#there are so many reasons someone might not want to label themselves or might not be comfortable publicly coming out

[air--so--sweet]

There's a conversation to be had about straight actors in queer roles (though I definitely feel like it's far more complex than the yes or no question a lot of people act like it is), but can we stop treating actors like straight until proven otherwise? Because I'm seeing a lot of conversations about whether its okay for Paul Mescal and Josh O'Connor to play queer men, yet neither has ever publicly called themselves straight.

In fact on a red carpet when asked about straight actors in queer roles Paul Mescal said 'Assumptions are dangerous, that's all I'll say on that front.' And whether he's referring to himself or speaking in general terms, he's correct. Assumptions are incredibly dangerous and do lead to people being outed or feeling like they have to come out regardless of what they want. Like did we learn nothing about what happened Kit Connor?!

People doing a job that puts them in the public eye does not mean they have no right to a personal life. They do not owe you anything, and you aren't entitled to knowing their identity. I mean fuck, they might not know their own identity yet.

Billie Eilish talked about this after she mentioned being attracted to girls in a Variety magazine interview and had it treated as a coming out.

'Who fucking cares? The whole world suddenly decided who I was, and I didn’t get to say anything or control any of it. Nobody should be pressured into being one thing or the other, and I think that there’s a lot of wanting labels all over the place. Dude, I’ve known people that don’t know their sexuality, or feel comfortable with it, until they’re in their forties, fifties, sixties. It takes a while to find yourself, and I think it’s really unfair, the way that the internet bullies you into talking about who you are and what you are. [...] I know everybody’s been thinking this about me for years and years, but I’m only figuring out myself now.'

So, yes, there's a conversation to be had about straight actors in queer roles but maybe, before you have it, you should check if the actor you're talking about has ever publicly identified as straight.

Edit: Also while I'm here, someone who is bi or pan or otherwise labelled and attracted to multiple genders is no less valid and no less queer if they predominantly date people of another gender or marry someone of another gender. I saw it suggested Billie Joe Armstrong is an ally rather than a member of the queer community because he's been married to his wife for almost 20 years. No, he is bisexual, he continues to be bisexual regardless who he's married to and for how long.

[valeriehalla]

Hello! I was reminded of your webcomic Goodbye To Halos recently and wanted to let you know it had a pretty big impact on me. I read it during my teenage years and I think it really helped me to contextualize and make sense of some feelings I was going through about - well, teenage stuff. Change, I guess, mostly. Changing bodies, changing genders, changing role in society, changing relationships with others - your comic helped me process a lot of my fears about those things.

Your comic was probably my first exposure to nudity that was neither sexual nor comedic. It really stuck with me how your comic has characters in states of undress fairly casually. Not like "walking down the street" casual, they're always in a safe place like a bedroom or a bathroom or something, but still. As someone who was raised Catholic it was really powerful to see nudity portrayed as so... not-shameful. Nudity is just a state the characters pass in and out of; they're nude after taking off their clothes like they would be wet after taking a shower. There's no shame in it. And that's really the way it ought to be, right? We were all born nude, it shouldn't be such a Thing as society makes it out to be.

That's just my little input on what impact your art has had on me. It was a good thing that I read it when I did. I wish you luck on all your future endeavors.

that's extremely kind of you, and very well-said, and thank you, and also that's absolutely wild for me to read.

i actually had to remind myself just now that there was in fact a sequence of (counting) eight pages where enae had her tits out. i didn't think a ton about it at the time. i do remember debating mentally whether to slap a "warning this page has boobs in it" label on the social media posts: i chafed at the idea, and i think i didn't do it? or only did it for some of them? i didn't want to because to even put such a warning immediately prompts the reader to think "oh something Sexualle is going on here," putting them on high alert and making it into a whole Thing. and it was not a Thing.

i always thought that some day, if ever i found the right moment, i wanted to have a page where fenic was fully nude. my idea of the "right moment" for that was that it would have to be at a juncture in the story where it made sense for her to be nude, and also where it would feel to the reader like there was absolutely no "point" to her nudity. the one page in the comic where fenic is topless was sort of a prelude to that idea: that might have been the moment, if there had been any reason at all to include her lower body in those panels, which there wasn't, so i didn't.

it's a fine line to walk. i think it's fairly obvious that there were many panels in that comic where the reader absolutely was meant to think "wow this character's attractive" (if they could get past my art back then lmao). i peppered those in liberally, sometimes because it was personally fun for me to draw, but always because it just seemed, i don't know, honest? for this story about young queer adults who are sort of omnidirectionally horny for one another to have a gaze reflecting that--for the reader to feel like they're "in on it" too, not in a leering sort of way, but as if they're just, like, sharing in it with the characters themselves. but then to have that, and then to also have full-on nudity, and for that nudity to feel at home with that sensation, but also purely incidental, and not in and of itself sexual, is a lot of objects to juggle, especially if one indeed (like me) wants it to not feel like there is a "Point" being made. so, it's cool to hear that it worked for at least one person. sorry for writing 999 words about this

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

Do you think it's okay for me to write for TWST even though I don't play the game?

Personally, I don’t think anyone ever “needs” to play a game in order to enjoy it and create for it. Sometimes you can just observe art from a distance and appreciate it, or you like hearing about how it brings joy to people you know. Maybe you like the aesthetic of it but can’t really see yourself getting heavily involved with it. Perhaps you don’t like gacha games so you can’t be motivated to engage with the mechanics. There are many possible avenues.

In the case of a game like Twisted Wonderland, there may be accessibility reasons why you don’t play since the game is only in English and Japanese—and even then, maybe your country doesn’t have a server to host it. In fact, I know there are many people who are TWST fans yet only read translations or watch videos about it without having played the game themselves. Maybe they found the manga or the light novel first. Whenever the anime comes out, people might discover TWST through that. We have to consider these aspects and be more open-minded about what constitutes as a “fan” rather than gatekeeping the label of “fan” to only those who play tie game for no discernible reason. What defines someone as a fan or not isn’t the labels other people put on you—you are the one that decides what you want to label yourself, and whether you are a fan or not.

I believe that also extends to content creation in fandom spaces. No one’s stopping you from making fan art or writing fanfic (or whatever it may be) just because you don’t play the game, and nor should you need anyone’s thumbs-up to do so. When you think that you do, you’re only imposing an arbitrary limit and holding yourself back. You have to be confident in deciding what you want to make without worrying how others might perceive you for it.

Now, that being said 💦 I don’t mean to scold anyone for asking me questions, but I feel that I again need to stress this: I am an internet stranger. My opinion or approval/disapproval shouldn’t hold any more weight than the next person’s. You should not put too much value in the advice of an internet stranger either. You shouldn’t care whether or not I think something is okay for you to do. The only person who can give you “permission” is you!

I understand that maybe people may feel uncertain about themselves or are looking for reassurance from a third party, but I do not feel I am the right place to go to for these kinds of things. Even though I answer in earnest, questions of this nature make me feel like I’m being put on the spot and pressured to provide timely comfort.

