#they're so gay... and that's why i called them The Queers. so it's canon

[kalashtars]

god. persona 5 royal. game of all time.

[dazeddoodles]

I saw an artwork about masc luz that receives different qrts on twitter. one side, masc luz is supported because the representation of gnc or masc bisexual girls is scarce in media. dana also confirms that she meant to design luz as a tomboy. on the other hand, a few hate masc luz because they think it's racist. it's the stereotype that dark-skinned women are seen more masculine. may i ask your opinion about this?

This is a difficult question to answer but as someone who's both brown and queer, I'll try to give my perspective.

First off I've never seen Dana call Luz a tomboy, in the interview I watched she said almost the opposite. She describes Luz as gender non-conforming, and how Disney tried to pressure her into either making Luz more feminine or just straight up a tomboy because Luz being gnc "would confuse the children".

And Luz's design always looked gnc to me, not masc or fem, at least in season 1 (IMO Luz's epilogue design is more masc-leaning). She even wore a suit and dress combo to Grom. But you have both sides either drawing her more feminine or more masculine.

Hopefully, it's already obvious why drawing her super feminine could be seen as problematic. The implication is that the artist doesn't see her as pretty enough with how she already looks.

As for drawing her masc. In principle, there's nothing wrong with it, like you said it gives representation to masc bisexual girls that is scarce in media. However, many only view it from a queer lens and don't bother looking at it from a racial point of view.

The problem is that Luz is the ONLY brown girl in the main cast. Every other primary female character is either white or light-skinned (Willow), and unlike Luz, they are all feminine presenting. Even Eda who has stereotypically "masculine" personality traits still dresses feminine.

There's also Camila and Vee but they're not as prominent until the last season, and both of them are also not very feminine presenting, like Luz they're also just kinda gnc. If you don't believe me compare how Camila dresses to how Eda or Lilith dress. Or compare how Vee dresses to how Amity and Willow dress.

So the fact is only choosing Luz to draw masc makes it seem like the artist associates brown skin with masculinity. After all, many who do masculinize Luz will keep Amity feminine, hell they draw her even more feminine than she is in canon.

The common answer I often hear is that Luz is more masc in canon so it makes sense to only draw her as "the masculine one". But as I already went over she's gnc not just masculine (at least before the epilogue). And not only that but often times people will take it a step further and make Luz a giant compared to Amity, despite them being about the same height (though Amity does wear short heels). Or make her super muscular when in canon Luz in weaker and Amity is the more athletic one.

This is something often done with wlw ships where one of them is brown-skinned. You'll see fans say stuff like they love couples with height differences, and then only ever make the brown one huge.

To give an example I recently saw the same discussion in the Wicked fandom of Gelphie shippers often drawing movie Elphaba and ONLY Elphaba more masculine despite being feminine in canon (yes she's green but she's played by a black woman and is half black in canon, look at her mom).

If the intent is representation, it must be asked why is it ONLY the brown girl given this treatment when she isn't completely like that in canon? It feels more like fans think one of the girls in a gay couple has to be "the man" and always choose the brown girl because they see them as less feminine.

My stance is that I don't think drawing Luz masc is inherently bad but how is she being portrayed compared to the other, lighter-skinned, characters?

[strangelysilver]

He does NOT like Will? It's clear as glass never looked at Will with love, only happiness, meanwhile you have the MILEVEN pizzeria scene and the van scene, he CLEARLY looks at Will that way because of EL

Look, Mike's gazes with Will or El can be as romantic or platonic as you want to interpret them. I personally don't really use facial expressions as proof towards a ship. They're more of a fun, cute thing to make GIF sets of.

What DOES convince me of a ship is when the narrative arcs of a story are set up in a way that only makes sense if that ship is endgame. And that's what I think Byler has.

Will's painting lie is a Chekhov's gun.

Will pushing Mike and El together makes him a Cyrano.

Mike's odd behavior towards Will has to be addressed, and there are not many plot reasons why a guy might be suddenly hesitant to express affection to his childhood best friend.

Mike saying "we're friends, we're friends" when Will wasn't implying anything more is potentially one of the most common romance tropes of all time.

Season 4 ends with Mike and Will promising each other to work as a team, and then the final shot shows them paired up alongside the show's canon couples.

El wants to feel normal, and Mike views her as a superhero. Mike wants to feel needed, and El's journey throughout the series has been to become independent and to develop herself from a lab kid with no sense of self into someone SHE wants to be, not what someone else wants her to be.

Will is in love with MIKE. It's not just that he's gay and afraid that his best friend will shun him for it, it's specifically written that he's in love with Mike. The writers didn't need to do that if just wanted the conflict to be Mike potentially being homophobic.

Going back to the painting, letting a gay kid successfully sacrifice his feelings to push a straight relationship together is a terrible message in a show about social outcasts and rejects.

Usually, a heartfelt confession of love is used to dramatically save the day. But Mike's big monologue... didn't. The ending of Season 4 is simply not what you would expect after one of those kinds of world-saving love speeches.

Mike and El are not talking after the monologue. Why would this be true, if the monologue was the major turning point in their relationship? Narratively, it should have brought them closer together, but it didn't.

El says that Mike makes her feel like a monster, that he thinks she's a monster. Will says that Mike makes him feel like less of a mistake, like maybe he isn't one.

Sorry, I have to mention the monologue again. As you mentioned, Mike looks happy with El when they're at the pizza place-- they're talking and laughing. So why is it that after the monologue, after Mike finally tells her what she has been begging for him to say for half a season, El is no longer talking to him?

