#who was the gay love story between? that’s up to interpretation

[sanctus-ingenium]

Ooo!! What's the dragonriders of pern???

NOT to contest the claim of trekkies everywhere, but Anne McCaffrey of Dragonriders Of Pern fame invented sex pollen and omegaverse in the 60s. Whether or not this is a good thing is up for interpretation

Dragonriders of Pern is a series of sci-fi novels that started in the 60s about human settlers on the planet of Pern who live in a pre-industrial era. Every few hundred years, their planet comes under fire from Thread, an invasive rainfall shed by a nearby dwarf planet that destroys all organic matter it touches. To fight Thread, humans have genetically engineered dragons which breathe fire to burn the Thread before it harms anyone. The series starts during an unusually long lull between Threadfalls, and in the centuries people have neglected their dragon riders and dragons to the point where when Thread does inevitably fall again, they are completely unequipped to fight it. Nearly all common dragon riding genre tropes originate from Pern!! Anne McCaffrey was the blueprint. I adore this series, but my favourite part is how as the series go on, the characters slowly uncover the truth that they are aliens in this world, dig up ancient technology, learn to use it, and progress as a society. The genre shift from fantasy to sci-fi is one of my favourite things to experience and, as the reader, slowly realising the forgotten truths that the characters themselves are unaware of is great. In this regard, a big inspiration for my Siren setting.

The series contains scenes of sexual assault and a weird adult/minor love story so I can't in good conscience recommend it without pointing this out. It should be considered a product of its time and approached with a critical lens. It was also one of the first books I ever read with normalised gay side characters and gay sex (not any of the main characters) so that was cool. For anyone wondering my fave is obviously F'nor.

[jjs-other-other-blog]

Like. Imagine though. You get a small role on a popular tv show and somehow your 3 episode stint extends to a 12 year main character thing.

And you find out there's a huge cult following surrounding the non-canon relationship between your character and one if the other main characters, but your not really supposed to talk about it. You sympathise und you kinda like the idea of that love story, but the show doesn't really want to cater to those kind of fans because this is a manly man's show!

Then they have you record a love confession scene, but when you say the words "homosexual declaration of love" out loud, you get a call from your boss who tells you to go online and rectify because it's not actually gay love, "it's up for interpretation".

They kill off your character and refuse to bring him back, even though you're in the series finale promo picture. They cut you out of the finale and rewrite the script "because covid", but they bring back Jenny the vampire despite covid.

Then they ban you from speaking about your character's sexuality and they ban fans from asking questions about your character's romantic feelings. They don't want no queers associated with their masterpiece of masculinity.

Two years later they ask you to pretend to be bisexual for the rest of your life because that's what's best for the show they all but kicked you out of.

[sugarcubetikki]

If you didn’t know, Christian Linke recently said that they weren’t intending to make Jayce and Viktor romantic but just to show a really close relationship between men which they believe is underrepresented in media.

Of course, as expected, antis have taken this as a way to shut down gay interpretations and bring up how “romanticising a relationship that is meant to be brotherly demeans it”. It is definitely important to have relationships that depict multiple forms of love and yes at its core we can all agree that Jayce and Viktor are two men who love each other.

I believe that despite what Christian Linke says, the way one chooses to interpret that love ultimately falls on the viewer, as their relationship/love can resonate with people in many different ways.

I personally view Jayvik to be partners, friends and lovers because it resonates with me as a queer fan. I personally see a lot of queercoding in the way they were written and that makes it hard for me to perceive them as not having a romantic love.

For example:

Viktor being shown to take Mel’s place in many scenes like Jayce hallucinating him with after Mel and he’s wearing her black eyeshadow.

Mel x Jayce sex scene overlaps with the scene of Viktor becoming entwined with the Hexcore in a way that it makes it difficult for you to even focus on Mel and Jayce.

Amanda mentioning that Viktor was projecting his relationship with Jayce onto Sky this season - the whole science-y bond.

Viktor making the “this is not the bedroom” joke when Mel catches him and Jayce trying to sneak into the lab.

This all resonates with me as queer comphet and their love for each other being superior to that of their romantic interests also feels very queer for me.

And I have the right to interpret them in that way. I respect the way Christian Link interprets them and has shown to depict them but I personally do not see their relationship in the same way and I believe characters are just as much as the audience’s as they are the creators so my interpretation is also valid.

(Also, creators genuinely don’t always agree with each other and they differ in opinions when it comes to interpretations of characters/relations whilst Christian Linke may not see their love as romantic. I believe there might be other creators who do which could explain some of the ambiguity in their scenes).

Also, to the antis, queer love is also a valid form of love, it can exist with/without physical intimacy and still be queer.

Perceiving Jayvik as queer does not demean their love for each other at all. Perceiving them as having a platonic or brotherly bond isn’t wrong either. All forms of love are pure. Queer or not. Jayce and Viktor’s love for each other is pure and can be seen no matter how you interpret it.

The beauty of a story or a piece of art is enabling the perceived to interpret it in a way it resonates with them and it may not be what the creator intended and it may not be what resonates with you but it is still a valid interpretation.

That is to say I also respect platonic readings of their relationship despite not personally seeing it because you have the right to interpret them in the way you want to. And I am asking you to do the same for me and give me the right to interpret them in the way I want to.

[thegirlwhorideslikeasamurai]

On Yuuri's "top-secret" love life

Edit: Due to turning this post into a thread for the dead-bird site, I gave it a complete overhaul because some parts were wordy and confusing.

I took a deeper look into the information YOI gives us about Yuuri’s history with love and the implactions for his character arc.

Let’s start with when Viktor introduces the two Yuris to their new short programmes:

A first examination of the subject of love usually happens in puberty when the average person experiences their first crush. However, 23-year-old Yuuri just cluelessly shakes his head when Viktor asks whether he’s ever thought about love.

Since Yuuri has an evasive nature when feeling pushed or embarrassed, we can assume that he’s not hiding things here. Also interesting in this context, is his interpretation of Agape:

Yuuri is projecting his own experiences with love into his interpretation of On Love: Agape and Eros and his answers reflect where he’s currently at in his journey of exploring love. (for further discussion please check this meta).

Japanese language distinguishes general love 愛 (“ai”) from romantic/passionate love 恋 (“koi”). These terms roughly approximate the Greek concepts of agape and eros as they are utilised in YOI. However, YOI doesn't draw the distinction between 愛 and 恋 but uses 愛 (“ai”) as the overarching concept that includes other forms or love, e.g. せいてきな愛 (“sexual love”).

Until Viktor introduces the two Yuris into On Love: Agape and Eros, Yuuri has never wasted a thought on love. Which means:

Until the end of episode 2, Yuuri has never had romantic feelings for another person.

Why can we be so sure of that?

Even a first crush inevitably inspires an examination of love to some extent regardless of whether you’re happy in love, whether your feelings aren’t reciprocated or whether you decide not to act upon them.

If Yuuri had experienced such feelings before episode 2/3, he would know. And we would know, too, because it would impact his views on love, how he tackles his season’s theme, and how he goes about his relationship with Viktor. It would notably impact his character journey.

Instead, YOI introduces us to the extent of Yuuri’s parasocial obsession with Viktor that despite the gay-coding is too abstract to qualify as an actual crush. The Japanese term for “idol” that YOI uses for the people Yuuri idolises is the neutral 憧れの人 = “someone to look up to/admire”.

For the story of YOI to work as it does, Yuuri never having had romantic feelings is crucial.

Yuuri has one-track-mind that makes Viktor the fulcrum of his existence since he discovered Viktor at the onset of puberty (aka when young people start experiencing attraction for the first time). He has every poster of Viktor at least twice, he copied his programmes and he even named his poodle Katsuki Viktor (yes, that’s canon). In his endeavour to face Viktor as an equal on the ice, he move abroad to train with different coach. The show portrays Yuuri as being more interested in skating [to pursue Viktor] than in spending time with his friends, not that he'd be great at forming relationships in the first place because he's super awkward. Doesn’t sound like someone who even has the mind to notice potential partners around them, does it?