I don’t feel comfortable continuously being asked for very personalized advice like this; asks like this push on the boundary and start getting into uncomfortable territory for me. I’m here to talk about Disney anime pretty boys. I’m not here to be a fandom counselor 😅 Does that make sense?

This isn’t the only time I’ve received asks of this nature, nor is it the only time I’ve had to give a public warning about this. Please be mindful and respect the boundaries I have set.

[fixing-bad-posts]

Heya, I really really hope this doesn't come off as particularly rude, but I was wondering, why would bisexual women be considered lesbians sometimes and I think you also brought up transgender men and genderqueer ppl? For bisexual women, I just am kinda confused, they can be in lesbian relationships and lesbian spaces, but just describing them as lesbians seems kinda confusing because lesbian denotes specifically sapphic attraction at least from where I've always heard it, so wouldn't it be kinda confusing. And for the genderqueer folks or trans folks, wouldn't that just bring their genders closer to feminine and at least from what I've heard from some pple I know, they don't like non binary being seen as more womanly (I've heard it being described as woman-lite before annoying) and instead seen as a more inbetween which it sometimes isn't, because of bigotry and other things since nbs can be both fem or masc or androgynous, but wouldn't non woman lesbians kinda push it to be seen as kinda more fem or that person as more fem? I don't know and frankly I'm just kinda confused. I'm really really sorry that this probably comes off as super rude and I hope you forgive me. I frankly just want to learn a little more and have been reading up but wanted to know what you thought. And I just realized how long this was, so so sorry

hello anon! these days, i usually don’t answer asks like these because i’ve already done so several times, but you seem very well-meaning and confused, so i’ll do my best to help. first of all, please check my faq for resources and links about mspec labels and bi lesbians.

second of all—generally—here is my advice for when you encounter a queer label that confuses you:

1) literally just ignore it until you...

2) meet someone in your life who uses that label, at which point you might (respectfully) ask them what using that label means to them specifically, and why it’s important. i’ve done this in real life. the script is something like,

“it’s really cool to get to talk to someone in real life about this stuff—if i may ask, what does identifying as [insert label] mean to you, personally?”

you might also say,

“i’ve never met someone who identifies with [their label] before. would you mind giving me some pointers on the important things to keep in mind in order to respect your identity/make sure you feel respected by me?”

i’ve also never asked anyone to correct me if i mess up and say something rude, but i’m working on the confidence and charisma to be able to say that, because i owe that to others.

all of that said, i wanted to respond to some of your specific questions, and clarify a couple of things below the cut. to clarify:

1. “describing [bisexual women] as lesbians seems kinda confusing because lesbian denotes specifically sapphic attraction”. to be clear i am not the one describing bisexual women as lesbians, in this hypothetical situation. when i post about bi-lesbians, i am posting in support of people who—for whatever reason—chose that label for themselves. what i am not doing: advocating to redefine the classically understood definition of lesbian for the entire populous.

2. “wouldn’t it be kinda confusing”? yes! i understand it can be confusing, and i commend you for expressing your confusion instead of reacting in disgust or anger. there are so many things in the queer community that are confusing, even to me, and you don’t need to feel guilty for asking questions as long as you come from a place of genuine curiosity. being confused isn’t bad, and defining yourself in a way that confuses others is, likewise, no transgression.

3. “for the genderqueer folks or trans folks, wouldn’t [identifying as a lesbian] just bring their genders closer to feminine […] wouldn’t non woman lesbians […] be seen as kinda more fem”? the answer is: sort of. it depends entirely on how and why the person using this label came to these words. you wrote, “i’ve heard from some pple i know, they don’t like non binary being seen as more womanly”, and i have definitely also heard that! so, for people who feel that way, they probably wouldn’t want a label that evokes womanhood and/or aligns them with femininity assigned to them. but every person is different—so for some nonbinary people, they absolutely do not want to be seen as “woman-lite”, whereas for other nonbinary people, they might want to be seen closer to femme than masc, while still nonbinary. this goes back to what i said at the beginning: best practice is to ask the people in your life how they want you to respect them.

closing thoughts: i hope this clarified some things, but i understand that the topic may still be confusing—feel free to message me if you want a non-judgmental queer to talk things through with. i promise i’ll take you in good faith <3

[frooogscream]

And stop calling Con queer he’s just a white gay men from an extremely colonialist country who never bothered to check his privileges! There’s nothing queer about him!

To pre-phrase this: You don’t need to bother sending more of these unhinged messages, at this point it’s pretty clear that you’ve completely lost the plot and I’m not gonna answer to further asks on this topic.

We do not know if Con is gay (hence using the broader term of queer is extremely appropriate here), we only know from himself that he is part of the queer community and from a ("I just look straight") T-shirt he wore and him mentioning his husband that this is in regards to his sexuality not his gender identity.

Gay and queer are not mutually exclusive terms like you are pretending here, there are a lot of gay men who consider themselves queer. If we use the commonly used queer as a more inclusive way to say LGBT+ then that by definition includes all gay men (unless they specifically say they don’t want to be labelled as such). If we use the more political and/or queer as in ‘at odds with cis heteronormative society’ then there are as well many many gay men who fit into that category.

Con personally also does fit the "political" definition of queer, since he is very openly and loudly supportive of trans people, calls out shitty anti social and racist politics in his home country, (as much as you guys love to completely ignore all of this and comment about the one single time he liked a post by a Zionist four years ago when the topic of the post wasn’t Palsatine/Israel instead) has posted ONLY in support of Palestine, directed the talk towards queer right and what we can do to keep them on convention panels etc. etc.

A person being privileged in one area dosnt erase their belonging to a marginalised community or that they have potentially experienced discrimination in other areas. And yeah him being a middle aged white gay/bi/pan/whatever man in the UK might mean that he has a relatively "easy" life compared to other parts of the community NOW. Do you know what else it means? It means that in his early twenties he witnessed the hateful crusade of Thatchers government against queer people, not only did section 28 happen but it also didn’t happen in a vacuum, it was born from years of political fear mongering that framed gay men as dangerous and perverted! It means that Con was about 15 when the AIDS epidemic devastated the queer community and in its wake didn’t only brought death and the loss of you loved ones but also a giant wave of homophobia! I’m not even taking into consideration personal experiences of homophobia (and let me tell you as someone who has friends in the UK, 40 years ago people were beaten up with baseball bats for "looking gay") that Con maybe has. There probably is a reason that he only publicly came out at age 56! I HATE nothing more than young queers (because if you’re cisstraight dear anon, then fuck off so much, this would make it so much worse) policing the "right way to be queer" for older people in the community or invalidating their experiences. Frankly the only reason I’m publishing this ask is that I hope even the last clown sees how incredibly ignorant the "Con does queerness wrong"/"Con being kink positive/having dirty humour/showing his body is predatory" -people sound.

