#with gay characters yes but that doesn’t mean it’s meant for gay people I don’t get it

[wisteria-lodge]

And now for a HP fandom question - do you have any thoughts on queercoding in the series and if JKR ever actually intended it, and then backtracked, or if it was always completely unintentional? I'm thinking specifically about Lupin and Tonks (as individuals, not as a ship) Inspired by your post about the intention vs how fans perceived Draco Malfoy. Thanks!

So the first thing I want to do is make a distinction between femme-coding and queer-coding. They're tropes with very similar histories, and a lot of works treat them as the same thing. But Harry Potter doesn’t, and I think we can chalk this one up to JK Rowling’s habit of grabbing aesthetics and visuals without really thinking through the history behind them. 

(Like - the goblins. She says she didn’t mean to write an antisemitic thing, and I actually do believe her. But did she use a lot of tropes and images with a long history of being tied to antisemitism? yes.)

So when I say “femme” I mean giving a male character traits stereotypically associated with femininity. Heightened sensitivity/emotionality, an interest in hair, clothes and being attractive, a love of lace/pink/frills, a dislike of violence and physical confrontation, and a preference for the soft power of manipulation, character assassination and poison - versus the hard power of direct confrontation and physical prowess. Are these things super stereotypical? Yes. But they’re ALSO traits you see all the time on male villains, especially ones that you don’t want to seem that threatening. Femme-coded villains show up a lot in children’s media, or as the Big Bad’s #2. They’re not meant to be heroic or sympathetic (since all these feminine traits are not desirable, especially for guys.) But they also aren’t scary, and you can pretty much always play them for comedy. 

For example: see almost every male Disney villain. And JKR was writing children’s literature in the 90s, so of course she’s pulling from the same zeitgeist as the Disney Renaissance. 

JKR loves herself a femme villain. The absolute gold standard is of course Lockhart - who wears pink, wants to start his own line of hair care products, is self-centered, vain, obsessed with popularity… but he sucks in a fight. His entire MO involves manipulating people into thinking he has these traditional masculine qualities when he just doesn’t. But there’s also fussy, prissy Percy wearing his prefect badge on his pajamas. Bitchy, emotional mean-girl poisoners Draco and Snape (especially early book Snape - which is Snape at his most villainous.) Draco, Percy and Snape are also unusual for being male characters who we see crying for reasons other than grief. 

Lucius Malfoy is an interesting case because he starts off quite masc. He’s threatening to curse people, the governors are scared of him, etc. But, as the books go on… and he gets less powerful… he also gets more femme. When we meet him in Book 5 he’s no longer threatening people, but bribing them, spreading rumors, and giving interviews to the Prophet casting Arthur Weasley in a negative light. He's also getting really into peacocks. In Book 2 he was a major threat, but as he gets recast as Voldemort’s #2 he becomes a more femme, soft-power villain. When he leads the attack on the Department of Mysteries, he absolutely bungles it, which defines his character (and relationship with Voldemort) for the rest of the series. And it makes sense that Lucius is given this kind of treatment! It’s a way of communicating that there's a new villain in town, a real villain. 

So, are any of these femme-coded villains additionally queer-coded? I’m actually going to say no. Queer-coding is (like it says on the tin) finding ways to imply that your character is specifically gay. Like maybe giving them a same-sex relationship that is written romantically, but not explicitly called out by the text. Or pairing up all of the characters except them. Maybe have other characters joke about them being gay, and use that as a way to talk about the subject with some plausible deniability. Or they could just play suggestively with a cigar, or a walking stick. There are different strategies.  

But Lockhart doesn't get any of that. Honestly, I think that if JKR actually thought of him as gay, she would have been a lot more wary about a scene where he keeps Harry alone with him in his office for way longer than he’s supposed to. And she might have skipped this joke: 

“Harry was hauled to the front of the class during their very next Defense Against the Dark Arts lesson, this time acting a werewolf (...) “Nice loud howl, Harry — exactly — and then, if you’ll believe it, I pounced — like this — slammed him to the floor — thus — with one hand, I managed to hold him down — with my other, I put my wand to his throat (...) he let out a piteous moan — go on, Harry — higher than that — good —” 

Like. At least she would have picked a different word than “moan,” right? Which unfortunately has slightly sexual connotations. Especially if she wanted to keep Lockhart a buffoon, to properly set up the twist at the end. 

Slughorn also gets femme-coded in a similar way: he loves his candy, his parties, his smoking jackets, his lilac silk pajamas, his web of connections he can use to get stuff (Lucius style.) We are introduced to him squatting in specifically a “fussy old lady’s” house. He’s also unusually emotional, getting weepy at Aragog‘s funeral. But I don’t think we’re meant to read him as actually gay, or else his relationship with Tom Riddle might’ve read a little too close to Tom seducing/trying to seduce him. Which is a beat JKR does subtly play out with Hepzibah Smith, but idk. by that point at least Tom is a legal adult.

(As a side note - the Harry Potter series got so lucky that all of its adult characters are played by absolutely top-shelf actors who are aware of the connotations and history behind various symbols, and do consider these things in their performances. Kenneth Brannagh and Jim Broadbent are good enough to make sure there’s not even a hint of iffy subtext when they play Lockhart and Slughorn.)

Draco, Snape, and Percy all have a case of the not-gays. Percy has a girlfriend (we don’t really see her or anything, but we’re told she’s there.) Snape of course gets his whole thing with Lily, and Draco… after one too many beats where it’s clear that Pansy is into him, but he’s not into Pansy…  gets a scene where he’s talking to his buddies with his head in her lap. (JKR uses “no one‘s good enough for me” beats with Blaise, Draco and Sirius, and the idea there seems to be more that they have undeservedly high opinions of themselves, and less that they don’t like girls.)

But, I do agree that a lot of JKR's characters do come across as a little more queer than intended. It boils down, I think, to the general lack of any kind of romance in the Harry Potter books and JKR being generally bad at/uncomfortable with writing male attraction directed at women, BUT being perfectly happy writing attraction directed at pretty guys. And because of that… yeah, it can sometimes feel like maybe Harry has a thing for Cedric. Especially when Dudley goes on to tease him about Cedric being his boyfriend, which I believe is the only actual mention of gay people in the entire series.  

So is there any intentional queer-coding in the book? It’s really subtle, but yes. I think Dumbledore is queer-coded. He is unusually emotional/cries unusually often for a Rowling guy. He is also given a scene which emphasizes his “flamboyantly” cut plum-velvet suit, and his relationship with Grindelwald is implied to be romantic for one book and two movies before being actually confirmed in Fantastic Beasts 3. (With the line of dialogue “I was in love with you.” Big step up from “We were closer than brothers.” which is an odd thing to say about someone you are interested in romantically.) 

But you brought up Tonks and Lupin, two characters very commonly interpreted as queer. So let’s get into that. JKR has said that she considers Lupin’s lycanthropy to be a metaphor for stigmatized diseases like AIDS. And… as incredible as it is to say… I actually do not think that she made the jump from there to thinking that maybe the character suffering from AIDS should be gay.

Because the narrative places so much weight on Lupin being bitten young and then on maybe not being allowed to attend school, I’m pretty sure that he’s not intended to be queer so much as he’s meant to be Ryan White, the literal poster child for AIDS activism who got infected via blood transfusion when he was two. Tragic, absolutely. But not gay. Honestly, I hope JKR was thinking of ‘lycanthropy’ as a metaphor for stigmatized illness in the abstract and not as a comment on gay people specifically. Because otherwise, Greyback’s thing about biting children becomes a mash-up of two of the biggest homophobic boogeymen from the 80s: gay men infecting people with AIDS on purpose because… idk, they hate the world or something. And the influence of gay men somehow “turning” children gay. Both absolutely real, if ridiculous, moral panics.

On top of that, Remus and Sirius do get a pretty clear case of the not-gays early on (“He embraced Black like a brother.”) Buuuut Alfonso Cuarón did think through those implications for Movie 3, absolutely saw Lupin as gay, and directed David Thewlis to play him accordingly. No reports confirming or denying whether Alfonso Cuarón ships Wolfstar, but I think that if I’m an actor trying to make sense of Lupin’s motivations… and I know he didn’t show Dumbledore the Marauders’ Map and didn’t tell anyone Sirius was an animagus… and then I’m told my character is gay… well. Anyway, I think there are absolutely hints of Wolfstar in that performance. 

