#to women I want to be seen as an object of attraction. to my friends I want to be seen as masc. to men I want to be seen as a threat

[saintlesbian]

hm. having a mini gender crisis in the middle of my shift again

[sosuigeneris]

Going by your post about daughters in high society being all-rounders, are they expected to learn certain languages, follow literary canons or maybe know specific geopolitical happenings? Is it a specific set of skills & information or is it more on a general knowledge basis?

you should definitely know your country’s language and English. Most competent girls I’ve noticed fall in two categories - either they’re extremely strong in arts (classic literature, art, music, food, essentially creative stuff) or STEM and finance.

as an overall, one normally has a general range of soft skills - the ability to converse with ease, socially confident, “respectful”, poised etc.

There are certain cheat codes to achieve this ^ and make it seem like you’re really an all rounder in the short term. Obviously in the long term you’ll have to work on your skills if you haven’t, but here’s what you can do. 1. Study the most common socially asked questions

How are you?

Where did you go for college/ uni?

What do you do?

Where have you travelled lately?

do you know about ….. ?

do you know XYZ person?

What are your hobbies?

and practice, practice these answers. Here’s your objective : to come across as knowledgeable, friendly and rational. don’t for instance, speak negatively about anyone or any experience. Instead of saying “oh my god this experience was absolutely ghastly” say “this is what I really liked and this is what I felt could be better.” You are seen as a refined woman then, not a bitchy teen. Use a wide range of vocabulary- CORRECTLY. Practice it so that it seems natural to you. Even fairly common words like “apt, apprehensive, sentient, derelict” - can make you seem a lot more polished than “so true, unsure, alive, run down”.

2. Be aware of three of the biggest news stories before any social event. Be it a dinner, party, a baby’s christening, anything. and here’s what will make you stand out - know those 2-3 stories in detail. In the age of people simply skimming over news and not making the effort to dig deeper, knowing something very well is an instant giveaway of being well read. For instance, Trump and the birthright citizenship situation. Something that an average person (especially if they are not American) may not know is that lots of non- American pregnant women - mostly Indian - in the US have begun approaching doctors to have their babies premature before the Feb 20 deadline. Now, when I mentioned that at an event recently in India, people were surprised. I was able to bring value, information to the table that no one else really knew about.

So when you speak, you want to drop a nugget of value. What you don’t want to do is get very high and mighty - you have to drop this information nonchalantly, as if you know everything. Nonchalance will give you bonus points.

3. Listen more than you speak… ATTENTIVELY. You cannot break eye contact, don’t lose focus. Nod slowly, tilt your head slightly, back straight, shoulders and hips turned towards the person who is speaking. Don’t rush and don’t rush them.

practice these small things even with your friends, school, teachers, workplace - to make something a habit, you need to practice it anywhere and everywhere. You can’t just be polished to one group of people, you must be polished to all.

4. Always approach the women/ aunties / mothers first. Compliment them genuinely. And then greet the man. The only times I break this rule is if the man is decades older, is someone I know very well, is a friend of my parents’, or if I know him better than his wife.

5. you won’t be expected to cook and clean and all that, these days it’s not really an expectation. And also, unless you want to attract men like that and you want to be that person too, it doesn’t make sense.

[wndaswife]

is it the lesbian experience to constantly have your desire for women be compared to how men desire women. these are the days where i wish desperately to have lesbian friends because im so annoyed having both my straight male friends and my gay friend compare me to how one of my friend’s boyfriends keeps sexualizing his girlfriend

like why tf am i in it now

moreover why can desire for women only be seen in this specific way

it’s so fucking annoying also when ur talking to someone who watches so much porn and also is gay so he cannot see attraction to women in any other way but how porn depicts it so he ends up being just a tiny bit misogynistic

like tell me why this man once showed me a video of this woman who was very obviously pandering to a porn-rotted brain male audience and when i said i wasn’t attracted to it and tried to explain my type he made a joke saying i was into kids…. like i understand it was a joke but he has also said out of disapproval of one of our friends’ boyfriends that he only likes her because she’s a porn category

i don’t really want to rant about gender dynamics and power right now it’s a can of worms but it’s sometimes so lonely being a lesbian because it’s so hard for people to even comprehend desire and interest in women that isn’t sexualized or objectifying

i hate having my love and admiration for women be compared to the only way people can understand interest in women, which is wanting to sexualize them and see them as objects, which is problematic in more than one way

[moonlit-escape]

‧₊˚꒰♱꒱༘‧⊹ Zane Mystreet headcanons !!

i love this lil emo freak i NEED to get wine drunk n watch ponies w this guy

6'0 (183cm)

go white boy go

hetero. (comfortable with this label, but honestly his attraction isn't limited to cis women and he has even had crushes on femme men (he just wants to be the token hetero friend))

capricorn ♑️

he mostly dresses casual emo, but sometimes my guy wants to rock a pair of demonias and a fishnet bodysuit with some heavy, pure silver chains and rings, alri

piercings,. piercings piercings piecings. no lips piercings... septum and eyebrow, though. and DEFINITELY gauges in his ears. and ABSOLUTELY ones with cute shapes.

if he didn't cover his mouth all the time, i think he would like wearing dark, cool colored lipsticks

and it'd be smudged all the time bc he keeps fuckin snacking on sweets

of course he paints his nails, and he treats them well bc he hates chipped nail polish (rich boy gets the highest quality, strongest clear nail protection youve never seen before in your life)

honestly all the ro'meave brothers are a bunch of gnc kings like okayyy!! pop off boys w your dresses, heels, skirts, n makeup!!

god can that boy sing

idc he listens to vocaloid and his favourites are vflower and rin kagamine

also listens to emo songs (ofc) and cartoon songs

prefers rock band over guitar hero

one time he smacked vylad in the back of the head with a rock band drumstick and he felt so bad he ran off and cried

boy is the most fuck-ugly crier

secretly steals stuff from people he cares about as keepsakes (like, little things: garroth's old gameboy, vylad's old sketchbook, aph's other half of a pair of lost earrings, nana's ribbons and pastry wrappers)

actually has pretty high metabolism, and one time he gloated abt it to aph and accidentally made a joke in poor taste, and she kicked his ass. so, he just lets her call him a lil fat boy as his eternal penance for being an asshole

okay this isn't a headcanon but sort of is but, why were him and dante like Tightrope-walking that fucking incel line as teenagers. like they were one wrong step from falling into an incel category. thank god their brothers would NOT have had that from their baby brothers anyway bc Wtf

anyway

honestly, he doesn't feel as cold toward vylad as he used to as a teen, and kind of wishes he had the strength to show that and reach out and ease the tension between them. but, he's afraid of making it worse by being awkward, so he wants to wait and hope that vylad makes the first move, if he ever does. (and if not, he'll probably ask garroth to do it for them)

has rejection sensitive dysphoria, made even worse by a rejection complex from: garte's blatant favouritism, bullying and rejection in school, and isolation as an adult. it's part of why he became so attached and possessive of aph. but, he's safer now

he was a harry potter kid. garroth was the percy jackson one, and vylad was warrior cats.

he always thought he was a slytherin but i think he's more of a hufflepuff than he realizes (nana on the other hand.)

he has a lot of sanrio merchandise. more than he will ever admit. his pony merchandise does outweigh it, though, of course

yes, his main comfort character and obsession lies with pinkie pie cake. but, the rainbow dash backpack Objectively fucks

you can get him to eat anything, so long as it's candied or chocolate covered. this means if you hand him one of those candied roaches, he won't think twice about gnashing down on one of those suckers

has a plushie collection of really, really soft and sweet-looking animals. and all of them have punk-like accessories (safety pin piercings, spikes, black ribbons, black laces, etc)

the only plush that doesn't have anything on it is an old brown teddy bear with garroth's faded name on the tag

likes to make snapcube sonic fandub references and will just drop random shadow, the devil, and memphis tennessee quotes

[sevensoulmates]

Buddie 7x04 Meta Part 2 (of 4)

Click here for Part 1, Part 3, and Part 4.

Where I left off in Part 1 is that Buck is known for being overly nosey about Eddie's romantic prospects. He does this for Ana a bunch and Marisol too to an extent. But this is the first time that Buck is doing so for a MALE romantic prospect for Eddie.