Now let’s move on to the press conference at the end of episode 5 that comprises Yuuri’s journey of exploring love and gives us some more insight into his views on love.

Since the subs are low-key confusing, I’m not quoting them, but you can check this translation to educate yourself on all the nuances that the official translation misses. Particularly interesting is this part:

My love. It’s not [general] love or romantic love that is easy to understand, but my bond with Victor, and the lukewarm way I feel about my family and my local community.

Note that this is the only time the anime uses 恋 ("koi"), probably because he's speaking to a Japanese audience.

Note that this is the only time the anime uses 恋 (“koi”), probably because he’s speaking to a Japanese audience.

This line give us clear idea on how Yuuri feels about the people in his life that are not Viktor, confirming what we’ve could already guess from context: that his relationships so far never reached a level that is intimate enough to enforce an examination of the subject of love. We tend to take our friends and family for granted, but crushes and falling in love are feelings that take over our lives.

Yuuri’s speech about love as a whole showcases that he has come a long way from utter cluelessness to the matured and nuanced idea of love that he now explaines to his audience. He was able to arrive at this point because his time with Viktor sparked the examination of the subject. Yuuri draws a clear distinction between his feelings for his family and friends and his feelings for Viktor, which aren’t lukewarm at all.

A more accurate translation of that line is: “The first person I want to tie myself to and never let go is Viktor” ( 初めて自分から繋ぎとめたいと思った人、それがヴィクトルです) because 繋ぎとめたい means wanting to tie someone / something to you and never let it go (see this translation error masterpost).

After months of getting to know Viktor intimately, Yuuri has fallen in love with Viktor at last. This feeling is bigger than any emotion he has experienced before because it’s greater than 恋 and 愛 and because of that:

This feeling doesn't have a name, but I decided to dare to call it "love".

Yuuri is awkward and anxious, but he’s determined to pursue a goal he committed himself to. For half his life that goal was Viktor, first as an abstract concept and as an ideal to strive for, later as a romantic interest, and he makes sure the world knows.

If Yuuri had had romantic feelings for someone else, he would have pursued this person or ruled out the idea because Viktor was more important and it would have impacted his views on love either way.

Or in other words:

Viktor is Yuuri's first love.

I will discuss the gay-coding of how Yuuri idolises people that inspire him in another post because this seems to be one of the lesser known facts.

For this analysis I've reviewed the entire context of Yuuri's history with love and ruled out everything that doesn't withstand scrutiny or makes no sense in the grand scheme of things (aka the canon of YOI as a whole). You are free to headcanon Yuuri as having had crushes or relationships before Viktor, but keep in mind that this would alter the plot of YOI.

Friendly reminder: friendship, admiration, and aesthetic attraction are often misconstrued as romantic attraction due to allonormative/amatonormative paradigms. When interpreting fictional characters, the entire context must be reviewed to check whether there is more to that.

[deramin2]

You are Vox Machina, and you've been sent by the prosperous and benevolent Emperex J'mon Sa Ord to the cardshark devil Zerxus Ilreze in the Nine Hells to retrieve a suit of armor made by the Dawnfather, a god Asmodeus hates.

Turns out the Emprex has a long-running gambling problem with the devil, and only a vast hoard of wealth stands between this being an inconvenience vs. Exandrian Uncut Gems. The devil then purposes a card game that's basically a mind games hard mode Go Fish hack. (Impressively abbreviated fast bluffing game.)

This servant of Asmodeus, whose name strikes fear into other denizens of the Hells, talks like a jaded former ex-military gay who got sucked into a violent conspiracy cult after becoming estranged from his family.

After upping the ante to the souls of the entire party (far more than Zerxus ever gambled), Pike tries to psych him out through asking for his life story. He tells a sob story about how his love and trust in his friends led to several colossal failures in judgement that destroyed the world. Then he lost even his surviving family who he’d given up everything to be reunited with. They never came back for him and they never tried.

Pike manages to read this correctly as his deep seated desire to have his family join him here because he can't leave. No matter what that does to them. He’s only focused on his own feelings and desires.

The whole time he is constantly repeating the most bad faith interpretation doomerist bullshit you've ever heard about how everything in the world is horrible and everyone deserves to suffer like he's suffering.

After all that, do you believe Zerxus is a reliable narrator of even his own history? Or is he telling you the version built on lies he tells himself because that's what he was manipulated to believe?

Personally I think Zerxus told us his interpretation of reality that he fully believes and shapes his actions around. But that doesn't mean he's correct. Especially about what he thinks happened in the absence of facts.

How often could he check on his family? What might might he have missed and then interpreted as never happening? How much did Asmodeus control what Zerxus saw, and his memories of it, through both manipulation and mind magic?

Right at the beginning of the episode, the Everlight warns Pike that beings in the Hells will try to corrupt her and redemption doesn’t exist for the people there.

Zerxus is an unreliable narrator, not a change in the story the audience knows. His narrative is a manifestation of his own corruption and his desire to spread it to others. Misinformation is the method the Lord of Lies uses to corrupt people.

[perseidlion]

I'm new to the KAOS fandom, and I honestly love the way the show is riffing off myth.

I've seen some rumblings of some people thinking they're changing too much. But, uhhh, the show definitely never promised they'd be sticking close to myth by its whole *gestures broadly* deal. Also like...WHICH version of the myths? There are so many and they changed, sometimes drastically over time. KAOS is just really continuing the tradition of remixing these characters and the stories.

I feel like the people who are saying this takes it too far probably have a superficial understanding of Greek and Roman mythology. Cause if you really dig into it, these stories are weird, contradictory, raunchy, violent and tragic.

I was a Classics major for two years (before I decided I couldn't learn Latin or Greek which was required to study primary sources, so I switched majors.) And let me tell you, KAOS is VERY accurate to certain portrayals of the gods. Not all, of course, but many.

Zeus is absolutely a horndog dick who sleeps with all sorts of people and spreads his seed everywhere. I mean, he straight-up disguised himself as other people to have sex with their partners. Animals, too!

Hera is incredibly petty and vindictive and transforms people into all sorts of things as punishment. She was especially hard on any of Zeus' lovers she caught, or his kids from different mothers.

Everyone was doing adultery all the time.

Hades wasn't a meek corporate type, but he also wasn't a devil analogue as he often gets interpreted as in pop culture. He's definitely a big ole grump and doesn't seem to have a soft side, but he's not often portrayed as evil. Zeus is not God and Hades is not Satan. That's really applying a Judeo-Christian framework to Greek mythology.

The myth of Orpheus and Eurydice was always more about grief and not being able to let go than about the power of true love.

The gods gained obedience and worship through fear. They absolutely punished people who didn't worship they way they wanted them to.

The gods were a giant, powerful, highly dysfunctional family with lots of petty grievances and grudges.

The Greeks had no concept of gay or straight. They conceptualized sex and sexuality as acts, not an identity. They were more concerned about who was the passive person in a sexual encounter (for reasons of class and manliness) rather than what gender their partner was. So it makes sense that this modern retelling would have a similiarly open an undefined concept of sex and sexuality.

Greek myth is full of people who change genders or who swap back and forth through magic or prayer, or were both male and female at the same time. Caeneus in the show, is based on a real myth of someone AFAB who wished to become a man.

(sidenote: Misia Butler is so damned charming and handsome.)

It's also important to remember that the religion of the ancient Greeks lasted a very long time and changed over that time. There was also this really interesting dichotomy between the gods of plays and myths and the gods they worshipped in a religious context. That was one thing that is really hard to wrap your head around when you're studying Greek and Roman myth, especially when you're studying it alongside plays and epic poetry.