And there's Tonks. Tonks is introduced during a very spooky segment in Book 5: Harry has been going through it, been left alone at the Dursleys while having what sounds like a depressive episode. It’s dark, he hears intruders. It's a really good piece of writing. But JKR knows that it’s the good guys who are coming and thinks, okay. Let’s make that as clear as possible from the word go. And so the first thing Harry sees is Tonks' pink hair. And what kind of person has pink hair? A young adult. A punky young adult. And what power would a teenager think was cool? Well, the ability to change the color of their hair at will. That, by itself, would have worked perfectly fine for this character.

But then (for reasons best known to herself) JKR goes further. Even though Tonk’s hair changing color is easily 90% of the transformations we see and there is no plot reason her appearance needs to change more than that, we see her drastically change her age and body type. When you think about this power for more than five seconds, it becomes kind of OP. For worldbuilding reasons alone, my instinct would’ve been to tone it down a bit. 

But no, we have this counterculture character who seems interested in her career and not in a relationship, who can easily change anything about her body, and (if her ability works anything like Polyjuice) that means she should definitely be able to change her gender. Cool.

Then, in everyone’s least favorite romance, Tonks and Lupin are paired up. I have heard the argument that this was meant to walk back queer-coding, or to punish people who thought they were queer... but I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t think JKR expected these two to be fan favorites, and then was kind of surprised when everyone wanted to hear about their continuing adventures. 

(There are a handful of characters who JKR clearly really enjoys - and really enjoys writing - that fandom honestly could not care less about. Mundungus Fletcher and Ludo Bagman spring to mind. But the reverse is also true. She had one story for Lupin and people wanted to see more. Tonks is probably supposed to be her comment on immature young adults: she is loud, in your face, causes mild destruction and is “a little annoying at times.” But the fans fell in love with her.) 

So JKR has these two fan favorite characters and nothing for them to do. A romance is something for them to do. JKR also has a kind of weird pattern where good people need to either have kids or take care of kids. It’s not good to be a woman who isn’t involved with taking care of children in some fashion: see Rita Skeeter, Dolores Umbridge, Bellatrix Lestrange. This is also (I think) why Harry names his kids specifically after Severus, Sirius, and Albus. Since they’re good men, JKR had to find a way to give them kids after the fact. 

So yeah. I think we were meant to read Tonks and Lupin having a kid as kind of a reward, or at least as proof of their intrinsic goodness. There also just isn’t another guy in the right age range to ship Tonks with. The only other option is Sirius. 

(Harry in the books and Lupin on Pottermore both suspect that Tonks/Sirius is a thing. Completely forgetting, I guess, that they're cousins.)

[sunny-three]

Aaron and homophobia

- aaron is meant to homophobic on purpose Nora specifically wrote him this way yes it probably comes from the environment he grew up in that doesn’t really make him any less homophobic

- if I see anyone trying to claim that aaron isn’t homophobic because his he’s aspec may I remind you that pov character Neil is canonically Demi and does not say the same shit aaron does

- yes aaron loves and protects Nicky that does not mean Aaron’s behaviour cannot be hurtful towards Nicky take andrews behaviour towards aaron as an example Andrew hurts aaron with comments about tilda knowing that aaron loved her and aaron hurts Nicky by being homophobic despite knowing how Nicky’s parents treated him, that he was sent to conversion camp and knew Nicky got hatecrimed

- I’ve seen people say try and say that Aaron is not homophobic and just feels like Nicky’s flirtation crosses boundaries is uncomfortable with it and yes it makes sense that people would be uncomfortable because of this

- but given that Aaron is okay with Andrew literally drugging people and literally left Neil drugged with Nicky after hearing the comments Nicky made about him Aaron definitely does not have any moral objections with Nicky’s comments besides the fact that they are directed at other men

- Aaron’s comments towards Nicky would desist if Nicky were directing his flirting towards women instead

- this is not meant to be hate, Aaron is one of my fav characters look at my blog if you don’t believe me but if I have to see one more post talking how Aaron’s canonical homophobia is not Aaron’s fault but instead Nicky’s fault for being too gay I’m gonna lose it

[ufopigeon]

to the random ass proshippers

I’ll block proshippers and I won’t throw any first punches if I find the accounts. Just block n’ move on. Think what you want, but think it away from me. This is for the ppl who are going after others both anonymously and in the open, and being insistent about misunderstanding his character. It is absolutely absurd that some are really trying to PUSH the mere implication that the Postal Dude could be a pedo/have pedophilic tendencies, or that “it makes sense for him”. Some of you are ragebait I’m sure, but I also sadly think some of you are really genuine. And this is also the last I am going to speak about it. Just wanted to do something longer on behalf of everyone else who does not agree with this random influx.

The Postal Dude is obviously designed to be an ambiguous character, allowing players to project various characteristics onto him. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that any and all negative traits can be justified. Ambiguity in character design is meant to give freedom in interpretation, but it doesn't equate to carte blanche for projecting extreme or inappropriate characteristics that aren't supported by the game’s narrative or the developer's intent. Assuming that a character would commit any and all bad acts simply because they commit some is a lazy and inaccurate approach to understanding character design.

The argument that, "Durrr he’s literally a mass shooter, why is it so far-fetched for him to be a pedo too?" is a slippery slope fallacy. It’s that same exact shit all the edgelords try to use when they say (just so they can justify attacking any queer fans, same way SOME proshippers want to feel justified in attacking those who disagree), “The Postal Dude SPECIFICALLY hates gay people and trans people and wouldn’t support them at all/be grossed out by them! Why? Uhh, because he’s literally an evil, vile character! Duh!” Sure he is. No denying that. And sure, you can think that about him. But it’s just fundamentally inaccurate. Just because the games allow for extreme behaviors doesn’t mean they endorse or include every possible immoral action.

And just because a character engages in morally questionable actions doesn’t logically lead to them engaging in the worst possible behaviors. The creator's stance is crucial in defining the boundaries of the character. If the creators have explicitly stated that Postal Dude would never engage in pedophilia (just like how they explicitly stated he wasnt transphobic) and that such content would never be included in the game, this is a definitive limitation on what the character can be reasonably interpreted as. Again, I don’t care if you hold a private opinion that differs. But when you start accusing those who disagree with this extreme interpretation of being the weird or wrong ones, that’s where it becomes an issue.

Dude's actions, while extreme, are presented within a certain context that aims to criticize or mock certain aspects of society. Pedophilia is not something that fits within this satirical style. Yes, even for Postal 1997. I don't care if it is generally considered more "serious" than other games, they still had Dude throwing out stupid-ass catchphrases in a silly radio-host-sounding voice that was obviously supposed to be a stark contrast to what was happening on screen (“Buttsauce”. “Smells like chicken” when burning NPCs. Really now? Go ahead and listen to more from the original. They’re all silly one-liners.). It was a shock at the time and a bit of dark humor. Following games only increased this aspect.

All in all, Postal Dude’s actions, while immoral, are usually presented in a way that allows for some level of detachment or absurdity, keeping them within the realm of dark comedy. Yes, 1997 is still included here. It’s an absurd game. One man took out hundreds of people and was armed to the teeth, even with literal rocket launchers. His main weapon has infinite ammunition. It was an obviously over-the-top video game with a loose connection to reality and an even looser message about “something something mental health and everyone has it in them to go postal”. It was a game made to shock people. Pedophilia, however, is universally considered an irredeemable act, something that cannot be framed in any context that would make it acceptable or even darkly humorous. The distinction between immoral and irredeemable acts is crucial here. The Postal Dude can be morally ambiguous, but crossing into irredeemable territory would fundamentally alter the character in a way that the game and its creators/99.9% of the fans do not support.

Also: “But muh 1997 promo art where it says his girlfriend was 17!! She says they just started dating 3 weeks ago!!” Yeah. The same photo was used with the girl also saying, “It was so weird. He told everyone I was his girlfriend, but I only met him once.” It says “live” near the bottom corner, implying this was an interview with the girl AFTER the crimes had taken place. In the promotional pic where it states she’s 17, it also says she DIED of third degree burns while he was on his rampage. Now that doesn’t really add up, does it. How can this girl give an interview after everything is said and done while also dying in the middle of his killing spree?

AKA, these promotional photos were reused over and over because they were on a budget and really not thinking about it, and are absolutely not valid for legit storytelling purposes at all. RWS has even said this themselves.