[intersex-questions]

"Can I identify as intersex if I have no intersex traits?"

"I want to be intersex but I'm not."

"Can I transition to be intersex?"

Questions and feelings like these aren't uncommon. The short answer is, well, no, you can't identify as or transition to be intersex. And, reasonably, many intersex people get frustrated and tired of perisex (non-intersex) people asking them this. But wondering these things, especially if you are experiencing distress or dysphoria over them, is completely okay. I would just like to say that I, as an individual, am okay with any questions of the sort and encourage them, but please do not go around asking any intersex person you find these sorts of questions.

Being intersex is an experience that one is born with or develops over time due to their own natural body and not by the influence of things like being on HRT for trans+ reasons. Some examples include being born with different genitalia than what's acceptable in the widely-spread understood (but false) binary model of biological sex, or experiencing different levels of hormones that are commonly associated with only one of the binary sex.

A lot of people, before realizing they're intersex and have intersex variations in their body, want to be intersex without fully understanding why. I used to be like this. I use to desperately wish that I could be intersex, as it would explain why my body was the way it was, and explain the experiences that I had had for so many years. It turned out I was intersex, and this explained why my body was different from other's!

However, if that isn't you, that's okay. Still, you can't label as intersex. Intersex is more of an experience than it is a label you can simply choose or not choose to be. Although, yes, people who fall under being intersex do not have to call themselves that if they don't wish, much of society at large will still consider them intersex. It is an important term for many to have as it allows them to find community, resources, and explanations to their lived experiences in bodies that are naturally out of what many consider "the norm".

However! The good news is there ARE labels and communities for individuals who "want" to be intersex. (Although avoiding the phrasing wanting to be intersex is important as one cannot become intersex, thus the phrase is generally accepted as offensive.)

Let me introduce you to the term altersex.

Altersex is an umbrella term that can be defined in a few different ways, although I'll be using a personal definition, as many definitions online are unreliable.

Altersex - An umbrella term to describe having or wanting primary or secondary sex traits/characteristics that do not align with the binary sex model that a significant portion of society has adopted. It is primarily used by those who are not intersex and are trans+ and wish to or transition specifically to have a body that does not fit the aforementioned sex model. It can also be applied to fictional characters whose sex is not intersex but still doesn't match the binary sex model and/or human binary sex model.

The term absolutely is open to individuals who wish to use it to explain how their body has changed due to trans+ transitioning or due to being intersex! It's simply not as common, but anyone can use it. An example of someone who might use it in that way could be a trans+ person who has been on testosterone HRT and experienced clitoromegaly because of it, and wishes to have a label/term/community that explains and expresses how they no longer fit binary sex standards.

Some common examples, feelings, or reasons as to why someone would label as or fall under the altersex umbrella includes:

Someone who was born with a vulva/vagina, but wishes to have mixed sex characteristics and wants a vulva as well as a penis

Someone who desires to remove all external genitalia of theirs (gender nullification)

Someone who wants to have genitalia that is nonhuman, such as fantasy genitalia like alien genitalia

Someone who wants to have breasts but have a penis

There is an infinite number of ways to be altersex! Again, it's an umbrella term. Some common queer identities that might align with altersex experiences though include:

Being bigender

Being genderqueer

Being cisgender but desiring to physically transition (significantly seen with femme gay men/achilleans and butch lesbians/sapphics)

Being xenogender

Being nonbinary

Being gendernull

Being genderfluid

Being multigender

Being genderfucked

Being both transmasc and transfem or FTMTF or MTFTM

Of course, that isn't exhaustive! Moving on from that, here are some labels underneath the altersex label.

Salmacian. Salmacian is a label I see most commonly and I think is most relevant to this post. Salmacian refers to one who desires to have mixed sex characteristics. People with salmacian or salmacian-adjacent experiences often do ask if they can transition to be intersex, as there is not much awareness around the label and community. Salmacian is one of the most common altersex experiences. Aphrodisian is an alternate but less commonly used term. Salmacian is also incredibly common of an experience amongst bigenders, and vice versa. Other more common alternate terms for it are bigenital, bisex, or ambisex. Here is a link to some salmacian resources!

Xenogenital. I think xenogenital is what I see most next to salmacian. Xenogenital is a broad term that refers to anyone who desires to have nonhuman sex characteristics or traits. This is very common among those who are xenic/xenogender and those who are otherkin. Some examples include:

Wanting alien genitalia

Wanting animal genitalia (often referred to as faunagenital)

Wanting plant genitalia (often referred to as floragenital)

Wanting genitalia that can change, morph, and/or retract (often referred to as morphisex)

Wanting cyber/digital genitalia or mechanical/robotic genitalia (often referred to as cyberex and machinex respectively)

In conclusion...

Although, no, if you are not intersex, you cannot become or transition to become intersex. Some people wish or desire to be intersex because it explains their intersex experience without them realizing, but for many people, this isn't case. And that's okay! Altersex is a label/term/community that embraces anyone who wishes to have or currently has genitalia and sex traits/characteristics that don't fit the commonly used binary sex model. Altersex has labels/terms underneath it, such as salmacian/bigenital and xenogenital, which are most common.

Additional notes

Some people claim being altersex is inherently intersexist. This is completely wrong! Wanting to have a body that fits how you feel and makes you happy in it is not wrong. The only thing that is intersexist is if you phrase or frame being altersex as "desiring to become intersex", as intersex is a lived experience and something you cannot become. If you realize that you are altersex, and people try to give you a hard time for it, ignore it. If it's online, simply block them.

You also never owe anyone information about your body, regardless of what they try to tell you. You do not owe strangers information on if you are intersex or perisex. On if you are altersex or not. Even people you know are not owed this information. Just like how you never have to explain your queer identity to someone, even if they feel like you owe it to them, and even if you know them, you don't. You are you, and what parts of you you share with others are up to you!

I believe that the intersex and altersex community have a lot in common and many shared experiences. I think that, not only do the two communities relate to each other, but, in some cases, people will be both intersex and altersex at the same time.

If anyone has any questions, sees any errors with this post, etc., please let me know! I'm always happy to correct or edit wrong information/typos, and I'm always welcome to any questions that are in good faith. I am not open to discourse about debating the validity of any labels, identities, or experiences. I am not open to debating intersex experiences. My blog is primarily for intersex people, but it's absolutely welcome to anyone with any questions, especially to intersex-adjacent experiences.

[inevitably-johnlocked]

I’m so sorry if this question is ignorant or stupid I really just want to understand so I can become educated. When someone is asexual would they still gain something from reading explicit fic scenes? Again sorry if I’m ignorant

Hey Nonny *HUGS*

SO SORRY it took so long to reply to this one... Kind of started and then it got forgotten, and I am sorry for that. No better time than Ace Awareness Week to help you understand!!

