#so therefore if drag is ''inherently sexual''

[werewolf-cuddles]

Gotta love how when the "drag is inherently sexual" crowd are presented with an objectively non-sexual instance of drag in a piece of media they like, they'll immediately jump to insisting that it isn't drag, and get mad at the person who brought it up for "making it weird/gross", or even going as far as to call them a pedo.

Anyway, drag isn't inherently sexual, and if you disagree you are objectively wrong.

[ilikekidsshows]

Lately I've been seeing a lot of people attacking others for shipping a problematic ship in X and this somewhat bring back a bad memories when I was still active in ml tweet back then.

It was around Luka episode introduction, I think when I saw someone asked Thomas about Luka's age and he said Luka is Juleka's brother, older by 2 years. Make senses considering we never see him in Dupont and how he has part time job that time. But I also saw how people feel disgusted because Luka being Marinette love interest who's older than her makes him a potential groomer because of the imbalance power dynamic.

thing is, when I looked back at the reason why people become anti Lukanette and how current Adrienette dynamic is, it become... Very funny if not ironic? Like how they talked about power dynamic and imbalance in Lukanette and yet remain silent at how much imbalance the current Adrienette is. This also make me realize that you don't need to have an age gap in a ship to make an imbalance power dynamic or be the older one in a ship to groom the other, because power isn't always about who's older, but who has more information and knowledge. Maybe I'm jumping too far, idk, but aren't what Ladybug did in s4 basically groomed Cat Noir into obedience? By gaslight him, manipulating information, silent treatment and that judo throw.

---

I will say this: people online have turned the concept of grooming into both this big, scary boogeyman but also this thing that happens constantly with so much ease it could be accidental. Basically, there's this idea that we need to constantly be on the lookout for groomers because the world is crawling with them. There's a reason for this: online fan spaces are easy hunting grounds for groomers and the internet acting as an in-between makes the people involved ignore personal boundaries more easily because it all feels less real. So of course terminally online youths are scared of a threat that exists primarily in terminally online ingroups.

So, a lot of fanspaces treat age differences between characters as inherently suspicious. It doesn't matter if they're both adults or both kids, if there's an age difference, it's “grooming” to these people. Like, yeah, it's reasonable to wonder what someone in a very different life situation would want with someone who’s basically “dragging behind” from their perspective, but sometimes you just like a person and want to hang out with them and don’t necessarily want anything with them. Grooming, in this context, is a very specific thing that isn’t just about age. It’s a pattern of behavior where someone purposefully manipulates someone else to get them to fill a certain role for them, usually that of a romantic and/or sexual partner. Grooming is actions, not a situation.

Not all unequal power dynamics involve grooming, but I get what you mean. It feels like there should be a word to describe this kind of relationship, but there isn't anything specific. It's just “toxic relationship”, “one sided relationship” and “being used” when Marinette is explicitly shown benefiting and preferring when her partner doesn't ever show any personal feelings about anything. She prefers him joking and therefore keeping a distance between herself and his feelings. It’s the same way with Luka, whose family situation makes it look like he’s gone through parentification or at least suffers from abandonment issues, which would make Luka another case of a traumatized boyfriend whose trauma manifests in a way that Marinette can and does take advantage of.

The thing that makes Marinette not the groomer in either of these situations is that she didn't cause these boys to act this way; they conveniently came to her pre-traumatized/conditioned and she merely shamelessly took advantage. In the case of Cat Noir the matter is grayer, since his responses to her are reactions to her treatment of him as someone inconsequential, but him reacting to such treatment with submission instead of outrage was trained into him by Gabriel and Emilie.

[nancydrewwouldnever]

The good thing about a long commute is that it leaves you with plenty of time to think, so you can really pick at those things in the corner of your brain.

I’m about to half-assed pop psychology all over this crap.

So, yesterday was really interesting from a picking apart Chris Evan’s subconscious kind of an angle. I don’t want to look at the still photos montage. I only want to think about the first and third posted video – the mouth video and the Mario Kart video.

We now know from the scare video dump in January and this dump yesterday that there’s a lot of material floating around out there on cell phones. (But, yeah, we already guessed that, didn’t we.) So, we have to really start finely parsing why a person would choose two videos as bizarrely uncomfortable as those he posted to try to sell a “serious love story” on the holiday for the serious love story. Because neither of those videos sold love or even affection – they sold the subtext of disdain.

When you both say in a video you post “you’re not going to like this” or write “she hates this, but I find it funny,” you are communicating an inherent lack of respect for the person you are showing as the subject of said videos. There’s no way you can look at either video and not see that in some way Alba is being portrayed, whether intentionally or not, as somehow inept or incompetent, hapless or helpless. She “doesn’t know what to say” or do in the first one; she is being put physically in a position which has inherent sexualized overtones from porn culture. He is physically holding her down, to a certain way of thinking. In the second video she struggles to play a video game originated before she was ever born(!), and he finds this ineptitude to be hilarious. From my way of viewing, as the audience, I don’t find either video to be indicative of cute couples’ behavior behind the scenes, but rather of an older dominant male putting a younger more inexperienced female into shaming/ridiculing situations. And then blasting those situations to the world via social media.

Why would you ever make those choices for those videos, knowing you probably have others to choose from that show situations far less riddled with open-ended interpretation. (Let’s be real, he could have shown them skiing at Okemo, not much subtext there.)

This is where we get into the pop psychology angle, which I’m probably just going to massacre, but oh well. We all started musing about that “I hate myself” quote the minute we read it in SMA. Now, I invite you to think about the psychology concept of projection.

I think that self-hatred and self-loathing he holds is far deeper and far more insidious than any of us can comprehend. I’ll give him some credit, he’s done a somewhat good job of covering it up and still having career success even while dragging it around.

But it’s bad, and I think he directs a lot of it into his interpersonal relationships with women.

That self-hatred and self-loathing is what keeps him from having true long-lasting and healthy romantic partnerships. He subconsciously detaches parts of it from himself, through his insecurities, and projects those insecurities onto his partner. Therefore, he’s already given himself an out for why the relationship will fail, but it’s not on him, because he’s projected it onto them. However, it is always on him, even if he can’t see that, because he’s never working on the actual root cause of why everything doesn’t work, doesn’t fit, doesn’t fulfill his intense emotional lacks: because he’s never acknowledged that there is some intense trauma there somewhere that set this self-hate and self-loathing into action, and that it needs to be brought into the light with therapy and worked on. Nothing will change until that happens.

Instead, the subconscious cycles and patterns are self-perpetuating, so he will continue to search out situations which feed the cycles. Ergo, always someone he can project onto, not someone self-realized enough to be the kind of person who could actually help him come to terms with his own trauma.

So, whatever this toxic situation with Alba is, it is even more toxic because it serves his subconscious need to project all his own insecurities onto her. And she’s in no way capable of stopping that, because she just doesn’t have the life or relationship experience to do so. So, I postulate that what you see in those two videos, that’s him projecting his own self-disdain, self-ridicule, and immaturity onto her in a situation he has perfectly created for it. If you’re watching those videos and you feel like Chris is viewing her through a lens of shaming or derision, know it’s not just her: he’s viewing himself the same way as well.

So, I’ll end by paraphrasing a great line from Hamlet: Get thee to a nunnery. (Apt, given Chris also has a really off-the-rails Madonna/Whore complex.)

Chris – get thee to a psychoanalyst’s couch.

(Freud's actual couch.)

[sailoragere]

Hello, and welcome to the sweet home base of #sailoragere. (Promise I’m not a witch!) /ref

I'll be your host, Serendipity. Dipsy for short. If you didn’t read up there in my bio already, I’m white, and an autistic adult who is currently 25. You may be wondering,

“What is #sailoragere?”

It is to be an established hashtag to share and create age regression content related to Sailor Moon.

After close to a decade of shying away and being kinda desperate for agere stuff of my special interest, I felt brave enough to create this blog for the purpose of breaching--er..bridging the gap.

What will be featured? What can I post in the tag? What can I ask you/talk to you about?

Lots of things! For starters,

💗 Artwork!

💙 Fanfiction/Headcanons (AUs are encouraged)

❤️ Moodboards

💚 Outfit collages

🧡 Stimboards

and whatever else can be thought of!

(All versions/iterations of Sailor Moon are encouraged: Manga, 90s Anime, Crystal/Eternal/Cosmos, PGSM, CD Dramas, Stageplays, etc.)

On the blog itself, there will be a focus on positive posts, cute things such as plushies, toys, stimboards, stimming in general, aesthetics, “-cores,” that remind me of the characters and their canon culture. I will also be sharing my own works from time to time.

Sailor Moon used to be marketed primarily towards children in its American market in the 90s, but you may or may not have known that its Japanese target demographic used to be children as well!! There’s a seemingly endless amount of cute little trinkets and merchandise that appeal to me, therefore I’ll be sharing some of it here, too.

As for you, if you prefer to stay low or are just feeling shy/anxious, it’s okay. Just swap to Anonymous in the ask box and we can assign you an emoji to better accommodate you! (Please keep in mind I am chronically ill and will likely take a while to respond!)

I’d love to see what others come up with, and find fellow fans of Sailor Moon who also regress! Please spread the word by reblogging this post! (I could really actually use a boost)

Please click "keep reading" before following/interacting with this blog or hashtag! Don’t fall under any of the below and you’re good to to use the tag / interact!