[yeta-drewit]

GUYS IM LITERALLY TWEAKING WHY DO PEOPLE NOT BELIEVE ENID IS INTENTIONALLY A QUEER ANALOGY?! MY GIRL WAS GOING TO BE SENT TO CONVERSION THERAPY THATS LIKE VERY MUCH ON THE NOSE. Like idk maybe I’m giving the show too much credit but I genuinely think it had to be on purpose, there is no way no one in the entire process of pre production went like “guys maybe we shouldn’t say that because it sounds like a gay allegory and that’s not what we are going for”.

Like I’m currently in a college English class and my teacher has me analyzing the smallest of shit so language is very important. I’m also a film major and I can tell you this type of things are not a quick process with small groups of people, this is a whole ass process. So excuse me when I don’t believe they didn’t notice what they were doing with Enid. I genuinely believe Enid IS a queer analogy and that it wasn’t just a coincidence. LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT IN ANY MEDIA. And I feel is specially necessary in a show where characters are known for being unable to simply express what they mean, Wednesday is always saying shit between the lines. Like I feel like people forget that language and wording is not simple and meaningless, like guys the curtains being blue is meant to symbolize something. Everything within a show or a book is meticulously written to enhance a story and yeah maybe shitty media doesn’t do that but I have faith in the Wednesday show, SPECIALLY considering that cinematography wise the show is very good.

THIS WASN’T A SLIP UP THIS IS GENUINELY WHAT THE SHOW WANTED YOU TO THINK. They want you to understand Enid through the eyes of a queer analogy, you are meant to sympathize with this girl because she is going through the same misery as a lot of gay people. YOU ARE MEANT TO SEE HER STORY AND THINK OF QUEER PEOPLE.

Also the show in general has a lot of analogies and metaphors related to minorities, it wouldn’t be far fetched to think they also have queer analogies. Like for the universe sake guys we had Goody literally being an indigenous person during the genocide of colonialism. THERE WAS LITERALLY A RACIST PILGRIM. The whole outcast community in the show is meant to serve as an analogy for minorities. THE ADDAMS FAMILY ACROSS MEDIA HAS BEEN AN ANALOGY FOR BEING DIFFERENT IN A WHITE SUBURBAN CENTER SOCIETY. It’s not far fetched to think the queer community (A MINORITY) would also have some representation within the show.

Conclusion: Enid is very intentionally a queer analogy and I really hope the show would continue on this analogy even after she finally wolfs out (I’m a blood wolf believer, there is no way they won’t play around with the idea she literally transformed under a blood moon, cause if you pay attention there is no other werewolves in the scenes so they are either cheap or it was a curious detail that Enid is still not a “normal” wolf)

Okay side note after posting this I’ve realized that I’m missing one point and that is the fact the analogies aren’t good. I can admit the show Wednesday is not the best and quite frankly is far from it but I do believe it shouldn’t stop me from thinking of it more critically (or as critically as I can get). But I think my point still stands that it is a very obvious analogy and taking it as accidental is forgetting a part of Enids character.

Also yes I know Tim Burton is KNOWN for lacking diversity and he would likely not make a gay character but I feel people forget he is not the sole person in charge of this show, he can hate minorities all he wants but it takes only one person in that writing room to create the gaynesss that is Enid.

[kikithedeceiver]

MILGRAM - Mukuhara Kazui should be INNOCENT/FORGIVEN

I’m not very vocal online anymore and prefer to vibe to whatever I’m into. But this man’s MV came out on my birthday, solidifying my view about him, and I want to give my own view on why he should be seen as INNOCENT/FORGIVEN for his crime since his verdict is near 50/50, but getting closer to GUILTY/UNFORGIVEN as the days pass.

Just a heads up, I’m also open for other interpretation on why Kazui should be INNOCENT/FORGIVEN or GUILTY/UNFORGIVEN. I love hearing other’s opinions on these. 

Also going to just use FORGIVE and UNFORGIVE now. I prefer the literal term instead of the black-and-white choice of GUILTY and INNOCENT.

Honestly, I still don’t understand why fans want to vote Kazui as UNFORGIVEN. From what I have gathered so far, people are voting him UNFORGIVEN because he might have been tactless when he confessed to his wife, Hinako, and voting him FORGIVEN does nothing for him and the story MILGRAM poses. Or, just for the hell of it because lolz.

I...won’t get into that part too deeply. Mostly it’s a joke and I don’t want to take a series too seriously. But c’mon for those who actually see the guy as forgivable, y’know?

1) Kazui was tactless when he confessed to Hinako

Anyways, for the opinion that Kazui was tactless when he confessed to his wife, I have to disagree. Remember, Milgram extracts the mental images from the prisoners based on their thoughts and how they feel and believe during the time the MVs are made. A case in point is Mahiru’s ‘I Love You’ MV, which kept showing how beautifully loving she was with her boyfriend, but she can also see that it might have been toxic from her ignorance.

What I’m saying is that Kazui might be pushing for the UNFORGIVEN verdict because he thinks, or even wants to show us, that it was his fault. He wants us to believe that he was tactless when he confessed to Hinako. I mean, he doesn’t see himself as normal (most likely he is a closet gay). Maybe even a monster because of what happened to Hinako when he confessed he lied.

From all we know, maybe this is what happened. Or this is what he thinks happened and Hinako’s reaction in the MV was exaggerated because of his guilt he carries. People can view things that happened in a different way, it all comes down to perspective, in the end. Afterall, in the end, Kazui felt guilty for what happened to Hinako, and even put back on the mask at the end of HALF and, according to his 2nd voice drama, confessed he would have rather continued lying if it meant she would have lived.

2) Kazui should be voted GUILTY/UNOFRGIVEN for his character and MILGRAM

This is an interesting take, I’ll admit. However, I have to disagree. And I have a lot of reasons, so sit tight.

First of all, this is based on how I feel and why I vote Kazui as /FORGIVEN. Like how the majority doesn’t see Yuno’s crime as murder, I don’t see Kazui’s crime as one either. His confession was never intended to harm Hinako as the outcome anyway. He was tired of lying, and tried to be truthful for once, and it backfired spectacularly in his face thanks to it, thus causing him to wear the mask again and wished he continued lying instead. This is one of those happened in the wrong place at the wrong time situation. Maybe if he was truthful at maybe a safer location (away from the balcony), then the outcome would have ended with no bloodshed.

Also, all of MILGRAM’s prisoners are murderers, yes, but they’re murderers that sort of make you question if they are one or not. Can ignorance that leads to the death of a partner be murder? Is organ harvesting from a brain-dead patient a murder? If someone followed orders to kill, are they a murderer?

So if someone confessed to a lie they’ve been saying for so long and resulted in someone dying from it, is that murder?

To me, no. It was just the worst result that Kazui never intended to happen.

Also, I don’t get why people are voting Kazui as FORGIVEN when he’s basically the same as Mahiru. They both have partners they never intended to harm from the beginning - being truly in love or not. The only difference is that Mahiru was ignorant of how her love affected her boyfriend, while Kazui put up with the lie for the sake of what’s ‘normal’ in love, and he tried to stop the lie, and, again, it failed on him big time. So like how Fuuta and Kotoko are similar in their crimes, Mahiru and Kazui are the same as well. 

Also voting Kazui as UNFORGIVEN sounds like it will backfire like how it did with Mahiru and Amane in Trial 1. Now I only got into the series when I stumbled onto Muu’s 2nd MV, but from what I heard, and correct me if I’m wrong, people voted Amane as UNFORGIVEN back then because it was to make her ‘realise her sins’. And the result is a crazed Amame because of it.

Now I don’t believe Kazui will go batshit crazy like Amane if we vote him UNOFORGIVEN for this trial, but something tells me it will backfire more if we don’t vote him as FORGIVEN. By saying he’s in the wrong, especially if we’re correct on what he was lying about, it’s like we’re denying him because we reached that truth, and he should be punished for it. By denying him, we’re basically doing the same thing like what happened to Mahiru and Amane as well.

Also, yes I’m aware from a meta-perspective that it’s better to have him FORGIVEN because he’s the only one who can go up against Kotoko (and maybe including Amane and Mikoto), and maybe stop Haruka from offing himself after this trial ends. And I agree! This is also one of the reasons why I say to forgive him to protect others in MILGRAM. However, it is sort of safe to say that no one will die if Kazui is voted UNFORGIVEN. I mean from a storytelling perspective, it will be a waste to kill off the characters and make the last trial shorter because of it...