The audience KNOWS that Mike isn't homophobic. There is an entire scene in Season 1 where he shoves one of his bullies in front of the entire school, despite knowing that he's going to suffer for it, because the bully was making fun of Will by calling him queer. So why else has there been so much build up around Will's inevitable coming out? Like I said earlier, this is compounded by the fact that Will is specifically and intentionally in love with Mike. Why make it such a huge plot thread?

This is already way too long, so I'll cut it there. But I hope I made it clear that it's not the glances or the plentiful parallels to canon couples or the scene direction (though there is some compelling and interesting evidence in that area) that convinced me of Byler happening. There is no debating that Byler's relationship has been built up for three seasons, but I wasn't even a romantic Byler believer until I watched Season 4. It was Season 4 that made me realize that there is no other satisfying narrative ending.

[anxietycheesecake]

I'd like to ask you a very fair question: now that they no-homoed nandermo, now that we know for certain we aren't getting any gay relationship, what makes wwdits so high quality rep over other shows that have gay sex jokes and throw a coming out in an episode? Is it because they're actually having gay sex? Because it's still just played for laughs and treated as less than the canonical straight relationships (also "haha they're pervs who'll fuck anyone" isn't peak bi representation, that said as a bisexual who is a perv who will fuck anyone). What did wwdits do that other similar shows haven't done decades ago to earn that queer media™ recognition and be packed with OFMD and good omens, two actual extremely queer shows with gays having feelings beyond horny?

Not to say I didn't enjoy the episode because I absolutely did (queerbaiting aside), and it's amazing if you find this resolution satisfying. I do too, to some extent (as a start rather than an ending, tbh). But after so many years calling out how they teased a queer relationship they never intended to portray and then hit us with homophobic "let guys be friends" rethoric (you don't have to be homophobic to say homophobic shit) and getting absolutely dragged for it... was it all worth it? Don't you feel a little TJLC? Aren't you kind of mad that nothing has really changed since the days of Sherlock and Supernatural? Or, even worse, that now showrunners can point at characters, go "haha these bitches be gay af" and get awards for queer representation?

I love wwdits, even when I hate it. Nobody forced them at gunpoint to write season 3 and 4 like that, or be purposefully vague about what they were going for, or teasing the possibility of nandermo all over the marketing. If things have continued to go like in season 1 and 2, I'd be more than cool with this ending. If they had gone "holy shit, we didn't want to make it seem like it'd actually happen, we just thought it was funny that they acted so gay" and course-corrected after season 3 instead of doubling down, I wouldn't even call it queerbait. Sometimes people making media don't know how it's going to be received and that's okay. It becomes bait when you refuse to clarify and after pulling all that shit you act like fans are insane for noticing.

So by all means, continue to enjoy wwdits. This show means so much to me and if it had remained a plotless sitcom without character development that is just meant to make me laugh, I'd call it one of the best comedies I've ever watched. It's just that, in retrospective, they took the show in a direction that made no sense for them, ran with it for far too long and then asked why people expected so much from a show that wasn't meant to have any depth, despite all the times they tried to make it look like they knew where they were going.

[super-who-locked-me-in-here]

Pieces of media my mom has seen and the popular MLM ships in them that she doesn't think are gay:

MCU - Stucky (note that she does get a kick out of Stony stuff and she believes wholeheartedly that those two hate fucked in a not-filmed scene of Avengers 2012 so this is not about her thinking "oh Captain America is so straight-laced because he's the ideal American man" or anything)

MCU - Poolverine (she's fully aware and accepting of the fact that both Logan and Wade are canonically queer characters but she thinks all the flirting Wade did with Logan in the newest movie didn't necessarily mean anything because "he talks like that to everyone". Side note though: while she believes Wade should be with Vanessa, she does think that Logan can and should shoot his shot with Wade after Vanessa inevitably dies since he and Wade are both immortal. It's just that she thinks Wade should get his happy ending with Vanessa first.)

MCU - Lokius ("Mama have you ever seen a man fix another man's tie like that" "No but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen! I wouldn't know though; it's been like 15 years since I worked a corporate job.")

Sonyverse/Marvel - Symbrock ("They literally have a symbiotic relationship. That doesn't make them gay." So I showed her the comics where Eddie calls Venom "love" and gives birth to Venom's babies and she said "Fine you win but please never show me alien man birth ever again."

Supernatural - Destiel ("They're like Steve and Bucky! They're brothers in arms! They've been through hell and back together!" Note that she only watched through season 5 but she does know about a lot of their later interactions because I told her about them)

House M.D. - Hilson ("Dot I watched that whole show and they were never anything more than good friends" "What about when House admitted to thinking about Wilson during sex? What about that whole episode where they pretended to be gay for each other to prove a point to a neighbor and Wilson proposed? What about that whole episode where Wilson had to furnish the apartment and House told him not to let a woman tell him what to do but Wilson let House tell him what to do? What about the whole ending?" "Why can't two men just be close enough friends to joke about that stuff with each other?"

Real life - Me and my best friend of the same gender orientation who I've kissed multiple times and have had a requited crush on for years that neither of us have ever persued for logistical reasons (I literally used me and this friend to try and prove my mom wrong about Stucky and Destiel. I asked her if she thought me and this friend were like brothers and she said yes with a straight face)

Sherlock - Johnlock (to be fair this is the BBC ship name, but she doesn't think any iteration of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson are the slightest bit gay. "They're business partners and roommates.")