‼️ The following will not be allowed nor tolerated. (In no particular order of importance:)

💔Pedophiles/Zoophiles/"MAPS"/"NOMAPS"/RADQUEERS

Self-explanatory.

💔Anti-antis"/"Proshippers"/Pro-fic/"Problematics" (literally so many different ways of putting this nowadays...)

Also self-explanatory.

💔Racism towards black, indigenous, and POC.

This will apply to any content shared within the blog or hashtag. Don’t drag others down for headcanoning or depicting a certain character as mixed Asian. Just so long as their canon Japanese culture and race are not being erased, anything goes. Anti-racist is the way to be.

💔Homophobia/Transphobia (TERF, Radfem, etc).

We love and support the LGBTQ+ community in this space. It’s totally valid to express gender and/or affectional orientation through your favorite characters. Romantic and/or platonic shipping is encouraged! (But please understand that shipping in a sexual context will never be allowed here or in the tag.)

💔Ableism towards autistic people (otherwise known as autmisia), or any other disability.

This includes anything relating to autism or disabilities be it a headcanon, piece of art or someone using the hashtag! The very person behind this blog is disabled and wishes to cultivate a diverse and inclusive environment for disabled systems, system littles, regressors, carers, and other individuals.

💔 Equating diapers to only a kink/fetish and/or something to make fun of/something that degrades a person.

They're inherently a disability aid, so they will always be included here!! Be ableist elsewhere. Same in bold goes for any other disability aids.

💔 Sexualizing age regression/agere and/or supporting others that do so.

Adult topics are not appropriate here and therefore will not be brought up. This is meant to be a space to escape and heal from that sort of trauma. (Personal to the admins in particular)

Speaking of trauma, that sort of discussion will be allowed, too, as age regression tendencies often stem from it. And these characters have been through it. Said content will of course be tagged accordingly. ^^

While this blog is fiction focused, above all, we care about the world and the people in it. The intention is to do that by sharing important posts about current events. I will tag those specific posts with warnings and #not agere just to be safe.

If I catch anyone misusing the tag for any of the above, you will be blocked! Please respect our boundaries for my sake and a lot of yours! With this all said, I cannot put forth the energy to scrutinize every single follower or interaction online anymore due to it becoming damaging for my mental health!

Play it safe and be kind to others!

[ivygorgon]

AN OPEN LETTER to STATE GOVERNORS & LEGISLATURES

REDS! Let The Silly People Be Clowns! Protect the American Right to Free Speech!

2 so far! Help us get to 5 signers!

Recent court rulings in Indiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia have underscored the importance of upholding the rights of transgender Americans. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Indiana ruled against misgendering in schools, while a federal judge in Tennessee blocked a drag ban, citing likely unconstitutionality. The Supreme Court declined to reinstate a sports ban in West Virginia, allowing a young transgender athlete to continue participating. Both of these rulings do miracles in protect cisgender and transgender students alike from discrimination, bullying, invasive scrutiny, and sexual assault.

These victories are a testament to the power of the judiciary in safeguarding the rights of marginalized communities. It is crucial to uphold the American right to free speech, which includes the art and performance of drag. Drag is not inherently sexual or inappropriate; it is a form of expression deserving protection. Therefore, it is requested that all bans on drag be dismissed, in line with the spirit of these recent court victories.

Protect the American Right to Free Speech! Drag as an art form and performance is not inherently sexual and should be recognized as protected speech. Let us dismiss all bans on drag and protect the American right to expression. Many of us, including you and your peers, have engaged in light-hearted instances of cross-dressing, emphasizing the playful nature of this expression. For the sake of our constitutional values, let us embrace diversity and respect for all forms of self-expression. For all that our constitution is worth, let the silly people be clowns!

▶ Created on��April 5 by Ret. SGT Guild, Veteran Chapter Leader at SPARTApride.org

📱 Text SIGN PHFSPG to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW IVYPETITIONS to 50409

💘 Q'u lach' shughu deshni da. 🏹 "What I say is true" in Dena'ina Qenaga

[essaysonbanality]

Leather

A man on Grindr once told me that “leather was like drag.” I pressed him on the point multiple times, but he couldn’t say much more than that. He typed it out with such finality that it seemed to him perfectly self-explanatory. I guess I understood what he was getting at, but I hate pronouncements. Pronouncements are for people who somehow have lived in this world as I have and still have the balls to think that they can be right. Maybe it is my millennial hemming and hawing that is the real problem.

Though I hated how he said it, I got the gist of what that man on Grindr meant. Gay men wear leather to become someone else. Just like in drag, there are entire leather productions and competitions where various men wearing leather go up on stage and perform for an audience. I have caught glimpses of these shows sometimes while I have hung around the Eagle or Bullet. The newly announced winner demonstrates the appropriate shock and surprise and receives a leather sash with big bolded letters pronouncing him as “Mr. Bullet Leather 2023.”

There are layers here; some stretching back to rituals and observances only known by the daddies and the boys who love them. Some reason that this system of competition exists and exalts certain characteristics. I am not intending to suggest that we are performing on the bones of old ritual that has lost all meaning. Quite the opposite actually. I think the entire production is imbued with more ritual significance now more than ever.

Leather serves as a stark contrast to drag in a lot of ways. While drag is meant to accentuate femininity and challenge gender conventions, leather attempts to solidify roles and to reinvigorate an image of masculinity. But it is an image of men refracted and warped across time from an era immediately prior to AIDS that gay men seem to yearn for. The idea of men who wear leather jackets and Levi jeans that draw all eyes to their bulge, sport an aggressively prominent mustache, and struts with a cigar in mouth. Except this man existed in the 1960s and 1970s, and now he does not.

Oh sure, that man probably never truly existed. He was always fantasy. An amalgamation of characteristics that a gay man wanted both to emulate and be dominated by. But somewhere between then and now that man went from living to extinct. Now at every leather bar in America you can watch locals attempt to recreate that now extinct man for an audience who never met him. Like a game of telephone across generations and time until you are left with men who are being worn by leather — not wearing leather.

The reason this ritual is so much more important now is because the oft-revered leather daddy symbol harkens back to a time when gay men had purpose. Cruising, bathhouses, gay bars, leather events, and many other subversive acts were radical before the 1990’s because they either directly challenged the status quo or were the only means by which gay men could subvert it. Without the radical or subversive element which imbued these spaces and acts with meaning, many have lost their appeal and edge.

This degradation over time is a topic that modern queer authors have been grappling with for the past few years. Books like Cruising; Gay Bar; or Times Square Red, Times Square Blue have raised the alarm bells on the disappearance of gay public encounters. These books all typically have the same premise: a famed gay institution is dying and that is a bad thing because of X. While all these authors acknowledge that these institutions were human and therefore contained problematic elements, they all speak to a common loss. The loss of equitable sexual relations between men, cross-class commingling inherent in public encounters, and a subversive edge that keeps the whole thing interesting.

Radical sexual acts are now all about bespoke and customized experiences meant to appeal exactly to your sexual desires. No longer do you need to traipse through some bushes in your local public park before weariness has you settling for the older, out-of-shape man you saw milling around. Just open the app and find the exact model you are looking for and they will be at your doorstep before you know it. Even the glory holes in bathhouses have expanded in size so people no longer have to suffer the horror of enjoying a sexual experience without knowing the exact age, height, and BMI of the person they are blowing.

No doubt there are justifiable fears and reasons driving this reality. Young gay men raised by concerned straight parents who passed on their fear of that “gay disease” AIDS, a population raised on the “stranger danger” curriculum, and a culture which, despite preaching equity, has yet to apply that to lust. But one can’t help feel that something went awry here.

What is left then? Groups of men putting on custom leather gear all bought from shops now offering express global shipping on orders over $40. Elaborate themed nights at leather bars catering to an increasingly bored community that has resorted to newer kinks in the name of subversion. Picky cruisers who would rather walk three hours in a dark park than touch someone they don’t immediately find attractive. Attractive men who claim that their commodified sexual acts broadcast on Twitter and OnlyFans are really in the name of liberation for all.

Leather men and the spaces they inhabit have taken on a new desperate edge. The ceremonies and pageantry becoming an increasingly tenuous link to a time and place that no longer exists, but that young gay men wished they were alive to experience. Vests, chaps, and mustaches all seeming to say “Remember? This used to have a purpose!”

Come to think of it maybe that guy on Grindr was right all along. Leather is sort of like drag.

[atheostic]

Can you even explain why introducing children to drag is so essential?

Can you explain why NOT introducing children to drag is so essential?

What exactly is so bad about dudes in dresses and funky makeup reading picture books to kids or doing other family-friendly stuff?

Why is a dude in a dress and makeup inherently not appropriate for kids? Do you think women wearing pants is inherently inappropriate for kids? If not, what makes them different beyond the fact that women wearing "men's clothes" has been normalized already?

Is wearing dresses or makeup inherently sexual, and if so why is it okay for WOMEN to wear them and therefore be sexual in front of kids?

Or, if it's degrading, then why is it okay for women to be degraded but not men?

Young children learn by modelling the behaviours of older people around them.

Children seeing people who are different from themselves being accepted and treated as equals models to them that differences aren't a big deal and that we should accept and be kind to people regardless of how they look. That no matter how they choose to visually express themselves via how they present themselves to the world they will be accepted and loved.

Also, drag shows are fun.