But! I still don’t want any other prisoners harmed because of Haruka, Amane, Mikoto and Kotoko if Kazui is voted UNFORGIVEN. The prison in MILGRAM will go even more hellish if that happens, and I’m not living up to that drama and am not doing it for the sake of drama. Again I don’t want more situations born from what happened to Amane. We should really choose wisely on why we vote, not because of what we want to happen in MILGRAM, but really personal belief whether the crime committed by the prisoners is forgivable or not.

In the end, I think what is important for Kazui is what he wants from us - to know his sin. He pointed out from his voice drama that we were wrong about him cheating. It’s most likely that he is a closet gay at this point. Voting for him UNFORGIVEN will most likely enforce how he isn’t normal, and being gay does make him a murderer, as shown at the end of his CAT MV. But really, it isn’t. His crime was lying. When he tried to confess, he didn’t intend death to follow.

I’m sure if he’s voted FORGIVEN in the end, Kazui will hear our reasonings that we think he’s gay. I mean, Yuno seem to be able to hear our opinions on her from the 1st trial according to her 2nd voice drama. So, I say to vote for Kazui to be FORGIVEN and let him know what we think his sin is likely this time. If he didn’t feel anything from it, we’ll leave that up to the last trial.

Cheers and thank you if you read this far.

TL;DR: Kazui should be voted FORGIVEN. The interpretation of his CAT MV can be that he was tactless when he confessed to what he lied about to Hinako, but that might be from his guilt and/or pushing us to make him UNFORGIVEN. Also, voting him so UNFORGIVEN sounds like it will backfire like it did with Amane during the 1st trial. Just realise his sin, most likely he’s gay, and vote based if you think confessing to a lie that caused unintended death is murder or not.

[mazzystar24]

I’m respectfully about to lose my mind at some of the fandom rn with the way buddie shippers are being treated… It’s like no one understands the whole point of shipping a couple is to want them to be together, so duh if something happens that could potentially lead to that pairing they’re going to get excited and theorize? Yes it’s absolutely important for Buck to explore his sexuality outside of buddie but the way people are trying to say that buddie shippers are homophobic for wanting endgame buddie….. when buddie is literally a queer ship? it doesn’t make any sense to me as a queer person myself because it’s like- y’all do realize that buck dating eddie would in fact mean that he is still bisexual, and that people have wanted thst for years, so A) why are we shocked and appalled at buddie shippers for being happy that they are one step closer to endgame buddie, B) why are we calling people homophobic or biphobic when they are quite literally shipping two men together, C) why are we all acting as if buddie endgame hasn’t been simmering just under the surface for YEARS and that if they were going to give us buddie, then thag means buck and eddie would both have to come oit as queer…

I’ve seen so many prominent blogs in the community who have made posts like “buck’s bisexuality has nothing to do with buddie and you are a horrible human for even insinuating that” and so many people are agreeing??? And not to mention the fact that now these same people are trying to villainize and trash on Eddie when in all honesty Buck’s behavior in 7x04 was NOT okay- physically harming someone because they’re not giving you attention is never okay (and i’m saying this as someone whi ADORES Buck, he still needs to be held accountable.)

It just reads very icky to me that so many people are screaming “bi pride” but then spewing all of this vitriol over a ship that would fit within Buck’s bisexuality…

It worries me that the writers are going to see this negativity from people and they’re going to just completely back-burner Eddie’s character in favor of Buck and it disappoints me because even outside of buddie, a major tv show portraying a repressed gay poc with religious and family trauma would be EQUALLY as powerful as Bi Buck is……

but i guess that’s just people only caring about the queer storylines when it’s about a white man since these are also the people acting like Hen and Karen or Michael and David haven’t been there the whole time

but that’s just me i guess….

I’m bullet pointing not to be curt by the way just because I prefer addressing part by part🫶

1. Agreed like this fandom was relatively peaceful then BAM it fully shifted overnight like in the words of Taylor swift THIS IS WHY WE CANT HAVE NICE THINGS

2. Yesss exactly like I’m very much a dont yuck someone else’s yum type of person so like even ships I don’t like I’ll be like okay respect 🫡 enjoy your fandom space love that for you AS LONG AS THEYRE RESPECTFUL TOO and I’m not gonna lie to you I see the primary source of negativity and stuff in the fandom be people who legit never watched anything other than the bucktommy related content (which I kinda have a whole other rant about but I don’t wanna give you miles and miles to read in one ask)

3. Yes to that 100% - buddie is a queer ship the cognitive dissonance it takes to call someone homophobic for shipping them is honestly fascinating atp, Buck is bi canonically now and y’all do realise that who he’s with or if he’s single even doesn’t take away from that right??? Like the rep is THERE and will always be THERE

4. You worded it a bit weird but I got what you meant (I hope) so anyone who didn’t may require a little clarification, the sentiment of bucks bisexuality being separate from buddie I think is 1000% correct and I agree wholeheartedly that a persons sexuality and their journey shouldn’t be just about their love interests but about themselves as a person, the issue people are taking is that 1. The people saying this are saying it on every buddie post even when the same blogs posting it have 177283 posts talking about buck as an individual and as a bisexual man outside of buddie and bucktommy, so it’s sort of become a weaponised statement if that makes sense 2. The buddie shippers are the ones who have been advocating so hard for the show to give us canon bi buck like that’s just fact no one can deny so to the og fans who’ve been here for YEARS (I’ve only started like 2023 ish so I’m not counting myself there) this must be such a total slap in the face to be receiving so much hate now

5. Oh yeah the Eddie bashers can personally come fight me

6. If I’m 100% honest I choose to interpret the basketball injury as being mostly accidental like I think he got too into it and forgot himself and his own force for a second rather than intentionally hurt Eddie, like it so happens in sports, I think it’s like just the after guilt that made him question himself and his motives, idk that may just be me denying canon because it just felt too out of character for me to believe

7. I think the fake bi pride stuff also irks me BAD like some of these people are looking for very surface level superficial representation and if you don’t push for more and more substantial and meaningful representation then you’re gonna get constant variations of the same exact thing and these are also the same people ignoring every other queer character in 911 which is just🙃

8. Idk how much the writers take fandom into account but I constantly say like if they were to listen to fandom they’d go the route they know people wanted for years

9. YES about Eddie’s character like I made a whole post about gay and comphet Eddie and how meaningful it would be because it’s just so so unique and unprecedented

10.HAHSKDK THE CROSSED OUT PART IS WHAT I JUST SAID BUT I DIDNT READ IT GAJSKDKFM

[imavikingo]

There is something that I can’t understand and will never understand about fandom “culture”

Why EVERYTHING (or a lot of things) need to be canon or acknowledged by the actors/directors/producers to be accepted by the fandom? In specific ships?

And why when a “ship” (two characters, really) have more screentime than others/other characters aren’t in the picture anymore, people take that as a victory as see their ship as more valid and “actually canon”? And mock/harass others for it?

Also there is this thing people have been doing a lot too: Thats calling everyone that doesn’t like the ship you like names (and also calling them terms that before actually meant something awful but nowadays can be said for simply tagging the incorrect ship in a fucking post)

Canon isn’t always the norm here kid. At least when it relates to ships and scenarios. (Bc if we’re talking about characterization… yes it needs to be canon in a sense or we’re writing/making ocs out of canon characters)

Most of the more popular ships will never be canon and have never been, especially the gay ones. (See Drarry, Narusasu, Frodo/Sam, Johnlock, etc, etc)

So why suddenly we care so much about what NEEDS to be canon or not?

Why people NEED to see their ships be canon so badly?

Sure, I can be seen as a hypocrite because Ive been talking about Stucky a lot in the canon and what happened in EG, but they actually did that themselves. The directors talked about gay characters, the actors talked about Stucky. So actually it isn’t something ludicrous or anything. (I’ve never thought they would actually make the ship canon -bc that would be a big problem for them “how can you make Cap America gay!” And shit- but I thought they would at least make them still be friends or friendly or acknowledge the “bromance” and they just killed the friendship in one scene with the most ooc shit ever). In fact, I’m more annoyed by that. They assassinated Steve’s character and Bucky’s progress.

Nevermind…

Why people fight so much about ships and use terms that shouldn’t be brought into stupid shit like this?