So, short answer to your question, is YES, SOME aces do, whether to facilitate in self-pleasure, or because seeing their faves happy, or as placeholders because some aces take pleasure-by-proxy, or a variety of other reasons, it just simply makes some of us happy. You'd be surprised how many of those smutty authors are actually ace themselves. It's one of those funny misconceptions that aces are all woobie-uwu-innocent-pure-thoughts-only magical creatures, and I'm here to shatter that illusion... Aces are some of the smuttiest-minded people you will ever meet. Why, I have no idea, maybe it's because we don't fantasize about sex the same way allos do that we can come up with increasingly hornier ideas? LOL No idea.

The thing about asexuality is that it's a HUGE spectrum, and no one ace is exactly the same. A sex-negative ace might get something out of reading smut because it's not involving them. Or they might not at all. Same with sex-positive/neutral aces. It's ALL a matter of what makes us tick.

BUT here's where I go into my LONG answer, and get you REALLY into the Ace Lore™.

I want to introduce you to the microlabel of Aegosexuality (formerly autochorisexuality), which is a term that loosely translates to "sexuality with oneself". The expanded definition, from the Sexuality Wiki, bolding is mine:

It is [...] a disconnect between oneself and a sexual target/object of arousal; may involve sexual fantasies or arousal in response to erotica or pornography, but lacks desire to be an actual participant in the sexual activities therein.

Aegosexuals are known to:

Become aroused by sexual content (at times) without wanting to personally engage in sexual activities.

Masturbate, but feel neutral or repulsed by the idea of having sex with another person.

Fantasize about sex (with varying frequency), but envision people other than themselves, and/or view it in third person, as if watching it on TV, instead of imagining it in the first person, through their own eyes.

Predominantly—or exclusively—fantasize about fictional characters or celebrities in place of people they know personally.

Identify as asexual, feeling little-to-no sexual attraction to people though enjoy masturbating (with varying frequency), are aroused by sexually explicit content, and/or fantasizing of such.

[/end quote]

====

Basically, smut turns them on, but some aces don't want to engage in the smut for-reals. This microlabel makes it ESPECIALLY confusing for newly-figured-out-aces because there hasn't been a lot of information about asexuality's huge spectrum until recently. Aegosexuals can initially believe that they AREN'T ace, BECAUSE they get turned on by porn or smutty stories, but then they're SUPER confused because the idea of having sex themselves is appalling or undesirable. It's a bizarre contradiction, understandably, to outsiders, but it makes COMPLETE sense once an ace figures this out, I promise you.

This is the microlabel I myself fall under. It's not from any trauma or past problems or medical issues. It's just me. That's it. And because of the confusion that this sexuality can bring, it often takes us a LOT longer to have ourselves figured out. For me, it was an accidental stumbling upon the "autochorisexual" label (before it became Aegosexual) and reading up on it that EVERYTHING fell into place. Before that, I thought I was maybe demisexual. After learning about it, I felt okay FINALLY calling myself ace, that I finally found the "right fit" for me. It was the piece of the puzzle that I was missing. I felt really liberated of my self-doubt after that.

And, of course, aros have their version as well called Aegoromantic, which is exactly the same but in a romantic sense.

Here are some more resources for Aegosexuality, if you'd like to learn more about this lesser-known branch on the spectrum:

What Does It Mean to Be Aegosexual? (Cosmopolitan US || November 24, 2022)

WHAT IS AEGOSEXUAL? MEANING, HISTORY, AND USAGE. (Gayety.co ||July 11, 2022)

History of Aegosexuality (The Michigan Gayly || February 1, 2021)

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TOO KNOW ABOUT AEGOSEXUALITY (Live Love LGBTQ+ Blog || October 27, 2017)

VIDEO: 5 Signs You Might Be Aegosexual (Lynn Saga, YouTube || August 6, 2022 || 6m20s)

VIDEO: What is Aegosexuality? | Aspec 101 (Slice Of Ace, YouTube || July 15, 2022 || 3m54s)

VIDEO: Asexual Identities: Aegosexuality (Ace Dad Advice, YouTube || May 22, 2022 || 12m27s)

====

AGAIN, I'm SO sorry I put this ask off for SO long, but I'm glad that I did, so that I could educate you guys on my brand of Asexuality during Ace Awareness Week!

And, finally, no offence taken at ALL! I LOVE educating y'all about stuff I learned through my journey, and you were very respectful in your ask :)

Hope you are well, Nonny, and hope you're still here to see this 🖤��

[interstellarsystem]

Endogenic Systems and Experiences in the Neurodivergent Community

We tend to stay mostly on the fringes of syscourse nowadays without directly interacting with it too often but I'm going to post this more broadly and less focused on our specific instance of this because community-wise I think it's important to talk about.

Endogenic and other non-traumagenic systems are so commonly excluded from so many neurodivergent-safe spaces where they would otherwise be able to gain knowledge about the disorders they might have, share experiences and coping strategies with peers, or at least have a sense of community that is so commonly valuable to disabled and/or neurodivergent people. In a lot of cases, even people who only support non-traumagenic systems get shoved out.

[Continued under the readmore as it's long.]

This obviously harms non-traumagenic systems, but I have to point out that when people sit there and say "we care about REAL disabled people!", I have to say.... Do you? Because if you did care about those with mental illness, physical disability or neurodivergence, you in my mind wouldn't exclude them based on something unrelated to the topic itself which might even be something as small as holding an opinion that other people get to be the judge of their own experiences. You can say that you care about "real" disabled people, but what about when a traumagenic DID system also has a tulpa that they consider just as valid and real as their alters? What about when a system labels themselves as quoigenic because in reality, you owe no one the knowledge that you are vulnerable and traumatised? What about when a system starts out as endogenic but gains so much trauma later on that they develop dissociative symptoms?

We're quoigenic because while yes we are diagnosed with DID:

DID does not have trauma in the diagnostic criteria so our diagnosis doesn't mean anything by way of origin. Nontraumagenic is not the same as nondisordered the same way that traumagenic isn't the same as disordered.

We cannot remember a time before we were plural so we cannot say with accuracy what our actual origin was.

We have headmates we consider to be from both traumagenic and endogenic origins and it feels unfair to pick one.

We don't owe anyone a quick little "hey, we have trauma!" flag on our pinned post which can easily paint us as a target. This is the exact reason we don't share our triggers online--it's not safe.

You don't owe anyone personal medical information including your diagnostic history, your trauma history or lack thereof, your current medications or how many times you've been in a hospital. That is your business and yours alone to decide who you share it with. It's downright dangerous to share some of it, especially so publically. So who is anyone online that clearly isn't your specific medical practitioner to decide whether your experiences are real enough to allow you into spaces meant for a usually completely unrelated thing? Why would someone holding the opinion that endogenic systems get to decide what labels they use be denied access to spaces just because they support people with differing beliefs and/or experiences?