[beesofink]

Buddy they ain't real, calm tf down

If you don't wanna see that shit just block the tag

Listen, maybe you mean well, but the "They aren't real" advice is HORRIBLE.

Yes. They are fictional. But that doesn't mean it isn't problematic. Fiction is influenced by reality, and more often than not fiction can influence reality. Let me use an example. However, a major trigger warning for H@zbin H0tel, and mentions of r@pe. I'm not saying Ribbun is r@pey, but those two things are still mentioned in this.

Let's say that a victim of abuse watches something. And that material winds up glorifying the abuse they go through. This would reinforce that what they're going through is "okay" and "normal", and could also retraumatize them if they got out of that relationship. And before anyone says "but shouldn't they know?"

1. A victim is usually taught that what they're going through is "normal" and shouldn't be questioned.

2. "Shouldn't they know?" Unintentionally or not, is victim blaming. The fault is always on the abuser, not the victim.

Let me use a popular animated example of this: Valentino from Hazbin Hotel.

I wish I never had to mention him, but this is important. For anyone who doesn't know, he is a r@pist who abuses Angel Dust. While it could've been WONDERFUL representation of abuse in the adult industry, it is often:

- Sexualized and shown without warning (A r@pe fetishist storyboarded the scene and Vivziepop, who fetishes r@pe herself as seen on her old Zoophobia channel if you look at the playlists wrote it).

- Joked about it in a horrible manner (Vivziepop made the "the visuals the ¢ums with it" joke when advertising "Poison", a song about being r@ped. Also while this is a different character, Sir Pentious was dragged into a room to get r@ped, while he was drunk and crying out for help. As you'd expect from Vivzie, she made this a joke.)

Those are only 2 of the MANY things that are done wrong in Hazbin Hotel. I won't go into a full on rant on how terribly it's done, since:

1. It's been talked about a lot on Twitter already.

2. This is about Ribbun and the glorification of abuse, not Hazbin Hotel.

The reason I bring up Hazbin Hotel for this is because it led to a lot of victims being retraumatized and horrified. While yes, some were fine with it, Vivziepop not putting in a warning was atrocious of her. And even if there was a warning, it was still executed in an awful and disgusting way.

If you want links for proof, I'll be happy to provide them.

So what I'm saying is, even if it *is* fictional, it can cause issues, such as normalization of abuse in one's mind or retraumatizing someone. Ribbun would be one of those ships, because Jax pulls things at Gangle's expense, and like I said in my original post on this, even pulls a gun on her at one point. It would NOT be a healthy relationship, and therefore shouldn't be treated as one. I'm not saying "never write these relationships", I'm saying "if you're going to write a relationship like this, do so in a manner that properly shows why it's bad and how it hurts the victim." And before anyone else says "But what about enemies to lovers?", it is still shipping a relationship that in the original and is therefore inherently, abusive.

However, you are right about the tag thing. I don't know why I didn't think about it at first. Though there is a chance I have, and my memory is just fuzzy. Either way, thank you for the reminder on that.

[d1sc01nf3rn0]

Rant regarding the whole gen z study thing and sex in media:

If you already know that the argument conservative and far right momevents most commonly use, is that everything remotely related to the LGBTQ community is inherently sexual, and therefore should not be around minors. Why, by that logic, would you start arguing that all sex representation in media is perverse, unnecessary, and should be eradicated? What do you think is going to end happening? What do you think is going to happen to diverse representation in media?

I'm gen z too, older gen z, and a lesbian; so I suppose that a lot of the younger generations may not know what it is like to grow up with your identity being considered a sexual topic, and therefore have 0 actual resources or representation about it outside adult content.

The only reason we're at the point LGBTQ kids can be it more openly, is because we

stopped sexualizing it, even if we're still working on it

started visibilizing LGBTQ relationships and people on media

started normalizing sex, and all that comes with it (dealing with misoginy, sex education, resources, etc)

Not saying that kids should go watch Euphoria or something; I'm just saying that when they reach the point when they start to think about their sexuality, there should be stuff available that isn't purely educational. You forget that for a lot people, series, games, movies, etc, are the only resource they have. I had to learn that I was a lesbian by watching the L world at 14. And I had to watch it on a pirated site at a friend's house. I didn't know lesbians were a thing that existed, I was a Mexican kid that came from working class with an homophobic mother.

Just a few weeks ago, my hometown canceled a drag story hour reading event at a book fair. Why? Because conservatives and far right weirdos consider everything related to the community to be a perverse sexual deviation, and that includes drag too, and argue that we should be at clubs, not around kids. None of the drag queens that were going to read had ever done an adult show at a club mind you. All of them focused their work on activism, so their presentations were at activism related events as masters of ceremony. They didn't care about that.

SheRa and the princesses of power is literally rated M18 in some countries, and 7+ in others. You can guess why. That's what we're going to end up with. Stop being naive and pretend that media with LGBTQ characters aren't going to be the most affected with this argument. Stop pretending that conservative weirdos aren't going to use you as cannon fodder on their censorship crusade, and that you're not giving it to them on a silver plate. Let's not forget how episodes from Steven Universe, a show with ZERO mention of sex, had episodes pulled in some countries just because of homophobia. If you put anything remotely related to sex under a 18+ classification, what do you thing is going to happen? Where will teenagers go when they want to know stuff? We're still dealing with a generation that went on p0rn sites instead of getting sexual education, and we know how that goes. You don't want that.

And ffs, those classifications exist for a reason. Learn about them, make parents learn about them. Our generation had kids watching awful stuff on the internet due to a lack of supervision and content awareness. The amount of kids that watched Squid Game in my country is absurd. I've seen game developers on Twitter complain about how platforms like Steam give their games a lower classification to sell more, and how they keep fighting for their games to be given the proper one. Change that, inform yourself, educate other people, hold companies accountable; don't watch a 18+ rated movie, and then complain that it has stuff that's not suited for kids. Be a better parent/caregiver/sibling/teacher/etc.

Part of the problem is that lot of other older gen z have unrealistic ideas of what content is oriented to teenagers, and what content teenagers actually want. They're mostly using Euphoria as an example. Euphoria is not a series oriented for teenagers, nor is it something they watch. Someone even mentioned Skins, and it ended up before a lot of the gen z even became teens.

Teenagers now are watching things like Hearstopper. The Heartstopper comic has a chapter where someone goes to buy condoms with their friends, since they spent multiple times considering having sex with their partner. It's a topic that is covered in multiple chapters and talks a lot about having safe sex, waiting for when you're ready, etc. That is such an IMPORTANT and NECESSARY topic for teenagers to about, that older generations never had the chance to see.

And if at this point your counterargument is "well, is not about the sex is about how it's portrayed, so Heartstopper is okay". Look at yourself at the mirror, and realize the fool you are by giving the conservatives tools; because you can't be bothered to actually analize and think about what you consume, and over generalize and simplify things. Actually speak about the real issue: mysoginy, romatization of sex violence, stereotypes, racist bias. THOSE are the real issue, no "the unnecessary sex". And as long as you don't point it out, those things will keep existing.

MORE IMPORTANTLY the study everyone is talking about is being BADLY misrepresented, and the results do not compose all the gen z population. Statistics aren't absolutes, and the study touches more topics than just sex in media. Mysoginy, racism, forced heterosexual plots, sexism, etc. Those topics where discussed. In a study that's focused on USA. You're over simplifying it. And a lot of you are just weaponizing it in a way that fits you.

I'm not surprised that a lot of you are also SWERFs, that tells me everything I need to know about your stance. I'm not gonna expand on why SWERFs are wrong, I'm not going to speak over sex workers, they have talked at length about how these things actually put them in danger. If you refuse to accept that fact, that's on you.

And last, and not least important: you need to evaluate your own relationship with sex and the ideas you have about adult content. I grew up in a catholic conservative country, I basically had to teach all my partners and friends about sex stuff, because the schools and their parents refused to do it. Among the worst things I heard was: "two girls doing it doesn't count as sex", "you can get pregnant via oral", "being bisexual is just a phase everyone grows out of", "having sex and it hurting is normal", "I don't know how the parts of my body are called". Those things were normalized because no one bothered to visibilize them. Those things were normalized because asking and knowing about it was seen as bad. But somehow soap operas with "steamy scenes" at dinner time was okay. I wish I had the chance to grow up with stuff like Heartstopper.

Y'all are being naive, privileged, and trashing years and decades of efforts to normalize sexuality. From the sex liberation movement (even slashers film were affected by this), to things like the slut march. Do not let yourself become weaponized by conservatives trying to censor us.

[just-antithings]

Genuine question because I'm super confused: Why is it bad to not want to be called queer? I have seen quite a few people who, having been called that as a direct insult most of their life, find it triggering and don't want it used on them without their consent. Why is that wrong? Am I missing something?

Alrighty let's fucking gooooo.

Nothing is inherently wrong with not wanting to be called queer. However unless someone is talking directly to the person in question no one is calling people queer against their will.

If you hear/see the words "queer community" and think I don't like being called queer, then they aren't talking about you. The queer community specifically refers to those who people who prefer to be under the label queer and that's it. Period end of story.

Also you are missing something, quite a lot actually.

