queerwashingmedia - Tumblr blog

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Text

The Dogged Nice Guy and the Rule of Romantic

The Rule of Romantic is one of the most used tropes when it comes to sitcoms, even when we might not notice it: everything that might happen (as far as romantic relationships go), no matter how unlikely, will be excuse by the fact that it or its context is deemed romantic by the audience.

Or at least it is supposed to.

This can come in play with really ordinary things, like two characters finding each other after meeting randomly one time with no reason to find one another again or try to, or the tears of one character bringing back to life their beloved in a universe in which that has no reason to work that way.

But it can also take a darker turn: this is were the Dogged Nice Guy comes in play.

We all know nice guys: men that insist they are absolute gentlemen and have a deep respect for women, but that as soon as one rejects them reveal their true nature as some of the worst misogynists out there, demanding that women have relationships with them since they have been so nice, often times insulting them for allegedly “getting with men that will treat them awfully when they could have been with him”.

In media this kind of behaviour is often seen when the nice guy does not lose his mask, but keeps pushing, pursuing a woman clearly not interested in him, never understanding- or at least caring- that what they are doing not only is not appropriate, but can make all those involved extremely uncomfortable.

But why is this trope so close to the Rule of Romantic?

The Dogged Nice Guycan have only so many outcomes, and unfortunately none of them is the show condamning his actions.

One of the most common ones is the application of the Rule of Romantic: after years of harrassment, the woman in question is worn down by the costant inappropriate displays of affection and ultimately falls in love with the Nice Guy.

The audiene is supposed to have been rooting for them the whole time, and be satisfied with this outcome, that shows how with some persevearence love can win every heart.

We see this in very many cases: most famous are Penny Teller and Leonard Hofstadter from the Big Bang Theory, with Leonard pining for Penny for the first seasons, or, looking outside sitcoms, Ogie Eincorn and Dawn Pinkett in Waitress, best displayed by the song Never Getting Rid Of Me.

In both cases the Nice Guys get what they want, are rewarded for their awful behaviour, and end up glorifying what is plain harrassment.

Link to Rule of Romantic and Dogged Nice Guy trope pages for anyone interested

#queerwashingmedia #rule of romantic #dogged nice guy #nice guy #tropes #are the straights okay #the big bang theory #waitress

16 notes · View notes

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Text

Venom: let there be carnage and target audiences

In 2018, the first Venom movie came out and the critics were ruthless, critics from every corner of the world raised their voices to let us know that the movie just isn’t good enough to be the same genre as their beloved superhero movies.

Now the same thing, if worse, is happening with its sequel.

But if it really is as bad as they say, why was it even allowed to get a sequel?

The answer lies in it’s source material.

Most know the origin of Venom: an alien that become spiderman’s new suit but was later rejected, and a journalist that was wronged by Peter Parker, brought together by their shared hatred and becoming the anti-hero we all know and love.

But what most forget about Venom, which is partially due to the fact that with every new run the author undoes what their predecessor has done, is that the two main characters are canonically in a relationship: not the healthiest one, especially at first, but one nonetheless.

Of course some runs made their best to hide and/or not aknowledge at all this vital detail of the anti-hero’s dynamic, let us for example think of what Donny Cates wrote when he was in charge, but that does not change the facts.

So this is the source material.

This is what the first movie had gotten its story from.

Sure, we know that the entire origin is completely different in the movie, not having a spiderman of their own, but the dynamic between the two main characters was kept, just aknowledging the change it would have made if their bond hadn’t been from the start fueled by sheer and complete hatred, making their intheractions seem more... goofy, in a way.

But the dynamic remained essentially the same.

And viewers could see that.

Right from the first movie, remaning loyal in a way to the comics, the story was surely about the creation of this new hero and their fight with the “bad guy” and everything, but what was much more important for the movie was showing Eddie and Venom coming to terms with their coinhabitance and growing to form a bond.

The critics, who were expecting a superhero movie like every other they had seen, were left highly disappointed because it wasn’t what they wanted. It wasn’t for them.

But the audience loved it.

Because it was telling a story they wanted to hear.

The target audience was not that big, but very distinct and very enthusiastic.

See a superhero movie and you can skip the next 10, because you can change the names and appereances of character but the story is ultimately the same.

But do you know how many movies there are that follow the hilarious but at the same time heartbreaking and at the same time sweet queer love story between a man and the alien that inhabits his body? Two. Venom and Venom: Let There Be Carnage.