Even though Buck isn't aware that he's viewing what Eddie and Tommy have to be romantic, the fact that it's written and directed almost EXACTLY how Buck's been about Eddie's other girlfriends speaks volumes. The only added layer here is that instead of being "enthused" for Eddie, he's hostile and upset about it. The new layer here is that Tommy is a man. This once again goes back to Buck viewing only women as romantic prospects for both of them, and placing himself firmly in the best friend category because that's the only place he believes he CAN be (at the moment).

This also marks the first of several callbacks to Eddie's streetfighting arc in season 3 (specifically the famous 3x09 "I could take you" kitchen scene) which was inherently intertwined with what Buck views as one of the biggest mistakes of his life: suing the department, breaking Eddie's trust, and being forced to be away from Eddie and Christopher for an extended period of time.

Last time he and Eddie talked about "throwing punches" Buck said "you ever stop to think that maybe you were throwing punches at the wrong guy?" which is fucking HILARIOUS to me because it has SEVERAL huge connections to this episode. 1.) Eddie dating "the wrong guy" aka Tommy instead of Buck, 2.) Punching/fighting/physical violence as a metaphor for "socially acceptable" M/M intimate touch and 3.) BUCK misassigns his romantic feelings to Tommy aka "the wrong guy" at the end instead of realizing that Eddie is the core of his desire in this episode.

Where's my "Tommy is Eddie in a different font" counter? It is now textual that the writers WANT us to take SPECIFIC notice that Buck views Tommy to be extremely similar to Eddie. And the main thing other than the army that he points out that they have in common is "they both like watching half-naked men pummel each other". This is just pointedly saying Buck thinks both of them are into/attracted to men. Like, is there any other way for this to be interpreted? (It could also be seen as mild internalized homophobia.) Maybe Buck doesn't realize that's what he's saying, but that's what he's saying. Which is once again assigning queerness specifically to Eddie (like in 7x01) even though Buck is the only one of the two who textually experiences MM queerness in this episode.

This line also draws attention to the fact that Buck is jealous because Eddie and Tommy are together in a homoerotic atmosphere. He may even be (unconsciously) thinking about Eddie and Tommy half-naked pummeling each other and no he doesn't find it hot. And this is proven by Eddie confirming that he and Tommy have pummeled each other in Muy Thai. Buck could be thinking of this as him being uncomfortable because he wants to be homoerotic with Tommy, but no, once again the focus of this scene is Eddie. Eddie continues to be the object of his desire.

((Running tab on Tommy's similarities to Eddie: badass, competent, helicopters, army, Eddie-coined phrase, both like watching fights AND fighting together, both like cars, both are attracted to men ))

This line is yet another callback to the famous kitchen scene in 3x09. Buck homoerotically said "he could still take Eddie [in a fight]" and "you wanna go for the title?" implying they'd wrestle. In this instance in 7x04, just like it was in 3x09 wrestling is a (common queer) allegory for gay sex. The kitchen scene in 3x09 was buddie's most sexually charged moment to date. So Tommy being the one here to "go toe-to-toe" with Eddie and "take him" in a fight? Oh buddy boy Buck is PISSED.

This is so funny because Buck clearly doesn't believe his own words here. But it's true in the past. Buck doesn't mind when Eddie makes friends. He was cool with Eddie making friends at the dispatch center, and he was also cool with Eddie going to play basketball with friends excluding him for a LONG TIME prior to now. He was also chill with Eddie being friends with Felisa, and even Marisol. Something has changed now, and I believe that Buck's belief of only being able to be close to Eddie as his "special friend" is changing. He's subconsciously realizing that he could be closer to Eddie than just a friend. But someone else is coming in and swooping Eddie up right out from under him. This entire episode is Buck (unconsciously) panicking over possibly missing his chance of being romantic with Eddie. That's the layer he doesn't realize. Buck DOESN'T usually mind Eddie making new friends, and he even says it again at the end of the episode that he knows Eddie's allowed to have other friends, but he does mind when said "friends" could ruin Buck's chances of being with Eddie before he even realizes he HAS a chance.

This is the first of many callbacks to 2x01 in this episode (but not the first this season, 7x01 was absolutely riddled with callbacks to 2x01). Eddie is thinking about how it feels to "click" with someone and canonically this has only happened to Eddie before with two people: Shannon and Buck. This is also a callback to 6x17 Love Is In The Air where Eddie says he wants "chemistry" and "magic" with someone. And clearly, Buck sees that Eddie has chemistry and magic with Tommy--far more than he has with Marisol. But the most recent time Eddie has clicked so strongly with someone was with Buck, and that's obviously what Buck's thinking about here. Because Buck also remembers what it was like to click with Eddie.

Who else is Buck supposed to be thinking about in this scene? Abby? Natalia? Ali? No, no, and no. He's thinking about Eddie and how they clicked (not immediately) but very soon after meeting in 2x01. And they developed an extremely close bond that's been growing deeper and deeper with each year that passes. And Buck thinks he may lose that special bond with Eddie because now Eddie's developing something (possibly BETTER) with Tommy.

Once again Buck using the same phrasing here as he does with Eddie's previous female love interests. This is how he's asked after Ana in the past. And when Eddie mentions trivia and karaoke, these two things made me think of Madney, another famous pair in the show who DID NOT REALIZE (or want to admit) THEY WERE DATING until someone else pointed it out to them. Sound familiar?

Again, I want us all to give Eddie some grace here. In the past, Buck has been more than happy to watch Chris while Eddie goes out on dates. There's even a famous date where Eddie goes out with Ana and Buck watches Christopher for him "you're a miracle worker". But this time, Buck is unhappy about it. Why? Because he wants to be involved in whatever Eddie's got going on with Tommy, because previously those kinds of things were reserved for Buck (or Buck + Chris together). BUT how is Eddie supposed to know that Buck would feel hurt by it this time? He's never been mad in the past when he asked Buck to watch Chris?

I giggled. Eddie's regulated Marisol to a glorified babysitter. He'd rather go out and date Tommy than spend any time with Marisol and it's so funny. And of course, the implication that Eddie's already had been out two times with Tommy in the little time they've become friends, enough to ask Marisol multiple times to watch Chris while Eddie goes out, something that used to be Buck's job. But to Buck, it's never felt like "babysitting" it feels like spending time with his son.

This scene does something else that makes it indisputable that this episode is not about Buck wanting Tommy. The Christopher layer. Christopher is an extension of Eddie, but at the same time, he's also a little boy that Buck loves separately from Eddie. Buck views him as a son, and he reacts to Christopher finding Tommy cool the same way a parent would react when their kid finds someone else cooler than them. This is in fact the same reaction Michael had to Harry finding Bobby cool in 2x14 Broken. Because now Tommy's not just threatening Buck's place with Eddie, but Buck's place with Christopher too. If the object of Buck's jealousy was Tommy in this instance, why would Buck be threatened by Christopher? It doesn't make any sense.

Buck's aware that Christopher is not the one bringing Tommy in, Eddie is. And he's afraid that if Christopher likes Tommy more than him, Chris will want Tommy as another parent, not Buck. All of this stuff with Christopher has absolutely no romantic underlining, it's all parental. Therefore there's no way this scene can be read as Buck jealous because he wants Tommy for himself.

Additionally, Buck being a parent to Christopher alongside Eddie is one of the few big things that sets Buck apart from just being a "regular" friend to Eddie. Co-parenting with Eddie is one of the most intimate things they do together in their relationship. Losing Christopher as a son means losing Eddie as a co-parent, and again the object of desire here is Eddie.

Another point to this is that Buck gets actively angry at Tommy in this scene. He thinks that Tommy is lying to Christopher's face in order to gain favor with Chris, which gains favor with Eddie. He's basically accusing Tommy of being inauthentic and using phony means to get in with Chris and Eddie. And the kicker is that it's over such a trivial thing too! I swear to you Buck does not really care about which Star Wars movie is superior. He's trying to find something, anything, to indicate that Tommy isn't who he seems to be, that Tommy is using Chris to get to Eddie, that Tommy isn't a good person and therefore should not be the one that Eddie (and Chris) wants. Why on earth would Buck be searching for any little excuse to make Tommy look like a not-great person if Buck really secretly wants Tommy for himself? He wants Eddie and Chris to see that Buck is the "superior" option, and to choose him over Tommy. He doesn't want them to see that Tommy's a sucky person so then they'll dump him and let Buck have him. That doesn't. Make. Sense.

