response: excitement (arousal), plateau (pre-orgasm), orgasm, resolution (post-orgasm). Of course, it turned out that cycle was generally reserved for men, while women across the country were left dissatisfied (and often pregnant). But the sixties and seventies brought heightened awareness of women’s rights along with heightened awareness of sexuality.

Enter edging. “Understanding this new kind of orgasm can be especially difficult for men. When it comes to pleasure, women are the first in line.” This comes from the worryingly titled Extended Massive Orgasm by Vera and Steve Bodansky, a 2002 addition to a slew of slow masturbation and one-hour-orgasm how-to books, all of which fall under the rubric of edging. The Bodanskys emphasize being fully present — fully engaged with yourself and your partner — and aware that the mechanics of sex are not the sole source of pleasure. A human being has a psychological as well as a physical self, and sex also has both elements; eye contact, verbalizing, variations in touch, and breathing responsively aren’t requirements for ejaculation, but they definitely make it more agreeable. Which is why the Bodansky book, somewhat patronizingly, addresses men the way it does. Because sex has been generally dictated by men, it has generally served them and them alone. Putting women first doesn’t mean men are neglected, it means women aren’t.

But Hollywood is still predominantly run by men and men predominantly run it the old way when it comes to heat (erotic thrillers were a brief light at the end of the tunnel, but then the tunnel just kept going). Think of Game of Thrones or anything on Starz: what passes for hot, once again, is conventionally beautiful women with no clothes on being bent over. The physical part may be there, but the psychological part, not to mention the consent, is not. Which is why reality series like Too Hot to Handle (contestants win by not touching) and Love Is Blind (contestants get together before seeing each other) are not particularly orgasmic, though they are positioned as the perfect pandemic watch. The payoff of edging requires real chemistry and it helps to have some real stakes thrown in.

Which is not to say it can’t be fictional. There are nine sex scenes in Normal People. Actually, there are more than nine, but there are nine between the two superficially polar-opposite teens we follow from high school to college. (There are only 12 episodes). Try finding a story about Normal People that doesn’t mention its horniness. You can’t; horniness defines it. Obviously, being particularly susceptible in lockdown to anything related to the possibility of sex has affected how we respond to it, but this is also the kind of hotness that transcends pandemics. Let me explain, with Connell and his little chain.

Connell (Paul Mescal) isn’t just hot because he looks like an animated version of Michelangelo’s David, he’s hot because he looks like an animated version of Michelangelo’s David and is shy. He is hot because he is entirely uncomfortable in his own skin despite inhabiting skin in which he should be entirely comfortable — he is a super-smart, super-handsome, super-athletic white man; how much better can he have it? Connell is hot because despite all of that, he can’t stop staring at the guileless-verging-on-neurodivergent-poor-man’s-Anne-Hathaway Marianne (Daisy Edgar-Jones) when Marcia Brady (that’s not her name, but does she ever look like her) can’t stop staring at him. He is hot because he is charmed as fuck when Marianne, during their second kiss, blurts out the “guy” question: “Now can we take our clothes off?” He is hot because he gives Marianne an out during her first time. He is hot because he takes Marianne’s advice about his future. He is hot because he is inconsolable when he realizes how badly he has treated her by keeping them secret. Connell is hot because as much as Marianne is at his mercy, he is even more at hers.

And the sex scenes in Normal People are hot because the director realizes all of this — that the hotness is as much in everyone’s heads as it is in their bodies. “In some movies, they treat sex scenes like they treat car chases or gun fights, like an opportunity to try a different form of filmmaking,” Lenny Abrahamson told the Irish magazine Hot Press. “How I shot, if we were moving from dialogue to sex, there’s no point where we enter a different dimension, it’s just a continuation of their interaction.” The way the show is filmed, the confined settings, the proximity of the camera to their faces, their eyes — all of it magnifies the intimacy. But it isn’t just in the shooting, it’s also in the choreography. With the help of intimacy coordinator Ita O’Brien, every frisson between Connell and Marianne — from every long gaze and every small touch to all that heavy breathing in flagrante — coalesces into an intoxicating six-hour expression of the fluid physical connection between two characters whose psychological connection (whose verbal agreement, even) came first. It’s like nothing else exists but them. These two are entirely in it with each other.