When the second Venom movie came out many were scared that all the great promisses made were going to end up in queerbaititng, but suddenly we all were reassured when the critics came back from watching it saying that it was trash.

Because that was the point. If there had been queerbaiting they would have come back saying something along the lines of “it sounded a bit off but it was fine”. But they hated it. Said that the focus of the movie was too much on the protagonists and not on the very real threat that Carnage was posing.

That let us know that we were the target audience once again.

That the new movie was, alas, not a superhero movie. It was the romantic comedy that the producers knew was going to make us enjoy it.

Critics may go watch the movie once to write their bad review, but we will religiously watch it 10 times in a row, because it is our movie

#venom #venom 2 #venom let there be carnage #queerwashingmedia #lgbtq #symbrock #venom comics

2K notes · View notes

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Text

Loki’s problem with queerbaiting: part 2

Loki’s gender

Facts according to the marvel database (powered by fandom) that I gotta put out there before saying anything else: Loki Laufeyson (Ikol) of Earth-616*, the current version of Loki (in the comics) is listed as genderfluid, while the past Loki Laufeyson of Earth-616* (before death? I don’t remember how it went exactly) is listed as male. Loki Laufeyson of Earth-199999** both as his original self and as Variant L1130 is listed as genderfluid.

Thus, according to these notions, the Loki we have seen in the 2021 series is tecnically recognized as gendefluid.

Having said that, let’s get to what Marvel did.

First of all, the only on-screen evidence that Loki is genderfluid was presented in that little shot in the end credits I belive where in his anagraphic data his sex is listed as fluid, which in a situation like this is more of a statement of him being a shapeshifter than being genderfluid. Sounds a lot more like ”hey he could also present as another gender be careful” than actually “we are taking notice of the fact that that’s his gender identity”.

But this whole thing could be easily overlooked if we actually had some decent rappresentation.

But of course, what we got was far worse than what I even could have expected.

Sylvie was a problem. Her character was overall well done and likable and everything needed to be appreciated, but her being a Loki didn’t work from a gender prespective.

Throughout the show we are shown variuos variants of Loki that are obviously from different earths (such as our beloved crocodile, that is obviously not just a variation from the Loki we know in time, but also in space), but none of them other then Sylvie wasn’t male, and when our Loki asked the other variants that were helping him if they had met anyone like Sylvie, he emphasized the fact that it was so weird that a Loki was female, and the other Lokis were shooked as well by the possibility of something like that, a behaviour that obviously would never come from a genderfluid person.

Now, I could understand if Sylvie was strictly a woman, and some of the other variants were strictly men, because from universe to universe people can be different even gender wise, but it cannot be that there’s only one female Loki and all others are male and that’s it.

That’s not being genderfluid.

The only thing I can think of is that it was never Marvel’s intention to make Loki canonically genderfluid, and that little proof we have was really just a statement of him being a shapeshifter.

At this point, the viewer obviously pericieves Loki as a cis person who can shapeshift, and that is not what genderfluidity is.

It also would have been so easy to fix: if they didn’t make the variants surprised at the thought of a female Loki and made Loki switch gender even for just a little bit, even just once, that would have been rappresentation.

What we have right now, a totally different thing.

*Marvel’s prime earth

**The Marvel Cinematic Universe’s prime earth

#queerwashingmedia #lgbtq #loki #loki show #loki series #loki meta #loki series meta #loki laufeyson #genderfluid #nonbinary #sylvie laufeydottir

16 notes · View notes

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Text

Loki’s problem with queerbaiting: part 1

Sylvie and Loki and bisexuality

(Part of this analysis is also present on my main, @stephen9260)

When first word got out that Loki came out as bi, I was excited: Marvel is owned by Disney, and I saw what it had done in other media, so I knew there was no chance it was different with Marvel.

I thought I was wrong when I heard the news.

But I wasn’t. I really wasn’t.

Was bringing Sylvie in the mix a good move?

Sylvie was not a good choice. At all.

Not because she’s a woman, there would have been nothing wrong with Loki having a female love interest (when having done the right balancing instead of makimg him come out and never mentioning it again, not even in subtext), but obviously there’s just so many people that think of bisexuals as immoral, deviants, s3x crazed freaks, and in all honesty having your bi lead engaging in selfcest just reinforces this dehumanizing stereotype.