And these lines prove that yes, it was not Christopher going on and on about Tommy but Buck questioning him and Chris just answering truthfully. This is also unprecedented because (as far as we know) Buck's never questioned Christopher about any of Eddie's other friends or girlfriends.

Not to mention this scene parallels Maddie's "does this mean this boycrush on Eddie means you're finally getting over Abby?" It's another instance of Maddie being the voice of truth during one of Buck's many info-dumps about Eddie and Chris over the years. But it's also interesting because this shows Maddie hitting the nail on the head when it comes to this aspect of Buck's problem, and she'll have one more scene with him later in this episode where I actually think she misunderstands the underlying truth, but Buck takes it as fact cuz that's his big sis and she's always right. I'll get to that later.

This line proves that this is not something that Eddie's been doing alone and never wanted Buck to be a part of. It's not like Eddie specifically invited Tommy because he wants to do this specific thing with Tommy. Eddie has invited Buck on MORE THAN ONE OCCASION to play basketball with him, and Buck says no because he's not interested in basketball. Which is a totally fine thing to do if a hobby is not your thing. But it implies that Eddie has wanted to and has actively tried to share this thing with Buck in the past, but Buck has just never taken him up on it. But now that Tommy's involved, Buck's suddenly interested? We also get to see a short moment of Chimney expressing interest in Tommy and thinking he's "so cool" as well, but does Buck really react or care at all that Chimney thinks Tommy's cool? No. Not at all.

And before I get into the next set of scenes, here is where I want to draw attention to something Tim Minear said in an interview about wanting Buck to meet and get integrated with Tommy but through someone in the 118. He didn't just want it to be something where Buck is isolated with Tommy like he's been with nearly all his past girlfriends. But here's the kicker and why I will call Tim on his bullshit. He had THREE OTHER ESTABLISHED CHARACTERS who all know Tommy WAY better than Eddie. Eddie is actually the character that makes THE LEAST SENSE to be Buck's introduction to Tommy as a person. If the writers wanted this episode to be PURELY focused on how Buck is into Tommy but doesn't realize this, they could've had Chimney be the middleman. Chimney could've invited Buck to hang out with him and Tommy, Buck could've gone to basketball to impress Tommy, could've tried to show off with basketball, could've tried to impress Chim on a call to get him to tell Tommy how cool Buck is. But nope.

Or Hen could've been the person to bring Tommy in. We could've seen scenes of Hen and Tommy, showing a bit more of Tommy as an individual, making amends with her. She's also the only openly queer member of the 118 at the moment. She also could've been a POV character to point out Buck's queer attraction to Tommy. They could've openly discussed Tommy's queerness in a much more straightforward way, maybe even have Hen empathize with Tommy (possibly) being closeted when they worked together. If anything, making Tommy make amends and show himself to have grown as a person would've endeared him to the audience of long-term viewers (many of whom don't like Tommy due to his past actions) FAR MORE than what actually happened in the episode. It could've been a great way to integrate Tommy into the core firefam. But nope. That's not the story the writers want to tell.

With Bobby, he makes the least amount of sense of the three, but he still knows Tommy better than Eddie. You could've gotten the same "Buck thinks he's jealous but it's not because he thinks he's losing a friend but because he's into Tommy" story if you used Chim or Hen, but Buck is not in love with either of them. So why is Eddie the one bringing Tommy into the fold if not to provide a clear direction for where Buck's queerness will lead him down the road?

Alright, I'm gonna stop here for part 2 cuz tumblr is once again saying I have too many pictures. Got to part 3 for more.

Part 1, Part 3, Part 4

[wearequeer-andwearehere]

hii there! :)

can i b a trans guy without medically transitioning? i cant for a good many years, but also,,, i dont want to (i have several adjacent health issues that would make it difficult, also i’m neutral abt my body - i dont really have dysphoria over it and it doesn’t bother me). but i’m terrified that i’ll never be taken seriously. i don’t mind being misgendered by strangers or acquaintances (i’d actually describe myself as genderqueer if i technically had to, it’s not the label i identify with but it makes the most sense like objectively. i’m happy w/ he/him but ok with they, she, etc), but i would like it if my friends would see me as a guy. but i’m also scared to even like, ask that of them. bc i really really don’t look like a guy, or even slightly androgynous, and i kind of have this sucky internal mindset that i won’t be seen as a real guy unless i make an effort to look like one, even though that’s not what i want. i’m working on it, but it’s also… my romantic life plays a big role in it. i’m currently identifying to a lesbian to my friends bc i like girls. and it’s just girls that i like. so if I live true to myself and do say that i’m a guy, I’m also like… who would want to date me, because i’m a guy who uses he/him pronouns and ‘male’ terminology like boyfriend, but physically, i have a lot of ‘girl’ features, like big boobs, and i don’t want bottom surgery either (neutral abt my body), so i just really don’t know. it’s really hurting me bc when i realised I was queer i thought I’d find a home in the queer community and i did, for the first time ever, but as I’ve thought about my identity a bit more all my queerness causes me is stress bc I’m constantly worried that no one not even other queer people will ever take me seriously or allow me to use the labels I use or will ever want to date me (bc… like, I’m not straight, but also how can I call myself a lesbian if I consider myself a guy? It’s all complicated, to me, but I feel like I’ll be ostracised from lesbians for not being enough of a girl — even though my gender is complicated and trans guy is just the best way to explain it and the best label that fits for me — and ostracised from trans people for not being trans enough and ahhhh I’m just. Really stressed about it all, and am constantly wishing I could just be true to myself, even within the queer community, but don’t know how to…

Hey, listen to me. You have a place in the queer community, okay? If you say you’re queer, you’re queer and we love and accept you.

Yes, you can ABSOLUTELY be a trans guy without medically transitioning! I understand with health issues it can be difficult for some people. However, you do NOT need to justify your choice to me, or to anybody, okay? If you don’t want to medically transition, then don’t medically transition! That’s the end of it. Being trans is about just being Not Cis. Transitioning medically is part of it for some people, but maybe it’s not for you, and that’s okay! You can still be trans.

A lot of queer AFAB people who start to realise they might be more masc aligned start feeling guilty, wondering if they’re predatory. I also experienced this. I used to identify as a bisexual girl, then nonbinary, then I started realising I felt more like a guy. I was terrified. I didn’t want to be a creepy straight guy, I didn’t want to make the women around me or women I was attracted to feel unsafe.

Eventually I realised, it’s not BEING MALE that makes you creepy, it’s being a CREEPY guy. It’s a mindset that’s a bit hard to put into words. Being male and being attracted to women is not inherently creepy. It’s only creepy if you’re weird about it, and it’s very easy not to be.

Some lesbians might ostracise you, that’s true. However, the vast majority of the lesbian community has a long history of transmasc and trans guy lesbians. The queer community is about love and support no matter your identity. You are loved.

Seeing someone as a certain gender because of their body parts is something people can get over. I might look feminine, but I know my friends and partner see me as a guy because that’s who I am to them, a friend, a brother, a boyfriend.

If your friends can’t see you as a guy because of something as unimportant as your body, then that’s on them.

“Who would want to date me” there’s people who would, trust me. Look, when you have low self esteem, especially if you’re trans and your self hatred is related to that, it’s hard to believe you’re loveable, but believe me, you are.

I still struggle with dysphoria and wonder why anyone would love me when I’m a guy but I feel like I don’t look like one, but my partner always assures me I’m loveable, and you deserve that too.

Trans people can find loving, caring partners who love you not inspite of your transness but because it’s part of who you are and they love YOU.

Kid, be yourself. You’re welcome in the queer community. Be true to yourself, be who you are, and you’ll find the right friends and the right partner.