Our Flag Means Death - BlackHands (Should go ahead and say that I'm not really a BlackHands shipper myself; we both really enjoyed Stede and Ed's romance in the show. BUT it takes so much away from Izzy's character and his development if you don't acknowledge that he was jealous of Stede and in love with Ed, at least a little. My mom thought Izzy was just an extremely loyal first mate.)

Also, for the record, I'm not trying to call my mom out as homophobic. I'm queer and so are two of my siblings and she's very supportive of us. There are gay romcoms she enjoys like Our Flag Means Death and Red, White, and Royal Blue. The reason I'm making this list is because I think it's really funny how she doesn't understand the concept of queerbaiting (not that all of the above listed ships are queerbaiting). She thinks things are either explicitly straight or explicitly queer (whether it's gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc) and cannot comprehend the idea that some character relationships are deliberately pushing the boundaries of straight friendships into queer relationships to get more minority viewers and I think her explanations are funny.

[froschli96]

As an asexual Good Omens fan

There's something I've noticed in this fandom that makes me really uncomfortable, and that is the way that Crowley and Aziraphale's possible asexuality is constantly being connected to and justified by them being not human.

I just honestly really hate that, because implying that asexuality is something that somehow "logically" follows from characters being nonhuman is ... not great. Like, I hate having to be the one to point this out, but asexuality is, in fact, very much a human attribute.

And unfortunately, most of the time when I come across this take, it doesn't feel like someone seeing themselves in the characters and relating to their experience, but rather an othering, this kind of otherwordly pure non-sexualness, where people put these characters above such trivial things like sexuality.

I am not asexual because I am somehow confounded by this oh so complicated human concept of sexuality, or because I don't ever think or care about sexuality at all (a lot of thinking was unfortunately involved actually before I finally came to a conclusion about my identity) it is just a fact of who I am, as a human being, it’s a part of my human experience.

And let's be honest, attributing asexuality to nonhuman characters is not the hot new take a lot of people seem to think it is — this trope has been around for ages. And it hasn't done a great deal to normalize asexuality. In fact I'd argue it's perpetuated an othering of ace people, but you take what you can get, really. (This is not to say that it is in any way wrong to identify with these kinds of characters, I definitely do, too! It's just sad that the topic of discussion is always about how "human" someone can be considered when they don't feel sexual or romantic attraction)

To be honest, I don't actually see A&C being asexual as canon — as a lot of people seemingly do — just because the author kind of suggested it in a tweet where he basically conflates "asexual" and "sexless" (for the record, this is not a dig at Neil, I just think the implications were kind of unfortunate, even if it might not have been intentional, which makes it all the more frustrating that a lot of fans just ran with it). And yeah, going around calling people aphobic for seeing the Ineffable Husbands as gay rep or any other identity, when they’re oh so obviously canonically ace, is honestly kind of insane.

I get that it might feel nice and tempting to be able to "claim" these characters and this relationship and being able to tell other fans off whose headcanons on their sexuality differ from your own because it is hard to come by any kind of representation when you're ace and there's finally a creator who's not only not contemptuous towards but even supportive of fans reading his characters as queer. And if you feel represented by A&C as it is then all the more power to you. But the thing is, it doesn't matter what kind of justifications there are or what canon might or might not say (bc when has that ever mattered in fandom spaces) or what the creator says, you cannot convert people to your opinion about a character, and you're going to have a bad time if you spend your time in fandom trying to do that.

And really, I am just wondering why we necessarily even need an explanation or justification for them possibly being asexual. Why does it have to be that all angels and demons are asexual by virtue of being nonhuman, and so A&C have to be too? why can't that just be an aspect of them that is completely unrelated to them not being human? Could these characters maybe not simply identify as asexual, not because they're nonhuman, but in spite of it? (btw, in the same vein it is equally stupid to argue that A&C can't be ace because they have "gone native", which is also an argument I've come across)

Honestly, I'm not even asking anyone to fundamentally change how they see these characters here — if you think they must be asexual solely because they're angels and have no concept of human sexuality, then whatever, I can't stop you and I don’t want to police anyone's headcanons bc as I said that's stupid and a waste of time. What I am asking you is that you maybe reflect a little bit on why exactly it is that humanity and sexuality are somehow so intrinsically linked in your mind to the point where you automatically use it as a way to distinguish between human and nonhuman characters.

Anyways.

Tldr: please stop equating asexuality with non-humanness thank you and good day.

[cassiebones]

Please Chill

Please, I am begging you all to chill out. I'm speaking specifically to my wlw Agatha fans right now. Even more specifically to the ones who are angry that the last episode revolved around Teen/Billy.

He is a main fucking character. His backstory is important to the plot. We only get nine episodes in this series and the plot needs to move forward. We cannot do that without revealing who he is and what his motivations are, from a storytelling standpoint.

I studied creative writing in college. I worked really fucking hard to get into my program, too. I took classes on novel writing, mainly, but also in screenwriting and playwriting. I took classes on TV writing in the mid 2010's at a time where the trend was shifting to streaming services putting out entire fucking seasons at a time.

But I remember having to wait a week for an episode of a show I loved. I remember what happened to my favorite wlw characters. I remember being absolutely devastated by Lexa's death in The 100. I know you're scared of it happening again, but there is so much evidence on the contrary to prove that it's not going to happen here.

Firstly, I don't think for a second that some of the actresses who signed up for this would have done so if they thought they were going to pull the same shit. I don't think Jac or Kathryn or fucking Aubrey, who legit said that she signed up because it's a queer show, would do that.

But i don't know. Because the show isn't over. We have three episodes left over the next two weeks. I, like you all, am praying that they're not about to pull some bullshit, especially considering the majority of their current fanbase is comprised of queer people.