Also, her betraying him after building up a possibly good dynamic would have made sense if not for the way it was delivered.

The kiss just did not make sense.

The kiss was probably not one of any sort of actual affection from neither of them, so them kissing just didn’t make sense overall.

Would having a relatioship right now be a good idea at all?

Throughout the whole series Loki is mostly confused or on the run, he only has time to let himself go when he’s on the train (when the coming out scene happens) and in Pompeii, which doesn’t leave him with much time to get his whole thing going. Which brings me to the point that I don’t think him getting into a relationship in the series is a good idea character wise.

He’s having a great character development and getting a partner doesn’t make sense with the kind of growth he’s going through, it would be almost out of place.

Even if that were the case though, I feel like there is something to be said: whatever gender his partner would end up being, he would have needed at least a scene when he’s flirting with a person whose gender is different than his partner’s, especially if the partner ends up being a woman (which in the eyes of basically everyone considering how little effort they are putting in making Loki actually genderfuid, would make the relationship straight passing).

(Under the cut is an analysis of the kiss scene for anyone wondering why I think it wasn’t romantic)

First I analized the lighting, to see if the colors had been chosen to make the scene look more romantic or not (spoiler: they were not).

Usually darker colors are use in violent scenes or, for instance, s3x scenes, or still any sort of interaction that is dirven by passion, anger, or similar emotions.

This tecnique checks out with the scene we are viewing.

The scene is not well lit, but the colors are not red or similar shades like they are usually in this situations. Instead, mainly greens, but also blues (expecially during the kiss per se) purples and some other colors were used, so my guess is that the lighting was supposed to mainly mimick the colors that came from outside the room (the timelines diverging), inside the room (for one the fireplace in the background gives Sylki a more warm, tender aura, which I believe was used to make her seem far from someone who would be prone to betrayal) and most of all the caothic energy that both of the variants, being dieties of mischief and chaos themsleves, emanate.

I already have my theories on Sylvies side of the story, the kiss being merely a distraction, not a last goodbye before the final betrayal or a true expression of her feelings before sacrificing them for the sake of her beliefs.

So I looked into Loki’s face and expression, not majorly during the kiss (they’re smushing their faces together, what could I even have seen), but after.

Unfortunately, we can’t see his face before Sylvie annouces her betrayal, but while normaly, in a scene like this, the character who has been betrayed and actually wanted and enjoyed that kiss has still a little hope on their face before we can see it being whiped out by despair, what I could see in those few second from beginning to end was sadness and disappointment and resignation.

It didn’t just turn from a half smile of newfound joy and calm to the realization of someone who’s being betrayed: from the second the camera was onto Loki we could see his face was still, from when we can see his poorly lit profile his mouth hasn’t moved an inch (and nor have his eyes, from what I can tell), thus his expression hasn’t changed.

So that is when the realization hit me.

Why his face was like this.

When Sylive lowered her swords, Loki could see that she was bluffing, he knew it wasn’t real.

“I’ve been where you are. I’ve felt what you feel”

These words just prove it further.

He knows she has trust issues (like he does), so of course her lowering her guard was not genuine. And he was proven right by that kiss. That’s when he realized that unlike him, she hadn’t grown, she was still like the Loki the sacred timeline had intended. Loki knew it because in that moment he was reminded that while not being exactly like him, they’re the same person.

She’s the Loki of the past, the Loki that doen’t trust anyone, she’s like him before entering the tva.

She was still prone to betrayal.

She’s not the same as who he is right now, but she’s the same as who he was before the character development

#queerwashingmedia #lgbtq #loki show #loki series #loki laufeyson #sylvie laufeydottir #loki meta #loki series meta #bisexual

4 notes · View notes

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Note

Aro culture is hating the Big Bang theory (tv show) because it’s ridiculously aphobic

.

148 notes · View notes

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Text

Hello my dear friends, I am... lazy

Writing this stupid posts takes much focus that I do not have, so I am asking for help...

I'm recruiting!!

Anyone wanna be a mod in this hellhole? Dm me!

Obv if you're a homophobe, aphobe, terf, transmed or overall a bitch towards the lgbtq community why are you here and go away this is not the place for you bye

#queerwashingmedia #mod #recruitment

0 notes

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Text

Trope: the lesbian ex-wife

As examples I’m gonne give you the two most cishet shows I have ever watched in my entire life probably, and that’s Friends and Two and a half men.