I hope you have a good day/night, and I’m sending so so much love. May a ray of sunlight shine upon you sometime soon, my friend. Sending warmth <33

[transfemme-sys]

Addressing A Racist Issue In The MOGAI Community (TW : discussion of racism, sexualization, and mentioned SA)

hey. this blog isn't active, and the part behind it isn't active in my system either, but i do still exist. this used to be a MOGAI blog, as i am someone who considered myself (and still do consider myself) a part of the MOGAI community. unfortunately, i kept losing motivation to make flags and the blog has since been abandoned.

that's not what i'm here to discuss. i'm here to talk about an issue i've noticed in the community that has been irritating me for a while : yandere related genders.

for those who don't know, a yandere is a japanese anime trope used to a describe an individual (most often, a woman) who is madly and unhealthily in love with someone, often going to extreme lengths to try and achieve that person's attention.

i am a japanese trans woman with BPD. those who self identify as yanderes most often claim its a label exclusive to those with BPD or OLD, but this is where i see an issue begin. out of everyone i've seen 'reclaiming' this label, *none of them are japanese*. they say the term yandere is harmful against those with BPD and OLD and romanticizes the disorder, which i don't even necessarily disagree with, but here's the thing; the term yandere, most often, is used to sexualize, oppress, and stereotype japanese women. i have experienced things like this myself, firsthand, and i'm sure i'm not the only one out there.

we are fetishized, treated like objects of nothing but attraction. every white weeb wants a yandere anime girlfriend, it'd be so cool to be loved like that to them, but they see a japanese woman on the street and catcall her and call her slurs. asian fishing white women love to cosplay yanderes, but constantly steal and appropriate japanese culture without a second thought to it. the white man may joke with his friends about his new japanese girlfriend, calling her kawaii and yandere and unique for showing even the slightest bit of affection and love for him.

i have never been called a yandere for my BPD. i have seen myself and plenty of others be called yanderes for being japanese. it is, in my opinion, not your term to reclaim. you are not viewed inescapably as 'nekos', 'lolis' 'anime girls', and yes, 'yanderes' in the way that we are. you are not sexually assaulted and harassed and hatecrimed for your BPD like we have been.

i ask, respectfully, that non japanese people stop self identifying with this term. please help spread awareness to this issue with me, share this post in any way you can. i am tired of experiencing constant racism even in safe spaces like the MOGAI community, and i ask that you help me bring an end to it.

thank you, and please be mindful of your actions.

[dalesramblingsblog]

I don't know if it's just me, and maybe it's just my asexuality showing, but I generally find the way a lot of guys talk about porn and porn addiction (setting aside the debate over what even classifies as "porn addiction," and no I don't want to read the latest evangelical Christian think tank-funded "research" paper on the subject) to be... so very strange.

Like don't get me wrong, do some men have unhealthy relationships with porn? Yes. But some of you guys, I dunno man. I've seen guys say, with their full chest, shit along the lines of "Yeah I saw 0.01 pixels from a porn video and I spontaneously lost all capacity for empathy and the ability to see women as human beings."

And I'm gonna be real with you, I don't think that's normal, but I'm also... not sure that that's entirely the porn? Like if your ability to conceive of other human beings as human beings is *that* fragile, I think there's something else going on as well.

It's weird because I mean, I was a teenage boy. Quite recently too. I grew up in the 2010s. So to a certain extent... I get it, I guess? And again I think in retrospect at least part of this was my asexuality affecting my thought processes without me realising it, and simply not experiencing sexual attraction in the way most people do (i.e. at all, really).

But this idea that the slightest exposure to pornography will totally and utterly obliterate your ability to be normal about women just never really made sense to me.

To a certain extent I think it's just that I had countless close female friendships to begin with, so I just... continued to be normal with them, even on the off-chance that I developed an unrequited crush or whatever.

And of course, in a rather bleakly hilarious post-script, in catching up with friends from high school years later I've been told "Wait I thought you were gay?", which I guess was the going gossip about me. Which is amusingly indicative, I think; the fact that the only *possible* reason a boy could have for not being aggressively horny around girls 24/7 is that he's gay.

(Then again my overdramatic, slightly exaggerated persona probably didn't exactly do much to cut against the stereotypical "gay" image that these folks no doubt had. But fuck you that's just my personality, I can't help it if you're a presumptuous ass.)

It's not even that I take objection to being assumed to be gay - though, y'know, speculating on people's sexualities is kinda weird, particularly if you're gonna treat it as some "answer" to the mystery of "why isn't he perpetually, obnoxiously sexual around women" - but it's all just so revealing of the extent to which "being a man" is defined by "having nothing to do with women, unless you're horny about them, and never ever on a screen because that's just devious women conspiring to lower men's testosterone and keep them in the friendzone (because ofc women are wholly to blame for any ickiness in porn and sex work, makes perfect sense) and by the way could I have another helping of Catholic guilt talking points."

And like, yeah, no shit you're miserable, my guy, if that's how you define yourself.

[whyisstarkidfollowingmeshoo]

I'm reading a lot of things about Hidge's sexuality canon wise. So taking account on what Nick and Matt Lang said (as much as I remember it without rewatching the video proof lol) my argument on why the canon sexuality of Prof. Henry Hidgens is that he is bisexual and Objectumsexual.

Well I think canon wise he is not polyamorous. I can accept that (i have no problem with him being poly canon wise. I am not anti-poly, just faithful with canon) but I remember Nick Lang or even Matt did not specify it. They said, within along the lines/paraphrasing: Henry loves his six boy friends, they are special to him, but Chad IS the apple of his eye. The last sentence they meant romantically.

So why bisexual and not gay? To make it clear, I have no problem with him being gay. I'm willing to be corrected. But since I'm arguing that he's bisexual, well let me start. Of course we haven't seen Hidge talk about or falling in love with specific women characters in the saga so far, however he did say in TGWDLM " Alexa, I love you like every woman flesh and bone", so there ya go. If he can find a woman that is subordinate to him like Alexa and Siri, then he can have a relationship with a woman. Come to think of it, i think he loves Chad the most because I hypothesize Chad always goes along with his plans/ideas. Yes I believe if I were to analyze his relationship personality, he wants to be the dominant in the relationship. He's very controlling and spirals when he doesn't get his way. Which why this is a good segway to...

And with the mention of two famous AI virtual assistants, I think it's enough to say that Hidge has objectophilia. More so in NMT episode Time Bastard where he shared his sexual rendezvous with either one of them to Ted and implied how he did it (some imagination and a little elbow grease or any lube lol). Not to mention that he talks to Alexa and Siri like they're humans. Fun fact, I read somewhere that people who have this sexual orientation cant handle keeping a relationship with another human because they're too controlling hence having a relationship with an object is easier because it has no thoughts, no opinions to consider. Also, this can also be a result of a trauma. Him losing his friends, especially Chad, during a lightning strike attack did not just lead him to isolation and practicing survival instincts, but also drove him to loving objects instead cause at least they won't experience terrible human deaths. Here is the source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/sex-and-relationships/decoding-objectophilia-5-reasons-why-people-fall-in-love-with-objects/story-LMvWWzhs257dD47yxNGC9H.html UPDATE: these facts are more connected to the character that is Prof Henry Hidgens whose personality reflects the generalizing views of the orientation better. Real life Objectums are a lot more complicated than that and can act against stereotypes/generalization. Thanks @fork-bork for reminding me.

Also further explanation:  ur friends can be ur life partners (hence there are old people living with friends in their twilight years) and some people like calling their friends as boyfriends or girlfriends. Hidge is just comfortable with his sexuality and closeness with his friends that he can call his male friends as his boyfriends. I think that's just Jeff's word play and humor going on as he wrote the song. And according to the song "it takes balls": Steve was a priest, Leighton was in a relationship with a person named Gary, and Greg was seeing/dating Steve's mom. Plus all of the boys, sans Chad and Henry, were attracted to females while at college based on their locker room talk acted by the Workin Girls cast.

I'm not like Unhidge Hidge, so tell me about ur thoughts/opinions/rebuttals as long as ur taking account of what I wrote here. Especially proof from the Langs with ur rebuttal. Of course in head canon or fan fic world, anything is free reins and you can experiment with Hidge's sexuality there. Just make sure to specify if it's canon or head canon so to avoid confusion and arguments.

Update:

I have the urge to check my HHP Working Boys screen recordings where Nick and Matt discussed Henry's relationship with the boys if it's poly or not. Update 2: Okay I watched it and Nick just says that Chad is his favorite so get out of that as you wish. But since the boys did their locker room talk about girls without Henry and Chad, I don't think the boys were making out with each other unless maybe just Henry and Chad if it's not unreciprocated from Henry's side.