Fandoms are supposed to be fun and to have discussions (in good faith) about the canon. What we like and what we don’t like about it.

Besides, a lot of current media are about stuff that’s been remade over and over again. So they have a lot of adaptations and you can pick and choose too, if you want.

And if you don’t like the canon? Easy! Do analysis, criticize it, write fics, do fanart, do creative shit or simply ignore it! No one is forcing you to keep on watching the show or the stuff you now hate/cant stand. That’s what Im doing at least.

Sure, I criticize some people and movies a lot and get actually annoyed by the disrespect towards/assassination of some characters, but at the end of the day I can only shrug and say “it is what it is” and leave it at that. (Meaning not giving them money for the new stuff/not watching nor caring about it and only acknowledging the old things I actually care about and like)

But I don’t insult or disrespect other people in fandom because of it. And also I don’t harass the directors or actors either, ffs.

Idk, Ive always been on the sidelines of the stuff I follow, I’ve never been on the thick of fandoms so maybe thats why I don’t understand.

And I’ve also not seen so many crazy shit (the most crazy stuff Ive seen is people calling others racists for tagging a ship incorrectly and also others inflating the tag of a ship in ao3 so their ship would be “the most popular” with most fics, in that fandom) because I actually curate what I see. I don’t like a ship? I mute, if I can’t stand a person or a ship? I block em. Simple and easy.

I’ve always drawn stuff for myself, read fics and made headcanons. Only recently I’ve been sharing stuff more openly, so maybe it’s that.

Idk.

I’m just tired of seeing discourse and people fighting over this stuff.

[pickypickypeak]

It's kinda sad that Disney's films with a black leads get the short of the stick

Tiana is well loved but she was a frog for most of the movie and that people care more about the tropes in her movie over the issues that were present

Ethan Clade is a decent character and Disney (the animation studio, not the whole company) proper first gay character who is one of the main character from not a minor character but no one didn't watch his movie because they were too busy complaining about the lack of original films, oh the irony

And finally Asha, who is deliberately meant to be an homage to the classic heroines without needing to a princess with a love interest, but is lauded as the real villain because of the wonky premise that idiots immediately use to describe her and her movie bad and only care about her if she's paired with an imaginary Jack Piss-in-the-Snow boyfriend they made up based on a concept art that never said anything about her being in a romance with

Mmm… I wouldn’t say tiana gets “the short of the stick” yes there are alt right idiots using her as a scapegoat to “prove” we white people are oppressed (“they should do white tiana next!!🤡”) which sucks but overall like you said I think she’s well loved and put among the best disney princesses by the ACTUAL disney fandom (because she is. Sorry not sorry) also she’s getting a tv show which is possibly becoming a sequel?? I mean there most definitely are movies that did WAY worse than princess and the frog lol (home on the range? Chicken little?)

Yeah, strange world was a very unfortunate movie coming out in a very unfortunate time. Kinda same with wish. It’s not really about skin color in their cases imo though.

I don’t wanna dive too deep into this “race” matter because I’m not black so I don’t really know what these characters and their reception mean to the black community in terms of rep, but hey – literally no offense anon I know you’re coming from a good place – while I like addressing these issues let’s also talk about the positive aspects! Being negative about people being negative is what keeps the negativity going lol, let’s show them reasons why these characters are awesome instead!

Tiana and ethan were both groundbreaking characters for different reasons, tiana was the first afro-american princess which was HUGE at the time and ethan was disney’s first gay character who is actually gay on screen??? I’m kinda relieved we skipped all the hate for that lol, youtubers would have been insufferable about it if it became a hit. But I’m happy some kids will have this movie to look up at as they grow older, I’m sure it’ll mean the world to them to see it so normalized in s disney movie.

And finally asha being a blending of classic and modern disney heroines brought a smile on the face of people who actually watched her movie without prior biases. Wish was just not for everyone. It’s cool.

(Also you wanna know about a disney leading black lady who doesn’t get enough credit????? BRANDY’S CINDERELLA!!!!! I ONLY WATCHED IT RECENTLY I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT MOVIE IS NOT A DISNEY MAINSTREAM!!!! IT’S SO GOOD!!!!!!)

[castlebyersafterdark]

So many people think that Mike thinks that Will is straight. I just don't get that.

That's a tough one because honestly, we've never directly seen any of the boys directly address Will's sexuality or general things teenage boys talk about - though discussed before, we've only really seen 4 weeks total in their entire lives lived together, one week each season. We don't know what they talk about, what they think of each other, what they've heard said about each other (Will) - excepting two major on-screen moments.

Season one - Troy's bullying. Directed at Will. Spent calling Will gay. Implying all that he implies. It's a pointed scene. It's not the first time they eould have heard this. Dustin, Lucas, and Mike would have heard these things said to Will and watched his reactions. Isn't that such a terrible thing to consider? Will, not understanding WHY the worst people can see right through him, why is he like this, how much he needs to hide it and pretend these terrible things said are so wrong about him, knowing... So. I'd say it's safe to say his friends have thought it about him, too. Is Will gay? Is our friend a fairy, a fag? We still like him, though. Wait. No he isn't. Will's just different. Why would we assume these mouthbreathers are right? That's not nice. We're as bad as them. Why would we think that. Will’s not like that. Because that's the worst thing to think about your friend, right? But... it's gotta be in the back of their minds.

Season three - infamy. It's not my fault you don't like girls. We cam go round after round about what Mike truly meant and how I think it was everything snapping in him. Projection on Mike's own part? Yes. Genuine misplaced frustration that the Party was growing up and Will was lagging behind, understandable ad it is from all he'd been through trauma-wise, nonetheless noticeable in comparison to his friends? Yes. A slightly homophobic comment from his best friend, finally and devastatingly thrown in his face, too, after all these years? Yes.

I think that's the thing with some classic stuff we analyze. There doesn’t just have to be one thing. That line? Can mean different things, but it can mean all of them. What did Mike mean when he said it? A lot. Layers and levels and context and subtext and repression and surface level. Complex characters.

Does Mike think Will is straight? Yes AND no. I think, deep down... he know Will is different. Will isn't like most people. It makes sense for Will to be gay. He might not be straight. But he also feels guilty for thinking it. Stereotyping Will when Will's just different. When Mike has his own issues, and he's projecting that onto Will. Hating how he is and deeply hiding it, don’t think that about Will. He wouldn't want you to think that about him, you don't even want to think that about yourself. It's very complicated. Less "does Mike think Will is gay or straight" and more about why he would or would not think he is or isn't for both options and why...

[jadejedi]

Romance Book Review: Red, White, and Royal Blue (Casey McQuinston)

JJ’s rating: 5/5

How feral did it make me: 4/5

My book reviews

I have been seeing a lot of negativity around this book and the movie for a while now, and that has made me want to review this book. I will say it’s been a couple of years since I’ve read it last, but I have read it multiple times. The first time I read it I literally could not put it down; I had the audiobook and the ebook so I could read wherever I was lol. 

I genuinely love this book. I think it is a great romance novel and I LOVE Alex and Henry so so much. I think a lot of the negativity is coming from a couple of places. First of all: the politics. Yes, you heard it here folks: the gay rom-com known as Red, White, and Royal Blue is not the next “Communist Manifesto”. Shocking, I know. But McQuinston was clearly not trying to write something politically revolutionary?? So, I don’t understand why that is being held against this book. From my understanding, they wrote this book after the 2016 election as a way of coping, essentially. To me, it is not at all different from something like Parks and Recreation, which is easily as much of a liberal utopia as RWRB. I said this in my review of Victoria Goddard’s The Hands of the Emperor, and I’ll say it here: not every work of fiction needs to have a radical political statement. Even if it features politics. It’s okay to have a book that is just about two young men falling in love against this dramatic political backdrop. Is it a bit cringe? Maybe?? But who cares!!! What isn’t cringe these days?? God. Also, it’s not like this book paints a super pretty picture of the monarchy in particular.

Sure, it's escapism, but so what?? What's wrong with a bit of escapism?