In both of this shows the trope is used as a way to give more spice to the divorce, which is what fuels the drama that makes the whole show start: in two and a half men the divorce is the reason why Jake and Alan move in with Charlie, which is what the show revolves aroud, them living together; in friends the divorce is the reason why Ross can start pining for Rachel as soon as she comes back, which is one of the major points of the show.

The lesbian ex-wife trope can be used actually very well, but only in circumstances in which the character is then not made fun of constantly and the show is not highly homophobic per se: if in a show, where there is good rapresentations and the lgbtq characters are not only there for comic relief, this trope is used, it can show how figuring out your orientation later in life is totally fine, and overall having your male lead being supportive of their ex-wife can have a meaningful impact on the viewers.

Now I’m not saying that the ex-husband has to always be in good terms with their ex-wife, because that is not realistic, at lot of couples who divorce then hate eachother, but the apporoach of both of the shows I’m usig as an example use the newfound sexuality of their ex-wives as kind of an excuse to not exactly be in good terms.

Carol (as far as I remember) cheats on Ross several times before their divorce, which is a really good reason in my opinion to be angry with your ex-partner, but the thing that throught the whole series we’re reminded of is not that she cheated, but that she cheated with a woman, even in moments when it had no reason to be brought up. And also it’s used as an insult to Ross most of the times, and her whole character is reduced as a joke and an explanation for why we basically never see Ben on screen.

Judith (at least up to season 1 if I remember correctly) is used as a character who the audience projects their hate onto, as she appears inconsistent in her motivations to leave Alan and is constantly made fun of a criticized for "experimenting". The audience is led to think stuff like "why didn't she experiment as a teenager" and blame her even more since after she leaves Alan she dates guys (as far as mid season 2, where I stopped paying attention), making her look either like she was just looking for an excuse to go out with other men without being "in the wrong side" or whatever, or they actually believe her to be wlw, but then read her actions as part of the "slutty bi" stereotype. Later in the seasons she has relationships almost always with men, which makes her motivations sound even less founded, because the show is aimed to an audience which is probably not educated on m-spec people (bi, pan, poly, etc.) and will probably just go with the "pick a side" and thus think she just wanted an excuse.

Also in both situations they have what I consider the "comeback kiss", that moment when the newly out lesbian ex-wife kisses the protagonist for one last time before leaving for good, which show that the will of the ex-wife is really weak and they don't really know what they want, which,in my opinion, kinda demonizes questioning and having second thoughts about your identity after coming out.

So yeah.

#queerwashingmedia #are the straights okay #lgbtq #two and a half men #friends #lesbian ex-wife trope #lesbian #wlw

9 notes · View notes

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Text

Call me by your name (2017) Part 1/?

So this analysis will be based on the movie, that I watched almost a year and a half ago, I have not read the book. I planned on doing so before I watched the movie. But. The movie happened. So here we are!

My main problem with this movie is that it is considered and lgbtq movie, right? But actually that's not what it is, or at least it can be considered a queer movie, but it is not made for a queer audience.

Which is not inherently bad, but it almost always is.

Because when you do a movie for a straight audience you want it to be appealing to them, it's a priority. When the movie is set for a specific audience, it has to meet their standards, their beliefs and most of all their interests. That's how Cinema works (says a person who knows nothing of cinema).

So what you try to do is making a compelling for the straights that are watching. Now I might not be correct, but for the sake of the analysis let's pretend I am.

So this movie was made for straight girls in particular, especially the kind of straight girls that write mlm fanfictions and do not know actually how that works but do so anyway because they're just horny teenagers (this is not saying that straight girls can't write mlm because they don't talk from experience, but a lot of people out there are just really creepy about it).

And this audience has a particular taste in seeing young boys making out for some reason as far as I know.

I still don't get it, but maybe it's just me. So the point is to make a compelling to them. So you have to leave most of the screen time for the cute boys making out. And that's basically what this movie does.

Now because they had to leave a lot of time to the smooching scenes, the time for a plot was obviously shortened, which resulted in having really simple characters. By simple I mean that there weren't actually character traits there, it's just one is really shy, the other is really confident, but there is nothing else that I personally remember about any of them really.

I do not have experience in this kind of media but from my general understanding of the genre, this movie seems to fit more in the category of p*rn with a bit more of plot than usual than an actual rom-com movie as a I thought it was going to be.