I can understand if most fans think Henry is gay and not bi since Nick and Matt have not given more concrete proof of his attraction to human females. My only arguments with him being bi is that he loves and has done sexual acts with Alexa and Siri, AI virtual assistants with female names and voices. (NMT episode: Time Bastard).

[faggy-gothmother]

why i go out and rave so often.

i walk into a packed bar thats somewhere between a dive and nightclub. the music and dim lights invite me in, pulling me into the rave's embrace like im reuniting with a lover.

i get my first drink and stare into the bar's mirror. so many beautiful people around me. they're swaying and bouncing to a pounding kick, fluttering high hats and an insistent, abrasive acid synth.

i find myself in the mirror. i am the product of 3 hours of makeup, outfit planning, and anxious scurrying around, searching for my pearl necklace and fishnet arm warmers. i'm smiling now, already promising myself i'll stay til they turn the overhead lights on.

and it's not just the mirror that reflects me. i see myself in the goths who hang awkwardly on a wall, passing a weed pen between them. i see myself in the glitter gays who twerk on each other on the dance floor, front and center, stirred on by the whoops and cheers of their slightly more self-conscious friends. i laugh. i fucking love trans people.

we outnumber the cishets here, about 2 to 1. theres tboys here, with their oversized shirts and lip rings and bottles of cheap, but not too cheap, beer. gross, but kinda hot as all things masc are.

theres nonbinary folks here, with their elaborate outfits, bras around their chests, ties around their necks, and laughter around their eyes.

and of course, theres us, the dolls. the women here are breathtaking. tall, regal, otherworldly. or rather, this is their world, and everyone else is otherworldly.

its is my world too, and, gin and tonic aquired, i fall head first into it.

there are so many beautiful people around me, and to my own dysphoria and imposter syndrome-ridden brain's surprise, i fit right in. i get called gorgeous by perhaps the most stunningly attractive person ive ever seen. what the fuck.

i spy a friend of mine, well, not really a friend, just a girl i dance with. shes got another tgirl on a leash. fuck yeah. the leashed girl stares at me until i stare back. shes pretty... shit, shes really pretty. im still bouncing to the rhythm and staring at her when she whispers something to her dom. she heads my way. shes definitely been on hrt longer than me. her breasts are cute and full, jiggling as she walks. holy fuck.

she offers me poppers. i accept and let her hold the bottle to my nose. i want to impress her, so i inhale as deep as i can, maintaining eye contact. the high sets in after a single beat, and im washed up onto amyl nitrite's warm, soft beach, staring out at a transexual ocean.

the girl puts her hand gently on my shoulder. i slip closer to her so she knows its a yes, fuck yes.

our lips lock, and a breath later, our tongues taste each other.

i go to queer raves bcs there are people there i want to kiss. there are people there who want to kiss me. i must, then, be beautiful. a real rave girl, the object of other rave girls' attention. anywhere else this feels violating. here, it feels incredible. and for 4 hours, from 10pm to 2am, a couple saturdays a month, i am sane, real, and beautiful.

[lesbianp1lled]

it's so lame that we even have to identify as 'gold star' lesbians at this point in human existence. unless you live in an extremely homophobic country, there just isn't a reason for a gay person to force themself be intimate with the opposite sex, period. that's self-r*pe to any actual gay person and the mere idea has always disgusted me, even when I tried to convince myself I was bi because of comphet lol (I do live in a pretty homophobic country where I've never seen a gay couple hold hands publicly in almost 30 years.. ). I've never accepted even a single date with a man, 0 intimacy (ew), because even despite being able to realize/ accept that I was a lesbian only in my early 20s, I've always instinctively known I'm gay. most people do, and thus physical contact with the opposite sex who we're not attracted to is abhorrent. that's why I think women who've had het sex and still claim to be lesbians are either fakebians or have 0 self-dignity and a desperate need for attention to the point of jumping on a d*ck for societal approval, and I'll never understand that/ f*ck with that. that's the most anti-feminist bs, I know so many straight women who didn't have sex before like 30 because they hadn't met a man they loved and trusted enough. virginity is lauded in women so there's no pressure to be with men either. so there's no justifying being with males while claiming to be a lesbian lol.

I actually needed to went about sth personal as well and since I sadly have no lesbian friends, this is the best option. basically all my relationship attempts have ended tragically because all my crushes have been het or bihet women. I live in a tiny ass country so there simply aren't enough lesbians yet there are thousands of drop-dead-gorgeous het and bihet women and I am simply a woman with eyes, what can I say.. all the actual lesbians tend to be butches, and don't get me wrong, butches have my whole heart, but I'm a femme-for-femme kinda gal, I can't help it. I am conventionally attractive and work hard to stay in shape but I'm no supermodel either and actually insanely beautiful women scare me a bit so I'm just looking for sb on the same level. I don't want to feed into the stereotype about lesbians being unattractive, I don't think that's true. but in my country it tends to be the case, which is especially jarring because the straight women are outstandingly beautiful. ofc looks isn't the main thing I'm looking for but I don't want a romantic relationship with sb I'm not even attracted to. I've tried that and it didn't work, it isn't fair on me nor them.

I've also graduated from every level of education with the highest honors, I'm a uni lecturer since 20, I have my own company, everyone tells me I'm one of the nicest people they know and I still can't find a gf who'd like me as much as I love her?? that's what's truly enraging, to see all these amazing het and bihet women genuinely love and give their all to these misogynistic subpar beer-bellied males who use them as personal maids while I can't find one (1!!) woman to love me as an objectively good-looking feminist they could 100% relate to and be in an equal/ synergetic relationship with.

I'm sorry but heterosexuality truly is a masochistic self-destructive condition in women, I know it's innate but it's true.. inc3ls (including the trans kind) have no idea what real hardship is in dating women. it's seeing the fugliest moids get with the most kind, intelligent, ambitious and hot women only to drain them from life and self-respect and not even appreciate getting with a woman waaay out of their league. while you are on that woman's level but she'll never love you even if she's bi because ultimately you just don't have a nasty dangler in your pants which doesn't even satisfy her anyway. so you just seethe in your justified bitterness and try go on with your life despite feeling like no woman will ever love you, not because you're unlovable or in any way unworthy but simply because you're a woman.

it hurts so much to see all these hot lesbian couples online, it just feels surreal, like where are these women? all I see is obese goofy-looking 'polyamourous' aka promiscuous bihet she/they qWeErs who want to use me as a s3x toy with their disgusting boyfriend.

and this brings me to my ex. she was the one I gave a chance to because she was the first woman to make a move on me, she told me I was perfect, we talked for hours every day for months, went on dates, she fantacized about living in a house together etc, only to randomly ghost me, tell me our relationship meant nothing despite me having admitted to her I was already traumatized by bihet women leading me on. and then ofc she got with some receding neckbeard guy who looks like he could be her uncle not long after lmao. after legit telling me she detests men and would Nevvverr date one again, that I was her perfect woman. so all she gave me was trust issues that all women are secretly bihet c*cksuckers who will eventually leave me no matter how perfect and lovable I am. I know this can't be true but it truly feels like that. she just got married to that male (probably partly for a visa lol) but she certainly tries to convince herself and others desperately she's madly in love with him while watching all of my insta stories in 2.3 seconds for some reason, I've muted her so I found out about her marrying months later.

maybe she knew I was far out of her league and randomly sabotaged our relationship, because it was such a shock out of a blue sky to me. thankfully I wasn't fully in love yet and dodged her (mentally unstable) bullet but we need to address the trauma these bihet women leave us with. because that's entirely valid and not our fault, not everyone has the privilege to date fellow lesbians when finding a real one who isn't a fakebian feels impossible to begin with. I also hate the infantilization of lesbians, she definitely used me for her idiotic little 'sapphic daydreams', f*ck that, we are not some uwu fairies, we are grown women and we are just as entitled to only date people we're physically attracted to as het women. as I said, I wasn't even that attracted to her but the knowledge that she got hetero married while larping as some grand qWeEr feminist who will never date males again hit me like a truck. she's out to the world while I'm only out to my friends and some family because I could be discriminated against at my homophobic workplace. the fkn iront in that.. she even started identifying in plural after meeting him lmaoo, she must've realized that she really is just a measly hetero and no longer has a way 'in' to the lgbt thing she desperately wants to co-opt. she's 100% a poli-qweer lol.