I think the other place some of the negativity is coming from is from the crowd who kind of wants to police what is and isn’t “good queer representation”. If a work isn’t “good enough” (i.e. doesn’t resonate with them personally) they will decry it as “bad representation”. I saw this happen with Simon vs. the Homosapien’s Agenda and the movie, Love, Simon. Like those works, I have occasionally seen RWRB condemned as sort of gay fiction for straight people. As if there is only one way to be queer. As if there is only one queer story. I acknowledge our need for a wide range of experiences portrayed in the media, but to say that we as a society no longer have a need for coming out stories is a bold fucking claim to be perfectly honest. RWRB was one of the first queer romance books I read, and it really meant a lot to me at the time, and continues to do so. I think that there is value in portraying both Alex’s journey of self-discovery and Henry’s journey of realizing that he doesn’t have to be unhappy in his life, that he deserves to be able to openly love who he loves. 

So, with all of that out of the way, here’s the summary. Alex Claremont-Diaz is the son of the first female president of the USA and she is about to be up for reelection. Alex is widely beloved, he’s got a bright future in politics ahead of him, and everything seems to be going his way. Except he keeps getting put in the path of his nemesis, the younger Prince of England, Prince Henry. Henry, who is so cold and uppity and standoffish and Alex is definitely not attracted to him. Nope. Not a bit. 

This book has everything you want in a romance book. Lovable characters, leads with genuine chemistry, lots of heart and emotion, a good dose of humor, and LOVE LETTERS. And HISTORICAL LOVE LETTERS. God. Even though, as I said above, this book is not a revolutionary political story, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t deal with deep and interesting topics. It deals with multicultural relationships, what it means to have a legacy and how much we get to dictate what that legacy is, and some of the realities of being a queer person in the public eye. 

I love this book, and I think if you are a romance reader or just love a good queer romance with a genuinely happy ending, this is the book for you.

[lycanlovingvampyre]

MAG 171 Relisten

Activity on my first listen: cutting the French tamarisk in my garden (how fitting!).

JON: "Don’t. Touch. Anything." MARTIN: "I wasn’t planning to." [HE GIVES A LITTLE HEH AT THE END.] Fair, after Martin constantly wanted to touch the plastic explosives xD

MARTIN: "You sound like you think they’re beautiful." JON: "Don’t you?" He is what he is, a part of the Fears and does seem in tune with it here. Accepting it (5th stage of grief - acceptance. I do like that theory of each season representing one of the 5 stages of grief, even if S2 doesn't quite fit anger). But to be honest, I also think the flowers sound pretty cool. Some people find morbid aesthetics beautiful. I always have.

JARED: "Not to worry friend; no harm done. Just a bit of pruning will set you right." [HE CLIPS SOMETHING. THE PERSON-PLANT YELLS.] [JARED SHUSHES THEM AS THEY CONTINUE TO DO SO. THEY START CRYING, OVER SOME FLESHY SOUNDS. WATER BURBLES.] JARED: "No real fuss. Should sort you right out. Soon you’ll be good as new." [THE PERSON-THING CONTINUES TO WHIMPER IN THE BACKGROUND.] JARED: "Better, even. You just need to – reach down inside and – really feel that fear. Let it guide how you grow." That however I find horrifying again. Obviously hurting the person, so much that they cry out in pain, and still think that what he is doing is the right thing, helping the person...

JARED: (dismissive) "Oh, and who’s this? Your boyfriend?" [THIS IS CLEARLY MEANT TO BE A DISS.] MARTIN: "Um –" JON: (overlapping) "Yes, actually." JARED: (Ah!) "Oh. Hm." Okay, the obvious here is of course Jared trying to diss Jon using homosexuality/homo-romanticism as an insult (is this btw. the only time homophobia comes up in TMA? There was implied transphobia in MAG 110, but otherwise?), which absolutely doesn't work on Jon and he even immediately answers with full confidence, taking the wind out of Jared's sails in an instant. Which can be a very good strategy against bullies, they want an emotional negative reaction, if you just refuse to give that to them, they will move on to their next victim (sadly for that poor soul). But it also tells a bit more about each character here. Jared has been described as "thick as mud" in MAG 17, that is pretty typical for individuals like that to resort to xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, etc. But Jon and Martin also tell us something here. Martin was absolutely not sure how to react. As far as I know he's gay, there was never any indication that he's bi or pan, so I'll go with that. He probably had plenty of experiences being bullied for being gay, especially if you take his age into account. Growing up in the 90s/early 2000s was probably not a good time (absolutely not saying it was easier before!). Homosexuality was listed in the ICD-9 in 1977. That is the International Classification of DISEASES!! It was only removed from the ICD-10 in 1990! (Not going into it's record in the DSM because that's only used in the US and we're in the UK here, but it was similarly bad, it was seen as a mental illness.) And additionally 1997 was the peak of HIV and AIDS epidemic and that really fueled homophobia back then. I remember calling someone/something gay was a really common insult back then among teens. So denying his homosexuality especially among unfamiliar and (duh!) hostile people is probably super hardwired into Martin, and he never was someone with a lot of self-confidence anyway (total opposite: Tim for example, of whom we know he's not private about "that stuff" - MAG 69).  And then we have Jon, biromantic. We don't know if he has ever dated men before, but generally being bi means you're probably a lot more likely to be in hetero-relationships, simply because it's a lot easier to find those. Also, I mean he has been raised by his grandma, there's every likelihood he has subtly been raised in a homophobic way and there's a good chance he has tried to rationalize crushes on other men as "a really close friend whom I'm looking up to", even if deep down he knows it's not that. Okay, what I'm saying is he probably hasn't experienced external homophobia towards him. I do like the popular fanon idea, that Georgie helped him work through that, as she seems a lot more confident than him. Otherwise he has probably experienced acephobia or he hid his asexuality well enough and grew up super insecure on the inside without showing it. Which, considering his behavior in S1, is pretty likely for his character. So it does make sense for Jon to show confidence here, given the possibility of him never to have experienced homophobia, usually presenting super sure of himself and also by now he knows how powerful he is in this world, that probably also works very well as a boost. (Also it's super cute how sure and smug Jon sounds, like he's extremely proud about Martin being his boyfriend.)

JARED: "Anyway. Willing. Unwilling. Don’t work like that anymore, does it? You made sure of that." MARTIN: "That’s – not fair." JARED: "And what?" MARTIN: "I – I – Mm, uh –" Ah yes, trying to speak up for Jon, which takes a lot of energy. Makes sense that he's deflating again when more resistance is coming his way.  Also, all the monsters and Avatars seems to know it was the Archivist's doing. Helen is obvious, she has suspected it and watching them this whole time. Oliver could kind of suspected it because the Web sent him to wake up Jon. But Jared here?

JARED: "[S’right.] Don’t really matter now, does it?" JON: "No. No, it doesn’t." Yeah, blaming someone doesn't change anything about the situation that resulted from it.

JARED: "Alright. Well, I’d like to hear about my garden." It's so funny how that somehow inspires, what? Sympathy? Compassion? Pity? in me. Like he loves that place, it means something to him and he wants to hear its beauty one last time. Aside from the plants being human beings suffering, it does sound peaceful here, birds, wind chimes...

"The soil should be prepared first, a rich and earthy cocktail of insecurity and self-hatred that allows the roots to twist and contort freely. The temperature should be kept the steady, humid warmth of air conditioners struggling to cope with the perspiration of a dozen bodies pushing themselves too hard, while the lights must be kept at a harsh, fluorescent glare." Pushing yourself at fitness studios to fit a certain beauty standard? Sounds like it to me.

"Counterintuitively, growth is most effective when the orchid is suffering from aggressive dehydration, and it is vitally important that the air roots be rarely praised, and only for the flowers’ appearance and growth." Yeaaah, sounds even more like body building. And this one is called Fortisium Reese, fortis meaning strong, fortisium also sounds a bit like fortissimus, the superlative of fortis. Dehydration is commonly used to get rid of that bit of subcutaneous water, so the muscles can be even better visible under the skin. And then the only thing that matters is appearance and ever more and more muscles.

"While the Gristlebloom Orchid may be the most eye-catching of the plants that you will find in the mortal garden, the Bone Rose is perhaps the most delicate. Thin and brittle, it is constantly on the verge of collapsing under its own weight, even as its ossified stems reach and twist and stretch in a desperate attempt for closeness." Beauty-standard super-skinny, Gracillium Patricia, gracilis - thin.

"At the final, glorious culmination that a body may someday achieve, the ever-retreating perfections that sit always on the tip of a knife. But also growing with the flower must be that other dread: Not of perfection to be hunted, but of decay to be fled." Plastic surgery? Decay to be fled - fear of aging? Secarium Leopold, secare - to cut.