If we as a system with multiple disabilities want to go into a space for people who are schizoaffective because we need others who won't immediately jump on the ableism train when discussing something we're diagnosed with that has so much stigma, should we be denied that just because we don't label our origin with a clear-cut "we are traumatized!!" label? Should we be denied access to spaces because we don't want to sit around and smile while parts of our system and other members of our community are called fake and evil and whatever else they come up with? It's so common in spaces for people with disabilities to be exclusive to traumagenic systems and people with an anti-endogenic mindset that people don't realise they're not only hurting the endogenic community, but literal chunks of their own community itself.

I can't even begin to understand the reason why.

Endogenic systems by just existing do not cause harm. They're not like a transphobe you would not be safe around by default of having a label. Not every nontraumagenic system is a saint but if you took any communtiy and called everyone in it the equivalent of an unproblematic holy angel, you'd be lying. People are bad in every community, some worse than others, but the nontraumagenic system community literally just wants to exist--and yes, sometimes a nontraumagenic system (or supporter of such) does have dissociative symptoms, or maybe they have autism, or maybe they're physically disabled. Should they be not allowed access just because of the way they chose to label their system, or their opinion of people picking their own labels for their personal identity?

What exactly is the reason they're so excluded everywhere? I'd try to assume that this level of exclusion (to the point of endos being on DNIs next to transphobes and racists) would mean there's some real harm being done on a community-wide scale, but even when looking for it there isn't any explanation we've been able to find. "They're fake" is all we seem to see which has no actual backing whatsoever. "They're harmful" is another but.. How? We might be looking in the wrong places, but we have never seen an actual explanation for how nontraumagenic systems cause harm as a community just by being themselves.

At this point, I have to wonder how many people who say "we care about real disabled people!" are just covering up their "we care about socially acceptable disabled people who I understand and/or do not find cringey" sentiment instead. Being neurodivergent should never be about fitting into tight little boxes--it's part of the whole point of having a community like this. You're not the majority, and that's okay. So why are we dividing the disabled community into boxes too?

Of course, this doesn't only apply to ND spaces. LGBT+ spaces are similar and even more divided from the concept of being a system that it makes even less sense to block nontraumagenic systems from entering the space. How does their system origin relate to their LGBT+ identity? Sometimes it can, but should a trans person be excluded from a trans space because they have a friend who is an endogenic system and they support them fully?

Overall, the main point is that it makes no sense whatsoever to be anti-endo in general, let alone so violently anti-endogenic system to the point where you hurt members of your own community due to it. Sometimes from something as simple as them supporting endogenics alone. Your safe spaces aren't actually safe if you exclude a nonharmful group who also belong in that space due to having a personal identity or opinion different to yours. If you want somewhere to be a safe, inclusive space, it should include everyone as long as letting those people in won't cause harm. People who are seeking to cause harm (racists, transphobes, etc) obviously do not belong in a safe space because they seek to harm others, thus making the space unsafe. But people who just want to be themselves without harming anyone should be included in your space if they fall under whatever it may be topic-wise. Even the "cringey" ones. Even the ones who don't quite make sense to you or have "contradicting" labels. Even the ones who use labels completely differently to the way you do. And even the ones who are uninformed or misinformed but trying their best to learn. Your safe space is not safe if it excludes those who do not follow your every single mindset and thought without any deviation.

[ponett]

with the fallout of bandai namco's idiotic "it's up to interpretation" bs, do you think that it's possible to enjoy queer media made in a corporate environment in addition to independent works? is it even worthwhile to attempt making queer media in a corporate environment? i find it special how well the g-witch production team managed to tell the story they wanted even with the challenges and pressures they faced, but i have to admit that independent works like slarpg are always going to more completely tell queer stories. as someone who has resonated with both slarpg and g-witch, i was curious to know your perspective.

i'm probably less cynical about this than a lot of my peers are - not that i can blame anyone for feeling cynical about queer rep from corporate-owned media. (we've been through so many First Ever Gay Disney Characters at this point, and lord knows blizzard loves to tease that another overwatch character might be gay every year or so as a PR move.) unfortunately it's just extremely hard to get something like a full season of an animated series funded and produced independently, so the artists looking to enter these fields and pour their hearts and souls into meaningful queer stories as a full-time job don't have many options

going indie gives you theoretically endless creative freedom to tell your stories without corporate censorship, but it's also a massive gamble. only an extreme minority of indie creatives in any medium are actually able to make a living. the fact that i came out the other side of slarpg's development with enough money that i can keep being a full-time indie instead of being in massive debt makes me one of the lucky ones. and even with my modest success, i sure as hell don't have the money to hire a whole team, which limits the scope of what i can make. so i can't turn my nose up at the queer people writing disney channel cartoons where they can't say the word "gay" out loud. they have health insurance, i don't. for most people, what i do is simply not an option

with the corporate-produced Queer Stories i enjoy, i'm often able to squint and see what the creatives were trying to do, wishing that they could have done more while understanding that they probably had to fight tooth and nail for what's there

in the realm of children's animation in particular, i'm thankful that the people working at these studios ARE fighting for more, because it means that kids today have so many more positive queer stories to relate with. i didn't have a single gay character i felt i could relate to until i read scott pilgrim at age 16 and saw wallace wells. before that, i felt so alone in the world. i denied who i was for years because it felt like there would be no place for me. i didn't know anyone openly gay in real life, growing up in the south, and in fiction gay people either existed as the butt of a joke or not at all. the fact that queer kids are now able to see people like themselves in so many shows means something, even if we still have a long way to go and the big studios continue to be a major obstacle

on the subject of g-witch, i'm honestly unfazed by the statement from bandai-namco. i guess i wish they could've let suletta and miorine kiss, but like... the text of the show is extremely blunt about them being a couple by the end. it's not up for debate. and it's not like a gundam series having a meaningful story in spite of the wishes of the toy-producing overlords is anything new, this is just our latest example

all that being said, i do think people should branch out more and explore more weird indie shit if they want more wholeheartedly, openly queer stories. people gotta suck it up and embrace more outsider art instead of only valuing things with studio-level production values. start looking at ren'py visual novels, rpg maker games, obscure webcomics, zines drawn in sharpie, artists on bandcamp who aren't signed to a label, all that jazz. maybe part of the reason why i'm not more fazed by the state of affairs with corporate-funded fiction is that i'm constantly surrounded by furry artists who are telling their own little gay stories

[infiniteorangethethird]

hellou hi i have a question if you don't mind :]

so, i have been considering using the loveless label for a while because i relate to y'all heavily but there's one issue. while i don't think i experience love for other people in a way loving folk seem to describe love..? i very much want to BE loved

this is probably tied to my NPD, both the loveless and the needing love parts

basically my question is - can you still be considered a loveless aro(ace, apl etc.) if you desire to be loved (w/o being able to reciprocate)?

sorry if it's a stupid question because maybe it defeats the purpose? idk. i've searched all of the internet and couldn't find anything even close to an answer tho so yeah :')

hi anon, my apologies for taking so long to reply 😭 I don't have an excuse besides a somewhat busy schedule and "I suck at replying at reasonable times sometimes" lmao

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: the good thing about the loveless label is that it's deliberately meant as a very fluid and dynamic label, defined by its user first and foremost. Some people call themselves loveless because they don't feel love at all, while others may use it because the love they feel does not seem to fit societal expectations, or even because they do feel love, but it's not as intense/special/important to them as society deems it to be.