I hate that I'm even allowing myself to be traumatized by her, she's unworthy of that but I can't help it, every romantic experience only worsens my trust issues with women and my current crush is bi as well.. at least she doesn't lie about liking men which is still off-putting but at least she's honest. idk what to do anymore. I'm just livid at this homophobic heteronormative world and the way the hets just keep getting away with it. I nearly threw up at the sight of all het couples today.

and bihets are the worst male-worshippers out there as well, they put up with so much more bs from men than decent self-respecting het women do. and they're desperate to be with a man at all times. some time ago I went out with a bi woman who I didn't know was bi, she presented herself half-virginal, did mention two exes, male and female. but turns out she has slept with every other man in town, brags about it online as if that makes her a 'bad bitch' , no hun, just an unpaid prostitute for patriarchal pleasure.

the only consolation is that het relationships are never equal so they will not have some idyllic marital bliss with their ugly moids as they desperately want to pretend. but still, they have such immeasureable social privilege being het-attracted and -partnered and then they have the audacity to larp as some great qWeEr activist publicly without any shame in their hypocrisy. god I wanna expose her fake ass so badly, tell everyone what a lying bihet charlatan she is. I might never be able to get married in my country because I'm actually gay and she's unapologetically prancing around with a husband when she said she'll never date a man again. as gay people we grapple with so much baseless misplaced shame while the het fakers seem to feel none. meanwhile there are lesbians all over the world forced into loveless het marriages to be r*ped by their husbands. unspeakably disgusting. sometimes I just want to vacate this abhorrent homophobic planet but can't let the homophobes win.

sorry for the long rant but what do you think I should do going forward? I feel like I'm succumbing to complete bitterness and despite not envying the misogynistic relationships of heteros, at least they have the opportunity to be in romantic relationships without fearing being discriminated against, disowned or hate crimed, no matter how flawed their relationships are. meanwhile I'm just getting older, I might still look 18 but I feel like I'll die before a woman of worth will ever reciprocate my love. where to move, where are the actual lesbians?? how to deal with the bilious defeatism and, tbh unfortunately justified victim mentality?

I'm sure a lot of lesbians can relate to my experiences and I would really appreciate them sharing how they got out of this hole/ repeating pattern of dating women who were beneath them and unable to actually love women romantically/ sexually. at this point I'd do anything to even have a woman sexually objectify me at least 😩

oh, and what's notable is that despite never having been in a proper committed relationship and having these failed traumatic attempts, I have never resented women as a whole. women owe me nothing, but the women who have literally thrown themself at me only to lead me on like I begged them not to deserve no remorse. and I haven't lost my mind or general will to live either, I thrive academically and at work, I entertain myself and enjoy my time with family and friends. I don't normally hate on other people in relationships for no reason either, just in a really bad place rn lol. I think it's important to note for all of the lesbophobes out there who call us 'lescels' and compare us to r*pe-loving misogynistic incels who think they should own women as sex toys. I've never resented a woman like that even if she's hurt me beyond words, that shit is just degenerate y-chromosome scrote coded. lesbians will never be able to oppress women, not even if some have unrightful disdain against women because we are the ones oppressed by hetero-attracted women.

also hate we have to identify as gold star lesbians because surely it makes sense that a lesbian wouldn’t ever sleep with a man? But so many call themselves lesbians even if they have slept with a man which is a false identity for them because a lesbian just wouldn’t sleep with a man. But the whole ‘gold star lesbian’ thing started as a way for straights to make fun of us. They’d say “Oh you haven’t slept with a man? Do u want a GOLD STAR?” so when I call myself a gold star lesbian i’m mostly just reclaiming it and saying yeah I am proud of it, and yeah give me a gold star! Lmao

I won’t go into everything you said because i’ll be here all night but I’m also a femme mostly attracted to other femmes and it is true most lesbians are butches which makes our dating pool even smaller. I don’t rule out butches completely, I have found some attractive I’m just mostly attracted to femmes and I’ve never met a butch irl I’ve known other femme lesbians though.

What I think you should do moving forward? Is not to lose hope. I believe there is someone out there for everyone. Get in touch with the local community, if you don’t like going to nightclubs u could always join any events or anything like that, a good way to feel in touch with ur local community can be things like volenteering and the like.

I know it’s hard out here for lesbians but you will find your person. My dms are always open if u wanna vent or just talk!

[redlettermediathings]

It finally happened! The day that we received a package from Breen was the best day since the pandemic started. The slim package that arrived in our mailbox was like a little slice of heaven sent to us from above. A simple mailer that held the truth of which we sought. Cinema. Kino. Joy. I looked at the package, my brow sweating with anticipation. I pursed my lips as I often do in the delicious moments before sipping an ice cold beer. This was just as good. Maybe better. The mailer was that of a simple man. It wasn’t a fancy mailer. It wasn’t padded nor did it have a design on it. In fact, the mailer the DVD arrived in was a cut up cereal box held together with duct tape. I smiled and whispered to myself, “That’s the cup of a carpenter…”. It was here. We received the new Neil Breen film. Was this a Blu-ray? No. This was a DVD-R burned on a computer. I smelled the disc and the jewel case. It smelled like 2003. I cried at the beauty of the whole embarrassing ordeal. It was like a hug from an old friend who had long since passed. A friend you never wanted to see again or allow to hug you. In my hand I held the new Neil Breen film. I couldn’t wait to show the guys! I called Colin from Canada and told him to run to RLM HQ right quick to watch the film with us. He said, “oh, I’ve already seen it. It’s terrible.” And I called him a poutine-slurping, caesar-sipping canuck fuck and told him to get down here to Wisconsin right quick. He responded by saying, “I’ve got work and I’m watching my elderly neighbors diabetic cats and…” I just cut him off. I said, “Look you fucking prick, I have it. Let’s watch it!" So he did come down, albeit unwillingly. What are Neil Breen films? They are moopies made by a man who is the weirdest man to ever live. He’s the perfect oblivious filmmaker. Never getting better or evolving, only getting worse and more lazy and more old and more grandpa jeans. Neil Breen’s films are always about a loner man that has special skills or knowledge above all other humans. There is often a babe involved in his films, although the sexuality is awkwardly placed and seems forced. The women usually look incredibly uncomfortable at the notion of being in love or even attracted to Neil Breen. Likewise, any romance on his part seems obligatory. I guess the thought is that a movie needs “romance” so he must add “romance” But he’s no James Bond! Since this was Breen, we assumed this was worthy of a Best of the Worst™ Spotlight™ episode. It couldn’t simply be lumped into a regular three movie episode. Boy, were we fucking wrong. This pile of trash couldn’t have been more disappointing. Breen has gone too far this time with the green screens! Who does he think he is!?! Peter Jackson? George Lucas? James Cameron?!? I mean, sure you can use a green screen sometimes… if you’re making a fucking Avengers movie!!! But come on! Literally every background, outdoor location, and room is a stock image. A flat shot without movement. I can say that at the very least in some shots he created a foreground mask to make characters integrated into the frame by putting them behind objects, but really? While the story sucks, the acting is bad, it’s boring and shitty, it’s still a Neil Breen film and we have to love it as if it was our own cross-eyed inbred baby with no limbs. Anyways, while I have you here, I own a timeshare in the Cayman Islands. It’s in a nice part of town, but it’s basically a 1.6 million dollar shack. One of the owners killed himself recently and now I’m stuck with paying his part due to a legal snafu. I don’t quite understand it, but my lawyer Phillip Gorlon (no relation) tells me it’ll cost me more in legal fees to get out of this timeshare than to just keep it. I tells him that I’m strapped for cash at the moment, what with the cost of eggs, covid tests, etc… so my question to you is: Do you think Neil Breen might want to shoot his next film in the Cayman Islands?