While Run is less about what’s in their heads than what’s coming out of their mouths, its not-so-brief encounter on a train has a similarly close-quartered intimacy. The HBO series stars Merritt Wever as Ruby, a wife and mom of two, and Domhnall Gleeson as Billy, a Jordan Peterson type. The two exes reunite after 15 years on a cross-country trip to escape their lives. She has her family to lose, he has his book deal. The stakes are slightly uneven, but their banter is not: their edgeplay is their wordplay. Like Normal People, the camera stays close to the two lovers who are already confined in their seats (and, later, “roomette”) shoulder to shoulder, face to face, almost mouth to mouth. Just like we do, they become so hot off each other’s proximity that they are forced to take breaks to secretly masturbate in the bathroom. Both of them. Separately.

But here again, as in Normal People, the woman ultimately has all the power. With a family back home, this is Ruby’s encounter to take or leave, not Billy’s. It is her thirst that fuels the ride, not his. “I turned up to have sex,” she says. And later, “I want to fuck you… now.” These exclamations are all the more pregnant for the person saying them — Wever herself has admitted she did not see herself as a lead in a rom-com (Gleeson had already done About Time). And yet here she is not only in one, but subverting it. A man admitting he wants to fuck a woman who might not want to fuck him isn’t transgressive, it’s a cliché. But a woman admitting she wants to fuck a man (more conventionally attractive than she is, more successful, more single) who might reject her? That’s hot. So will he say yes? Do we even need him to anymore? “Holding back on the sex was always something we knew we had to do,” creator Vicky Jones told Refinery29. “Because it’s not really a will-they-won’t-they, since they do. It’s, will they have sex and how?” But with foreplay this good, the sex can’t help but be an anti-climax.

That upending convention, that the woman dominates really, suggests why the queen of edging is Portrait of a Lady on Fire, a queer love story by a queer filmmaker (Céline Sciamma) about a painter named Marianne (Noémie Merlant) and her subject, Héloïse (Adèle Haenel). There is no dilution here by the well-trod tropes of male sexuality, there is only a pair of  women drowning in each other. The female gaze turns in on itself as Marianne’s view of Héloïse becomes ours. The film’s title summons the slow burn of their relationship, with every new plateau advancing so achingly slowly — Marianne even seeks consent before repositioning Héloïse’s arm as she sits for her, which is the first time they touch — that every act, when it comes, is that much more extreme, the whole thing mimicking that aforementioned menacing “massive extended orgasm.” It takes 13 minutes for the heroines to meet, despite being in the same house, and even then, one of them is only introduced from behind in a black head-to-toe cloak, a funereal tease. This is no meet-cute; it’s the slowest reveal ever, with her cloak fluttering in the breeze until a mess of blond strands escape, which almost make you gasp despite yourself, before the whole hood falls to expose the back of a blond head. And then, suddenly, the faceless woman is running to her death, we think, until she stops right at the edge of a cliff and, abruptly, turns, her flushed face, her great blue eyes, downplaying the grand mort to a petit mort. “I’ve dreamt of that for years,” Héloïse says breathlessly, post-coitally. A pure distillation of the female apex, no wonder the French, their sexual legacy defined by males, thought the film wasn’t erotic enough.

* * *

The hottest scene in Normal People, ergo the hottest scene of my isolation, doesn’t actually include an orgasm. And it, fittingly, takes a while, not arriving until the near the end of the second half of the series, which was directed by Hettie Macdonald. Now in college, no longer dating, Connell and Marianne are sort-of-not-really watching some sports game in Connell’s hot, cramped childhood room in a haze of hormones. Everything is sweating. She stares at him. He stares at the screen. She pretends to sleep. He gets up. “Want some ice cream?” He goes, she stays. He returns. It’s not ice cream, it’s penis-shaped rocket popsicles. And the room is dripping in sex. When Marianne stretches out her bare feet to his end of the bed, I squeak. She says she wants him to kiss her. He says he does too — the pain on his face! — but they always end badly and he doesn’t want to lose her friendship. Fuck. She gets up to leave, telling him not to drop her off at home ‘cause he’ll miss the rest of the match. Olive branch: “I forgot there was a match on, to be honest.” Game on.