But you can't just call them lesbophobic because they focused on a canonically gay character rather than your favorite lesbian ship for one(1) episode. They have confirmed that Rio and Agatha are estranged exes. They showed us so much flirting and yearning and longing. From a storytelling standpoint, they are building that tension for a great payoff. Its's gonna happen. Please, just be patient.

I was upset, too. I did not want them to shift focus to Billy. When I saw that that was going to be the majority of the episode, I was upset. I made a couple posts about it. But I still watched and it was honestly a pretty good, important episode. And fucking funny as all hell. We truly saw the aftermath of Wanda's actions. Wanda, who wasn't trying to be malicious or harmful, but she still caused so much harm.

As much as I would have loved to see Rio, I understand why she wasn't in this episode just yet, but she'll likely be in the next one. It was probably only like 2 minutes after he threw them into the mud that Agatha crawled out. Also we see Lilia and Jen in future promos, so they'll be fine.

I predict that the next three episodes are going to be longer and more plot heavy moving forward. I really hope we see more of Agatha's delusions from the POV of Rio, because Kathryn Hahn and Aubrey are fucking hilarious and I know it's going to be just as funny as last night's Teen POV.

I want to see people theorizing about the next three episodes and what's going to happen and how they're going to rectify anything, but I'm seeing so many negative posts about why your favorite lesbians didn't kiss or fuck yet on this Disney show. Please, just be fucking patient. It's coming.

That being said, if I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it and be super salty about it. I hope I'm not, but who knows? I'm not going to make a snap decision either way. You shouldn't either.

[olderthannetfic]

Hi, Ah weird question? So the default of fandoms usually is 'ship and let ship' right? Meaning even if you hate a ship you'll not harass the person, right? Now I'm asking this as someone who always headcanon and ship characters as queer. Here is this situation that I'm in right now: apparently a friend of mine who also agrees with 'SALS', found out another friend of theirs(A) used a mod to romance a queer character in a not queer way, you know what I mean? So then my friend called A queerphobic, they then fought and they are not talking right now. My friend came to me and told me about this, apparently expecting me to be as angry as them(I'm also queer/pan btw) and well I wasn't? Because why should I care what they ship or better say, how A chooses to romance characters. I suggested to my friend to talk to A about it and well, this made them more angry? I mean yeah it's awful when someone denies a character being queer in canon. But as far as I know A is not doing that? Now they are angry with me too although we still talk.....Am I in the wrong here? What should I do?

--

Using mods to make every NPC player-sexual is perfectly fine.

I get that it can be upsetting to see people "taking away" your few queer characters, but they're not actually taking them away. That friend is being unreasonable.

I'm not sure the default actually is SALS these days, but it ought to be.

Your friend may come back around to this once they calm down... or they may continue to be upset and think that being upset is a sign that something is morally wrong and not just a personal reaction.

I would avoid the topic with them for now. If they insist on talking about it, you can compare it to letting people ship ships you find gross. It's fine to keep finding them gross! But you shouldn't dump or attack friends over that.

This is, in general, a very touchy subject for a lot of queer people. Bob & Rose got a massive amount of hate despite reportedly being based on some real experiences. One Exception happens even IRL and even to people who thought they were gay... but it feels like talking about it gives ammo to shitheads who think they're going to be your one exception or that we should send teens to conversion camp.

So I get why people freak out about this, but... well... they need to chill when it comes to some friend smashing the barbie dolls together the wrong way.

[devondeal]

Long Chaggie rant ahead

I think a reason Chaggie get called "boring" is that they are waayyy past that beginning stage of their relationship TV love to glamorize.

They've been together for three years and already have that comfort level with each other that not everything is a new discovery. They accept each other's differences and just support. That's what a well established relationship is like.

Of course they are still heavily affectionate and loving with each other because duh, they're in love. Society loves to repeat the bullshit "losing the spark" problem in relationships and how "marriage is so hard" but most of these situations are people that barely even like each other let alone love.

I think that's why media loves showing either beginning stage relationships OR trope-y enemies to lovers and variants of that.

ESPECIALLY in the case of queer relationships because it's only fairly recently that it's been normalized onscreen and I don't think we're used to seeing a normal queer relationship. Like think about it.

Media has always loved showing the gays as deviant and toxic because that's been the only way it was allowed to be seen. I think many of us have gotten used to seeing ourselves that way that it's been normalized.

Personally, I'm in the boat of I'm sick being seen as deviant and like it's bad and wrong thing to be in love with someone of the same sex. For me, Chaggie has been healing because it's just two women being a healthy happy couple. Something that society and even family have told me is not possible which hurts beyond words to hear.

So yeah, I love Chaggie. It is the best wlw canon ship in fucking YEARS and I have been craving representation like this. The very things that I get dirty looks at for irl, is completely normal with Chaggie.

They can hold hands, lean in together arm around shoulder, quick casual kisses in public, give each other goo-goo eyes, just general affection and couple-y behavior as well as the "been together for 3 years" quirks and routines. Like I swear I cannot remember any other wlw ship like this so yeah, it's gonna hit me hard in the feels.

And when characters like Lute and Adam are disgusted or fetishize it, it's very obviously portrayed as villainous behavior. Everyone else just accepts them as they are.

Of course it's not just the normalization of those things but specifically in the context of they've been together for 3 years and are still very much in love and have nothing to prove to each other and just face any conflicts as they come like a normal couple.

Most media especially TV have gay couples break up after that amount of time just for drama points and cuz us gays cant ever last in a long term relationship apparently 😒 And I feel like that especially goes for lesbian relationships on TV. I've seen wayyy more long terms mlm relationships than wlw in main roles.