The gods of the stories who were being vengeful and petty and the gods they sacrificed to and worshipped were not the same - and they were. Sort of imagine it like Christian peoples' perceptions of Jesus vs Jesus in pop culture. Like, if you studied Dogma or Good Omens or something alongside the Bible and didn't distinguish between religion and pop culture, you'd definitely be confused.

So there are all these competing stores, some benevolent and holy, some raucous and scandalous. KAOS very ably continues in that tradition by remixing and recontextualizing the source material for a new audience.

They do some reaaalll weird thing with timelines, though! They squish together myth and pick and choose different versions and inspiration. But honestly that doesn't bother me because it's all done deliberately and not out of ignorance. They're changing what they've changed to serve the story.

Plus it's great fun. It's one of the most creative shows I've seen in ages. Go and watch it! As a bonus, it's also hella queer.

[fyeahaudiodrama]

Happy @podcastgirlsweek to all who celebrate! While I haven't had the time to properly work on fics (and probably won't this week because oops, hurt my hands yesterday) I still wanted to take the time to highlight some favorite podcast girlies along with everyone else!

The prompt for Monday is highlighting podcasts with women in the leading roles, so here's a few of mine (and hopefully, some new ones of yours if you don't know them yet):

Back Again, Back Again: Ilyaas, you absolutely fantastic disaster of a fantasy ace, never stop trying.

Breathing Space: While the show is anthology with a rotating cast, some of my favorites from across its run include:

Evie Yuriskin

Amity Archer

Any characters who were introduced one episode and then started referring to each other as "my wife" by the end or by their next appearance

Camlann: Some apocalypse survivors interpret dangerous dreams about dark magic to cope. Some knit sweaters. Both are valid and should kiss.

City of Ghosts: Featuring the grungy, disgruntled, tormented-by-visions LADY detective of your dreams.

Desperado: Take note - give your ladies knives. And god powers. And witchcraft. And a sniper rifle, for good measure.

Do You Copy?: I think [REDACTED] deserves three weeks of paid vacation

Fawx & Stallion: Madge Stallion is THE moment. She's six feet tall. She can't stop making innuendos. She's not your fucking Mrs. Hudson (although, she is - no, I shan't say).

Hi Nay: Mari & Laura are my everything - the loving and self-sacrificing hero and the newfound friend who chooses to stand by her side (fire axe and all).

Inn Between: Oh, my Inn Between girlies, where do I start? Fina and Betty, the OGs and life partners that even death couldn't stall? Rosie and Zara, the new best pals who chose to stay together? Phoebe, just one step at a time learning what she deserves and what she doesn't? All impeccable, A+.

It Makes A Sound: Any show focused on music is going to be a slam dunk for me, but Deirdre's quest to reclaim her memories as well as those that tied her to her mother is so damn real and compelling.

The Kingmaker Histories: No female character in this show has ever done anything wrong. Colette gets a migraine pass. Ariadne can turn people inside out. Daphne is owed this for working in a theme park.

Life With LEO(h): Janiiiiiine, so messy and smart and dedicated and she cares so much, I love yoooooou.

Me and AU: Kate's worries and desires and doubts are some of the realest out of any audio drama so when do I find an Ella too

Palimpsest: My faaaaavorite gothic horror anthology, each one fresh with a different brand of haunted, tormented, secret-keeping (and quite frequently gay) gothic protagonist

The Pasithea Powder: Jane and Sophie. Sophie and Jane. What more could you need? <3

The Silt Verses: Women who start cults/leave cults/seek an end to the endless cycle of meaningless sacrifice as so valid. For all your wet cat(fish) woman needs.

Second Star to the Left: Because I always love a good Ishani performance. Hi Gwen, please tell Boots I love them.

Small Victories: You want sad wet cat women? How about one that literally can't stop self-sabotaging (but at least manages to draw the line at sabotaging others...occasionally). She even gets stabbed!

Starfall: I mean, kind of a given, but anyway, Leona definitely exists because she's the kind of action protagonist woman I always wanted - one that could be unapologetically powerful, but still full of flaws and desires (especially ones that weren't about falling in love and minimizing her own strengths). She's even autistic!

Stories From Ylelmore: Keryth! Keryth, Keryth, Keryth! She reminds me so much of the kinds of characters I would make up when I was younger - I love her and her small magic so dearly.

The Strange Case of Starship Iris: Hi queer space pirates <3

Unseen: Another anthology show, but Harry Winters and Never-Ending Circles remains one of the most perfect premiere episodes I've ever heard in audio drama.

The Way We Haunt Now: Get your podcast ladies here, dead or alive!

We Fix Space Junk: My favorite type of repairman is a woman who could kick my ass.

Wolf 359: I don't think I need say much more here - y'all know and love 'em just as much as I do.

[nerdygaymormon]

why do you think these handbook changes were made?

The church hasn't given an explanation, so none of us really know.

As the health of President Nelson has been failing, and President Eyring's health also seems poor, it leaves President Oaks with more say in acting for the First Presidency, which may explain the timing. His antagonism towards acceptance of queer people is well known.

I suspect the recent changes were informed by the church's experience with gay members. When it taught that homosexuality doesn't really exist, that it's a choice and can be changed, they were wrong wrong but it was consistent with the theology. This caused the church to be strictly against anything gay, even disciplining people who believed they are gay.

If homosexuality isn't normal, if it isn't God-approved, then why did so many people have these attractions? Many church leaders developed theories, which eventually were proven false, which caused people to say if the theories were wrong then the church should do away with the "treatments" based on those theories and adjust the theology to include gay people. The church gave up any explanation for why people have gay attractions and also no longer engages in reparative therapies. The church’s evolution isn’t done because it still hasn’t resolved the contradiction between reality and it’s theology.

When the Church acknowledged that people don't choose these attractions and can't change them, it set up a problem. How can a kind and just God create people as gay and then not account for them in His Plan? Why would God deny any acceptable way for them to use their attractions? The church still is grappling with this and the past few decades it has reluctantly given ground over and over as members got to know and love gay members and want them to be fully included and embraced.

Over the last few years a similar softening was taking place among local leaders and congregations as the 2020 Handbook acknowledged the existence of trans people and encouraged an empathetic approach even as the Handbook expanded its disapproval of all forms of transitioning because it doesn't fit with the current theology.

The combination of local leaders trying to give as permissive an interpretation to the rules and the logical challenges of acknowledging trans people while denying they are in God's plan is bringing the same challenges as the church faces with gay members. I think this explains the retrenchment seen in the 2024 Handbook. It now talks about people who “identify” as transgender (in other words, this isn't how they are, it's how they think they are), and emphasizes gender is key to every aspect of the church which leads to a massive increase in restrictions.

I think it's easy to foresee these changes mean few trans people will remain within the church, and that may be the ultimate goal. As the church gave ground to gay people and more of them were willing to stick around, it meant average church members got to know them and their stories, which brought greater acceptance and a desire for gay members to be fully included. The 2015 Policy of Exclusion showed that many church members were unwilling to go backwards, instead they want theological teachings expanded to include the gay people they know and love. I think church leaders are afraid a similar change may be beginning for trans people, and if they act now they may be able to stop this from spreading.

But what do I know?

[sodasa-was-taken]

How subtle is the romance of G-Witch really: The language of romance and the bias in interpretation

First of all, I want to express my gratitude for all the feedback I've received. You guys are awesome. When I posted my first analysis, I had no idea how it would be perceived. Throughout my life, I've mostly been met with confusion, if not a bit of curiosity, when I've told people about my fascination with the romance genre. Even people who like the genre don't treat it with the respect I do but rather see it as something they can turn their brains off to. I was scared that people who saw my analysis would think that G-Witch, I dunno, had too much else going on to be considered a romance. I can't tell you all how validating it's been to get this much praise for writing about one of my biggest passions. Thank you so much.

This post is less an analysis of G-Witch as it's an exploration of the hypocrisy in how straight and gay romances are interpreted even by the queer community. I've engaged with a lot of female/male romances, especially when I was younger and thought I was straight, so it's quite surreal seeing similar stories being interpreted vastly differently based only on whether the main characters are queer or not.