Queer has been in use as a derogatory term since 1516 but then it had no connection to and Sexuality it simply went a person was odd in 1894, it was added to a dictionary simply meaning homosexual

Then in 1914, only 20 years later, people started using it as a description of themselves the person who first did this notably said "derogatory from the outside, not from within" this is when we see it actually use for non allocishets. Thus being used within the broader "lgbt+" community it was as a self descriptor. At this point the dictionary still used queer in the sense of counterfeit money and again nothing to do with Sexuality this lasted up until 1965 when Webster adds a bit stating queer is slang. At no point yet has it been claimed as derogatory slang just bog standard slang. Slang means informal language, some other slang is lowkey or highkey, neither being considered derogatory.

We start seeing the more derogatory shift in the 1980s and this was largely in part because of the aids epidemic which is more Reagan's fault then lgbt+ folks.

Then in the 1990s it has become a radical movement lgbt+ people want the word back "we're here we're queer get used to it". By doing this taking power away from the people trying to use it against us, it's a badge of honor, it no longer just means homosexual it means any people who are not heterosexual or not cis, lgbtq+ the q means queer or questioning, but many questioning people love the word queer due to its ambiguity. And that lasted until 2019 when terfs decided they wanted to drag it through the mud.

That's right this most recent wave of people being against the word queer is terf propaganda. They want to get rid of the self descriptor of queer because it's too inclusive for them, they can't exclude people from the queer community and they hate that because they hate trans people.

So I covered everything you were missing and I hope this helps you understand a bit better.

But

TLDR:

Queer is a self descriptor and is not being used on people who don't want it to be because the queer community is only for people who want to be in it, therefore any broad use of queer isn't talking about them anyway.

[murfpersonalblog]

A few important things:

"But I still feel like the entire Louis is a woman argument boils down to Louis is abused therefore he is a woman."

People are misunderstanding/confusing being a woman with being female-coded.

Coding (a la the Hays Code I've mentioned before X X) is a metaphorical parallel to subliminally reflect/represent certain experiences, dynamics, models & frameworks; in order to convey specific messages. A coded character doesn't have to BE that which they represent--the whole point is that they AREN'T that (queer-coding does this all the time, where cis/straight characters are meant to convey specific queer traits without inherently BEING queer). In this case, being gender-coded doesn't mean that a character IS that gender (obviously--we all have eyes); just that they represent/reflect particular aspects OF that gender's typically associated dynamics.

In IWTV, power imbalances/dynamics within nuclear family units (specifically) and larger communities (generally) are the main theme. Rolin Jones, Caroll Cutshall, and Mara LePere-Schloop all point out the uneven dynamics at play that point to what Louis represents, and where he sits on the hierarchical pyramid: at the bottom, below BOTH Lestat AND Armand.

"I don't think a self insert charachter has to be the same gender as the author and again I don't see him as a woman at all but going with what Anne said she also wanted Cher to play Lestat at some point"

NO. Anne wanted Cher to play LOUIS, read the quote again. Cuz even when Louis was a WHITE man he was still the metaphorical MOTHER/woman; and no one had a single problem seeing Brad Pitt's long-haired bishounen through a female-coded gaze. But suddenly he's a Black man and people wanna act brand new? SUS!

Abusive Mothers

"Yes Lestat's abuse has traits of toxic masculinity. That's the language in our society because most abuse is done by men. I don't think Lestat is a women (flamboyant gay man is right) but he's not a traditionally masculine man either. He expresses his emotions and is very comfortable with his sexuality. I think his relationship with Claudia is more similar to a mother daughter relationship than hers and Louis's. It's just an abusive and dysfunctional one."

I've already said my piece about Les's basis in dandyism & gender expression (X X), Claudia's abuse (X X X), and how Les raised Claudia. But again, just cuz Les is effeminate doesn't mean he's representing "more "of a mother--abusive/dysfunctional or otherwise. Again: Les is no Clytemnestra/Medea--the model "bad" wife/mother.

This tweet sums up everything better than I ever could:

Again: Lestat doesn't even represent Gabrielle (the emotionally abusive/negligent mother/spouse). Yes, they're both abused by Marquis de Lioncourt & ran away. They still occupy opposite ends of the power spectrum--he's still her Maker, and he still resents her for not giving him everything he felt he was ENTITLED to (a nasty AF God Complex patriarchal attitude Les carries into TotBT vs. LOUIS).

I really like Kaelio's post, cuz it shows the cycles of generational trauma and how Lestat becomes a cold & withholding parent to Claudia; while still acknowledging all the ways he's actually emulating his tyrannical FATHER, and NOT his mother. Even in Gabrielle's distance, she SUPPORTED Les when he needed her most: giving him the gun so he could hunt & become Wolfkiller, cashing in her inheritance so he could go to Paris, fighting his father when Les was dragged back kicking& screaming from the church & the Lelio commedia troupe--and being beside him in QotD & the Chateau in the PL Trilogy.

When did Lestat support Claudia's independence? 🤔 When he insulted her being self-educated & called her life "destitute & inconsequential" & choked TF out of her when she said she wanted to travel? When he chased her down like a slavecatcher when she got on that train and said he'd "grind her bones to dust"? Sure, he made Santiago let her say her piece & curse the audience into oblivion--right before she was burned to ash/dust. 🙄😒

Even when Gab crossdresses & asserts her (trans)gendered independence, Les is an oppressive patriarchal a-hole to her--and yet his stupid arse wonders for 100+ years why she never calls or sees him. 🤦 Cuz he wanted her to be his eternal mother/companion/Blood Spouse/HOUSEwife--when the HOUSE becomes her gilded CAGE.

Les was obsessed with living like a typical nuclear family & human HOUSEhold: Gab wanted to roam free in the jungles & wilderness; but Les kept furnishing houses with lavish furniture, making her go to the opera with him & blabbing about music! Sound familiar?

"She could not give me what I wanted of her. There was nothing I could do to make her what she would not be."

Again:

I don't disagree that Lestat represents motherhood via vampirism--it's long been established that vampires encompass BOTH sides of the mother/father paradigm:

"Lestat being more dominant and powerful and higher on the patriarchy ladder as a white man does not mean Louis is not on it."

I've never said Lou wasn't. But I disagree when y'all say Louis doesn't represent motherhood; especially when the only reasons any of y'all ever give boil down to Louis as a pimp & that he's not effeminate & he doesn't crossdress; while deliberately ignoring the ways that Lestat represents not only toxic masculinity, but the toxic patriarchy as well.

"He's a pimp. He's able to inherit and run a business, and one that exploits women at that.

What on earth does that have to do with how LESTAT treated him? 🤨 How did Lou being a pimp affect Lestat's mommy/abandonment issues, that led Lou to being beat within an inch of his life & incarcerated in that crypt of a house by the man who claimed to love him? Louis wasn't a pimp in 1x5 or 2x7! This is the same misdirection SANTIAGO used to smear Lou in front of that braindead audience & justify why they'd KILL him. The same BS used to justify/excuse Eric Garner & George Floyd's deaths! Its RACISM.

He expriences homophobia not sexism so he can still enjoy certain advantages if he masks it enough. He is in fact not a helpless housewife despite what Claudia claims."

I've never said he's the helpless housewife. I've always argued that Louis has POWER in his submission (a la the femme fatale), and that even being not AS powerful as Lestat, he still FIGHTS BACK (X X). But y'all keep assuming Victim = Helpless = Blameless, leaving zero room for a nuanced approach that can simultaneously see the ways that Lou IS an exploitative hypocritical a-hole, and is STILL a victim of white patriarchal gendered abuse.

"To call him a woman for being abused is assuming being abused and submissive are inherently feminine charachteristics which yikes. Or to call all gay men and men of color women because they don't get the full straight white man patriarchy package."

Stop acting like you're unfamiliar with the patented model of behavior and relationship dynamics at work. Lestans keep using that reductive argument/accusation, to act like I'm saying abuse = weak = woman. I'm saying the full package of interracial relationship Black gay man in 1910s-40s → systemically oppressed → socio-positionally vulnerable → "the unhappy housewife" → Ep5 abuse = female-coded. Louis PARALLELS the experiences of women vis a vis wives & mothers under abusive husbands. The lens through which Louis AS woman, not Louis IS woman, can be utilized to discuss the gendered power imbalance in Loustat's deliberately heteronormative family dynamic.

"Because show Louis is not particularly feminine at any point even in Paris or Dubai"

Now we get to the crux of the hypocrisy of it all. Gender's subjective, in the eye of the beholder. To you, Louis isn't feminine, cuz he doesn't look/act/dress according to the white rules that dictate what (white) femininity looks like to y'all. Lestat--A MAN sashaying penis-first into every effing room--can be Barbie, Mother, C*nt Queen all effing day, cuz his outward appearance & affectation fits the mold of the white woman flipping her long hair & twirling around in heels & flicking her wrists (again: see my posts on dandyism). Anything that veers from the heteronormative standard of (super)model behavior is automatically disqualified from the Uwu Olympics, and yet I'M the sexist misogynist cuz I say Lou's feminine/effeminate too.

Which has always been problematic with regard to....

wait for it....

RACE & MISOGYNOIR.

"And you can't have misogynoir against Louis because he is in fact a man in the text of the show and book despite however you want to personally interpret him."

Yes you can. (Meanwhile white!feminists will preach from the mountaintops that homophobia against (white) effeminate men is directly rooted in patriarchal/misogynist sexism against women, that stigmatizes any femininity within gay/straight men (X X X X X X X I literally just grabbed the first Google results cuz this is too easy)--but meanwhile Black gay men like Louis can't experience misogynoir--y'all are WILD! 🤦 But thank you for proving my point.)