(Wonder if that's cuz it's just so unbelievable that women could actually love each other cuz society just is so attached to the idea that all women hate each other)

Basically fuck Chaggie hate. We need more wlw long term relationships like this onscreen. I'm tired of being seen as deviant and likely to be toxic. And I'm not saying they need to be perfect. They're obviously not and have some issues but that's a good thing. Every couple has issues.

I'm just saying not all gay onscreen need to almost destroy their relationship in order to repair it.

I just really find it incredibly annoying that some will slap the "boring" label on Chaggie when it's more likely that a long term healthy happy wlw relationship is just that bizarre to them. Just let women actually love women for fuck's sake.

[akkpipitphattana]

i always headcanonned all fk characters as switches but now i realize we've only ever seen firsts character portrayed as top and khaotungs as bottom yknow with the famous thrusting in ofs and kantbison red room scene. even if they had different dynamic it wasn't explicitly portrayed why is that? i wish we could see a change in the bl industry

oh yeah, it's definitely a thing in the bl industry where they classify one as the top and one as the bottom with zero nuance or change from series to series, and i think that's part of why top/bottom discourse can get so aggressive in the bl fandom. it's almost always the bigger/taller/more "masc" guy that gets the top role and it pushes such a problematic notion about how gay couples "should" interact and it's deeply annoying! especially because people in fandom will then get so attached to these ideas and the way they act about it is like. straight up mean and gross. like why do you care so much that some people think that first's characters occasionally bottom? why is that such a big deal for you?

and in a way it does circle back to the issue with people insisting on bison being a sub despite the fact that he, canonically and explicitly, is a dom. again, people have these fucked up ideas about the way gay couples should be and because bison is smaller and cuter and more feminine and we have also seen him explicitly bottoming, he has to be the sub. which is just extremely reductive and just repackaged misogyny and homophobia! (which, i've actually been thinking since the pilot trailer about how the inherent misogyny that comes from those assumptions also kind of feeds into the way misogyny was replaced from taming to the heart killers and the way those dynamics manifest in the show. like there's something VERY interesting about the lucentio/bianca couple aka the more "traditional" couple having their typical "top" as the man of the couple and their typical "bottom" play the woman vs the katherine/petruchio having the "top" playing the woman! there's a commentary going on there, i think, but unfortunately i haven't gotten to really writing anything about that cause usually there's so much else going on in the show that i kind of forget about that aspect sdkjfsdf)

that all being said, i also don't think fk's characters are necessarily forced into those boxes because of the industry at large, if that makes sense? like i feel like they're one of the few branded pairs that aren't put into those roles just because first is taller/bigger/more masculine. because the thing is, with akkayan we never actually see them having sex on screen, so we can't actually know for sure the positions they use. and while we see it with kantbison and sandray, i also think context is important.

with sandray, i think ray is just meant to be a character that has his preferences, and on top of that he's spoiled and sand is always going to give him whatever he wants. those things are part of their characters even without getting into their sexual dynamics, and one thing about jojo is that sex in his shows are actually a lot deeper than people realize - so, it makes sense that with that dynamic in mind, sand would be more "the giver" and ray "the taker" when it comes to sex, so to speak. and then with kantbison, i again think it's meant to play at the fact that bison is the dom. i think bison in a lot of ways is MEANT to seem contradictory to that kind of idea, and i also think he kind of gets off on that idea. like, i was actually talking to may @deliriousblue about this earlier, but i think it's why we see bison bottom, why we see him lean into his cuteness, why we see him call kant daddy. he likes leaning into the idea of a traditional sub while actually being the one in control! it's like a power thing for him.

i also just think firstkhao have been very lucky in the fact that in all three of the series that they've been main couples for, they've worked with very progressive and very queer directors. i mean, golf, who directed the eclipse, is trans and an activist and i believe used to be a member of parliament before they were forced out, if i'm remembering that correctly? and then jojo directed both only friends and the heart killers and jojo has never been shy about making his characters as queer as possible beyond just the aspect of having sex with the same gender, yknow? he also has never been shy about making his characters switches, either, or having them talk openly about positions, so again, i don't really view fk as being necessarily stereotyped - more that jojo specifically is a director that will use those stereotypes and the way the industry perceives things to his advantage, if that makes sense. like i think about how he chose to use firstkhao and forcebook in only friends for sandray and topmew, and then had neomark, who were an unbranded pair, for the couple that didn't end up together. like people complained about it, but again, i think it was jojo using the way the industry is set up to his advantage while also challenging those norms in other aspects of the show.

this got like. aggressively long for no reason, but basically i do agree that there should be a change in the way the industry puts their branded pairs in boxes, but i honestly feel like fk are one of the few that aren't ACTUALLY in that box, if that makes sense sdkjfhskf

[afurtivecake]

hate that kevriko is a rarepair, i really feel like so many of their interactions are so juicy and full of worthwhile discussions that for some reason nobody wants to indulge

i def think that rikos anger at jean was less bc of him LOOKING at kevin and more so that he was looking at KEVIN

anyway if you have thoughts and feelings to share, pls do

thank you for this ask<3 also you're so right. we don't talk about kevriko as a ship enough when there's a lot to think about there. (i am guilty of this too)

the interesting thing about kevriko is that they're almost exactly like the kind queerbaiting couple you'd have seen in late 2000's media. (1) there were so many shows with characters that had an undeniably deep and intimate connection with each other that was also really fucked-up and we, the audience, were expected to believe these were the actions of fully heterosexual men who, at best, hated each other. yeah, that's what nora has effectively created with kevriko.