There's been a lot of discussion about how explicit same-sex relationships in fiction should be. Many agree that the minimum for the characters to be unambiguously into each other is for them to kiss. That would be an ideal metric if the same applied to a man and a woman being into each other. It does not. For the vast majority of history, since people first started portraying characters in romantic relationships, explicit depictions of physical affection between those characters haven't been a thing. Depicting that sort of thing didn't become commonplace until the 20th century. For example, you would be hard-pressed to find any of the somewhat indecent positions Miorine and Suletta get into in a Jean Austin novel. Like, usually in a platonic hug, you lay your head on someone's shoulder or clavicle, and Miorine's burying her face in the upper part of Suletta's cleavage. How scandalous!

Of course, these views are centuries old, and the expectations of what should be included in a story about people getting together have changed drastically since then. Except in a lot of ways, it hasn't. Especially in manga, light novels, and anime, it can take real-life years for two characters to show affection through physician touch. Still, it’s expected that the characters are or will become attracted to one another and that they’ll end up together before the end of the story. Unless they’re the same gender, where not only is that not an expectation, but due to tropes such as Bury Your Gays, people are more likely to think one of them is going to die. That’s messed up. Being a main character in a romance or something adjacent shouldn’t be a death sentence for any character. Then there’s the fact that same-sex couples-to-be in fiction can be as forward as they want in their physical and verbal affections. Still, a straight couple-to-be that does nothing but bigger or just be the most prominent characters in their respective genders will still be perceived as less ambiguous. A man and a woman who get a bit flustered around each other are hopelessly in love. Yet, two girls sharing an intimate hug after a conversation about how neither wants their engagement to just be a transaction; that’s “totally platonic.”

Better yet, Hollywood has fine-tuned this to the point that the male and female leads only need to look at each other for about five seconds, and it’s enough to infer that they’re attracted to each other. This has become so ubiquitous that people have gotten confused when the leads are implied not to have gotten together despite having shown zero romantic intent. Having the character show romantic intent isn’t generally considered a requirement for them to end up together in a Hollywood film. No, seriously. All this is to say that literary and visual shorthand have always been and continue to be a major part of romances. Yet, the bar is much higher when it comes to the confirmation that two characters of the same gender are into each other. An author can use the exact same narrative tools that have become a staple of female/male romances/romantic subplots, and someone will tell you you're being led on for picking up on them.

The main reason for the high standards placed on same-sex couples is the desire for representation. If straight couples are allowed to or even expected to kiss at some point in the story, the same should be the case for same-sex couples. That said, kissing neither is nor should be the be-all and end-all of good representation. Yeah, straight couples get to kiss and have sexual relationships, but by all accounts, a significant amount of straight representation is absolutely abysmal. Lots of straight romances reek of sexism, outdated gender roles, and stereotyping, are toxic, and straight-up have a reputation for romanticizing abuse. If kissing or an “I love you” is the metric to which good representation is judged, two straight people who have zero chemistry or are downright abusive would be better representation than a same-sex couple whose relationship is built on mutual respect and support but who doesn't get to kiss or say “I love you” and that's ridiculous.

It’s also worth noting how people who tell others they’re crazy for seeing a queer story where according to them, there aren’t any, get characterized as needing to see something explicit to pick up that a story is or even just be interpreted as a queer romance. The thing is, most of these people aren’t dense; they’re willfully ignorant. They can pick up on the signs just as easily as they can in male/female romances; they’re choosing not to, even if it’s likely an unconscious decision. There seems to be a need among queer people to have depictions in media that even bigots can’t deny are queer. Why though? Representation is vital in helping to normalize the existence of various types of people, but for so many queer people, it just doesn’t seem to be enough. So what if some people wouldn’t get it unless the characters kiss? Those people will just start complaining about how they’re having queerness forced down their throats, and that’s their problem. There’s so much more to the queer experience than displays of physical affection, and this representation gatekeeping isn’t helping anyone. Normalizing same-sex couple kissing is important, but normalizing people of the same gender kissing is only going to normalize the kissing itself. If, for example, two people of the same gender get to kiss and then one of them gets killed off, that's the opposite of normalizing same-sex relationships.

Pulling from my own experiences, I've never been told that there was anything wrong with two people of the same gender kissing. Still, I saw same-sex relationships as inferior and believed being in one couldn't give me the life I wanted. I tried so hard to convince myself that I was straight and was only attracted to someone with a different gender presentation than me – because I was also an egg who told myself I was wrong for feeling uncomfortable for being referred to as my assigned gender at birth. Honestly, I thought that I would be happier if I didn’t even entertain the idea of getting together with someone with the same gender presentation as me. So, imagine how much it meant to me to see a show about two girls where one of them didn’t even think that getting engaged to another girl was an option, both of them having young men interested in them but asking each other to spend their life with them, and ending the show being married and being all the happier for being with the other. That's the kind of representation I've been looking for.

On a less serious note, I’d like to share an antidote from when I watched episode one for the first time. When Suletta sees someone floating around in space who appears to be in danger I didn’t initially consider that the person in question might be Miorine. The visuals planted the idea in my mind and the thing that confirmed it was the framing of the two inside Aerial’s cockpit. I couldn’t explain what I was picking up on, but to me, it was a dead giveaway.

[izzythehutt]

To counter Sirius being gay or straight- I actually don't think Sirius is very romantic/sexual/whatever. He felt to me like he was always interesting in "more important things." I think it's why I was turned away from your fic before I read it (of course it's brilliant, I love your Sirius now) because it felt very bold.

So what do you think? I know you wrote a romance for him, so it's obvious, but I'm still curious (apparently in fandom thinking characters wouldn't want/care about a romance at all isn't interesting, or so I've been told)

I think within the context of the books series for which he was created to be a supporting character, his romantic life is irrelevant. He didn't need a wife or girlfriend or love interest in the books because it would have just added another subplot that didn't contribute in a meaningful way to Harry's journey. His character's purpose is to be a palpable emotional connection between Harry and his dead parents, to be a surrogate father figure, and then to die and thereby contribute to Harry's maturation.

That being said, it's interesting how in the flashback scene we get in OOTP, James is portrayed as your typical teenage boy who is very interested in impressing girls (or one girl in particular) and Sirius is shown as completely indifferent to female attention (which he gets in that flashback, he just ignores in favor of James.) His closest relationship in canon is with James and he never "gets over it" in the books. The way their relationship is described actually kind of reminds me of how Charles Ryder and Sebastian Flyte are written in Brideshead Revisited—one of these "romantic friendships" of adolescence that kind of functions like a first love. Sirius/James and Snape/Lily kind of parallel in the narrative—especially in how both characters relate to Harry—which is why I've always joked that if you want to make Sirius gay, the subtext for him having been in love with James is right there. I don't personally interpret it that way, but I think a case could be made for it.

In some of the extra-canonical materials him having some kind of romantic relationships has been alluded to (I believe the Lupin bio on Pottermore had Remus bitterly tell Tonks that Sirius 'always got the women', lol), so I tend to write him and think of him as being a bit emotionally stunted in his youth who would have settled down with a woman later in life. He was in a war. He was being a rebel fighter. I chose to make him a virgin in my fic because I thought it was a funny subversion of his usual 'sex god' status in fandom, though I could also see him having a lot of meaningless sexual flings. I do not think him having a meaningful romantic relationship in the books is likely, given what we know about him.

I never really cared that much about his love life growing up, to be honest. His shippability was never the attraction to the character for me—the only reason I gave him a love interest in my story is that it's a family saga that thematically needed one. He has to continue the family line! I hadn't ever really thought about the kind of woman he might like until I had to create a love interest I thought he could plausibly get with.

