#but i thought.. why not increase the homoeroticism !
Text
sixguns & innuendo
#mantimer#mancomer#tmwnn#douglas mortimer#manco#dollars trilogy#artner#theyre fully clothed but im adding the mature community label bc the phallic innuendo is . quite overt.#hhhhhh i've been thinking a lot lately about gun fetishism in westerns.#the scenes in fafdm where manco and mortimer handle each other's weapons already contain fair amounts of subtext#but i thought.. why not increase the homoeroticism !#sixguns are already practically treated as extensions of their gunslingers. why not let manco give mortimer's buntline a lil kiss? ;0#this was originally gonna be a two-part set with a companion image of mortimer returning the favor on manco's colt#(bc. u know. ''equal partnership'' and all that)#but i spent so much fucking time doing the rendering for this image that i decided to forgo the sequel. sorry + not sorry.#but !!! wow im so proud of the shading on this one. it took me an insane amount of time. please clap.#i might make a separate post later about western genre theory and cowboy gun eroticism but for now.... yehaw for phallic imagery !#for a few dollars more (1965)#westerns#🤠#🍝#art#pardner posts
422 notes
·
View notes
Text
Why Spones is a top-tier ship
AKA “the inherent homoeroticism of annoying the shit out of your co-worker.”
Spock and McCoy have a complicated relationship. A lot of their bickering and ideological differences lead fans to believe that they hate each other, but that’s an over-simplification of the truth. The reality is that Spock and McCoy are extremely close friends who care about each other deeply. Though sometimes their bickering turns serious during stressful situations, for the most time they seem to enjoy the banter. A common mischaracterization of their relationship seems to put McCoy as the bully and Spock as the victim. In truth, there are many times where Spock will say something specifically to get a rise out of McCoy. They fight. That’s how they show affection, not disdain. In fact, one could argue that some of their bantering have a flirtatious tone to it.
Kirk: Mister Spock, regaining eyesight would be an emotional experience for most. You, I assume, felt nothing.
Spock: On the contrary Captain. I had a very strong reaction. My first sight was the face of Doctor McCoy bending over me.
McCoy: ‘Tis a pity brief blindness didn’t increase your appreciation for beauty, Spock. (Operation -- Annihilate!)
Spock is a half-Vulcan, half-Human who has mostly chosen to follow his Vulcan heritage. As such, he is a being of almost pure logic. The truth about Vulcans are that they are secretly beings who feel things very deeply and intensely, and they feel the need to keep a tight lid on their emotions as to not succumb to them. McCoy, on the other hand, is a regular human. He’s a deeply emotional man who cares about others. One could argue that McCoy is almost too empathetic, as he lets his emotions rule him. Spock and McCoy are polar opposites; the brain and the heart, the logic and the emotion, the super-ego and the id.
Despite these differences, the two men are similar in a lot of ways. They’re both men of science, men of peace, and they both care very deeply for their Captain. They’re both self-sacrificing morons, to the chagrin of the other. Spock will prioritize McCoy’s life even when both of them know it’s not the logical choice to do so. Likewise, McCoy will take a hit for Spock even when they both know the Vulcan is stronger and better equipped to deal with pain than the doctor.
Spock: (In the middle of a blizzard) In this severe cold, we cannot survive much longer.
McCoy: Leave me here, Spock.
Spock: We go together or not at all.
McCoy: Don’t be a fool. My hands and face are frostbitten. I can’t feel my feet. Alone, you have a chance. Now do what I say. Go try to find Jim.
Spock: We go together! (All of Yesterdays)
In the episode, “The Empath,” Kirk, Spock and McCoy have to choose someone to be offered as sacrifice to be tortured by a group of aliens. Kirk obviously volunteers, but gets put to sleep by McCoy with a tranquilizer. Spock then states that he’ll offer himself up, as he has the higher chance of surviving the torture. McCoy then proceeds to sedate Spock as well, and sacrifices himself to be tortured by the aliens.