"This is Maeve’s nightmare. There is no other word for it. To be trapped, unmoving, within the body that has betrayed her so often, feeling every sensation as it grows and warps and sprouts, never knowing what new mutation it will visit on her next." Ya, same. 

JARED: "Is it really that bad? Seeing what I’ve done here? Or – (heh) Is it maybe that deep down, you think it’s as beautiful as I do?" JON: (*snapping*) "Shut up!" Not willing to let those who he considers a monster know how he feels about it though.

MARTIN: "Are you okay?" JON: "I’m – (*not great*) Great. You?" Martin probably asked because it does seem to take Jon a bit of effort to call upon the Eye to shift its gaze, since he gasped there, when Jared was successfully deleted from existence. But Jon gets all snappy and defensive. Saying he's great when he isn't. He probably expected to feel great, or at least better, but it's doing nothing. Revenge doesn't give him the satisfaction he hopes it would.

MARTIN: (bit of a laugh) "I really thought this one would be messier." JON: "What do you mean?" MARTIN: "Well I mean – he’s a Flesh – thing, right? I thought he’d be all meat and blood and gore and all that." JON: (bit of a laugh) "Apparently not." MARTIN: "He didn’t even put up a fight." JON. "No." Right after Jude who was resisting really hard, trying to convince Jon to let her live, help his revenge arc even, Jared here just accepted what's coming for him. That probably contributed to rethinking the smiting.

MARTIN: "Jon – we are doing good, right? Making things better?" [THE SLIGHTEST OF PAUSES.] JON: "I don’t know if that was ever an option." The smiting is just a selfish act, Jon letting his anger getting the better of him, blinding him.

@a-mag-a-day

[hijinks-n-lowjinks]

for the choose violence ask game:

how about 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 18, 21 annndddddd 22

that was a lot lmao so feel free to skip/ignore some of these if u want

Yes yes yes thank you for giving me so many!!!! I love giving my opinion!!!! And I saw your second ask about how you meant to add that this is for jjk, not to worry lol

1. The character everyone gets wrong

My first instinct is to always say Gojo, but I also think Megumi is pretty misunderstood. It’s pretty rare that I find a fic where I think the author gets his personality down without digging too deep into one stereotypical archetype. That’s why I don’t read but jjk fanfiction :////

6. Which ship fans are most annoying?

Oof that’s a tough one. I mostly stay out of shipping discourse and I tend to like the most popular ships so I don’t get irritated by a lot. But it’s the straight shippers who insist that a character isn’t gay because of convoluted reasons or because they said a girl was pretty one time. Like that doesn’t mean they aren’t queer lol. Just say you’re homophobic and move on.

7. What character did you begin to hate not because of canon but of how the fandom acts about them?

None. I’m pretty unaffected by fandom interpretations of character tbh. I know the true, real gospel of jjk so other interpretations are just false prophets spreading heretical nonsense. Like the fandom can get annoying af about Gojo but that doesn’t make me like him any less. I know his purpose and personality as a character so that’s all that matters to me.

Oh but it does annoy me how some people think Mai’s actions are excusable because of her backstory. Nah, she’s a bitch, but thats okay that she’s a bitch!!!! Her and Maki had the same background and yet she’s the worst!!!! I’m okay with her sucking, her backstory makes her more interesting, but like. Acknowledge that she’s also out of line a lot of the time (I don’t hate her though. I just don’t like her).

8. Common fandom opinion that everyone is wrong about

Idk if this is exactly common, but I’ll see a lot of skits on tiktok where someone like Gojo or Nobara will tease Megumi about his feelings for Yuuji and he just…. acts so weird and obvious about it. Or he overreacts and is super dramatic. That’s not my boy. He would act is ASS off to be perceived as unaffected by the teasing and to try and play off his feelings as not a big deal. He’s a tsundere but like a laid back casual tsundere.

10. Worst part of fanon

People having different opinions than me hahdjsnhajs I’m right all the time and anyone who disagrees with me is just not as enlightened as I am.

18. It’s absolutely criminal that the fandom has been sleeping on….

Yukiiiiiii. She’s my girlfriend and I love her. We need more content of her. Like everyone knows she’s hot (obviously) but we need more discussions and fics and fanlore about her past and her personality. Also more chosoyuki please.

21. Part of canon you think is overhyped

Junpei’s death. To be fair, I was spoiled for it so I knew he was going to die from the beginning, but I didn’t have much of an attachment to him other than that I liked Yuuji’s friendship with him. I felt really bad for him, but I was more upset with how Yuuji was going to take his death/transfiguration than the actual event itself.

22. Your favorite part of canon that everyone else ignores

That jjk is an enjoyable story lol.

[disasterbijamietartt]

I know what you mean about the neither confirming nor denying thing. Like I can see it as not wanting to take away from the Colin moment, and it was definitely left in a way that can be interpreted positively and I think unless they outright say otherwise, a lot of fandom will take it as a yes, he is. That said, that was the perfect time to confirm, just one line, and I will feel cheated if they dont let him acknowledge it. I am slightly more forgiving of actors teasing a character's sexuality if it seems like actually they are 100% behind it (a la Oscar Isaac with Poe, and I do think Phil with Jamie), but I will be more disappointed in the show for teasing it and not going ahead

Yeah, and you know, I’m so done settling and rejoicing over hints when the creators don’t have the backbone to make something canon. So I have a hard time giving them the benefit of the doubt right now.

Maybe they will surprise me positively, but … the more I think about this, the more it upsets me.

@time-is-restored also makes a good point here, that sleep deprived me forgot about.

The whole situation where everyone on the team looked at him like “We know what you are” was quite unsettling to me—that is not a group of queer people recognising one of their own. That is a group of straight guys singling out one in their middle because he looks/seems gay to them.

Are they stereotyping Jamie because he cares for his appearance? (which is like the only context I can think of, where “I’m flattered” makes sense as a response to me—”They think I’m gay because I’m stylish and hot, so it is a compliment”) Or do they think when Jamie talked about being too “soft” for his dad in season 1, he actually meant “gay”?

The most generous view I can come up with is, that Jamie has dated no one since Keeley and they’re collectively like “He is so hot, and also fun and kind and supportive, him being single makes no sense unless he is gay”. Like, from a fannish perspective I could also go “Haha, after Amsterdam they probably think Roy and Jamie are secretly dating”, but there is like zero proof they might actually think that.

And honestly, as much as I enjoy interpreting every little choice on the show: The average viewer doesn’t do that. The average viewer will look and jump to the first conclusion that makes sense to them, which likely will be stereotyping.

Someone (like Trent) should have called that out.

I could generously interpret the whole exchange as giving a huge hint to casual viewers: “Jamie is perceived as queer, just so you know for future reference 😉”, but still the entire scene doesn’t sit well with me. And they could have accomplished the same result in a way where Jamie actually has agency about this.

Since also, by singling Jamie out, they basically forced him to make a statement, either forcing him to lie or to come out even when he may not be ready for it, which is super shitty behaviour. (So I could also read the “I’m flattered” as him deflecting, like he knows he is bi but doesn’t feel like coming out yet and assumed they clocked him because of his appearance.)

Add to this that Colin basically was forced to come out because of the circumstances and couldn’t actually decide on his own account when and how to come out. (Which is like the opposite of what I wanted)

And we didn’t even get the how, because it was more important to focus on the straight allies 🤡 Like, if the writers didn’t want to take away from Colin’s moment, they could have made it more about Colin? (Yes, he didn't want to be a spokesperson, but it would still have been nice to have him actually say "I am gay" in front of his mates.)

I liked the conversation Roy and Isaac had and think it was necessary (partly for my queer Roy agenda), but instead of giving us this cringeworthy talk by Ted, they could have given Colin more room for his own coming out—and then have Ted reassure him, that they care about him with a story that is about Ted not caring enough about someone who actually was queer and regretting that.

Gosh, the more my brain wakes up, the more upset I get lol

(And yes, I am usually quite forgiving with actors, since they don’t have control over their franchise, but no matter how much I adore Phil, the way he constantly brings up Roy x Jamie as a possibility is going a bit too far at this point if he is only joking.)

[mediaconsumernightwriter]

The Idyllic Sapphic World of Crush (2022)

Crush is not a perfect movie, not by any means, but there is one thing it gets right. It transforms our heteronormative world into a sapphic paradise. All the relationships seen in this movie (apart from the secondary couple who’s already together and the creepy relationship between Paige’s mother and the track coach) are sapphic ones. Every single girl (or non-binary person) is outwardly queer and into women. The relationships the main character is pursuing are both with out-of-the-closet sapphic women.