Even though the sex is ultimately abandoned (I won’t spoil it), it doesn’t matter. This prelude is more satisfying than 99 percent of the orgasms I’ve ever watched. Despite all the sexual tension, the woman still ultimately commands the room. Theirs and ours. In that Hot Press interview, director Lenny Abrahamson, who shot the first six episodes, laughed perversely about the show coming out during a worldwide pandemic. “You start to miss the human touch, people’s skin — and that is all over the show,” he said. “God help everybody!” But it wasn’t Abrahamson behind the episode I’m talking about, it was a woman. And while it’s true that thirst can hurt, it can also take the edge off, as that scene choreographed by three women — conceived of by Rooney, directed by Macdonald, managed by O’Brien — proves. No one finished, but it wasn’t about that. Because all the elements were there, all that want and all that permission. And that was enough for me, if for no one else. And what was that line again? “When it comes to pleasure, women are the first in line.”

* * *

Soraya Roberts is a culture columnist at Longreads.

[lodelss]

On the Hotness of Not Getting Any

Soraya Roberts | Longreads | May 2020 | 10 minutes (2,500 words)

Isolation is horny as fuck. Not for everyone, obviously, but if you’re single and you live alone. . . I mean, I have never thought this much about sex in my life. Not even in high school. Although this does kind of feel like high school: snacking, jerking off, sort-of working, snacking, jerking off. Or maybe we’re regressing to a point in history when we were exclusively driven by our basest instincts: horny, hungry, trying not to die. In between we binge-stream. And through this fogged up lockdown-induced lens, the horniness of what we are watching is compounded by our own.

Normal People is the big one. The Hulu adaptation of Sally Rooney’s critically felated millennial romance is softcore for hipsters: an outcast girl and a sensitive jock, both of them equally brilliant (of course), having some messy, bildungsroman-style sex over the years (to Imogen Heap, in Malick-ian light) like that’s all the world is. The sex is hot, but everything that happens right before it is hotter. All that staring, all that sizzle — by the time they actually do it, it’s almost an afterthought. Almost. The same goes for Run, the HBO series by Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s creative partner, Vicky Jones, about two ex-lovers fleeing their lives to the kind of loin-tingling wit that got us through the Hays Code. Here, once again, the foreplay is the sex. Then there’s Portrait of a Lady on Fire, the French period piece in which two women, with their eyes alone, strip, fuck, and share a cigarette before they physically do all three.

This is the kind of hot — leg-crossing, side-eying — where you don’t have to say it out loud, you feel it. The kind of hot spun by women from Europe, where sex doesn’t have the same moral implications it does in America. But more than that, it’s a hotness related to a wider move toward women reclaiming their own stories, their own sex. We all know by now that sex under the male gaze tends to objectify women — hotness, in the hands of men, is predominantly naked women getting fucked. Permission is neither here nor there. Under the female gaze, sure, naked women get fucked too, but there’s also enthusiastic consent. Great sex is not orgasm upon orgasm so much as agreement upon agreement, through looks and gestures and breaths and talk — the personification of ongoing accord, no permission slips or questions necessary. The point being that sex isn’t sexy unless it’s between people, not just their bodies; people who change their minds as well as their positions. In isolation, where you have nothing to do but wait for it, it only makes you hotter to watch not only the physical restraint and psychological tease, but every move, every look, every word that says “Yes!” before it’s screamed aloud.

* * *

I have no idea where or when I first heard the term “edging,” but I think it was a couple of years ago. I recall being told that it came from teenagers who used it to describe holding off orgasm deliberately to make it that much stronger in the end, a kind of pleasure binge that seemed to fit that generation (if everything sucks, might as well overdose on suckage). Which is not to say that climax control is new; it goes back to Tantric and Taoist traditions, where it’s less about splooging as hard as you can and more about a kind of physical transcendence. But the idea of mindful sex, of really feeling everything — together — instead of just trying to get yourself off as quickly as possible, didn’t really hit conservative America until the sixties. Masters of Sex reintroduced us to William Masters and Virginia Johnson, the couple responsible for the huge human sexuality study published in 1966 that identified the four-stage sex response: excitement (arousal), plateau (pre-orgasm), orgasm, resolution (post-orgasm). Of course, it turned out that cycle was generally reserved for men, while women across the country were left dissatisfied (and often pregnant). But the sixties and seventies brought heightened awareness of women’s rights along with heightened awareness of sexuality.