[soleminisanction]

re Batman '66 and the idea that Bruce is Dick's father is a super recent phenomenon, isn't it also simultaneously an old idea? since there was plenty of Golden Age before the '66 show when Dick was a child, he only wasn't adopted as Bruce's son because that wasn't something bachelors could really do back then, and Alfred wasn't always around as a parent figure to them both like he is in later eras (especially to Bruce, since back then Alfred only showed up after Bruce became Batman and didn't raise him)

I mean that's kind of a complicated question. I actually can't find any evidence that bachelors couldn't adopt in the 1940's, it just wasn't considered typical. Moreover, the narratives they appeared in were less refined, with less overall detail, and less grounded in reality, so their relationship tended to be based more on... for lack of a better term, vibes. It was often up to interpretation.

Dick was a child, yes, and some readers did project onto him and Bruce as a father-son duo due to lack of a strong paternal figure in their own lives (Superman and Captain America got a lot of that, too). But it wasn't a defined role.

Dick in Golden Age comics isn't treated as Bruce's child, he's treated as Bruce's equal, his partner. That's something that a lot of people who don't really "get" the appeal of child sidekicks don't seem to understand, they weren't conceived of as being lesser than their adult counterparts, they were supposed to be on relatively even footing. The whole point was to make a child reader feel like they could stand alongside their icons; whether that was a "realistic" relationship between an adult man and the young boy in his care didn't matter.

The one role besides partner that it can be definitively said Dick plays in the narrative is that of "the Beloved," the person Bruce cares about whose safety can be imperiled to raise the stakes of a story. But that still leaves the actual nature of their relationship pretty open and undefined -- and it didn't help that most other superheroes at the time filled that role not with their sidekicks but with their girlfriends. (This, plus living alone together and several storylines where Bruce getting a female love interest is positioned as a threat to the Dynamic Duo's partnership, is the source of many of the "Batman and Robin are gay lovers" accusations.)

Also, in the Golden Age, and even into the Silver Age to an extent, adult superheroes weren't always treated as fully, well, adult. Sometimes they came across more like bigger kids that young readers could project onto, or imaginary friends who were there to play with and empower them in ways their parents couldn't or wouldn't. A parent's presence would ruin the fantasy, after all. That's why a lot of stories in those eras lean towards the over-the-top and goofy, they weren't going for anything more or less than mimicking children playing pretend, and the characterization reflected that.

So yeah, it's... complicated.

[katsu-curry835]

Why Bisexual Jon Snow Could Work /srs

Jon Snow is bisexual and here's why.

Aight, I'm aware the queer rep in asoiaf is pretty eh for the most part. Sweets is cool, and Loras and Renly have a nice implied relationship but Dany and Cersei having gay sex scenes felt way more fetishized than actually meaningful representation, especially since neither character considers a romance with a woman. Because of this, I'm gonna say that while I think this could be a valid direction to take the story, I'm like 50% sure that GRRM won't write it. Then again, it's been so long between books that times have literally changed and FnB seemed to have a ton of queer relationships so who knows.

Ok, ok, so I've laundered my argument; we all know why we're really here. Jon Snow could be bisexual and that could be really important for the story. Why?

First and most obvious is that it's another parallel with Dany. Jon and Dany have had storylines that directly mirror each other, especially in books 3 and 5. Dany is confirmed bisexual by the narrative, since she has regular sex with her handmaiden Irri, although because of her position of power over her, she tries to limit them. And, as already mentioned, she never gets to be romantically attracted to a woman. Maybe that's coming in future novels, who knows, but all that to say Dany and Jon mirroring each other on the bi front is not inconceivable, especially when you consider that there is already evidence for Jon being bi.

I'm sure most of you deep into this discourse(?) have probably predicted that I'm going to talk about Satin. And if this story does go in the 'Irri' direction, Satin is definitely the candidate for Jon's male love interest. He's a former prostitute from Oldtown, which mirrors another of Dany's handmaids (Doreah I think) and he's Jon's steward, like Irri is to Dany. Other characters also seem to think that Satin has kinda slept his way up the ranks to being Jon's steward, confirming at least that this idea is in GRRM's head. I wanna take a look at a few scenes and see how they could imply a future relationship between Jon and Satin. Take a look at this fight scene between Jaime and Brienne (I promise this is relevant.)

"'Give me the sword, Kingslayer.'

'Oh I will.' He sprang to his feet and drove at her, the longsword alive in his hands. Brienne jumped back, parrying, but he followed, pressing the attack. No sooner did she turn one cut than the next was upon her. The swords kissed and sprang apart and kissed again. Jaime's blood was singing...

...The dance went on. He pinned her against an oak, cursed as she slipped away, followed her through a shallow brook half choked with fallen leaves. Steel rang, steel sang, steel screamed and sparked and scraped, and the woman was grunting like a sow at every crash, yet somehow he could not reach her."

To me this scene has always read as implicitly foreshadowing Brienne and Jaime's future romance. Words like "kissed" or "grunted" or "pinned her against a tree" feel implicitly romantic/sexual, even the way the scene is described as a "dance." Jaime even says at a later point "Might I have this dance my lady" to mock her. Of course there is plenty more in the story as a whole that foreshadows Brienne and Jaime having a relationship, but I use this as an example because I want to point out how GRRM sometimes writes a fight scene as romantic and sexual foreshadowing, or at least that can be how some scenes are interpreted. Now I want to look at the scene where Jon trains Satin.

"It's too heavy," the Oldtown boy complained.

"It's as heavy as it needs to be to stop a sword," Jon said. "Now get it up." He stepped forward, slashing. Satin jerked the shield up in time to catch the sword on its rim, and swung his own blade at Jon's ribs. "Good," Jon said, when he felt the impact on his own shield. "That was good. But you need to put your body into it. Get your weight behind the steel and you'll do more damage than with arm strength alone. Come, try it again, drive at me, but keep the shield up or I'll ring your head like a bell . . ."

This scene reads similarly to me. Words like "jerked," "rim," "get it up," even the one word sentence "Come," can read as sexual foreshadowing in a similar way to Jaime and Brienne if you are given context that Jon and Satin do end up together. In particular, "ring your head like a bell" reminds me of a scene where Gendry gets approached by a girl but rejects her advances.

"I'm named Bella," the girl told Gendry. "For the battle. I bet I could ring your bell, too. You want to?"

I would be remised if I didn't mention that Jon calls Satin pretty three times in the chapter where he's supposed to be engaged in a battle with the wildlings. Like yeah, that's a bit weird, why are you thinking about that now Jon. Or I could mention the fact that he described Satin’s voice swearing his words as being like song and that he could smell the fresh sweet oils Satin rubbed into his beard. Jon… buddy you got something you wanna say? I’m joking of course: you don't have to be queer to recognize another man's beauty. What I think puts this into perspective is if you compare this to how he describes Val, someone who it's generally agreed upon that he takes an interest in.

Here's a quote where Jon describes Satin:

"The boy claimed to be eighteen, older than Jon, but he was green as summer grass for all that. Satin, they called him, even in the wool and mail and boiled leather of the Night's Watch; the name he'd gotten in the brothel where he'd been born and raised. He was pretty as a girl with his dark eyes, soft skin, and raven's ringlets. Half a year at Castle Black had toughened up his hands, however, and Noye said he was passable with a crossbow."

Now here's Val:

"Val stood on the tower roof, gazing up at the Wall. Stannis kept her closely penned in rooms above his own, but he did allow her to walk the battlements for exercise. She looks lonely, Jon thought. Lonely, and lovely. Ygritte had been pretty in her own way, with her red hair kissed by fire, but it was her smile that made her face come alive. Val did not need to smile; she would have turned men's heads in any court in the wide world."

I mean, the fact that "pretty" is a word used to describe both Ygritte and Satin is a connection that I shouldn't need to point out the significance of, but I digress. If you actually compare these quotes, both look like neutral descriptions of someone's appearance in isolation, however in context, you have to ask why the author shows you this stuff. Why does Jon comment on how good looking both of these characters are so often? It doesn't seem like there would be any other purpose to these, again, repeated descriptions of both Val and Satin other than to highlight that the fact that Jon finds both of them attractive is important.