i'm not saying kevriko is intentional queerbaiting; i just mean the ambiguous and open-ended nature of their relationship lends itself well to speculations about what they really felt for each other.

i'm guessing people don't ship kevriko much because it is very much a toxic and abusive relationship made worse by the horrible environment they were living in. i think there is a lot of reluctance to engage with the topic of textual abusive queer relationships. i think people are drawn to the idea of nice, healthy, wholesome queer relationships in media and shy away from ships that can't fit into that mold. which is interesting because that's not at all different from how the general public treated people who shipped those kinds of canonically straight characters with antagonistic, homoerotic relationships back then. there was always this sense of like, "why would you want to ship that when there are all these other better ships available?" why would you want to imagine a gay relationship when it's so bad and toxic when there are other more socially acceptable ships available? only real difference is that, back then "socially acceptable" strongly meant "straight". i guess what i'm saying is that it feels like people would rather kevin and riko be straight and not at all emotionally attached because that would make their relationship straightforward and palatable. it would frame them as captor and prisoner longing for escape, rather than something horrible and ugly and uncomfortably involved.

but ok let's just talk about the elephant in the room: was riko obsessively in love with kevin and repressing it?

yeah. probably. yes. in tgr, it's pretty clear that riko was insanely possessive of kevin and responded jealously whenever another man dared to get close to kevin. "but was it love?" i hear people ask. or was it selfishness, obsession, and codependency? does it really matter what you call it? it amounts to the same thing in the end.

if we can accept that andreil's relationship doesn't fit into the traditional mold of "romantic relationship" but is still intimate and loving nonetheless, then we should be able to accept that kevriko doesn't fit into the traditional mold of "abusive romantic relationship" but is nonetheless, built around emotional involvement and intimate partner abuse.

lots of works show these same aspects of an abusive relationship, but what aftg does that feels different is that it puts focus on the "relationship" aspect. simply put, aftg doesn't try to eliminate the emotional attachment kevin and riko have to each other in order paint a more stark line between victim and abuser as if attempting to signal to the audience the writer knows this relationship is Bad and Irredeemable. aftg acknowledges that being in an abusive relationship requires a heavy emotional investment on both sides.

it took emotional investment for riko to hold kevin that close and it took emotional investment for kevin to choose to stay for as long as he did. yes, there is also an element of one party having the power to enforce a relationship on their terms. but if it were as simple as seeing the power balance imbalance and thinking, "i don't have to put up with this shit anymore!" like an employee quitting their shitty job and shitty boss, then beating riko and the ravens in the finals would have fixed kevin. and we can see in tgr that it very much has not. there isn't an absence of feeling in abusive relationships. there isn't an absence of desire to be together. that's what makes extricating oneself from the them so hard.

riko was undoubtedly deeply attached to kevin and built all his future dreams around the idea that kevin would be at his side exactly where he wants him to be. he could not let go of kevin even after kevin left and he continued to act as if kevin was going to come back to him as soon as he destroyed the foxes and everything would be back on track. in a similar way, kevin has trouble letting go of riko after riko dies. we see him in tgr still pursuing excellence (exy-llence?) and fixating hard on the dream of playing in the olympics as if he's determined to carry him and riko's dream to the finish line on his own - to prove that he could do what riko could never could, alone. denying the awful emotional aspect of kevin and riko's relationship ignores the fact that being together fucked them up and that kevin is still left trying to disentangle himself from that mess.

(1) the example that springs to mind is Heroes. does anyone remember the show Heroes? sylar/mohinder, you'll always be famous to me. basically, sylar is a serial killer who is able to steal the superpower of the people he kills and mohinder is the researcher studying superpowers and this serial killer. there's one insane scene where sylar calls mohinder in distress and says shakily, "i think i did something bad," and mohinder, without missing a beat, shoots back, "you're a serial killer; you don't get the benefit of the doubt." and then there's a bit of back and forth where sylar is pleading with mohinder to just help him somehow because mohinder is the only one he can trust. and we were supposed to believe those two were heterosexual men who did not like each other at all. yeah that's how bad queerbaiting was back then.

[jwcc-confessions]

I want to talk about WHY Ben having a girlfriend bothers me. No I am not hetero/bi/pan/(etc.)phobic, no I am not a biased shipper, no I don't hate Gia (in fact she's my favorite side character), and no I am not a delusional fan who's butt hurt that he's not gay.

Ben was never canonically confirmed to be gay... but do i feel he was and even is queer coded? Yes. Can Ben still be queer coded and have a girlfriend? Absolutely... Well, that's not what bothers me—what bothers me is HOW him having a girlfriend was handled.

Why would he ever say "She lives in... Uhh.. Europe...?" ... She wasn't mentioned but twice, all the characters were skeptical and didn't believe him... dang, I mean Ben didn't even sound like he believed himself. So all I can really ask is why...? Why wouldn't they believe him? It felt like it was leading up to more, some big secret, or that it would be used in the plot later somehow to create drama. NEVER did I think he genuinely had a girlfriend, because I didn't think the writers would pull something like that to be honest.

I understand that they did it for the joke of "hah, the girlfriend is real...!" ...but the crew is acutely aware of the fact that the fandom had accepted him as gay, and I feel like they USED that to make him being into women a "plot twist" or something..? I don't know. Them making him into girls isn't bad, after all they never confirmed he was gay... but knowingly teasing fans with it is just cruel.