[cloudsourcing]

tiny (not so tiny) rant/vent incoming!!

just had an epiphany today for this thing I’ve felt all my life but had never been able to articulate until today. The thing was: I am a woman and I love being a woman so why does it feel so wrong and dehumanizing to be “seen” as a woman by the world? I hadn’t been able to articulate my answer but then it came to meeee

After class, my classmate stopped me and wanted to talk to me about a presentation I did today in class (on Marx’s “The German Ideology” hehe <3). My classmate is super charismatic, super smart, and easy to talk to. Our chat was fun and insightful to me because he was actually talking to me about our readings from class, something I could chime in on and hold a conversation about. That’s pretty rare for me and I genuinely cherish these types of interactions, the kind that are engaging and interesting. Anyway, he begins telling me about a screenplay he wrote. I was genuinely interested in his creative process. It was fun and interesting until it no longer felt like a conversation. That’s when I started to feel that heavy cloud of realization come over me. When I left our conversation, I felt so empty. I felt drained and frustrated - a feeling I’ve had many times before. But I didn’t know why I felt this way. He was actually engaging with me, why did it feel so hollow despite that? It finally clicked but it wouldn’t have clicked if I hadn’t had another interaction to compare it to that I’d had just a few days ago. I compared the way I felt after this interaction with the way I felt after a meeting I had with my professor (who teaches the course my classmate and I met in). The main difference between my interaction with this professor (and most of the other women in my life) is that it never feels like my identity as a woman, my being a woman, is their primary focus. When I talk to her, I feel seen and I feel heard. When I talk to my friends, both men and women but especially with women, I never have to think about the different aspects of my identity. I’m just a person and they’re just a person having a shared moment. But in my conversations with men, there’s a brief moment in which I am forced to acknowledge my identity precisely because of the way they’re interacting with me. My being a women is at the forefront of this interaction and that is exactly what/who they’re engaging with. My personhood is only secondary to that. Then I know that the reason I feel so horrible after this is because I feel like an object. I feel like a vessel for these men to espouse their ideas, a medium for them to be heard and understood. Their attraction to me (or whatever it is) precedes their interest in me as a person. Most interactions with men leave me feeling this way - more like an object or a vessel and less like a person. Whereas I think I’m having a pretty cool conversation with a classmate, to them it’s this performative action wherein they’re not just talking to someone, but specifically to a girl/woman/whatever and it’s driving their interest. Sometimes I wonder if I will ever be able to have a relationship with a man, although I know I’m capable of it. I know what it feels like and what it looks like when someone just sees you as a person, as a friend and sees past the physical. I think I care about the essence of who I am too much, what my heart is made of and what my thoughts consist of to settle for someone who just sees the physical boundaries of my existence. Ahhhh I am so tired, and I didn’t think this would be so long but it feels soooo good to be able to articulate this.

[sleepymarmot]

Vertigo (1958)

[Watched on August 28th]

Please enjoy a liveblog of me watching this classic completely blind and having An Experience. (But only if you’ve seen it yourself, because this is one of the films that work much better when you know nothing in advance.)

Liveblog

The first scene between the man and the woman was the height of “as you know”. They just talk and talk in exposition while I spend several minutes trying to figure out whether they’re a couple or father and daughter.

I decided to watch this film right now because I know it was brought up in Laura Mulvey’s article about male gaze and wanted to read it without getting spoiled, and I don’t know what exactly she said about it, but I immediately noticed how the man is filmed “objectively” but the woman is shown through his eyes, following his line of sight.

Glad I know nothing about the plot because I’m genuinely intrigued.

Has she really not noticed an extremely obvious trail even once?

Oh my god I misread the dates on the headstone as the 20th century instead of the 19th and kept thinking Carlotta died just before the events of the movie. Well, this makes more sense now!

Really pretty shots with the Golden Gate Bridge.

My late grandmother must have looked a lot like the main character when she was young… They were probably born around the same time, she wears her hair in a similar way to what I remember...

Bro I know she’s the other main character and the two of you are probably going to have at least some romantic tension, but why are you grabbing her hand like that, she’s married to your friend…

I am hoping more and more that we’ll get a recap of the entire film from her POV at some point. Like her hiding in the hotel room when he came in to check, or listening in to his conversation with her husband on the phone.

This black-and-white outfit slaps

I’m glad I know nothing about this movie because I genuinely have no idea whether it’s going to be supernatural or not

I didn’t expect her to die so soon. There’s 45 minutes left! So what now? Has the husband been driving her mad to take possession of the inheritance? Is the film going to be about him from now on?

Damn, the effects in this dream sequence did NOT age well

I like how the film draw attention to the 50s pretty women looking indistinguishable. I kept wondering whether Midge and Madeleine were played by the same actress!

Huh, I suspected that she threw a fake body, but didn’t think she wasn’t alone!

Oh, so the dead body wasn’t fake, the living one was.

The film really shifted POVs, and not in a way I expected. Now we know what she’s thinking but have no idea what the fuck he is.

Oh I bet there’s class commentary on this too. I can see where the gender commentary is. I thought the perfect alluring image of upper class white femininity, mysterious and vulnerable, was just a patriarchal cinema convention, but it’s actually constructed even within the fictional universe! What a pity, to know that a man does not want a real you, only a mirage designed to be as stereotypically attractive as possible. “If I let you change me, will that do it? If I do what you tell me, will you love me?” “Yes. Yes.” “All right. All right, then, I’ll do it. I don’t care anymore about me.”

Either he has figured it out and is trying to set up a trap for the murdering husband, or he’s oblivious and poor Judy needs to grab her IDs and run far far away asap

Like, I have to be fair to the dude. From his perspective, he found a woman who is somehow an exact copy of an innocent who’s been murdered by a ghost. He’s living in a fairytale now, as far as he’s concerned she might as well be some magical changeling and if he believes enough he can bring his beloved back or something.

It’s amazing how makeup can change a face — she’s a great beauty as Madeleine and barely noticeable in Judy’s garish facepaint

Oh no is he going to push her into the bay now

“One final thing I have to do.” Nooo motherfucker

“And then, I’ll be free of the past.” Noooo

Oh he’s not pushing her into the water, he’s pushing her off the top floor

Can she push him off instead? Please Mr Hitchcock

Noo why did she kill herself at the last second??

What? That’s the end? He didn’t even jump after her?

Well this was a great movie until literally the last minute. RIP

Why are women so in love with this below average guy anyway???

Rating: between 8 and 9, I think.

[End of liveblog]

Full disclosure: I am publishing this “review” months after watching the film itself, because after reading Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” I fell into a research rabbit hole, got my hands onto a bunch of academic writing on the film, and didn’t want to post my thoughts on the film until I went through it all, in case my future self wanted to make this movie review double as literature review.

I read “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” immediately after watching the film (fighting for my life throughout the psychoanalytical sections, and skipping the paragraphs about the films I haven’t seen yet). Turns out, the analysis of Vertigo takes up only two and a half paragraphs, but it spoils everything so I’m glad I watched the film first. These paragraphs are, of course, quite insightful, except for one weird part where the author describes Judy’s acquiescence to Scottie’s demands as “exhibitionism” and “masochism”. I hope these words had very different connotations half a century ago, because this sounds like downright victim-blaming to me. The current day meaning of these words would imply that Judy enjoyed what was happening, and she made it very clear that she didn’t.

Another essay, “‘The look,’ narrativity, and the female spectator in Vertigo”, written by Karen Hollinger more than a decade later, is a more thorough analysis of this film alone that takes into account the shifts in POV I mentioned in the liveblog above, but to my disappointment, it also describes Judy’s attempts to mollify Scottie as “masochistic”. For the sake of my own sanity, I’m going to assume that word really meant something else in old academic writing.

“The Critic as Consumer: Film Study in the University, Vertigo, and the Film Canon” by Virginia Wright Wexman is a much more grounded essay: it does away with psychoanalysis and talks about the film in the context of its production, which was pretty informative, as well as provides the class commentary I wished for in the liveblog. It was enjoyable to read an analysis based on the material realities of the world that actually exist, and not on someone’s fever dreams. This might be my first dive into this corner of academia, and I was unpleasantly surprised to see people spend so much effort on a methodology that seemed so obviously inadequate to me.

I went through 5+ more articles in addition to the ones I named above, but that reading had diminishing returns. The more I read, the more familiar with the material I became, and the less interesting it was to read other people’s analysis, especially because I kept disagreeing with it. Broadening my horizons in this way was pretty fun and I don’t exactly regret it, but the process wasn’t a great use of my time and energy, and actively demotivated me from watching more films because after months and months I still wasn’t done with this one.