All of these are just examples, but it illustrates the many ways one can interpret this label for themself. If you feel it is a good descriptor of your experiences and you feel comfortable using it for yourself? Go for it! (And welcome to the community <2)

As someone who works to deconstruct the romanticized idea of love, though, I can't help but make a note on the "wanting to be loved" part. (To be clear: this is NOT a jab at you, anon, nor at anyone who might be feeling similar; moreso thoughts and advice you can chew on if you'd like, or ignore if you don't.) In a lot of people's minds, there's a very strong connotation between "love" and "any kind of positive treatment", and as such I think it's worth asking ourselves: what do I mean when I say I want to be loved? Do I want them to feel a certain way about me, to act a certain way around me? What kind of treatment am I expecting of people who say they love me?

Love is a very individual thing, and knowing what you mean by love can help both in figuring out those expectations and in communicating them towards others. It also helps deconstruct the idea that "action made from love = good & action made not of love = bad". People who love you can still hurt you (hence why it's good to know what treatment you want, besides being loved), and people can still act good to you without love being a motivating factor behind it.

I hope this helps!

[sparklemaia]

Dear Maia, I just saw your substack comic about your growing disconnect from your body and journey to getting top surgery, and I found it deeply touching. As someone who doesn't feel the need to apply firm labels to themselves and their gender identity, there was something very comforting about seeing your journey, seeing you come out on top and feel at home in your body even if it means not having a simple answer. I feel as though nowadays young queers are expected to have perfectly defined answers about their identity and not stray from the chosen label (sometimes even ironically). Gender and sexuality aren't shameful or taboo topics, but must I wear it on my sleeve? Must it be obvious, neatly arranged for consumption? Isn't it enough to feel at peace with my body, whatever that might mean for me? Though I might be entirely wrong, I feel like I don't see enough stories of self discovery where the newly discovered territory can't be easily mapped for others to read. And that doesn't mean the place itself is any less alive and beautiful! I wish you the best of luck & a quick recovery from your top surgery. 💕

Right! Like, I know I don't neatly fit into any of the boxes we've got, and "nonbinary" as a catchall for "everything that doesn't fit in Box A or Box B" can sometimes feel restrictive too! So I'm just vibing I guess 😜. But oh wow my relationship with my body now that I'm tit-free is so much better, regardless of what gender terms it might suggest or elicit.

I'm very supportive of the right to bodily autonomy for *everyone*, without people needing to fit a script or follow the rules✌️ Babes if you have a body that developed breasts and you want top surgery for any goddamn reason, you deserve it. Full stop. (Actual access is another whole barrel of monkeys, but if you're asking yourself if you're *worthy* the answer is unequivocally yes.)

I also don't see many stories like mine, that stray from the more common binary transition experience (valid! important! but not mine!) which is one of the reasons I choose to share my journal comics. I hope they help others feel less alone ❤️

[bi-lesbian]

heres the thing with how queer labels work: not everyone uses them the same way. and maybe the following might be a bit obtuse of an explanation, but sometimes i work better with analogies so i hope it makes sense to others 😅

lets say youre boxing up some stuff. its mostly clothes, but also some toys and a few miscellaneous items were added in as well. (if its unclear, these "contents" are the substitution of "the specifics of someones identity" for this analogy).

the what: some people would label the box just "clothes." they know whats all in there, its not just clothing, but they just want something simple to note the majority of it. or maybe some of the other items are rather personal, and theyre not comfortable with just anyone seeing the box knowing of its existence.

some others might go more specific so its more clear whats all inside, labeling it "clothes + toys." or may even go into more specifics so its completely clear whats inside, "shirts, ties, stuffed animals, and aunties knickknacks."

some may instead just leave the box unlabeled, because it doesnt particularly matter to them to have its contents noted. or theyre not even entirely sure what one of these weird knickknacks even is, and dont feel like trying to pin it down for a label.

the where: theres also some that would rather label the box by what room it belongs in, so theyd put "bedroom" on it rather than describing whats inside.

the who: then it also comes down to if someone is labeling the box for themselves, or to let someone else know what it contains because theyre giving it away. someone would decide then if they want to go into more specifics, leave it as something simple for easy communication, or go without labeling and only maybe divulge its contents once someone specific has shown interest.

basically, labels can have different purposes.

sometimes someones identity labels are just meant for themselves, as a way to express themselves or trying to understand more of themselves and their feelings.

or maybe their labels are more about the community that they surround themself with, where they find their home.

or the labels could specifically be for communicating to someone else what they are, for if theyre looking for a potential partner.

there could even be a multitude of other ways not specified here that people may use labels for.

and, all of this was a convoluted nap-fueled thought to explain to others why some people use labels like "lesboy." boy and lesbian are just the labels on the box, a shorthand for all the various contents inside. theres quite likely more stuff going on in that gender box of theirs, like multigender stuff, genderfluidity, nonbinaryness, using terms like boy bc theyre gnc/butch, or otherwise, but boy is the prominent part the person whats to label.

i hope this can also put into perspective some reasons why people use some mspec lesbian terms, because some use both bi and lesbian as labels for their communities, or lesbian is their main label they use when telling others what theyre interested in, even if it may not encompass all of their attraction, and many many other reasons. its all about how they try to understand themselves and/or what they want to communicate!

[theweeklydiscourse]

tw: mention of CSA and abuse

just saw your recent reblog about Nosferatu and idk what is your actual take on it but i've to disagree with the op saying <this is not a story about grooming nor abuse... it can be,> the movie is very obviously and directly concerned about sexual abuse and the uncomfortable eroticism only enhances the horror of the whole situation. i just find posts that constantly need to mention "it's not about abuse it really isn't!" entirely dishonest and intentionally denying the very obvious theme of the movie just so they don't have to face the fact that they liked a ship that is as noncon as it gets. it is essentially a grooming rapist/victim relationship which obviously makes people uncomfortable to admit which is why they don't want to acknowledge that. and that explains the vehement push back against the SA narrative (which isn't a simple interpretation but very much what literally happens in the movie). i just think that people need to just start being honest with themselves like there's nothing wrong if you end up liking an absolutely fucked up dynamic and the whole “death and the maiden” of it all but please stop with the "this isn't a story of abuse" takes because that is actually harmful. not the shipping but denying the fact that this is a movie about abuse because it has led to some very horrible takes of rape apologism with people saying "it's not abuse because she called to him so it can't be" like... no. just no.