I was told that it was such a nice sweet movie that had some making out , but you know, you just can not watch it when there's making out. And so I thought okay. Well, let's just watch it. But it's not what I thought.

I was promised a plot that actually I cannot see.

Because I was not part of the audience it was made for I did not enjoy it. Buy straight girls did enjoy it because if it had not been enjoyed I wouldn't have heard of. But I know I and one of my friends who both watched the movie and are part of the lgbtq thought it sucked so maybe we were not the only ones. Maybe it was actually a shitty.

#queerwashingmedia #lgbtq #are the straights okay #call me by your name

0 notes

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Text

Really long rant about Call me by your name this week?

Of course why not.

Let's kill that shit

#queerwashingmedia #lgbtq #call me by my name

0 notes

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Text

The Hunger Games (2008-2009-2010)

Disclaimers: in this post I will be covering the book series, not the movies. Also the person that is talking is the me that has read the book over 4 years ago and who's memory is a bit biased. I know I don't have to complain about everything and "just let people enjoy things" but actually let me just enjoy complaining.

One of the biggest problems that I have encountered in my life dealing with The Hunger Games is probably the romantic subplot.

Which isn't actually a subplot.

It's just plot.

The book had a really promising idea: a dystopian word full of violence in which a first rebellion leads to a larger one to free people from oppression of powerful people that punished everyone by doing this kind of games in which they had to kill each other Battle Royale style. This is a very promising setting. When I started reading the thing I actually was really intrigued.

The problem is that the interesting setting of all this action was almost obliterated and totally hidden in the shadow of the romantic subplot. I mean:

We get our white straight female protagonist, who falls for two equally beautiful white straight male characters, and she has to decide between one of them.

First of all, thank you for telling us once again that ppolyamoryis just a lie invented by people who wanted to be slutty and because yes it's your characters but be just a bit woke and stop hiding this trope as it was an essential piece of the romantic plot.

I find love triangles horrible because most of the time they are used just to show that the main character is appealing and so perfect that everyone wants them and I honestly hate it.

But let's not talk about love triangles per se, but the one in the Hunger Games, which is Katniss, the protagonist, Petaa and Gale.

In this case, we have the childhood best friend and dude she just noticed and she has feelings for them almost equally. I mean, not for nothing, but honestly a person that you had a bond with for the majority of your life should at least at first be more important to you, but apparently not.

Regarding the Peeta/Katniss side, I don't mind the fake dating trope, but when it's used into a love triangle, it's just so difficult to pay attention to.

Using a trope into another one larger just makes things too complicated and it makes it just more obvious that it's all done to show that the protagonist is appealing.

This happens throughout the whole series and honestly, I think that the fact that the romantic subplot part of the story was so important to the author that after the first book they just decided to make the plot up as they went and put full focus on the romance.

I'm not here to judge Suzanne Collins. I mean you can do whatever you want. You can write whatever you want.

But... I mean, yes. You books may be appealing to thirteen-year-old straight white girls, but that's it. The whole thing about dystopia is somewhere rooting in a corber.

You really want to be remembered because your books, the series you created, is appealing to thirteen-year-old white straight girls.

I 'm just sorry because the idea was actually really good. I mean at least to me it was a really good idea.

But then she went just like yeah, I know but romance is more important. I mean, this is my point of view. As someone that hates amatonormativity and not heteronormativity, in this case.

Because even if they had non-straight romance, still it would have obliterated completely the plot which was actually the interesting part and the reason why I read it in the first place.

So if I were to change the younger Games books I think that the biggest change that I would made was to make the romantic part of the story and actual subplot and not the most important thing in the book. The actual story of justice and death that non 13 year old straight white girls signed up for.

#queerwashingmedia #are the straights okay #lgbtq #the hunger games

4 notes · View notes

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Photo

I act like I do include reasoning from all points of view but this is actually what I'm doing, shooting my aro arrows at the cishets

[ID: The Lisa Simpson coffee meme. Lisa Simpson, labelled “me”, holds out a mug for some coffee, labelled “looking at popular media through an aspec lens”. End ID]

#are the straights okay #lgbtq #queerwashingmedia #aspec

363 notes · View notes

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Text

Exactly

Watched the whole episode just to find out how actually bad it is and damn. Horrible episode

Have I ever seen House MD? No.

Will I ever watch House? No.

Have I forgiven it for its episode on asexuality? Never.