Here’s something I learned from one of the articles: there doesn’t seem to be a singular canonical explanation for whether Judy fell accidentally or jumped to her death on purpose. The initial screenplay, which I found online, indicates it was an accident; Kim Novak herself said in an interview that it was suicide. Not only did Hitchcock not show what happened, he didn’t seem to bother to either inform the actress of his interpretation or come up with one at all. That's how little he, and therefore the film itself, cared about the main female character. Nothing matters but the man and his trauma. Scottie’s storyline is concluded poetically regardless of the reason why Judy falls, but Judy’s own storyline is literally dropped as if it was never there.

[lacquiparle]

Of the various woke movements that have popped up in the last several years, perhaps the most, well, intolerant of them all (and that's saying something!) is the transgender rights movement.

In a crowded field, I give them first place in re-writing language to assume agreement - "misgender", "gender-affirming" - even "he, she, him, her, them, they" (kinda puts redefining"racism" to shame).

Perhaps you think the pronoun thing is inevitable - maybe, but I don't think so. I think it would have been cool to develop a compound "he-she", "them-him", etc that would recognize that the gender was in dispute. I don't care about professional settings. What I care about is among friends. I would love to have a "she-he" (affectionate), a way to say, "You think you are a she. I recognize that and that you are responsible for your life and decisions. I disagree with your claim. Let's move on." (Ok, that would be a pipe dream, but I like it.)

The movement tries (hopefully unsuccessfully) to teach trans people to treat all disagreement as hate. This belief is, to say the least, not helpful for getting along and seems like it would be horrible for the mental health of the movement's "clients".

As you might suspect, I also think the trans activist movement is wrong on the object level, but that is not why I wrote this post. The reason I wrote this post is because I'm starting to wonder if the reason the trans movement is intolerant and the reason it is wrong are connected. 60-70% confidence: the project the trans movement is attempting to make is not within the normal elasticity of human nature. Such projects normally just fail, but when they succeed, they can only do so through extreme intolerance of dissent (cf. Communism), destroying society, not necessarily through their original failings, but through the secondary destruction of fighting the humans in their society for so long.

But now I feel that I have to add a longer, less important to me, post as to why the trans movement is wrong. That post is under the cut.

The best pro-trans argument I've seen is written by @slatestarscratchpad (Scott Alexander) who is exceptionally tolerant of disagreement in his entire corpus, so, of course, actually wrote a response to critics. You should read it. It's his 2014 post Categories Were Made for Man, Not Man for the Categories. My orders of magnitude shorter summary and my rebuttal follow after the link.

Scott argues that many things, including sex/gender (which he treats as synonyms except for an aside recognizing that some people disagree), are a cluster of characteristics that allow freedom in choosing a useful definition:

"Absolutely typical men have Y chromosomes, have male genitalia, appreciate manly things like sports and lumberjackery, are romantically attracted to women, personally identify as male, wear male clothing like blue jeans, sing baritone in the opera, et cetera.

Some people satisfy some criteria of manhood and not others, in much the same way that Pluto satisfies only some criteria of planethood and whales satisfy only some criteria of mammalhood."

According to Scott, in these edge cases, the common use definition (in 2014) makes chromosomes the tiebreak, but the trans activist project wants to change the tiebreak because it would help people with gender dysphoria.

Scott is wrong about what the common use definition is (was?), but more importantly, the common use definition in 2014 and the basically unquestioned definition until some time within the past 20 years (which I will call the "traditional definition" from here forward) is good and useful and probably load-bearing, and the new definition isn't working.

The traditional definition is basically a physical appearance definition, which, in intimate spaces is a genitalia definition (technically still a cluster of traits, but a much much smaller cluster than Scott suggests). Some people are trans by this definition, and it had been generally accepted that sex change surgery changes one's sex, which was synonymous with gender, before the current controversy.

There's a purpose to the traditional definition. It's about the other meaning of sex - sexual intercourse and sexual reproduction and the many associated downstream effects thereof. No matter how well a woman gets along with her fellow lumberjacks at the ultimate MMA fight, what we need from sex/gender is a way to identify that she is the lumberjack that most of the other lumberjacks will look at differently, especially in the lumberjack shower. This is the load-bearing part. It has ripple effects all through how people treat each other. [Gestures in the general direction of Camille Paglia]

In theory, the new definition would work if people's self-definition was good, or even better than the traditional one, at getting what we need - if it found the outliers in sexual attraction, both to and from a person. In the real world, considering the people who claim a gender different from how they look, I don't see that happening at all. I don't even see it picking out the outliers in the broader cluster. It's not finding boys who think like girls or vice versa. Instead it's demonstrating that it's the nature of humanity to misperceive the other sex, and to latch on to a typical-mind, simplistic, or caricature understanding of them. It's as if Alpha Centauri and asteroid belt object #5C312 noticed some similarities of themselves to planets and decided that they must be planets. Meanwhile, Venus and Mercury decided that they weren't. Then we just went with it and tried to go on talking about astronomy, never bringing up uncomfortable facts, such as that Alpha Centauri is so big.

(Aside on gay people and 3rd, 4th, etc genders skipped for some pretence of a semblance of brevity, or maybe just laziness. These don't rescue the modern trans argument.)

But what about the extreme cases with gender dysphoria? I'm not a psychiatrist and I don't have the clinical experience Scott has. It's hard to imagine the pronoun thing is working. If people need to tell others their pronouns, they won't be perceived as the gender they want to be. Also, I think insisting here is where we destroy society. (See above.)

There has been a solution since the mid-20th Century. I already mentioned it. I don't think we've developed anything better. It's a lot more expensive and permanent and life-changing than just changing pronouns. It can't and shouldn't be done lightly. Society has a good reason for the traditional gender categories. If it is to keep them, the only gender changes allowed have to be so. Sorry. It does have the advantage of being the best at changing social perceptions.

[silverity]

hey just wanted to say that I 100% agree with you on that post where that user was talking about her friends ass n tits like it’s always bothered me how people don’t question where that certain phrasing originated from or how men’s sexuality and objectification DOES have an influence on women’s sexuality ( whether OSA or SSA).

Like we’re seen how OSA women develop unhealthy and misogynistic preferences in their own sexuality but somehow users here don’t think it can apply to SSA women as well?? And it’s too bad people are misinterpreting any criticism as denouncing feeling sexual attraction in itself and even towards a friend.

Like …..no, It’s the wording and specific way women are sexualized with the focus on “tits and ass” as if men don’t call us a walking pair of them and rate us depending on these defining “ characteristics that make women attractive”. Like SSA women don’t like in a bubble where this culture and hyper fixation, + wording isn’t gonna influence them.

Anyways, I didn’t want to start discourse on that post because people are derailing to making it seem like there’s claims that SSA women are as dangerous as men and context blah blah blah.

There is a certain way men express their attraction to women that definitely feels objectifying to the point where men argue with women all confused when women disapprove of their way of talking about women and say “ what’s wrong with finding women attractive??? So ur saying I can’t find women attractive??!!!” Like let’s not act like men don’t think that objectification is just normal sexual attraction.

i appreciate you taking the time to post this to me! you summed up my feelings 100%. same as you, i didn't wanna start a whole argument over that post so i didn't comment any further.

but yes exactly. i'm not sure why we can all agree as radfems that men have hijacked female sexuality, that sex and sexuality have been warped by male-centrism... but somehow some of us think lesbian women are immune and removed from the dominance of male sexuality. no lesbian woman could ever sexualise or objectify women just off the basis of her identity alone, and in fact you're a lesbophobe if you dare question how she "expresses her sexuality."

i really am not interested in mimicking any aspect of male sexuality. i don't want to talk about women the way men do, as just tits and ass. i wouldn't want any other woman to reduce me to just tits and ass either. talking about women in this way isn't any less objectifying just bc you're a lesbian. for me it's very understandable that some women will object to being talked about in this way, because it is so reminiscent of the way men talk about women.

i'm not sure we can say OP was objectifying her friend, i think it's a bit of a leap off such a short post. and i don't really think it was her intent. but i think she should have considered why another woman responded thinking she was. the position we're in as women means we have to interrogate and question everything about ourselves, even things that might seem natural to us. bc the reality is we really have no fucking idea who we would be in a world without thousands of years of male supremacy. we're still searching for our own authentic female sexuality, and personally i very much doubt it looks like "tits and ass". for me that is very much objectifying language.