Spock: While the captain is asleep, I am in command. When the Vians return, I shall go with them.
McCoy: You mean, if I hadn't given him that shot
Spock: Precisely. The choice would have been the captain's. Now it is mine.
(McCoy turns away. Spock sits to carry on working. Gem puts her hand on Spock's shoulder, and smiles. McCoy comes up behind him and gives him an injection.)
Spock: Your action is highly unethical. My decision stands. (Spock falls asleep next to Kirk.)
McCoy: Not this time, Spock.
Underneath all the fighting and disagreements, there is a deep caring between Spock and McCoy that manifests itself into protectiveness towards each other. In “All of Yesterdays,” Spock is constantly showing concern for McCoy after he almost died of hypothermia. In aftermath of McCoy’s torture in “The Empath,” Spock is seen hovering over his body and caressing his face, worry written into his features. On the other hand, while McCoy constantly makes fun of Spock for his lack of emotions, he’s also highly aware of the Vulcan’s mental state and protective of it when others threaten to shatter his resilience.
McCoy: He's a Vulcan. You can't force emotion out of him.
Philana: You must be joking, Doctor.
McCoy: You'll destroy him.
Parmen: We can't let him die laughing, can we?
McCoy: (Watching as Spock starts to cry) I beg you! (Plato’s Stepchildren)
The episode “Amok Time” also demonstrates McCoy’s perceptiveness of Spock and Spock’s true feelings of friendship towards McCoy. McCoy is in fact the first person to notice that something is wrong with Spock:
McCoy: Oh, captain. Got a minute? It's Spock. Have you noticed anything strange about him?
Kirk: No, nothing in particular. Why ?
McCoy: Well, it's nothing I can pinpoint without an examination, but he's become increasingly restive. If he were not a Vulcan, I'd almost say nervous. And for another thing, he's avoiding food. I checked and he hasn't eaten at all in three days.
Kirk: That just sounds like Mister Spock in one of his contemplative phases.
Kirk doesn’t notice anything wrong with Spock, and initially dismisses McCoy’s concern, but McCoy immediately picked up on Spock’s mental turmoil. Despite his cantankerousness, McCoy not only cares about Spock but goes out of his way to look out for his mental state. Part of it might be because he’s his doctor, but how many doctors go so far as to monitor someone’s eating habits because they notice that person’s suddenly being fidgety? On Spock’s end, when it comes time for him to beam down to Vulcan to complete his marriage ceremony, he specifically asks for McCoy to be there:
Spock: By tradition, the male is accompanied by his closest friends.
Kirk: Thank you, Mister Spock.
Spock: I also request McCoy accompany me.
McCoy: I shall be honoured, sir.
One episode I find extremely fascinating in terms of McCoy/Spock moments is “Mirror, Mirror.” In this famous episode, half of the Enterprise crew get transported into an alternate universe dubbed The Mirror Verse, in which evil versions of the characters exist and terrorize space as a fearsome military force. McCoy is part of the team that gets transported in the Mirror Verse, while Spock stays in their regular universe. Mirror Spock immediately realizes that half of the crew, including Kirk and McCoy, are acting strangely. When he corners Kirk to question him, he does so by threatening McCoy: “I shall not waste time with you. You’re too inflexible, too disciplined, once you’ve made up your mind. But Doctor McCoy has a plenitude of human weaknesses, sentimental, soft. You may not tell me what I want to know, but he will.” This Spock seems to have a intimate knowledge of McCoy’s mind. When the party decides to attack Mirror Spock, he fights all of them except for Uhura and McCoy, who he simply pushes out of harm’s way.
When Mirror Spock gets hurt as the crew is trying to escape back to their own universe, McCoy is suddenly unable to leave his side. Kirk allows him to stay to nurse Spock back to health, and McCoy risks almost staying in the Mirror Verse forever for him. When Mirror Spock awakes, he backs McCoy into a wall and initiates a forced mind meld onto the doctor. The next scene has Mirror Spock holding a disoriented McCoy up and bringing him back to his crew; he now understands what is happening and he wants his regular crew back, and thus he allows Kirk and company to make the switch back to their own universe.