#ace rep #lgbtq

63 notes · View notes

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Text

House M.D.(2004-2012)

I made the decision to go through the "asexuality in television" chapter on Wikipedia and I have to say that I am honestly so sorry for all the ace people that enjoy the show and then saw this episode.

I have not seen House honestly so I cannot compare this to the rest of the show that may have a good kind of rep if it has any, but I am not judging by taking this episode and isolating it from the rest of the series.

Even though it's terrible to think about it, a lot of people out there don't know of asexuality, and if they are presented to a situation in which a person is asexual (and thus "behaves as an asexual"?? You get what I mean), they would maybe even totally respect that, but they would probably think about it as "they don't really wanna have s3x rn, or probably, and here I'm assuming, not even consider the possibility of someone not being attracted to others if they still have s3x but actually are s3x favorable aces.

So if you are ace and you explain to people who have never heard the term before it will probably take a bit to them to graps the concept (assuming you're talking to an allo because aces would know what ace means), but if they're not horrible jerks they will respect the heck out of who you are, and that's it.

Point is that when a human being doesn't understand something, they tend to try and translate into something they can understand first, which is not an excuse for stupid aphobes, but explains why they get the first though of not saying straight up "ah ok I don't know how this feels but I get what you're saying and you're valid" (if after they try and rationalize this new thing that they didn't know about, they don't accept it as an actual thing and say the standard stuff like "it's just trauma" or "it's just that you haven't found the right person yet" or any of that that's an aphobe and may I suggest to send them to go f*uck themselves).

At this point we go to the episode, where a medic, who always ties reality to a scientifical explanation, sees a couple of people who don't have s3x and go "uh, there must be a medical explanation for this!".

"You know that close to 1% of the population identifies as asexual"

"Really gotta get you laid"

Honestly that is so disrespectful. Someone just told a fact about what some people identify as, and you sTRAIGHT UP SAY YOU WANT TO GO FULL ON CONVERSION THERAPY ON THEM. Because saying to an ace that they should get laid is the same as saying to a lesbian that they should start kissing guys.

The horrible thing between all else is that he immediately thinks that there's something wrong, a medical reason, not that maybe that just how someone is and just because you don't feel like they do then they're wrong.

House wants to make this woman have sex because he says it's healthy, but a person should be given the choice to do anything that is healthy but not necessary. Going hiking is healthy, but you don't see medic running around forcing everyone to go hiking.

I get if she was going to die and that could have been a way to save her or something, but it's not.

The only kinda good thing is the wife accepting the husband and not forcing him to have s3x?? But at the end it was all ruined by this phrase:

"A girl has needs"

Excuse me miss own that your husband will get his tumor removed you a) straight up assume that he was allo all along (you right that he could still be ace?) and that he's going to want to have s3x and b) immediately want to make up for all those years that you lost not having s3x and you consider it as a need? Even if you spent 10 years without it and you seemed pretty happy anyway right?

I'm not saying that if your husband then wants to fuck and you do too you shouldn't because of how your relationship was in the past, but now you should be focusing on your husband as he as a freaking tumor, not as in wow I'm finally gonna have s3x.

Also the "she could have been abused" theory is just as bad you guys being ace is not a direct effect of being abused, because being ace is not not wanting to have s3x it is not feeling sexual attraction it is not that difficult.

"People who don't wanna have s3x are either sick dead or lying"

Wow so you're telling me that I, supper grossed out by any interaction that goes from kissing to anything more intense than that since I can't even remember when, am lying to other people and myself?

So if you are trying to do ace rep, please do not represent it through two allo people who for one reason of another identied as ace with actually being ace. Yes, you can question your sexuality and identify as ace and then find you're not, that is totally ok and valid, but do not make it look as if someone identifies as ace it's because there is something phisically or mentally wrong with them or they are straight up lying.

"I know who I am and I'm not one of them" the dude being disgusted at the idea of being allo tho was such a gem

#queerwashingmedia #lgbtq #are the straights okay #house md #ace representation #asexual #ace #ace rep

9 notes · View notes

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Text

The Name of the Rose (1986)

I wanna say, first of all, that I actually haven't read the book. This post is solely about the movie because I couldn't get past the first 10 pages (I am deeply sorry)

I feel like there is something that is really wrong with this movie and it isn't just that I am really angry at Adso for not being a-spec.