Enter edging. “Understanding this new kind of orgasm can be especially difficult for men. When it comes to pleasure, women are the first in line.” This comes from the worryingly titled Extended Massive Orgasm by Vera and Steve Bodansky, a 2002 addition to a slew of slow masturbation and one-hour-orgasm how-to books, all of which fall under the rubric of edging. The Bodanskys emphasize being fully present — fully engaged with yourself and your partner — and aware that the mechanics of sex are not the sole source of pleasure. A human being has a psychological as well as a physical self, and sex also has both elements; eye contact, verbalizing, variations in touch, and breathing responsively aren’t requirements for ejaculation, but they definitely make it more agreeable. Which is why the Bodansky book, somewhat patronizingly, addresses men the way it does. Because sex has been generally dictated by men, it has generally served them and them alone. Putting women first doesn’t mean men are neglected, it means women aren’t.

But Hollywood is still predominantly run by men and men predominantly run it the old way when it comes to heat (erotic thrillers were a brief light at the end of the tunnel, but then the tunnel just kept going). Think of Game of Thrones or anything on Starz: what passes for hot, once again, is conventionally beautiful women with no clothes on being bent over. The physical part may be there, but the psychological part, not to mention the consent, is not. Which is why reality series like Too Hot to Handle (contestants win by not touching) and Love Is Blind (contestants get together before seeing each other) are not particularly orgasmic, though they are positioned as the perfect pandemic watch. The payoff of edging requires real chemistry and it helps to have some real stakes thrown in.

Which is not to say it can’t be fictional. There are nine sex scenes in Normal People. Actually, there are more than nine, but there are nine between the two superficially polar-opposite teens we follow from high school to college. (There are only 12 episodes). Try finding a story about Normal People that doesn’t mention its horniness. You can’t; horniness defines it. Obviously, being particularly susceptible in lockdown to anything related to the possibility of sex has affected how we respond to it, but this is also the kind of hotness that transcends pandemics. Let me explain, with Connell and his little chain.

Connell (Paul Mescal) isn’t just hot because he looks like an animated version of Michelangelo’s David, he’s hot because he looks like an animated version of Michelangelo’s David and is shy. He is hot because he is entirely uncomfortable in his own skin despite inhabiting skin in which he should be entirely comfortable — he is a super-smart, super-handsome, super-athletic white man; how much better can he have it? Connell is hot because despite all of that, he can’t stop staring at the guileless-verging-on-neurodivergent-poor-man’s-Anne-Hathaway Marianne (Daisy Edgar-Jones) when Marcia Brady (that’s not her name, but does she ever look like her) can’t stop staring at him. He is hot because he is charmed as fuck when Marianne, during their second kiss, blurts out the “guy” question: “Now can we take our clothes off?” He is hot because he gives Marianne an out during her first time. He is hot because he takes Marianne’s advice about his future. He is hot because he is inconsolable when he realizes how badly he has treated her by keeping them secret. Connell is hot because as much as Marianne is at his mercy, he is even more at hers.

And the sex scenes in Normal People are hot because the director realizes all of this — that the hotness is as much in everyone’s heads as it is in their bodies. “In some movies, they treat sex scenes like they treat car chases or gun fights, like an opportunity to try a different form of filmmaking,” Lenny Abrahamson told the Irish magazine Hot Press. “How I shot, if we were moving from dialogue to sex, there’s no point where we enter a different dimension, it’s just a continuation of their interaction.” The way the show is filmed, the confined settings, the proximity of the camera to their faces, their eyes — all of it magnifies the intimacy. But it isn’t just in the shooting, it’s also in the choreography. With the help of intimacy coordinator Ita O’Brien, every frisson between Connell and Marianne — from every long gaze and every small touch to all that heavy breathing in flagrante — coalesces into an intoxicating six-hour expression of the fluid physical connection between two characters whose psychological connection (whose verbal agreement, even) came first. It’s like nothing else exists but them. These two are entirely in it with each other.

While Run is less about what’s in their heads than what’s coming out of their mouths, its not-so-brief encounter on a train has a similarly close-quartered intimacy. The HBO series stars Merritt Wever as Ruby, a wife and mom of two, and Domhnall Gleeson as Billy, a Jordan Peterson type. The two exes reunite after 15 years on a cross-country trip to escape their lives. She has her family to lose, he has his book deal. The stakes are slightly uneven, but their banter is not: their edgeplay is their wordplay. Like Normal People, the camera stays close to the two lovers who are already confined in their seats (and, later, “roomette”) shoulder to shoulder, face to face, almost mouth to mouth. Just like we do, they become so hot off each other’s proximity that they are forced to take breaks to secretly masturbate in the bathroom. Both of them. Separately.