I've seen plenty of Lestans who H A T E when Louis' called "Helen of Troy," cuz in their heads he doesn't represent what Helen does: the MYTH of the beautiful (white) woman & most desired creature of all time, whose face launched 1000 ships that sent the most formidable superpower burning down all cuz of tragic/doomed love.

They'll make all these posts reeling about how superpowered vamps like Lestat & Armand fall to their knees obsessed with keeping Louis around; teeheehee isn't it so funny, isn't it wild, they're down bad! down horrendous~! But then spasm like they're having a effing stroke the second you say Louis is Helen-coded.

Cuz in their heads, it's impossible to reconcile the idea(l) of the powerful white femme fatale or the treasured white feminine ideal with Black bodies, male or female; hypermasculinized even when they're VERY MUCH female/feminine/effeminate--which is why Black girls are aged up as Black women in the judicial system (X X) & hypersexualized white male gaze (which all informs the white female gaze); and why Black boys and men are stigmatized as raging sexual predators who're a threat to white (female) goodness/purity (which thus informs the white female gaze AGAINST seeing/accepting Black men as ever being on THEIR same level).

And we see this exact same attitude during the Trial, as the script/LESTAT weaponizes it against Louis.

(Black) Motherhood & Femininity

"his relationship with Claudia does not resemble a mother/duaghter relationship to me."

Again: LePere Schloop already confirmed how the show's BEEN subtly (& even overtly) signalling Louis' relationship with Claudia, and how he ultimately made peace with it: the shift in his existence from suicidal depression to Owning the Night, and owning up to his mistakes: thus, looking to the painting as the ideal representation of what he WANTED to be for Claudia: a mother sheltering her child.

Not that he IS Claudia's literal mother, or that he wanted to BE Claudia's literal mother--he's still DADDY Lou, ofc! But that the representative relationship between mother & child is sacrosanct; Isis & Horus, Madonna & Christ--it's the behavioral MODEL IDEAL, it's the format, parallel, metaphor, CODE. Come hell or high water, this is the universal "mother" figure (read: parent/anyone) who'll move mountains & FIGHT to protect children or die trying.

No one's saying that fathers can't/won't stand up to protect children--I call Lou "Papa Bear" constantly (X X), cuz he IS Claudia's father. But people wanna act obtuse and pretend like "maternal instinct" isn't the universal CODE for idealized/proper parental behavior. Modern derogatory "tradwife" attacks against Lou are ridiculous AF, cuz they ignorantly ignore the reality of life in the effing 1910s-1940s when the tradwife WAS the Euro-American ideal! Louis is an upper middle class conservative southern gentleman born in 1877--wtf do y'all think the model for parents/spouses was in his generation!?

His mother's effing Florence; he parallels/acts like her (X X)! 😅 He was born & raised & surrounded by tradwives--CLAUDIA'S the younger generation that breaks the mold! The Black men in Louis' life are USELESS--his dad's dead & tanked their whole estate, Paul's mentally unfit to take over, and effing Levi's a broke AF motherless sycophant Baptist. We see nothing about Lou's father--it's ALL deliberate, cuz it puts all the emphasis on the roles of MOTHERS, and the plethora of WOMEN who impacted/shaped Lou's life.

Ofc black!Louis won't look feminine to you if you're not familiar with Blackness. But even Jacob Anderson said he looked to FEMALE icons of Black empowerment (Eartha Kitt & Grace Jones) as inspirations for how he embodied Louis; his walk & talk & ethereal trans-human/gender aura.

Louis' been guilt-ridden cuz despite everything, he was powerless. He didn't/couldn't shelter/PROTECT/save Claudia. The dark ironic twist is that he was emasculated by Lestat, and emasculated by Armand & the coven. But just like vampirism didn't give him power over the racist white men, emasculation didn't give him the domestic ideal he tried to mimic in NOLA. He capitulated to Lestat's whims & conformed ("the unhappy housewife"), and it got him nowhere--dropped a million miles in the effing sky. He tried being independent & autonomous in Europe, and it got him nowhere--hamstrung & buried alive as the coven burned his daughter alive. He tried being the carefree vampire f***ing & killing at will in SanFran, and it got him nowhere--yeeting himself into the sunlight on a roof at sunrise, just like Paul. In Dubai, he conducts the interview trying to find the truth, and find himself--the lost pieces of himself; who he's most comfortable as:

The CARDIGAN Mystique

In Carol Cutshall's "visual hierarchy of power," Louis' cardigans & casual clothes are a deliberate contrast with the Power Suits he & Lestat wore in NOLA, and Armand wore in Paris.

Lestans H A T E 1x5, and H A T E when people stress that Louis was abused, cuz that naturally forces one to realize that the abuser is their uwu blorbo c*nty pretty long-haired fave, Lestat & Armand--racism, colorism & texturism all rolled into one toxic sludge at Louis' expense. Louis' story (and thus, analysis) is rooted in abuse--all the SPINDLY ROOTS of how Louis' been abused, controlled, manipulated, gaslit, disrespected, oppressed & taken advantage of.

But it's ultimately, how he overcomes the oppressive societal/mental shackles: finally takes back agency & autonomy & control of his life and his narrative/story.

Lestat - S3 & TVL

"and as you said changed him to her self insert charachter and seemingly forgot he's supposed to be abusive in TVL. The Lestat the show is portraying is a mashup of the two which is why he's not just an abusive villain in Louis's story."

Yup, it's part of Lestat's entire character arc, and his gradual process of growth/development, trying to become a person/vampire/monster/hero going forward.

"But the show dynamic is confusing because there's terrible abuse but instead of being a show about a DV victim escaping his abusove spouse it still expects us to root for this romance and Lestat as a charachter because they're vampires and this is a gothic romance and so on."

Which I'm fully on board with! I LIKE Lestat, and I WANT Loustat to find a way to be happy together. Again: not every couple with IPV/DV divorces--many work to get to the root of their problems, addressing the toxic behavior on both sides so that they can move forward as a committed couple--just like I said before about Ray Rice & his wife.

Cancel culture makes every iota of problematic behavior a criminal offense punishable by effing death--as we see in The Trial. On one hand Lestans defend Lestat's BS with their whole chest cuz he's a vampire/monster they're not human don't judge them by human standards I love him cuz he's awful uwu queen slay yaas~!; but when it's Louis suddenly he's a pimp and he tried to kill Daniel and I hate him and it's his fault his life sucks, boo hiss~! That's what I have a problem with. Like I've BEEN saying: Louis' abuse (by Lestat AND Lestans) doesn't boil down to his gender/sexuality. It boils down to his RACE, plain & simple.

Gotta wake up to this anon in the tags, undoubtedly referencing/shading what I reblogged here:

Nonny, at least say it to my face if you wanna call me an internalized misogynist, just cuz I don't cosign the predominately white court of popular opinion's dogma that ONLY sees Lestat as the female-coded victim of Louis' "abuse" of the crossdressing campy Queen Mother de Lioncourt; while you reject any acknowledgement let alone honest discussion of Lestat as the patriarchal Coven Master terrorizing his fledglings/children--even in effing 2022 when he's setting Rat Catcher ablaze with the Fire Gift in Louis' honor & kicking him out in to the hurricane--another round in the stormy romance of you two.

And plot twist: I (mostly) agree with nonny about Anne Rice, and how she engages with (trans)gender through Louis--and I agree with Nalyra that there's also complexity to how AR engages with Lestat LATER--10+ years AFTER IWTV & her daughter Michelle's death.

It's not at all easy to pin down, especially when in these convos about Loustat & gender, the most integral part of their dynamic is ALWAYS EXCLUDED by Lestans: CLAUDIA. She's only babytrapped cuz, as I've said 1000 times, Lestat was hyperaware of LOUIS' emotional/behavioral resemblance TO LESTAT'S MOTHER, GABRIELLE; and Louis' "maternal instinct," that resembled ANNE'S own excitement to be a mom.

Anne Rice is NOT saying Louis (or even Lestat!) represents her as a woman (in METAPHOR, not biology, DUH) cuz he crossdresses & gallivants around twirling his hair & flicking his limp wrists--I already discussed the effect of 18th century Franco-European dandyism on an 18th-century vampire stuck in the Rococo period (X X), where clothing is just ONE aspect of how masculinity & femininity are expressed--BY MEN.

Gender is MORE than Loustat crossdressing. Like I've said: it's misognyist to assume that everyone crossdressing is female-coded, while blatantly ignoring their BEHAVIOR--just like Nalyra said:

I have screamed & hollered from the rooftops this whole time how the power dynamics between Loustat are being grossly misunderstood or outright overlooked, as everyone gets distracted by fun & c*nty Lestat. Somehow, ONLY Lestat gets to represent Mother, but LOUIS DOESN'T!? Sus! But I'M the misogynist homophobe for calling y'all RACISTS who can't acknowledge/accept a Black gay man in a suit (or cardigan) as a female-coded representation of motherhood, when the show's beat y'all over the head with it 1000 times? SUS!

Esp. when I explicitly say Louis AS Woman, Louis AS Mother--nonny, grab a dictionary and realize that I didn't say Louis IS Mother, Louis IS Woman--it's SIMILE. It's METAPHOR. It's PARALLEL. It's CODING.