There are a few issues at play in the current discourses surrounding Nosferatu. First, one side makes sweeping generalizations about what the film is definitively about, and then the other side counters it with its own sweeping statements. This predictably gives way to certain over-corrections in the discourse that try to find an absolute answer to subject matter that is up for audience interpretation. I actually had a similar thought occur to me when I read that quote in that particular post, and I say that as someone who is really into the "Death and the Maiden" dynamic. We're talking about a film that provides more than enough support for multiple interpretations and it's frustrating that people reject other people's ideas so they can have the *one ultimate correct* take on it.

This issue is exacerbated by the current internet climate of moralizing textual interpretations and the lack of understanding surrounding the genre Nosferatu belongs to. Gothic fiction often features taboo subject matter that is considered by many to be off-putting and disturbing, and usually, that leads to the judgement of those who enjoy it. The reason that people are overcorrecting by saying that it's not about abuse is responding to the denial of the existence of themes of repression, desire and love in the film. It's a phenomenon I also find irritating. Viewers who are totally unfamiliar with the kinds of themes and subject matter gothic fiction deals with seem to be imposing only one possible interpretation of the text while acting like people are immoral for thinking otherwise.

I also consider Robert Eggers's words in my own reading of the film. In an interview, Eggers noted that his approach to the film was informed by the trope of the "demon lover" and even referred to the relationship between Ellen, Orlok, and Thomas as a love triangle. The film is explicitly erotically charged in a manner that can be taken either way, and I believe that both interpretations are valid ones. Outright denial of interpretations of Ellen and Orlok's relationship as abusive seems foolish to me. But I also get why people might be uncomfortable fully acknowledging the more twisted nature of their dynamic. Nobody wants to get labelled as an abuse apologist over fictional matters or shipping, and there are times when merely engaging with darker subject matter gets people labelled as such. However, people need to stop being so absolutist about these things and learn to substantively engage with differing viewpoints.

I think that the online tendency to moralize fictional preferences plays a large role in people's resistance to being honest with themselves about liking taboo subjects or twisted dynamics. There's nothing wrong with liking it, but it's hard to do so openly without incurring some form of criticism and contempt. Denial gets us nowhere.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

what are Leona's strengths?

[Referencing this post!]

Hey, so 💦 I wanted to address some of the recent asks I've been receiving. I'm glad that people seem to have really enjoyed the original post on Leona's flaws. However, I want to make it clear that I do not intend to make summary posts on every Twst character's strengths/flaws. I feel like it's a false dichotomy to label traits as good or bad to begin with. Something that's good in one scenario might be bad in another. Other traits are neutral but may be bad in extremes (either too much or too little of it). I don't like the idea of strictly sorting things into these black and white categories.

Additionally, I don't want people depending on these posts instead of taking the time and energy to think about it themselves. I feel like once I start responding to these types of "What are [X]'s flaws/strengths" questions, I'm going to be asked to do it for everyone in the cast, and I just don't want my blog to be flooded with this when I'd rather be discussing other things. You as an individual should have your own interpretations of these characters instead of looking at someone else's summarized thoughts on the topic.

The same goes for anyone intending to write these characters; don't entirely rely on someone else's interpretation to inform your own. Reading a list of traits from a list won't help you understand or write them any better; you have to look at the canon materials or other fan works, interpret them through your own lenses, and develop your own takes on the characters. You have to learn the skills and put them to practice, consider the situation you're writing and think about how this would change things. That's not something you're going to achieve by asking for very generalized advice. The only thing I could reasonably pass on is to do your own research and avoid falling into the characterization extremes (ie making them "too nice" or "too mean"). You'll have to determine everything else out for yourself.

I apologize if this was something that people were looking forward to reading… I received many other asks expressing interest in this and was very overwhelmed by them, on top of everything else in my inbox. I just don't feel that things like this should be spoonfed to us, as it is not conducive to critical thinking and independent thought.

I did want to reply to a couple of these asks I received, but ONLY because those had a little more to discuss besides just asking that I make a list of flaws/strengths for an individual character. Please keep an eye out for those if you're interested ^^

[fallloverfic]

Thinking about how people assuming Seth isn't into men is also a big reason why Osiris is an idiot, and Ra called Osiris out on that line of thinking in S02E78. In fact, she calls him, "Arrogant, foolish Osiris" (among other things) for this. Like that just happened in canon and I guess folks slept through that episode because people keep insisting he only loves Nephthys/is straight/can't like men.

Like people say "Seth isn't gay" and I think that's fair, but I don't think he's het, either. He doesn't evince interest in women generally. Osiris assumes Seth does because Osiris doesn't understand love. To him, Seth must be into goddesses solely because they can have babies.

Osiris does not comprehend that it isn't Nephthys' gender that attracts Seth to her: it is herself as a person. Osiris has no regard for that. He does not fathom Seth as a complex person with agency. To Osiris, "to love someone is to expect something from them." (S01E49). He catalogues people into capabilities: if I could provide the same things for Seth, Seth would love me. This disregards any relationship Seth might have with Osiris, Nephthys, or anyone else. He stole Seth's seed for who knows how many years. He removes Seth's agency in many ways.

This is a really common romance trope with the obsessive non-partner: "I'm better looking, I can provide more/the same, why do you love [love interest] and not me?"

Because the person they're pursuing has agency and love is complicated. This thinking ignores that. It treats people as goals to be reached or objects to be won.

Osiris sees no issue with this, despite his alleged wisdom, because "love" as he understands it, is "a selfish emotion that feeds on personal gain." (S01E49). Osiris is being selfish, and he'll do whatever he has to, destroy whoever and whatever he needs to, in order to achieve the object of his desire that is Seth. As Ra says, Osiris is "a rotting fruit" who "rot[s] those around" him. (S02E78).

So far as we can tell, Seth isn't in love with women generally. The only other woman to whom he potentially showed any sexual advances was maybe Isis? (Seth to Isis, "I had asked you to sleep with me." S01E39). But we don't actually know how he framed that offer/request when he tried to get her to join him in revenge, let alone if he actually wanted to sleep with her or just wanted to get revenge on Nephthys and/or Osiris, or if he just convinced himself that's what he was asking Isis to do and that's part of why Isis rejected him. We do know he's in love with Nephthys (S01E49). Or was in the past. Lately, he cares for Horus. I would argue he's demi-bisexual or demi-pansexual, but also isn't a person who's into labels. Not everyone is. Queerness is a spectrum.

Yes, he calls relations between male humans disgusting in a spur of the moment thought in S02E36, and that's sort of it. Seth generally thinks ill of humans, and he's not given to think kindly of Horus at the time, either. That's also not definitive. He changes (S02E70). He also would not be the first person in existence to internalize bigotry that would possibly target himself. Plenty of marginalized people are/act bigoted against their own people/themselves. At the time, Seth was also ill and trapped in a stronghold of people who hate him, safe on the kindness of humans. There are so many reasons that he might respond weirdly or not in a way that reflects his entire state of mind about his own wants. No one was asking him, "Are you gay?" or even "Would you date and/or fuck a guy if you had a chance?" Horus was carrying on a facade to fool Hanekate in a complex situation that Seth hated for many reasons, and Seth was understandably shocked.