I know what you're going to say, "not every character can be a-spec just cos you want them to", and I know that probably it was Eco who wrote it like that and they couldn't change important parts of the story, but all the same, I really think that what they did was just so bad. I mean:

Young and handsome kid joins religious order and vows chastity, but then he has to have an unnecessary s3x scene because he's young and beautiful why would he not fuck when given the opportunity even tho he swore ecc ecc (also was that actual consent? but ok)

Doesn't feel right to me. Basically only William is portraited as not having this desperate need of breaking the vow, which yes, ok, I can get it, it was the 1300s, most of priests took the vows for the power, but these were monks, they chose their path (mostly), and still almost everyone of them is shown to not be able to control their urges because every male individual is allo and male cannot stand to be unable to have s3x.

#queerwashingmedia #lgbtq #are the straights okay #the name of the rose #umberto eco #il nome della rosa #ace representation

5 notes · View notes

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Text

The Big Bang Theory (2007-2019)

We all know the problems with this one.

I have seen only bits and pieces, but all the discrimination stuck with me, everything is overly stereotypical and there is just so much homophobia and transphobia and racism I mean what the heck.

But the thing that stuck with me more was Sheldon Cooper

Many headcanon/ed him as ace and probably aro too which is understandable, considering his behavior, and I don't know if anyone ever made it canon?? But point is he was coded as ace.

But in a way we all know is wrong: through the "no use for women" trope.

Which is wrong!

It has given cishets the idea that (male) aces are misogynistic workaholics that just need to find the right person (yes I'm talking about Amy)

Which brings me to the fact that they could have saved it all by making him canonically demiromantic demisexual, which would have been awesome representation and made sense with his getting more comfortable with Amy, but they didn't do any of that did they?

Now to the cishet, and honestly just to almost all allos, aros and aces are represented by him and that is completely wrong.

The series was doomed from the beginning but this really ruined it for me

#queerwashingmedia #the big bang theory #are the straights okay #lgbtq #ace representation

13 notes · View notes

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Text

F•r•i•e•n•d•s (1994-2004) (part 1)

So, this is difficult, and will be really long, so I'll just start from the begging, the basics.

Lesbian/gay jokes: poor Carol, Susan and Ben are basically non-existent post season one because all they were there for laughs. They keep laughing about Chandler not being your average ladies' man that if the poor dude ever had been anything but a cishet, he would have burried himself so deep in the closet we'd have never seen him again.

Fatphobia: hellooooo, what makes you think that telling people that they're "so much better" after they get thin, joking constantly about a person's weight (in the past or in the present) is a good idea??

Chandler's dad: they make so many horrible uncomfortable jokes (probably thinking also that they're doing good rep?) that to this day I still haven't figured out what pronouns Chandler's dad uses!

Ross: stereotypical nerd, everyone just feels the deep need to tell him that the fact that he likes his job and the things he studied all his life are boring. I get that not many people look at paleontology and go "wow I'd like that to be my life" but still, a lot of people do! And not everything in science is necessaryly boring to those who don't have their lives revolving around it!

This is the first part, more are to come cos there are so many bad things.

If you wanna share other horrible thoughts on friends (and maybe how to fix it) the ask box will be there for you (yes this was a joke)

#queerwashingmedia #friends #are the straights okay #lgbtq

11 notes · View notes

queerwashingmedia · 3 years

Text

The invention of lying (2009)

The straights need to put romantic subplot everywhere don't they?

In this case it's not even subplot (it's almost basically the center of the movie) which would be fine with me (maybe) if they didn't already hadnt created a very interesting world that they could use somuchbettertvan they did.

The implications of not being able to lie are not only telling everyone that Jessica Rabbit gave you a boner. Think about religion (we see that the protagonist's invention of Good is the first steps to religion, this means that before that there was no religion, but they didn't count how religion influenced so much of history), politics (politicians that don't lie?), law (guilty people would confess immediately?)...

They should still have imaginations, couldn't they write books? No one is lying, that is the truth in that gifting world right? I get the film industry where actors would technically be lying... but books?

But of course to the cishet eye can't focus on anything that isn't strictly het relationships doesn't mean a thing.

I get it it's a rom-com, but that's all the straights pay attention to! Would have the average person watch the movie if it hadn't been a rom-com?

But... immagine of there was no het bullshit and they took the idea seriously...

It has a lot of potential... and half of it flew out the window because really weird straight pining and body shaming is too important.

#queerwashingmedia #the invention of lying #are the straights okay #lgbtq

5 notes · View notes