Again, none of this proves anything outright. I mention this because this is the sort of thing where if you reread the books with this lens, suddenly more things start to jump out at you, and it can read like obvious foreshadowing you missed. Like when Catelyn sees her reflection in some armor and comments on how "drowned" she looks. It doesn't mean too much on a first read, but when you know what happens to her, it's some clever foreshadowing.

Another big reason I think Jon getting with Satin might be important is that you can see it as a pivotal part of Jon's character arc, specifically Jon's sexual awakening storyline. When Jon first has sex with Ygritte, she's the one who initiates the interaction. In fact she has been doing that the whole time he's had her hostage, teasing him with advances and mocking him for his inexperience. In the famous cave scene, Jon's thoughts are how he wants to bang her, but also about how it would be in conflict with his vows. That's the main reason he never has sex with her until she incites it on her own; it's not because he doesn't want to. It's because he thinks it would violate the words he swore at the weirwood.

So Ygritte begins this part of his arc, and Jon discovers that he likes having sex, how original. But he still feels reservations about it, during the act and afterwards. After all, his people resent him for being able to openly take a woman to bed with him, while they have to go to Mole's Town to dig if they want to get any action at all.

My view on this is that the story is heading in a sex-positive direction with respect to Jon. There’s plenty of theming about this “why is it a sin if it feels so good” etc etc. The books are full to the brim of people feeling needlessly guilty about having casual sex, Jon especially. Where I think this is headed, therefore, is probably something like a wildling understanding of sex; Jon has to view sex as Ygritte did, because that was always the healthiest way for him to go about it. Except this time, to complete his arc, he is going to need to take the initiative himself and embrace his desires like Ygritte did. Her teasing him for not doing this was trying to get him to come out of his shell. It would feel strange to me if this went nowhere. Jon needs a future romantic/sexual partner so that he can feel no qualms with taking the initiative with them. How he learns to do that is up to George but suffice it to say, however uncertain I maybe that this partner will be Satin, a future romance is in the cards for Lord Snow.

So Jon's in a bit of a bind here from a meta perspective. If we want him to complete his sexual awakening storyline, he's going to have to take the initiative himself with a partner without feeling any inhibitions. But he can't do that if he's still a brother of the Night's Watch because of the aforementioned conflict with his vows. But he's not going to stop being a crow, his vows are important to him. So how do we reconcile the fact that Jon's character arc about his sexuality needs to be resolved, but he also needs to keep to his words? Simple: make his next partner male so it doesn't violate anything.

I've actually thought this could work as a plot point for anyone either in the Night's Watch or the Kingsguard. One of these men surely has to consider at some point the obvious loophole of "so I can't bed a woman, but what about a man?" and how that affects their honor or whatever. It just slots kinda nicely into Jon's storyline here. Another reason it really works is that Jon is looking to socially progress the Night’s Watch: unity with the wildlings, defending Satin from homophobia etc. Him realising the obvious flaw of the vows for not considering that men can be romantically involved through his own experiences as a bi guy can help him begin to dismantle the outdated nature of the customs. He’s framed as this sort of reformer, and being a queer bastard (who is also probably the lost heir to the Targaryen dynasty) makes this thematically poignant. He’s an outcast, but also a king.

Of course, he’s always been an outcast, being queer would just help add to that. And this is just one way of writing this arc; I’m not married to this take on this basis alone.

I can so imagine a scene where Jon is having sex with Satin and the lit hearth is positioned behind Satin's head from Jon's POV and it looks like Satin's been 'kissed by fire.' Also, Jon considering how Ygritte would feel about him doing this and coming to that conclusion that she would be proud seems like a great way to end a chapter about the two hooking up because Jon's arc would be basically resolved.

This final part is something that I feel should not be left merely implied: Jon being canonically bisexual would be great representation. This is one of the most beloved and famous heroes in all of fantasy, hell, in all of modern fiction. Making him queer would be a really important step forward for queer rep that should not be underestimated. Verity Ritchie (VerilyBitchie on yt) did an excellent video essay on bisexuality in reality tv, a point from which I'm going to paraphrase: it's really hard to effectively depict bisexuals because any confirmed relationship with another character would look like they 'picked a side.' But in order to continually show someone's openness to sexual attraction to two or more genders, you risk going to far the other way, falling into the bisexual sex demon stereotype. This is a really difficult needle to thread, and is why we have characters like Nick Nelson constantly having to remind us that they're bi, rather than having us just assume they could be. Put simply, we need better bi representation, especially with men and Jon Snow is excellent casting for the role. His relationship to Ygritte is constantly referenced throughout the narration as something he treasures and misses, so there would be no doubt that he was not 'gay the whole time.' But, if the Satin story goes ahead, there can be no doubt he's not queer either. Literature is a great place to put bi characters, I think, since an internal monologue can remind you of past relationships with other characters of different genders and how they mean something to the character in question, but never undermining the integrity of the current relationship.

Me personally, I'd be buzzing for Jon Snow to be confirmed as bi. Really interested to see people's thoughts on this.

[epiphainie]

I completely agree with you in that there are many bad faith interpretations of tommy and buck and tommy’s relationship. I don’t know if this one I’m about to share would necessarily be a bad faith interpretation but I’d like your take on it. In the scene where buck comes out to eddie, eddie says to buck “this changes nothing between us” and buck responds with something along the lines of “uh good, that’s a relief”. I’ve seen a lot of people interpret buck’s facial expressions as not showing just relief but relief mixed disappointment because a part of buck wanted things to change between them, in the romantic sense, he just doesn’t realize it. I do agree that buck’s expression as he says the words is interesting but I don’t personally think it has anything to do with him harbouring romantic feelings for eddie. for me it felt like one of those moments where you dread the reaction for so long, that when you finally face the thing and open up, even if the other person’s reaction is positive, it takes a minute for you to really internalise it and let yourself believe it.

Another moment that people often talk about from this scene is reaction to buck saying he can’t stop thinking about tommy. People often say eddie’s facial expression shows some sort of disappointment but again, I don’t know if that’s it? again, it is an interesting expression so I get why people would pause and focus for a minute but to me, it reads as eddie searching for a moment to give his honest advice to buck in the scenario.

Anyway, I’d love your thoughts on those particular moments and how you see them. Again, I’m not saying that the interpretations people are making of that scene in relation to buddie are necessarily in bad faith. I know it’s fun to analyze and interpret scenes in ways that you enjoy and I’d never want people to stop doing that. I just feel like Oliver and Tim have been very clear in that they do not want to tell a story where a guy comes out and is in love with his best friend and if buck was truly disappointed in hearing eddie say nothing’s going to change between them post buck’s coming out, that would be a quite bold contradiction.

Hi anon!

I'm not sure if you actually meant to send this to me because I'm kind of the exact opposite of a person who engages in the practice of reverse-engineering actors' faces to find deep secret meanings that doesn't actually exist in the script. I think it's a slippery slop of a fan practice where if you go "haha he looks jealous here" and want to make it gay in your fantasy world and are capable of compartmentalizing that from the actual text, it's great! If you look at it like it's subtext that is meant to one day come to surface, as some sort of proof that this is not the actual story, you're either too deep in your world that you treat these characters like they have agencies and thoughts and feelings and are not, yknow, fictional - or that actors are making the conscious choice to layer their performances with breadcrumbs for a plot that doesn't exist at the time.