This is unlike anything I’ve ever seen in a movie. It’s already unusual to have a sapphic main couple at all, since most of queer media focuses on white cis gay men. But a world full of sapphics? Unheard of. It’s so hard for a queer woman (and I’m including myself in the label of “woman” simply for this example) to date, because it’s difficult to understand if the person in front of you is gay or just has a septum piercing. In this world, it’s made easy. It’s almost like it has homonormalized the world. It also helps that there seems to be no homophobia anywhere near this world.

Maybe this is why this silly little movie meant so much to me. It’s no different from other teen rom coms I’ve watched before, except for the fact that it is so gay and so unapologetic about it. Does it make some “an adult wrote this pretending to be a teenager” jokes and references? Yes, but that’s because it was an adult writing this pretending to be a teenager. I didn’t say it captured the teenage lesbian experience well, which I can’t even judge because I’m not a teenager, but it is unapologetically gay. In its approach to relationships, to background characters’ sexualities, to queer identities, etc.

Another thing that is very refreshing is that these sapphics are all out of the closet already. No one needs their big coming out moment with the crying and the self consciousness. In fact, the one coming out we do see is very easy, nonchalant and accepting. Everyone knows they’re queer and everyone is cool about it. At least now (AJ tells the story of her coming out and how her mother didn’t react at first, but it is assumed that she now accepts her).

I think pretty much everyone making out at the party scene, from the people being interrogated by the girls to the ones who start making out on top of AJ, is sapphic. Just another interesting way to build a sapphic-filled world. There’s some male looking gay people in there as well, but they are given less focus than the sapphic relationships. In the seven minutes in heaven portion, there are multiple queer couples (women loving women AND men loving men) and also multiple groups of what I assume to be polyamorous relationships. This doesn’t prove my point but I also don’t care because that’s when we get the main characters’ kiss and that makes me happy enough.

The last thing I’d like to focus on is how the bisexual character’s sexuality is not questioned in any way, especially after she’s with a woman. It would’ve been so easy for the writers to include a joke about how she was actually really a lesbian, but she stays bisexual throughout the whole thing, because that’s her identity. It doesn’t change if she’s with a man or a woman or a non-binary person. She’s bi for a reason.

For a movie that describes in the script the track team as 60% queer, it shows a lot more than that percentage of queer people and relationships on screen. It is a queer person’s paradise world, especially if you’re a sapphic person, like myself. So yes, I really like this movie a lot.

[csg-iii]

Was 90s Todd Rice/Obsidian Demisexual?

PS: This is just my personal perspective - not the canon one, and definitely not meant as “proof” of anything to anyone. Just sharing some personal thoughts, that’s all.

Officially, Obsidian became a queer character after coming out as gay in Manhunter #18, in 2006.

After reading the referred issue of JLA (Justice League America #100, from 1996), my personal thought was that he had a queer identity established there alredy - but a different one, as “a person who only develops sexual attraction within the context of a close emotional relationship, and who does not experience such feelings on the basis of first impressions or physical characteristics”, a concept that ever since 2006 is labeled Demisexuality, and considered part of the Aroace spectrum.

To be clear, when people say JLA “danced around the issue” of Todd’s sexuality  or treated it as just subtext, I don’t think they are intentionally trying to ignore anything. Back in 2006, and  especially ten years before that in 1996, I think almost no one would have thought a writer was trying to make a Demisexual character, not even the writer himself - I think it’s a coincidence that just happens to fit right in - as the concept is, even today, still new and unknown to many people.

Albert Rothstein: “Listen, you're... you're enjoying dating Karen, right?” -

Todd Rice: “Yeah, when I’m not waiting for it to blow up in my face”

This line also correlates to the statement “although Todd dated women, it was always a mess”. Most people don’t know that today, but Todd had a big “Samson and Delilah” moment in Infinity Inc, when his then-girlfriend revealed she was just manipulating him.

Marcie Cooper: “I nearly blew it when Northwind took off for birdland --after all the time I invested in getting next to him!” 

Todd Rice: “You’re saying-- it was all a set-up?! And you zeroed in me to take his place when Norda left?” - Todd Rice

Marcie Cooper: “Yeah-- because you were convenient-- and cute!” 

Todd Rice: “Why me, God? Why me?” 

I personally think the JLA writer took that, and decided that its consequence for Todd would shut down any attraction to anyone unless he already had a deep emotional love for them first. PS: I’m not saying trauma is what makes people demisexual, I’m just saying what I believe the writer’s mindset to have been, and for Todd especifically.

So here comes the relevant part in Justice League America #100

Todd Rice: “I’ve had problems with women-- that doesn’t mean I “want” men! Karen makes me feel comfortable-- that doesn’t mean I “want” her!” 

To me, they’re not really dancing around any issue. He doesn’t “want” (is not sexually attracted to) people based on their gender or a first impression.

Todd Rice: “Why do I have to have a sexuality?” 

To me, that really sounds like something a person on the Aroace spectrum would say when asked about that.

Todd Rice: “Why do I have to have a label? What I have Albert-- is love!” 

We can accept Todd was simply uncomfortable with labels in general, but, repeating myself here, the label that he might have been comfortable with calling himself at this point wouldn’t even be a word for another ten years. He just has love. He loves his best friend Albert, he loves his sister Jennie and, at that point, nobody else. And yes, obviously declaring his love to Albert meant he was one of the few people Todd actually “wanted” - as in, was attracted to.

[longing-for-rain]

You’re also completely missing the point.

You firstly ignored the fact that real people can experience harm as a result of fictional narratives (e.g. the way certain characters are portrayed in media), and secondly jumped straight into accusing me of censorship when I never said that. Being critical of media doesn’t mean I’m arguing that media should be forcibly suppressed.

It’s overly simplistic to act like all instances of racial slurs, for instance, in a story are the same. For example, a book like Huck Finn taking place in a racist environment inherently includes that kind of language to paint a realistic picture of the time period and ultimately serves to promote an anti racist message. But as a counter example, let’s say we have a white supremacist author who writes black characters as caricatures in his story and refers to them using slurs, because in his mind this is funny. Clearly, these aren’t the same, and most audiences would recognize that the second author’s attitude towards his characters is reflective of his bigotry. I know media literacy is dead, but the difference isn’t really that difficult to see if you look at any form of context.

It’s also important to note that stories don’t exist in isolation; stories follow general trends across society. As a gay person, one trope I’m particularly aware of is the “bury your gays” trope as I’m sure you’re also aware. I remember a time watching media, when if I was lucky enough to see a hint of a gay character at all, they were almost always killed off. Don’t you agree, that can be damaging to a person? Yes, those characters were all fictional people. None of them were really harmed. But the way their respective authors and showrunners treated them sends a message: that nobody wants people like me to be around. We are meant to appear briefly for shock value and then die.

I feel similarly watching media as a woman; the frequent use of misogynistic tropes and constant eroticization of female pain is dehumanizing, because it speaks to the amount of people who hold those beliefs about people like me. I have every right to be critical of that, and I’m never going to buy the fact that a male writer putting graphic rape scenes of little girls in his novels is some progressive icon exploring complex issues.

Your point about kink is also very interesting. You seem to be approaching it from the angle that only gay people would eroticize homophobia, etc. when in reality that isn’t the case. Would you feel the same if a white person became aroused by seeing a black person being assaulted and called slurs? Your answer implies you wouldn’t be comfortable and good, at least you have some moral backbone. I simply apply that further to straight people who enjoy “dykebreaking” etc. and men who enjoy the idea of physically and sexually abusing women. Those people are sick in the head and clearly hold deeply misogynistic and lesbophobic views. Again, these things don’t exist in a vacuum. There is a reason they see people like me and view us as things to be abused and degraded. Those people are acting out their hatred and biases and we have every right to be critical of it. We also have every right to be critical of narratives—even fictional narratives—that promote the use of our lived pain and experiences for the enjoyment of people who will never be in a position to understand the consequences of those experiences.

I really think everyone needs to truly internalize this:

Fictional characters are objects.

They are not people. You cannot "objectify" them, because they have no personhood to be deprived of. They have no humanity to be erased. You cannot "disrespect" them, because they are not real.