It kind of just ruined the build up into their relationship for me. If they would've made it clear from the starts she was real, and made her play into the story more, her character and her relationship with Ben wouldn't feel as seasonal... but don't even get me started on that...

Maybe I'm overthinking this and they did what they did for other reasons, but from how I see the situation, it's certainly wrong and honestly—just plain annoying. I don't want to call it queerbaiting, but I guess you could consider it as such.

Even if we set aside the queer baiting debate, like you said, why did Ben say it like he wasn't even confident about it and then proceed to give no info and barely mention her?

If your buddies were like "haha no way you have a gf" you'd bust out the whole backstory, her name, her location ("Europe" is so fucking vague bro that's a whole continent, if you say someone is from Europe it's probably because you don't even know what damn country they're in), how they MET. Ben volunteered none of that information. Zeroth.

It really does bug me that the writers deliberately framed it like Ben was either 1) lying about having a gf or 2) hiding the fact that he wasn't positive she was real / had never met her in person yet. The reveal that they had in fact met in person at college just baffled me, like why couldn't he tell his friends that in the first place?

[alucardens]

Yeah though seriously- you might not ship Buck and Tommy and that's okay- everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it doesn't harm anyone- what makes it not okay is when you say things like you're being queerbaited- in a show that *literally* has a canon lesbian couple (where one half of the couple is a main character) SINCE the first episode of the show, that, 1) consistently, as a couple, have storylines that get resolved in a way that shows the writers aren't brushing the characters away, and arcs that show character growth.

2) NONE. NONE. Of the canonically queer characters have been harmed in a way that resulted in permanent death. And when they do get in harms way (which is inevitable- this is the nature of the show), it's done in a thoughtful way- their actions and risk of death/ injury WOULD add something to the plot/ storyline. Their loss would have an impact on us as the viewer. They would not be meaningless deaths. And aside from death, even queer characters who 'exit the main storyline of the show' but are otherwise alive, are still done with thought and care. I mean, (and spoilers for the first few seasons of the show,) Michael's storyline lasted (iirc) about 3-5? seasons. (We are not talking about meta events such as why they removed the actor from the show). He and his (named AND on-screen) husband, David, move to help people. His husband is literally a neurosurgeon. There was literally an episode revolving around Michael's proposal to David. Even after they've moved away, they're STILL referenced and talked about. They're not pushed away or ignored like the way some shows treat characters who aren't there anymore.

Josh (my bby fr), who's also been canonically gay since his first appearance, also has a arc that's real and very very relatable to most of us. The show takes it fucking seriously as well. And Josh is GOOD. Even as a side character, he's not reduced to the 'gay best friend'. As I said, he has his own storyline and arc, he has his own opinions, he's good at his job.

Aside from the main characters, imo, 911 also does a damn good job of showing that queer people exist. You might not like it because 'oh they're showing queer people who are in danger/ not happy/ dying.' To which I'd respond by saying that you're watching a show about paramedics. As much as we like to say this is the gay firefighter show (accurate lmao), we need to remember that there's going to be dark themes in this show.

I don't remember every call they've come across that involved queer people, but we for sure remember the 'we ever only wanted to go together' scene, with the elderly husbands. Yes it involves death. That's why we're seeing this scene in the first place- the engine wouldn't have to respond to a call if there wasn't a call in the first place. But it also fucking shows queer people growing old together and making a life for themselves. The opening scene is literally a montage of the husbands' relationship over the years. I don't know how many mainstream shows put that much fucking care in queer characters.

And then there's also the wlw couple in that car accident thing- not as significant as the husbands but like, that's the point, is it not? Not all their calls are significant- we don't even see all of them. The point is that they just show queer people existing as a general thing. It's not strange that the two women who were in the same car in a crash are both gay. There's no weird over-sexualised kiss. There's no show or mention or even hint of homophobia or confusion by the firefighters. It's fucking normal. So yeah. Do I ship endgame Tevan? Not at this moment. Do I like them together as a couple right now? Fucking yes. My personal opinion is that I like Buck and Eddie together more (at least for now), but why would I not ship Tommy and Buck right now? It makes no fucking sense not to. Buck is in a happy (queer) relationship, he's still figuring himself out as a bi man in his 30s, he's dating a masc man, who's past is messy and has since grown (oh look at that, another character arc revolving around a queer person), and they're clearly fucking happy together.

Anyway. I have a lot of feelings about this lmao. You want proper bi representation? Bro. I don't know what to tell you but you're looking at it.

[tizeline]

Happy pride month and all!

I figured now was a good time to ask, but do you have any thoughts about the sexuality of the characters in your Sep AU?

Sorry if you’ve been asked already, and the answer can definitely be no, I’m just curious :)

Happy pride!! ✨

Here's the thing about headcanons about queer identities, I personally prefer to not get too stuck on specific labels. While there are exceptions, I generally try to remain flexible if that makes sense? As in I like having multiple different interpritation about characters' identities so deciding on One Particular Label can feel limiting to me.

I mentioned it before, but I do plan on making Capril an established relationship in the AU sooner or later, so April and Casey are definitely sapphic. But more specific than that? Are they lesbian or bi or pan or whatever?? I dunno!! It's not really relevant to the story so I might as well leave that up to interpretation.

My approach to creating stories is that I'll usually only decide on specific labels if it is plot relevant, Schrödingers Identity if you will, lol, it can be anything if you don't decide on it beforehand. Again, there are exceptions, Leo is gay 100% like duh I can't interpret him any other way XD. Splinter is a Bi-Icon and I will STAND BY THAT!