I've seen all these arguments with almost every scene this season. Eddie's face when Tommy enters the bachelor party. Buck's face when Bobby says Tommy is good for him. Bobby's face when he says Tommy is good for Buck. Eddie's smile when they enter the hospital room. Most of these are insignificant and the others have in-text explanation (Yeah, Bobby smiles weirdly in that scene. Guess what, he's kind of planning to kill himself). And like I said, if people want to read these in a pro-Buddie sense and go do fandom stuff with it, that's great. But we all know this fandom is taken over by the question of "will Buck and Eddie happen?" so everyone who's not even doing this in bad faith (I don't think all do) are looking at it in "does this support canon romantic Buddie?" lenses. So much of shipping Buddie is about speculating for the next episode, next season, next whatever that I think it's so easy to find yourself on that slippery slop where you fit every shot, face, editing choice to your interpretation. There's also the sunk cost fallacy at play here - once you do it for so long, it's hard to give up on the belief that it'll happen.

I think both Oliver and Ryan great actors - and that scene is one of my favorites in the season - but no, I don't think there's more to their faces than what they're given to play. Which is as all of them mentioned a billion times, a scene of a guy nervously coming out as queer to his best friend and receiving support. If I'm wrong and the rest of this fandom is right and the production/writers/showrunners are actually fully married to the idea of canon romantic Buddie but The Powers That Be are keeping gay Eddie in the closet as if he's a real person and they're the evil step-mother, and come S10 Buck realizes he's been in love with his bff all along, then yeah in-text, that would recontextualize all their performances. It still wouldn't change what the writers' intention has been with the text as it exists today or be proof that Oliver and Ryan are making acting choices for a hypothetical future SL.

[etherealspacejelly]

ok so i just watched star trek the motion picture for the third time and this time it was the directors cut with the extra scenes, and i have some Thoughts™️that may or may not be entirely coherant but i need to share them

here is my in depth literary analysis of why star trek the motion picture is the greatest queer love story ever written (/hj). buckle up because this is gonna be a long one

so our story starts (after the klingon cold open ofc) with spock on vulcan, during the final ceremony in which he is supposed to acheive kohlinar, the purging of all emotion. now, right off the bat, i want to make a comparison to conversion therapy/being closeted/repressed here. spock is trying to repress an entire side to himself, a part of him that is inherantly different to those around him, in order to be accepted in society. spock is already a very queer coded character, and i think reading this scene through that lens is a valid interpretation, especially considering everything else that happens in this movie.

the ceremony stops before its completion. because spock has Not purged all of his emotions. a consciousness calls to him from the sky. now, i think this line could be interpreted one of two ways. either this 'consciousness' is v'ger, or its jim. i think the writers intended it to be v'ger, but in the context of the scene it sounds a lot more like jim. of course jim would be the one preventing spock from purging his emotions: jim is the reason for many of spocks emotional slip-ups throughout the series. he fears for jims life when he is in danger, he feels friendship for jim but also shame about those feelings (that shame is also queercoded, but thats not the point of this post so i wont get into it here). he feels compassion for jim. he feels loyalty and a sense of duty to him. these feelings are so strong that he cannot purge them fully.

so what does spock do? he off goes in search of something that he feels will help him achieve his goal. he wants peace within himself, to find a balance between his two opposing mindsets, that of logic and that of emotion. purging all emotion was unsuccessful, so what else can he do?

he feels that v'ger is a being of pure logic, and wants to understand it, in hopes of achieving that for himself. in the process he meets up with jim again. now, you would think, that a vulcan nearing kohlinar who has been training for years to purge all of his emotions and act purely logically would not stop to change clothes and cut his hair when on his way to acheive LITERALLY HIS LIFE GOAL that is super important to him. and yet. when spock turns up on the enterprise hes wearing his nicest black robes and has his classic bangs back. why is that mr spock?? why would you take the time to do that?? especially when he then immediately changes into his uniform.

and while we're on the topic of clothes, what does jim do immediately after spock boards the enterprise? thats right folks, he changes into a shirt that shows off his arms and has a v-neck to show off his chest. any. particular reason for that jim? when you said just a moment ago that every minute counts and the earth is in danger? hmm. interesting.

and then of course we get that exchange between jim, spock, and bones. where jim 'needs' spock. just like he needed bones. theres a desparation in his eyes, he wants HIS spock back, and hes not seeing that spock in front of him. the conversation ends with jim looking dejected, since spock only seems to be there out of convenience and not because he Wants to be. wonder why that is...

of course then spock mind melds with v'ger. and to do so he has to. go through a very sphincter-like opening. and says he has 'penetrated' the next chamber. now im just saying. if anything is a metaphor for gay sex, this has to be, right?

anyway.

spock mind melds with v'ger and is flung back into jims arms. because of course he is. and what did he learn from the whole experience? that v'ger is pure logic, and therefore cannot experience beauty, imagination, and "this simple feeling". wait. hang on. what simple feeling would that be, spock? the one you're talking about while holding jim's hand (HANDS?? VULCAN HOLDING HANDS?? HELLO???) and staring into each others eyes? what feeling would that be, i wonder?

and then. SPOCK CRIES. for v'ger. he 'weeps for v'ger as he would for a brother". v'ger is 'empty', as spock was when he came aboard. "incomplete, and searching. logic and knowledge are not enough," he says. bones asks if spock has found what he needed, and v'ger hasnt. spock says that v'ger wants to know what it was meant to be, to reach out and touch its creator.

spock is crying because he empathises with v'ger. v'gers journey parallels his own. they were both empty beings of pure logic. spock found his fulfilment in... what exactly? its not explicitly clear. but if we continue the spock/v'ger parallel to its conclusion, what do we find?

v'ger has taken ilia's form, and decker decides to merge with v'ger not only to save earth, but also to reunite with the woman he loves. v'ger becomes satisfied only when this happens. so... spock found his fulfilment by reuniting with someone he loves? if we take this in context with the 'this simple feeling' scene, the queer subtext is right there.

at the end of the movie, spock is offered to return to vulcan, and he refuses, stating that his business there is finished. he has achieved his goal of finding peace within himself. not by purging all emotion, but by embracing emotion, alongside logic, and allowing himself to feel what he has repressed his entire life. he resumes his place at jims side, which, as edith keeler stated, is where he belongs.

this movie is a queer story, and i will die on this hill. all of the evidence together stacks up that way. it is a story of repression, self acceptance, and love.

ALSO THE POSTER IS A RAINBOW-

[9w1ft]

i wanna be LSK but… //

I’m so sorry anon, but I personally find it really funny when people hear the songs where taylor is working through her feelings of being betrayed by Scott B and attribute them to karlie instead.

It’s like finding a man holding a gun standing over a dead body and saying, hang on a minute… what if the real murderer is the victim’s gf… because two of her friends liked a gossipy tweet written by a known shit-stirrer!

that is to say, we know for a fact that taylor felt deeply betrayed by scott b, seeing as he’s verifiably the actual person who sold her masters to scooter, after treating taylor like family since she was very young. it’s pretty self-evident he deserves the level of vitriol in the smallest man who ever lived (besides the other descriptive details that link him to tsmwel, mtr etc).

as for taylor and karlie suddenly never being seen together again (seemingly drifting apart a whole year before the heist even happened, remember?), well she hasn’t spoken on that, so naturally we read between the lines in the songs to find out. some people have taken the masters heist songs to be about karlie, and ran with that. but others see karlie and taylor’s retreat into privacy reflected in songs under the ‘love blackout’ theme (especially around here, you’re on a longtime kaylor blog 🙈)

love blackout = the hints taylor has put out again and again that she intentionally distanced her public image from karlie’s because it was too dangerous to carry on as openly as they had at first. 2016 election sadness themes, secret love themes, all consistent over the years. all while writing new love songs that use callbacks to the rep muse, to yail even 🥺. as if taylor’s been using all the confusion and her masterful quill of misdirection to achieve her priority of protecting karlie. not protecting karlie’s public image and clout with swifties, which she doesn’t need to maintain her success because she was always successful in her own right! no, it’s all for Karlie The Person in their secret bubble of reality. all this showmanship, you know. the great war, hello!!!! too many songs to name where the kaylor chandelier is safely out of sight, but you can still see flickers through the boarded up windows ❣️

so forgive me for having a chuckle. to any anons who sincerely🛸want to believe, I’m just throwing it out there that there are plenty of us that never found the karlie-betrayer theory convincing at all. if you take a closer look at everything, the timeline of events and all the songs since, does it really make sense? (especially when there are so many shitty men in the mix who are more obviously to blame lol)