It's highly problematic to reject AR's own words being "not solid" evidence (anon), or downplay it as outdated/irrelevant (Nalyra), just cuz it doesn't align with your own interpretations. That's not how proper analysis of primary sources works. It's CONTEXTUAL evidence about the processes of personal growth; just like it's contextual how AR couched her shift to Lestat in direct relation to her tryna move past her maternal depression/grief via Louis. You cannot discuss one without the other, but that's all I ever see far too many ppl do: downplaying the foundational conceptualization of these characters within the books, film, and show alike; and hiding behind accusations of homophobia & misogyny rather than honestly engaging with the characters and their behavior. You wanna talk about misogyny? How about MISOGYNOIR, and how y'all don't know EFF ALL about BLACK MOTHERHOOD, and the hypermasculinization of Black gay men, to even BEGIN to fathom everything Louis represents in contrast & relation to Massa Lestat.

Cuz there's CERTAINLY a marked lack of discussion or acknowledgement about how race factors into all of this. I see NO mention/discussion/analysis of Lestat by that anon rejecting the other side of the conversation I'm arguing against--esp. the white privilege Lestat enjoys that allows him to be far freer with explorations of gender & sexuality than black!Louis, and thus embraced by his predominately white cis female fans--who find it so effing impossible/offensive to see the ways that HIS BEHAVIOR directly contradicts the feminist ideals about agency & autonomy they allege to hold oh-so-sacred--"crushing what you cannot own."

Which only further indicates that this particular propping up of Lestat in the fandom is being done at Louis'' expense in bad faith by bad actors running to everyone's accounts on anon and obfuscating the context they're even responding to.

Claudia never lied: "It's a STONING."

[anlian-aishang]

Mark me as present for thirsty Thursday!

Which of our boys is most likely to have tried something sexual with their gear or in uniform? Do any of our boys find partial nudity or clothes sharing attractive?

SNK Men - Clothes and Sex - Levi, Erwin, Eren, Jean, Armin, Reiner, Zeke [smut]

in-uniform

partial nudity

clothes-sharing

Levi:

In-uniform: likes to keep his uniform from getting dirty, but has definitely used ODM gear to his advantage once or twice or a few times.

Partial nudity: while he likes to keep his clothes clean, he is very into quickies and therefore knows partial nudity as an occasional necessity.

Clothes-sharing: always cracks a smile when he returns home from a time away to find you sleeping in his t-shirt, but otherwise, doesn’t think too much of it - not a staple or anything.

Erwin:

In-uniform: more often than not. His job is never-ending, the late nights are a constant. Still, it’s not just something that happens, but something he looks forward to. Those tight straps, that leather skirt, that jacket that ends just above your hips, he’s come to appreciate the uniform for its looks as well as its mobility.

Partial nudity: depends on the night. Sometimes, he’s so drained, he’ll take you just as you are. Other nights, though, he needs that stress relief - the satisfaction that comes from slowly stripping off each of your clothing, so slow that you turn out to be the one in desperation.

Clothes-sharing: absolutely adorable. Wholesome laughs when he sees his shirt collar loop over your shoulders, the hem drape down to your knees. The jacket that reaches his mid-thigh, it covers your ankles and nearly drags on the ground. Any dirt it catches, he thinks the trade-off is well worth it.

Eren:

In-uniform: he fucks you when, where, however he wants to. Whether that’s naked in the shower, in your sundress on a picnic under the shade of a tree, or even on a mission in uniform, that’s how he’ll take you.

Partial nudity: somewhat of a power-play move - he’s shirtless, in the long dark coat and black jeans. Meanwhile, you’re completely stripped down, maybe some see-through lingerie if he spares you any dignity. He wants to see your perked nipples, dripping arousal, all before he’s even let you have a taste.

Clothes-sharing: the clothes he takes off for the day become your pajamas. You love his scent, his sweat, the traces of him that are left on the garment. You won’t let him throw away old shirts, so he’s learned to put them in your dresser drawers instead.

Jean:

In-uniform: the locker room fantasy, he hates that he has it, but he can’t deny it. Whether you’re getting dressed or undressed, he’d love to do it with you right then and there.

Partial nudity: whatever you want, truly. Do you feel more easy-breezy with everything off? Do you feel more comfortable keeping some parts covered up? He loves every inch of you and wants to see all of it, but more than that, he wants you to feel fine in your own skin.

Clothes-sharing: a huge blush when you wear his clothes. He might borrow a scarf from you as he rushes out the door, but that’s not the same as the feeling he gets when he sees you in his t-shirts, sweatshirts, boxers. His heart flutters, an audible aww, he can’t help but kiss you.

Armin:

In-uniform: in the straps, mainly. They have that inherent intensity to them, the need to always be ready for anything. Also very manipulable in a submissive role.

Partial nudity: into it. Crew socks, button-up shirt undone, a pair of sport briefs, he has that facade of being somewhat put-together, but his bare chest and creamy thighs say the opposite.

Clothes-sharing: it’s both a natural thing and a special thing in your relationship. Sometimes its accidental that you mistake your clothes for each other’s, other times, you deliberately put yourself in his boxers, himself in your stockings, garter, bralette for a welcome-home surprise.

Reiner:

In-uniform: the armband stays on during sex, he’s a warrior and he likes to remind you how hard-earned and well-deserved that title is.

Partial nudity: his shirt off, his pants unzipped. Your tank top or t-shirt on, your panties pushed aside. He sits on the armchair, you sit on his lap - the essentials meeting while the extras tease.

Clothes-sharing: very secretly likes to be put in your panties. They’re so delicate, small, tight, on him - they smell just like you, reminding him of all the times he’s ripped them off you before. It’s pretty humiliating, and you’ll definitely laugh at him, but he finds it so embarrassingly hot - he might just cum in them.

Zeke:

In-uniform: It’s not only his uniform, but he never keeps any clothes on during the act. A bare-naked sex kind of guy. Everything is off, you’re both completely exposed to each other. Lets it all loose.

Partial nudity: He takes it all off, shirts, pants, socks, everything, but there is one exception - jewelry. Your necklace, anklet, earrings all glistening throughout the act, those are the few articles he gladly keeps on.

Clothes-sharing: One of the stingier boyfriends when it comes to his clothes. Will “joking, but not really” tease you when he recognizes that jacket, hat, belt you stole. Even on the rainy days, when you’re shivering and sneezing, he won’t spare you his coat - teaching you a lesson, preferring to warm you up himself with his own two hands once you get home.

// masterlist //

[colorisbyshe]

this isn’t a diss at anyone but i always get weird at the “if you ever thought another person is gay without them coming out you’re a bad person, you’ve just headcanoned their sexuality” posts are… missing the specificity they rly need to make the point they think they’re making.

because looking at another person and thinking they might be like you is normal. even if those people are celebrities. i absolutely bet you’ve seen someone and gone “a butch how effervescent” without asking her if she’s actually into women (or if they actually are a woman at all). like… it is completely fine and not at all inappropriate for lgbt people to have a sense of or take guesses at who else might be lgbt

the issues arise when a. you insist you can’t be wrong b. you collect evidence to “prove” you’re right and c. you harass the person involved (and all three of these things are inherently linked, to do one is to do them all). when you start analyzing them and calling them liars if they say they aren’t and publicly talk at length about what you think they are, that’s the problem.

if you’re writing fic and shipping and doing shit like that, that’s the problem. and i’ve done done that, so like, i’m fully talking from experience. it was wrong of me.

but like… thinking other people, even strangers, might be gay isn’t a bad thing and i know y’all all do it regularly. if you’ve ever hit on someone who hasn’t come out to you but you feel decently safe thinking they’re also gay… you’ve done it. shared meaningful eye contact with a barista when someone is acting Straight... is doing it. talking to your friends about if they think your coworker might be open to an invite to the gay bar is doing it.

and i do think this needs to be clarified a bit because we can’t have normal takes like “don’t write manifestos on how shawn mendes is definitely gay” without some of y’all taking it to the extreme of “if you think someone is lgbt without them coming out to you, you’re being inappropriate”

im sure the majority of you don’t need to hear this because it’s common sense but i know we are prone to taking good takes and dragging them to extremes.

to be clear--thinking to yourself or talking with your friends about celebrities maybe being gay or joking about it or whatever isn’t a crime. it is a very normal experience if you just don’t get weird and intense about it.

i feel like being overly concerned about this stuff shows you spend too much time in fandom spaces and not enough time with normie gays who can drop a line about andrew garfield being a bit gay or whatever without it being a moral crisis. who have seen tom hardy’s myspace pics and line about ‘of course i’ve fucked men i’m an actor’ and gone ‘yeah that makes sense, keep introspecting on that king’ without it going too far.

like the weirdos who have like “15 times chris pine had a limp wrist and therefore signaled he has a secret boyfriend” posts are the outliers but having normal conversations with your peers is nooooot a problem

can we all be on the same page about this

can we all just admit that if you’re casual about thinking someone, even a celebrity is gay, it’s... fine. maybe it’s a slippery slope for those prone to slipping but... it really is a very average and normal experience

[vampish-glamour]

I never watched G*od Om*ns, so it was fandom again with the "they're gay"???

At least Star Trek did this right, you know, not lying to please someone. Spock and Kirk was never a thing and also was never meant to be a thing. But the creator himself said, if you wanna see them like that, it's fine. Do what you want. But in canon it's not that way.