Raph, Donnie and Mikey? Man who knows, canon Donnie seems to be into girls at least so it's the same in the AU, but more specific than that I dunno, I'm not planning on the story really focusing on romance (aside from a little capril because every story needs sapphics that's like the law)

Actually, you know what I find fun? World building! I honestly tend to be more interested in how queer identities are viewed and treated in a story's world as a whole as opposed to induvidual character's identities. Human society in rottmnt seems to be mostly the same as our IRL society, but what about Yōkai society!? With how diverse yōkai are I think it'd be fun if people in The Hidden City just... didn't care about who you loved or what you identified as. As a result of that, I don't think yōkai would care that much about terminology and labels, you just kinda loved whoever you loved.

It'd be honestly be kinda interesting if Donnie and April used terminology that related to queer stuff and Raph, Leo and Mikey are just really confused. Like for example, April is complaining about one of her classmates who's homophobic and the The Drax Bros are just like "Home-phobic??? They're afraid of homes??" cuz the concept of discriminating against someone based on which gender they're attracted to is completely foreign to them. Actually, Leo might be more knowledgable about human queer culture considering he's interested in human cultures in general. He calls himself gay at one point and Draxum is all like "you're happy? good for you?" and he'd just be wondering why Leo is using such an old-timey word considering Leo doesn't exactly have the most advanced vocabulary.

[socialistexan]

Honestly, even though I am biased because Doctor Who is a special interest for me, I deeply admire this show for taking abuse for years, because being accused of being "woke" for casting female actors in traditionally "male" roles (the Master and then the Doctor, even though Time Lords changing gender has been canon since the 70's) and portraying gay relationships on screen...

They then after years of an avalanche of reactionary youtube rants and review bombs, instead of backing down they have doubled down and said, fuck you, we're going to be even more woke. We're going to look at the camera and talk about how abortion is good and government austerity is bad. And we're going to cast a queer black actor as the Doctor. And talk about pronouns and queer relationships like they're nothing.

Also so many people no realize that Doctor Who has kind of always been a left-leaning (if not outright socialist at times), and generally progressive socially - despite some issues with portyals of Asian characters and various missteps one would expect from a show from the 60's/70's. There was a canonically bisexual companion in 1987. The most beloved companion all time was a feminist journalist who consistently called out the Doctor's shit.

Why are y'all upset about them of being "woke" now?

[aveteranofathousandpsychicwars]

Since (Tiktok is being banned and) we're all gonna die anyway, I have one more secret I'd (like to jump into tumblr with) share with you (in the hopes that I find like-minded individuals)

I don't understand people who think Buddie is ever going canon.

I understand why people ship them. I understand why people thought there was a chance. I acknowledge they could work as a really epic slow burn romance.

They're not going canon.

It's not even because of Tommy and Tevan. I'll be happy to argue with anyone about Tevan.

Buddie is still not going canon.

Are they the majority of the shippers in the online fandom? Absolutely. Most popular ship, hands down. Over thirty thousand fanworks on AO3 alone, something like a hundred thousand followers in the tag on Tumblr, they're a shipping juggernaut. But what people fail to understand is that online fandom is always, ALWAYS a minority of the audience. The average viewer is not making tumblr posts and writing fics and drawing art of their favorite TV show. It doesn't matter how much of a majority of the fandom Buddie has, it's a minority of the audience. We saw this EXACT. SAME. EFFECT. in the recent election. Democrats created a giant echo chamber that made a lot of us very, very confident, but we did not have the majority of the audience.

A hundred thousand followers of the Buddie tag on Tumblr. However many hundred thousand tweets on Twitter (I refuse to call it X and I refuse to get on it). Thirty thousand works on AO3.

6-8 MILLION people regularly tune into 911. I guarantee you, most of them do not know what shipping is, and even if they do, Buddie has not been presented as a potential romance for either Buck or Eddie. Every moment, every look, every action...joke all you want, there IS a heterosexual explanation. "You two have a beautiful son!" Oh my God, meant to be!

The majority of the audience was laughing at the joke of two dudes being assumed a couple and Buck's discombobulation.

The shooting (honestly, the only part where I think they MIGHT have done it). A gorgeous romantic scene where they finally realized how much they stood to lose. Most of the audience was sympathizing with Buck having to watch his best friend go down in the street. Military people were probably having band of brothers thoughts.

Because, Evan. THE definitive Buddie moment. At best, most of the audience was thinking how beautiful it was that Eddie considers Buck family.

Buddie is not going canon, and it's weird that you get so vicious over it to other fans instead of yelling at the show to stop ship baiting for views. Cause that's what they're doing. Marketing, media, social posts, interviews. It all reads the exact same as it ALWAYS does when a show wants the engagement and the clicks but doesn't want to piss off the general audience. You saw it with Destiel, you saw it with Sterek, you saw it with McDanno.

ABC cares about diversity and storytelling only insofar as it will make them money and I guaran-damn-tee you Disney is not going to let them give Eddie a coming out arc along with Buck. It was a HUGE risk for them to do it with Buck (speaking strictly from a business perspective...obviously I think there should be more queer characters on TV) and it only worked because Buck was always at least a little queer-coded.

I am not shitting on gay!Eddie headcanons or the ship itself. But the NASTINESS that has perpetuated itself in regards to Buddie is gross and tiresome. It's not going canon and honestly in the political climate that's about to engulf the US even further I'd be surprised if they ever let Buck seriously date a man again, let alone Eddie.

There was a really lovely mlm ship with a main character and people shit on it so hard that it has a real chance of making them think twice about ever giving Buck a male love interest again.

So congrats, I guess? Still never going canon.