~ if you post, thank you for facilitating this rant 9wing, I’ll get off my soapbox now xxx

yup yup

i think a lot of people are predisposed to blaming karlie and so everything becomes a sort of confirmation bias.. which partially, i would argue, was by design.. so in a sense i do not fault gaylors or others for falling into this hole. but i do sometimes feel like faulting them a tiny bit for those who never climb out of it. there’s plenty of information and clues needed to figure it out and climb out of it.

one thing i don’t like about the whole “let’s not talk about muses” discourse is while the spirit of it is supposed to be “let’s study why these songs sound gay instead of commenting taylor lyrics on these people’s instagram pages,” in practice the phrasing almost is like giving yourself permission to pass judgement on the people in taylor’s story and then never reevaluate them. people often say ~lets not talk muses that’s invasive and gross~ and conveniently refuse to adjust their perception of karlie (for example) based on what taylor is putting out there, while making convenient exceptions for any interpretation they find that works to reinforce their already negative perception of her. and then after bitching about her they’ll cover their timeline in lisa frank dolphins because apparently that’s what paradise is. i dunno. it all feels dystopian to me atp 😆

[hauntedgrin]

An unnecessarily thorough analysis of the Tarot imagery in Merlin Season One by an amateur tarot reader

(who is also a hopeless romantic and is currently very affected by the disaster that is BBC Merlin)

I started watching Merlin around two months ago. I fell in love with the show instantly, even if I technically haven't finished it yet because of time reasons (though I did spoil myself everything right to the ending and I’m devastated. Still trying to find courage to start season 5. But that’s beside the point)

There was something in the first season that caught my eye and hasn't let me go since. In fact, I was thinking about it today, went on a search for discussions about it, fully under the assumption that this is something the fandom noticed long beforehand is a well-known fact. To my endless surprise, I’ve found no mention! Nada! Not a single one. That won’t do, I thought. I have to share with the people. It's something that fueled my conviction in Merlin the Show being a love story between Merlin and Arthur (whatever the nature of that love may be, I love both the platonic and romantic interpretation equally, though this specific instance could be leaning towards romance somewhat more, I'll explain it in a second) and here it is.

It's this scene.

It is Merlin and Arthur, facing each other with two cups in between them, trying to decide who is going to drink the poison, sacrifice himself and save the other. And I thought Oh my god, tarot symbolism.

That's the card, the Two of Cups. The similarities are obvious (and, in my opinion, very intentional. I’d like to kiss whoever came up with this specific creative decision)

Slight disclaimer: Tarot reading can be very subjective, meanings shift depending on the reader and their perception of the card. I’ll try to be objective with the main aspects of the cards, but there is a lot of subjective opinions too. It’s okay if you disagree)

The main meanings of this card are partnerships, loving relationships, mutual attraction, unity, harmony and, you guessed it!, soulmates. It’s not hard to see why that card would have been chosen to represent them. I think that’s the most outright the show’s ever been about calling them soulmates, without hiding behind labels such as ‘each other’s destiny’ and ‘two sides of one coin’ as if those are any less gay. There is also themes of equality and becoming one, mutual respect and, in certain cases passion and sexual attraction (though it’s not a definition that is applicable in all cases, and can absolutely be ignored for platonic or asexual relationships, it’s still one of the main aspects, given that its represented by, you know, the big red head of a lion with wings right at the top of the card. Can’t exactly forget about it.)

Personally I've always preferred the Two of Cups to The Lovers tarot card (which looks very similar and has some intersections in themes, also concerning love, intimacy, passion). Plus, The Lovers is part of the Major Arcana, so technically it should be more impactful, ‘epic’, someone said, divine. While doing some research into that distinction I've found why exactly it makes me a bit queasy. The Lovers are not always a card about love, in fact, more often it isn’t. And The Lovers aren't made for each other. That is to say, they obviously are, considering the entirety transparent Adam and Eve imagery (and this also makes it a more conservative card, with clear molds for a ‘traditional relationship’). The Lovers are brought together by a higher power, made for a purpose. It serves something. It is a message. It is a lesson. It's a choice between what you want and what you need. It is a partnership, often intense, out of this world, but it’s also about all the factors in between, the things that unite them, the snake, the temptation, the apple, the garden. It can be also about soulmates, and happy relationships, of course, about fated lovers… and mortal enemies. It actually is more in line with Merlin’s and Morgana’s relationship. Out of this world fated connection? Absolutely, guaranteed. Do you want that kind of connection though, really?

How is this relevant, you might be thinking?

Well, there is no such divine power pushing the couple portrayed by the Two of Cups. In fact, they are choosing each other. It’s only them and their union. That’s why I like it so much. They are only the way they are, not the way they are meant to be, not specifically made for each other and yet they are right for each other anyway. And, somehow, just being them is enough. Is that not love?

In Merlin we are told that Merlin and Arthur are a part of each other’s destiny. The Once and Future King and Emrys, his protector, uniting Albion, prophesized by some unnamed seer(s). Does not seem very much like a choice, does it? I guess it depends on the way you view the prophecy and destiny in the show. Is it really all inevitable, and destiny is set in stone, unable to be changed, all leading to the same end, no matter what you do? Or is it the choices themselves that are the constants, fixed in place by the prophecy fulfilling itself? I think the answers to those questions are entirely up to each viewer, and that we can only speculate on it, and never know for sure which was it. Maybe there isn’t a right answer at all. But what I do know is there was a choice Merlin and Arthur made. Let’s return to the imagery on the card..

The couple is exchanging the cups. They are not just toasting – they are performing a ritual, a ceremony. Like exchanging rings, like giving vows. It’s a promise, it’s a connection, it’s a new step, it’s a commitment. And the parallels of the scene in 1x11 don’t end with just imagery. Merlin and Arthur complete the ritual! In the show!

In the episode 1x04, The Poisoned Chalice, Merlin starts the ritual by drinking from Arthur’s poisoned goblet, which he does to protect him. I would also like to add that this is the first time Two Cups appear that season (that's twice they used the imagery), notably, two ceremonial goblets that are supposed to symbolize peace and partnership between two kingdoms. Even if it doesn’t represent the actual state of the two kingdoms, it definitely shows King Bayard’s genuine desire for a peaceful alliance. And Merlin drinks from one of them!

Merlin drinks poison for Arthur and in Labyrinth of Gedref, Arthur drinks ‘poison’ for Merlin in turn. Very unconventional way to get married, I must say, but it’s remarkable that they do it in the same way (even if not at the same time).

So. What does all of that tell us about Merlin and Arthur?

We’ve established that the card signifies a very close, strong and significant relationship, chosen by both parties. Again, I like that it emphasizes the choice, that they didn’t just fall into the friendship because of destiny (even if it aided them). The Two of Cups is a part of the Minor Arcana, which deals with the every day matters, earthly lives. Is that not fitting? Merlin didn’t choose The Once and Future King, he chose Arthur, and Arthur didn’t choose Emrys, he chose Merlin.

Merlin’s who been promised a peaceful future. A land where magic is free. Merlin, who knows what’s supposed to happen: The Once and Future King brings that future. The King dies. Merlin, who has a choice to bring that future. To save Mordred. To remove the ban on magic. He doesn’t choose that, he chooses to essentially destroy that future entirely, just so he can have Arthur.

Arthur, who values Merlin’s opinion above everyone else’s, Arthur on his deathbed, finally seeing Merlin for who he is, says, “I don’t want you to change, I want you to always be you,” Arthur, who is dying, a few steps from the chance being saved, (still too far, not enough time), decides to stop because in his last moments he just wants to be held by Merlin.

They chose each other.

And that’s, dare I say it, love.