But really, somehow fandom seems to make it easy for creators to just bait, but never commit and they're happy, wtf.

And IF they get actual lgbt rep, they're upset because it's not the character they WANTED to be lgbt....

Actually, the fandom is largely against them being gay because they claim it’s “nonbinary and asexual representation”.

Which bothers me just because they’re basically applauding homophobic tropes simply because they benefit from homophobic tropes.

I want to make it clear that my problem isn’t “why aren’t you making the characters canonically gay?!!?!!? This is homophobic!!!11!1!1”. I’m fine with the relationship remaining a close friendship canonically. And canonically speaking, I think I might prefer that tbh.

My problem is with how the original homophobia in the book sort of goes ignored, and how the writer teases and hints and in this case I would actually say baits… and then receives praise from the fandom for doing what everyone else does when it comes to gay pairings.

Basic overview of the situation from my POV:

Book establishes a character as a gay stereotype

Immediately goes “but he isn’t gay because angels are sexless unless they make an effort” (IMO the sexless thing could’ve been established in many other ways. Did it really have to be done in a “don’t worry he’s not gay” way?)

Book proceeds to make the gay stereotype thing a running joke, with the character being called various homophobic slurs (but see, it’s funny because it’s misplaced homophobia. He doesn’t actually deserve the homophobia he experiences like an actual gay person would /s)

Show comes out, includes romantic music, lots of subtext, and the writer confirming that it’s a “love story”, as well as the actors confirming they acted “in love”. Except… it’s done vaguely enough that anyone can come away with their own interpretation. Which is nothing new. There’s literally nothing revolutionary about leaving a same sex relationship “up for interpretation”.

All the “representation” actually comes from what the writer says on Twitter. He goes on about how they’re sexless and therefore cannot possibly be gay but are also inherently “queer”… but doesn’t actually add this into canon. So casual viewers are not experiencing any sort of “representation”.

IMO this is a homophobic media trope. Give two men or two women scenes that would be explicitly romantic if it were a man and a woman, tease the audience with “maybeee~”, but still make sure that ultimately, homophobes won’t be offended and can come away from the material thinking “what good friends!”. Say “it’s up for interpretation”, which is something I hardly see with M/F pairings. Especially with the virtue signalling on social media.

Keep in mind, something isn’t “representation” if everyone comes away with different ideas of what was represented. If one person can think “they’re gay and married” and another can think “they’re aspec and in a QPR”, that’s not representation. Representation only happens when something is undeniable. For example, a character who is undeniably bisexual because they are shown to be interested in both men and women (biphobic pannies coming to their own conclusions don’t count here lol, since bi = pan and pan = bi, so even if they claim the character is pansexual, they’re still getting the same outcome)

Now here’s where my issue comes in.

Instead of calling this out, the fandom runs with it and benefits from it. A vague relationship on screen allows them to claim representation for themselves, usually for made up labels like aspec, SAM type asexuality, queerplatonic, etc.

They praise the writer for being “inclusive”, and for “representing” them… when really this “inclusivity” is a result of homophobic tropes, and there’s actually no representation at all. Keep in mind, all the clues for what could be going on come from social media. A casual viewer is either going to see two gay men, or two good friends. They have no way of knowing about the woke “queer” bullshit unless they’re heavily involved in fandom.

The writer has a habit of teasing things and being intentionally misleading. Here’s an example

Not telling what’s going to happen and not giving spoilers, is very different from intentionally baiting. “Wait and see” sounds like a “yes”… because it would be incredibly shitty to lead people on when the answer is a solid “no”.

However, considering he’s only half of the writers, and establishing a relationship other than what he and the other writer discussed would be disrespectful… the answer is very likely “no”.

So just say “no”. It’s okay to say “no, they’re not getting together”. But he knows that people are more likely to watch if they’re waiting for the two to get together the whole time…so he has to keep it vague and mysterious and he has to keep baiting.

Of course the answer could very well be “yes” and that’s what he’s hinting at. But I highly doubt it, mostly because of the “only one author around” issue. So until I’m proven wrong, I will maintain that this is him being intentionally misleading, as he admitted to.

So that’s where I have the issue—I wouldn’t have an issue if he just straight up said “no, they’re not going to hook up, they’re good friends”. What is an issue, is perpetuating classic homophobic media tropes, of giving just enough but not too much…and then saying “it’s up for interpretation”. Which roughly translates to “here’s some crumbs for the gays”. What’s especially an issue, is then disguising this under woke kweer language and lapping up all the praise you can get for being such an “Ally” to “queers”.

And of course, I have an issue with how the fandom receives this. Because instead of calling the bullshit out for what it is, they actually call gay people talking about homophobia “aphobic discourse”, and say things like “gay men have enough representation!!”, and try to argue that actually, the homophobic trope of vague same sex relationships that are left up to interpretation, is actually super inclusive and amazing and progressive because it represents asexuals, aromantics, nonbinary people, queerplatonic relationships, etc.

Or they put down gay people for wanting more explicit representation, because “uhh… some people are aro!!! Some people are ace!!”. Despite missing that non romantic or non sexual relationships between men can be found in pretty much every single piece of media ever, and is 100% socially acceptable. Explicit gay relationships however, are still looked down upon.

And then they act like the religious homophobes, by taking “explicit gay representation” to mean “explicit hardcore sex scene”. Like I’ve seen nobody demand a sex scene when they’re talking about gay representation in G O. I’m certainly not. Yet the kweers always manage to interpret gay people wanting proper representation as “you want sex!!! You want porn!!!”. To me, it really seems no different from religious homophobes seeing an advertisement with two men and immediately talking about how it promotes “deviant gay sex”.

What worries me is that these types of fandoms—who applaud creators for giving gay people crumbs—set a precedent for other creators. They make it known that gay representation actually isn’t needed for media to be praised. They give creators a safe way to get out of representing gay couples—while keeping both the queers and homophobes happy at the same time. Now they can hop on social media and say “no, they’re not gay, but it’s up for interpretation!” And the queers will think this is top tier representation, and praise the creators for it.

As always, this turned into a long spiel lmao. But that’s an explanation of my thoughts and why I’m frustrated. Again—I’m not mad that a romantic relationship isn’t canon. That in itself isn’t homophobic. But the way that the writer and fandom are handling it, is.

I’m not familiar with Star Trek (I do want to watch it, mostly to understand the Star Trek vs Star Wars stuff lmao.), but it sounds like that’s a good way to handle it. If you don’t want to make a relationship canon—that’s fine. But be honest about it, don’t drag fans along with teasing and baiting.

[variousqueerthings]

ive seen a few richard ii's and i think there's something very fun about looking at the way gender-and-sexuality can interact with one another, where one can lean hard on a femme presentation and interaction with the text that reads as fascinatingly meta -- that is that richard ii is very self-aware (as shakespeare characters often are/there's usually always at least one who is) of being in a story of sorts, and the role that he plays within this story, and so what could feel self-indulgent in the long speeches comes across as something performatively self-aware in a way that is familiar to queer expression (camp, one might say) that runs the gamut from pageantry to drag to trans, more or less in one or another part of that spectrum depending on the adaptation

and of course this particular adaptation went hard on femme richard in a way that was incredibly tender towards that particular aspect of the character, and didn't feel like it was exaggerating or used that as a shorthand for villainy, in a way that both allowed richard to be theatrical and often petty, but in my opinion balanced out the petulant and ungrounded side of the character that is where one tends to read the villainy, because of course richard is also monarchy (and all monarchy is inherently villainous to me anyway, but I do like digging into the dysfunctional humanity of royalty, which all these plays kind of do, especially this one)

richard's gender is as much what is incorrect in this version as the way richard is ruling and richard's sexuality. they fold into one another, the looking into the mirror and speaking of beauty isn't just vanity or self-indulgence in this, it's a person who should be not just a man but a king, who is engaging in feminine activities right in front of those who are out to depose him, who are literally in the process, and they're still in richard's power for a moment, while richard does this, toys with them, and richard is doing exactly what disgusts them, being frivolous and unserious and taking in the last of the flattery of yore, in which being king as being able to be whatever richard wants to be has its last little hurrah before the mirror/illusion is finally shattered, because they -- as real men -- can definitely do a better job (bolingbroke deliberately stepping on the broken mirror as he lives is soooo good)

and this performance and this adaptation leaaans into all of that so hard

contrasted to the people who destroy richard, and aumerle's own (self)-destruction (with those few little adaptation changes), who enforce a masculine correctness that does away with richard's flamboyant queer flippancy, which, no richard is not a good king, but in this version feels at least as much - if not more - related to the discomfort people feel about who richard is/how richard presents

richard speaks about being king and one feels a sense of horror at the state of monarchy as not just destructive to the people but also to the monarch themself (and also how that translates to a modern feeling about monarchy as inherently a disgusting, easily abused system that equally abuses those who seemingly benefit from it - that is, royalty raised to be royalty are people so wholly disconnected from reality through constant abuse, while simultaneously being raised to believe they are inherently special), but equally this particular richard is incredibly vulnerable and deliberately effeminate, and those queer expressions as something that are antithetical to a ruling system and therefore need to be stamped out, is something that makes this particular adaptation very familiar and painful, despite being about... well a king of england

richard as transfemme

rewatched dt's richard ii and... very transfemme. gotta revolve that in my head a bit.