But here again, as in Normal People, the woman ultimately has all the power. With a family back home, this is Ruby’s encounter to take or leave, not Billy’s. It is her thirst that fuels the ride, not his. “I turned up to have sex,” she says. And later, “I want to fuck you… now.” These exclamations are all the more pregnant for the person saying them — Wever herself has admitted she did not see herself as a lead in a rom-com (Gleeson had already done About Time). And yet here she is not only in one, but subverting it. A man admitting he wants to fuck a woman who might not want to fuck him isn’t transgressive, it’s a cliché. But a woman admitting she wants to fuck a man (more conventionally attractive than she is, more successful, more single) who might reject her? That’s hot. So will he say yes? Do we even need him to anymore? “Holding back on the sex was always something we knew we had to do,” creator Vicky Jones told Refinery29. “Because it’s not really a will-they-won’t-they, since they do. It’s, will they have sex and how?” But with foreplay this good, the sex can’t help but be an anti-climax.

That upending convention, that the woman dominates really, suggests why the queen of edging is Portrait of a Lady on Fire, a queer love story by a queer filmmaker (Céline Sciamma) about a painter named Marianne (Noémie Merlant) and her subject, Héloïse (Adèle Haenel). There is no dilution here by the well-trod tropes of male sexuality, there is only a pair of  women drowning in each other. The female gaze turns in on itself as Marianne’s view of Héloïse becomes ours. The film’s title summons the slow burn of their relationship, with every new plateau advancing so achingly slowly — Marianne even seeks consent before repositioning Héloïse’s arm as she sits for her, which is the first time they touch — that every act, when it comes, is that much more extreme, the whole thing mimicking that aforementioned menacing “massive extended orgasm.” It takes 13 minutes for the heroines to meet, despite being in the same house, and even then, one of them is only introduced from behind in a black head-to-toe cloak, a funereal tease. This is no meet-cute; it’s the slowest reveal ever, with her cloak fluttering in the breeze until a mess of blond strands escape, which almost make you gasp despite yourself, before the whole hood falls to expose the back of a blond head. And then, suddenly, the faceless woman is running to her death, we think, until she stops right at the edge of a cliff and, abruptly, turns, her flushed face, her great blue eyes, downplaying the grand mort to a petit mort. “I’ve dreamt of that for years,” Héloïse says breathlessly, post-coitally. A pure distillation of the female apex, no wonder the French, their sexual legacy defined by males, thought the film wasn’t erotic enough.

* * *

The hottest scene in Normal People, ergo the hottest scene of my isolation, doesn’t actually include an orgasm. And it, fittingly, takes a while, not arriving until the near the end of the second half of the series, which was directed by Hettie Macdonald. Now in college, no longer dating, Connell and Marianne are sort-of-not-really watching some sports game in Connell’s hot, cramped childhood room in a haze of hormones. Everything is sweating. She stares at him. He stares at the screen. She pretends to sleep. He gets up. “Want some ice cream?” He goes, she stays. He returns. It’s not ice cream, it’s penis-shaped rocket popsicles. And the room is dripping in sex. When Marianne stretches out her bare feet to his end of the bed, I squeak. She says she wants him to kiss her. He says he does too — the pain on his face! — but they always end badly and he doesn’t want to lose her friendship. Fuck. She gets up to leave, telling him not to drop her off at home ‘cause he’ll miss the rest of the match. Olive branch: “I forgot there was a match on, to be honest.” Game on.

Even though the sex is ultimately abandoned (I won’t spoil it), it doesn’t matter. This prelude is more satisfying than 99 percent of the orgasms I’ve ever watched. Despite all the sexual tension, the woman still ultimately commands the room. Theirs and ours. In that Hot Press interview, director Lenny Abrahamson, who shot the first six episodes, laughed perversely about the show coming out during a worldwide pandemic. “You start to miss the human touch, people’s skin — and that is all over the show,” he said. “God help everybody!” But it wasn’t Abrahamson behind the episode I’m talking about, it was a woman. And while it’s true that thirst can hurt, it can also take the edge off, as that scene choreographed by three women — conceived of by Rooney, directed by Macdonald, managed by O’Brien — proves. No one finished, but it wasn’t about that. Because all the elements were there, all that want and all that permission. And that was enough for me, if for no one else. And what was that line again? “When it comes to pleasure, women are the first in line.”

* * *

Soraya Roberts is a culture columnist at Longreads.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/3g6M8As via IFTTT