I don't think he likes men generally. I think his body reacts to things (Osiris, Foreign God), as bodies tend to, which doesn't necessarily mean anything about his sexuality. But his being into Nephthys also kind of says nothing about his wants. He wants Nephthys. The person. Not a gender. His lack of being into a specific gender generally does not mean he solely likes women or cannot be into men or must be forced into it or something. He loves people on an individual level.

When he rejects Osiris, it's not because Osiris is male, but because Seth cares platonically for Osiris solely as a brother and monarch.

Osiris to Seth in S01E41: "What am I... ...to you? Am I just the king that rules over the land that you protect? Am I just your brother born from the same womb? What about besides that? Have you ever even thought of me as something more?"

Seth: "Why do you need to be more than that?"

Ra to Osiris in S02E78, "You think that Seth turns away from you because you are also a male god? And you think Seth desires female gods because of their power of creation? . . . If that is the conclusion you have come to, then it is proof that you are already breaking down."

It's all right there. It didn't need to be that overt because you can see it in the rest of the story, too, but the overtness is now there. Clear as day. Osiris' line of thinking about Seth's affections is wrong. And to imitate that is foolish.

It's Seth's deep love for individuals that allows him to open his heart to Horus (S02E70). Osiris and even Nephthys do not see Seth for who he is. Horus does. He refuses to forget. And that's why Seth cares for him, because it's Seth's deepest wish (S01E40-1).

In sum, assuming Seth loves Nephthys because she's a woman and this is the end-all statement about his sexuality/interests will get Ra to laugh at you just like she laughed at Osiris for assuming basically the same thing.

(Also assuming all protagonists and/or love interests in boys love stories have to be gay to have relationships with other men is really weird. Plenty of protagonists are bisexual, pansexual, undeclared, or questioning)

Reply 1

Reply 2

[ilynpilled]

also, in her converation with Ned, cersei outright TELLS him that Jaime would kill Robert if he knew how Robert abused her (fuck robert i hope he's rotting). and Robert knew it too which is why all his bruises were generally weren't on her face where people, specifically including Jaime, could see.

This is her exact quote: "Jaime would have killed him (Robert), even if it meant his own life"

that's probably one of the reasons why she doesn't tell him. she was in an awful, awful situation and it reflects the situation of so many other abuse victims across the world. it's not fair that she should have to keep this from her own family and worry about what her brother would do, but if he DIDN'T do anything...what kind of a person would he be? just look at Aemon the Dragonknight as a prime example

regarding this post: link

yeah thats the quote they refused to take at face value when almost everything about his characterization indicates that it would be the case.

i think when it comes to the discussions of much of this the dissonance comes from not confronting that this society refuses to acknowledge marital rape as rape. i do not have the quote at hand but george himself has expressed that marital rape doesnt exist in medieval society. that is why it makes sense that while jaime is aware that robert “claimed his rights”, he does not recklessly murder him for it in rage unless cersei gives the word (again, we already know he is ready to do it after he sees that robert is disrespecting her by cheating on her and proceeds to ask her if she wants him dead for it. but like you pointed out, cersei understands that if he saw evidence of physical abuse he likely would not ask for permission and potentially get himself killed.) this is because arranged marriages are treated as a norm in which conjugal rape and a man claiming his rights is not really acknowledged or understood (more like confronted tbh) as rape. this is an integral aspect of the patriarchal domination thats present in westerosi society, its woven into its very fabric. women are placed into a role of subordination, again, it is robert’s “right.” and jaime too is unable to conceptualize it as sexual abuse on the level of rape. hence we get quotes like this:

like we know and understand that cersei was repeatedly raped by robert. we know she didnt make anyone kill her. we know what jaime is saying and thinking here is inconsistent and makes little sense if he believes that she was raped.

that other passage suggests that jaime does not fully grasp or know this. and in general society doesn’t for the most part, including most of the victims themselves. “claiming his rights” is not referred to as rape. robert also knows that what he is doing is wrong, especially the part where he is hurting her (theres also the layer of the code of chivalry being completely contradicted), but he refuses to confront it in multiple ways, and i dont think even he fully acknowledges it as rape either even though i refuse to believe that he is not aware of it. cersei’s right to label him a coward. same with ned in that very conversation, he even sees and knows that robert physically hit her, heard her say that she can scarcely bear him touching her, and yet he asks: “a thousand other women might have loved him with all their hearts. what did he do to make you hate him so?”, and cersei also doesn’t give the answer: “he repeatedly raped me.” jaime understands rape as terrible, he shows concern towards brienne, and risks personal harm (and gets it too since he is kicked unconscious because of it) saving her from it, and it is an act driven by empathy, and he even ironically acknowledges that rape can leave someone broken in a way that does not show on the outside. he executes pia’s rapist too, sets a precedent among his father’s men, and recognizes that she’s “scarred” where it does not show: “That’s all she is, a little girl in a woman’s body, scarred and scared.”

and re the present: while i have a sympathy for jaime in the sense that the betrayal that he was confronted with shatters the delusion that he made immense sacrifices for and defined most of his life atp, and the fact that it makes him feel that he was not actually loved by her as well as recontextualizing his most horrible decisions, he should be showing more consideration and empathy (and i am not saying that he is obligated to die for her either. he isnt) and put in the effort to actually place himself in cersei’s shoes and navigate these blindspots that he has (he has the capacity to, again: “they will leave her a cripple too, but inside, where it does not show”). right now, he is extremely bitter, violently even, and can be selfish and misogynistic as hell about it, and i obviously believe that that is something that has to be recognized by readers for what it is.

but still, regarding the rest, i also think ppl dont acknowledge that because of how medieval society operates there is a very skewed perspective and understanding of certain things and how that affects characters. even with rhaella, jaime is disturbed by the physical abuse:

like he doesnt use the word rape like he does with brienne and the bloody mummers, but he obviously hears and sees that the abuse thats happening to rhaella is horrid and hurts her, and feels a need/obligation to protect her. this is why it is not inconsistent at all that jaime would recklessly murder robert without “permission” even if it meant his own life if he saw evidence of physical abuse, but does not do the same for the marital rape/him claiming his rights. in this society it is not viewed as a violation of rights because women do not really have these rights in these circumstances. their purpose is to marry and bear children. rape is mostly understood and recognized as “low born criminals violently raping women”, “knights and soldiers violently raping women when their blood is up” etc, not “nobles in marriages raping their wives when they claim their rights”, or “coerced rape occurring every time nobles use brothels” etc.

and, as you may have noticed, there’s a strong “you’re hurting me” motif with all of this, because no matter what westerosi society normalizes to maintain patriarchal hegemony, it is obviously all an utter violation of human rights that deals immense harm and trauma to women.