[qqueenofhades]

Having just sent you a message the other day about how much I love your historical asks, I realized I have a question myself that you might know the answer to. I’m a Christian and I have never been able to figure out why Christianity has historically viewed non-procreative sex for pleasure as bad. (And none of my family, including my clergy father, have figured it out either. I think my dad has a bone to pick with Augustine? And I feel like Aquinas also has something to do with this.) But given that Jesus had a body and gives a speech about “the Son of Man came eating and drinking” as though he enjoyed it, how did this whole “the body is sinful especially the sex part” thing happen? I have been thinking about this a lot recently for Old Guard reasons, which should surprise no one.

Oof. So, a short and simple question, then. (Sidenote: did they expand ask limits? Because I’ve definitely gotten a couple asks today, including this one, that are longer than usual, rather than forced to space out and hope that Tumblr doesn’t eat them.)

The entire history of sexuality in the West and its relationship with Christianity throughout the centuries is obviously a topic that far, far exceeds anything I could possibly cram into this ask, but let’s see if I can hit on some of the highlights. First off, one could remark that some aspects of Jesus’s teaching managed to disappear from the official doctrine of Christianity almost immediately, and for a variety of theological, cultural, and social reasons. As anyone who has a passing knowledge of the late Roman Empire is aware, they were known for being sexually liberate (at least if you were a nobleman, as the freedom certainly did NOT apply to women), and the notorious run of emperors who were having orgies and sleeping with boys and their sisters and hosting nonstop sex parties did a lot to sour early Christianity’s relationship with it. Because pre-Constantine/Theodosian Code Rome was Christianity’s enemy (since Christians refused to perform the traditional civic sacrifices to the Roman gods, which was all that Rome required alongside permitting its citizens to practice whatever other religion they wanted), and because the emperors were such a high-profile example of sexual excess, that became an easy point of critique. Obviously, the Roman polemicists, like every other historian, should not be trusted on EVERYTHING they say about the emperors, but the general pattern is there and well-established. So Christianity, trying to establish its religious and moral bona fides, can easily go, “Well, Caligula/Nero obviously sucks, come join us and live a purer and more moral life!”

Constantine converted in the early fourth century and the Theodosian Code was issued at the end of the fourth century, which made Rome officially Catholic and represented a huge reversal of fortune for fledgling Christianity, helping it expand like crazy now that it was officially sanctioned. However, the Roman Empire was splitting into two halves, west and east, and the development of Greek Christianity in the eastern empire was strongly influenced by ascetic and austere traditions (if you’ve heard of the Stylites, i.e. the guys who liked to sit atop poles out in the Syrian desert to prove how holy they were, those are them). The cultural context of denial of the flesh and the renouncing of bodily pleasures also played intensely into the third/fourth/fifth century debates over heresy and orthodoxy. Some of the most vicious arguments came over whether Jesus Christ could have actually had an embodied (and therefore possibly inherently sinful) human body, or it was just a complicated illusion, the “shell” of a body that his entirely divine nature then inhabited without actually being part of. This involved huge theological arguments over the redemptive nature of the Eucharist and even Christ’s sacrifice: was it real/effective/genuine if he didn’t REALLY die and suffer the pain of being crucified, and was just assured that he’d be fine ahead of time? So yeah, the question of whether Christ had a real body (because then that might be sinful) was the knock-down, drag-out theological disagreement of the early centuries C.E., and left a lot of hard feelings and entrenched positions in its wake.

Likewise, your dad is correct in having a bone to pick with Augustine, at least in terms of his impact on views of sexuality in the late antique and early medieval Christian church. Augustine is obviously famous for agonizing endlessly over his sexuality/sexual urges in Confessions, his time as a Manichaean, his relationship with a woman and the birth of his son out of wedlock (and if you want a lot of repressed homoeroticism: well, Augustine’s got that too) and how his conversion to Christianity was intensely tied with his renunciation of himself as a sexual being. Augustine also pioneered the nature of the inheritance of Original Sin: therefore, every human who was born was sinful by virtue of sharing in humanity’s legacy from Eve’s transgression in the Garden of Eden. (And yes, obviously, this led to the beginnings of the embedding of clerical and social misogyny. Oh Augustine, I kind of hate you anyway because I had to read the entire goddamn 1000-page City of God during my master’s degree, but bro, you got a lot to answer for.) This involved EVEN MORE obscure speculations about whether original sin was passed down in male semen, and therefore Jesus was free of it because he was supposedly born divinely to a woman without a male father, but yeah, the idea that sexuality itself was already a suspect thing was fairly well correlated and then cemented by Augustine’s HUGE influence over the early church. Everything post-Augustine incorporated his ideas somehow, and so the idea of bodily pleasures as separating you from divine purpose got even more established.

Then we had the Carolingians in the eighth and ninth centuries, who were the first “empire” per se in Western Europe post-Rome, and who were also intensely concerned with legislating moral purity, policing the sexual behavior especially of its queens, and correlating moments of political or military defeat with insufficiently virtuous private behavior. The Carolingians likewise passed these ideas onto their successor kingdoms, especially the medieval kingdom of France (which would eventually become the pre-eminent secular power in Western Europe). Then the eleventh century arrived with the Cluniac and Gregorian Reforms (which were interrelated). One of their big goals was for a celibate and unmarried clergy on all levels of holy orders, from humble village priests to bishops and archbishops. Prior to this, clergymen had often been married, and there wasn’t a definite sense that it was bad. But because of this, and the idea that a married clergyman wasn’t pure enough to provide the Eucharist and would be distracted from his commitment to the church by a wife and family, the Cluniac and papal reformers intensely attacked sex and sexuality as evil. Priests didn’t (or rather, were not supposed to) do it, and if you weren’t in a heterosexual church-performed marriage and didn’t want children, you shouldn’t be doing it either. (Did this stop people, and priests, from doing it? Absolutely not, but that was the rhetoric.) This was about when celibacy began to be constructed as the top of the heap in terms of holy lifestyles, for men and women alike and laypeople as well as those in holy orders. NOT having sex was the most virtuous choice for anyone, even if sex was a necessary evil for having heirs and the next generation and so on. (Which is interesting considering that our hypersexualized present attaches so much value to having sex of one sort or another, and the asexual-exclusion types, but yeah, that’s a different topic for now.)

Of course, when the Cathars (a schismatic Catholic heresy in France and Italy) in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries began attacking ALL materiality and sexuality as irredeemably evil, the Catholic church went a bit like “whoa whoa that’s a little too far, hold on now, SOME sex is good, sex can be nice, we’re not actually like those guys” (even though they had been about a hundred years before). Because Cathar spirituality taught that any kind of attention or indulgence to the body was sinful, that included any kind of sex at all, even married heterosexual intercourse. (Of course, the Cathars themselves didn’t always live up to it either; see Beatrice de Planissoles and her Cathar priest lover.) The Catholic church obviously didn’t want to go THAT far, so they began rowing back some of their earlier blanket statements about the evilness of sexuality and taught that husband and wife both had a responsibility to offer each other sexual pleasure and fulfillment. I’ve answered many asks about sexual behavior and unions in the medieval era, the arguments over the definition of marriage, and how that changed over time in response to social needs and pressures, so yes. We know what the IDEALS were, and what people were legally supposed to do, but the fact that church writers were complaining about bad behavior, sexual and otherwise, literally the whole time means that, obviously, this did not always match up with reality.

The theories of the Roman physician Galen, which prescribed that female orgasm was necessary to conceive, were also well known and prevalent in the medieval world, which meant that ordinary married couples trying to have children would have had some awareness that female pleasure was supposedly necessary to do it. (This ties into my “it wasn’t an unrestrained extravaganza of violent painful rape for women all the time YOU GODDAMN MORONS JESUS CHRIST” rant, but we will recognize that I have Many Rants. So yes.) Obviously, we can’t know what the sex life of individual married couples behind closed doors was actually like, but there were a variety of teachings and official stances on sex and how it was supposed to be done, and as noted in other posts, just because the church thought it is zero guarantee that ordinary people thought that way too. People are people. They (usually) like having sex. They had sex, both gay and straight, married and unmarried, so on and so forth, even if the church had Opinions. Circle of life, etcetera.

Anyway, then the Renaissance arrived (and we just had the “why the Renaissance sucked for women” ask the other day), which prescribed a reversal of all the comparative sexual and political and social latitude that women had gradually acquired over the medieval era. It very much wanted to see women returned to their silent, domestic, maternal, objet d’arte roles that they had occupied in antiquity, and attacked the actions of women in their public and private lives as one of the major causes of the crises of the late medieval era. (Because you know, misogyny is always a useful scapegoat rather than blaming the powerful men who have fucked everything up, as we’re seeing again right now.) Because the Renaissance is regarded, fairly or unfairly, as the start of the early modern Western world, it’s where a lot of modern gender attitudes and views of sexuality became more explicitly codified and distributed faster than at any point in history before, to a more extensive audience, thanks to the invention of the printing press. We’ve obviously had moves toward sexual liberation and agency in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and the emergence of the modern feminist and gay rights movements, but now in some ways, we’re back in oddly Puritan attitudes in the twenty-first century. And since America was founded by Puritans, their social attitudes are still embedded in the culture, fanned today by hyper-conservative Protestant evangelicalism. Even though Puritans themselves ALSO, shock surprise, didn’t always live up to the stringent standards they preached.

...whoof. I’m sure I’m forgetting something, but hopefully that gives you the broad-strokes development.