Other Star Trek properties have gone more in depth on how a forced mind meld can be extremely traumatizing on the person receiving it. Star Trek: Enterprise has an entire story arc dedicated to the Vulcan T’Pol trying to heal from a forced mind meld. Unfortunately, because the nature of TOS episodes were episodic, we never got the chance to explore the emotional fallout of McCoy’s forced mind meld and how that might have affected his relationship with Spock. The franchise also never went in depth on Mirror McCoy outside of what Mirror Spock speaks of him, since Mirror McCoy died of xenopolycythemia in 2269.
Closing the list of evidence of Spock and McCoy’s affections towards each other are the Star Trek movies “The Wrath of Khan” and “The Search for Spock.” Towards the end of Wrath of Khan, Spock sacrifices himself to save The Enterprise in one of the franchises most heart-wrenching scenes. Moments before his sacrifice, he knocks McCoy unconscious, touches his face and whispers “remember.” What happened in this scene was that Spock, knowing he was about to die, transferred his Katra to McCoy. The katra being the Vulcan equivalent of a soul. This speaks to the amount of trust that Spock has in McCoy. For someone who keeps most of his emotions under a tight lid, it’s a huge gesture to entrust another with the essence of their entire being. The next movie, The Search for Spock, is a journey as the Enterprise crew fight to return to Vulcan so they can reunite Spock with his body. When they finally arrive, the Vulcans warn McCoy that the process is extremely dangerous and could even result in his death. McCoy calmly replies that he “chooses the danger.” He cannot fathom living his life without Spock.
McCoy: (Speaking to Spock) I'm going to tell you something that I... I never thought I'd hear myself say...But it seems I've missed you. I don't know if I could stand to lose you again.
So in conclusion, Spock and McCoy have a rich and complex relationship that is much more than simply just “they dislike each other because they bicker a lot.” Their bickering is more akin to that of an old married couple. There are plenty of examples not even included in this post of how deeply they care for each other. Despite their ideological differences, they balance each other out quite nicely. McCoy is finely attuned to Spock’s emotions, arguably better than anyone else on the ship. Spock in turn is protective and gentle with McCoy. Once you stop looking at their interactions solely on the surface level, you’ll be able to see the tenderness and years of love and friendship between them. This is why I think Spock/McCoy is one of the most underrated and misunderstood relationships of TOS. Don’t let the constant arguing fool you into believing these two dummies don’t adore each other.
Shout-out to Tempest for their extremely lengthy ship manifesto on Spones called “Spiced Peaches,” which goes even more in depth on why Spones is a great couple. Using their manifesto as a reference was key to remembering Spock/McCoy moments. Also shout-out to the site chakoteya for having full transcripts of TOS episodes, so I could easily find quotes for this. If you’ve come this far, thanks for reading!
239 notes
·
View notes
Note
Tim realizing that since Jason has been in the pit, Jason is always cold. He cant get warm. Tim throws himself into working this out, there has to be something to warm Jason.
Hi, anon, thank you for your patience. I… took the sappy route with this. Since this got longer than 1k, I posted it on ao3, too.
Attempt One
“How’re you doing?”
Tim eyes the bundle in front of him critically. Jason dropped by his safe house thirty minutes ago, teeth chattering after an encounter with Mr. Freeze, and he only looked marginally better. The chattering stopped; that can be a good sign or a very bad one.
Jason gives him a weak grin. “Alright. No danger of turning into an icicle any time soon.”
Hmm. Tim will see that for himself.
When he moves, Jason lifts a hand in protest. “Hey, no—“
Tim completely ignores Jason’s protests—he’d feel worse about it if it wasn’t the only way to handle injured Bats—and sticks his hand between the isolation blanket and Jason’s neck… just to flinch back. “Holy shit!”
“Nah, it’s—“
“It’s hypothermia, is what it is!” Whatever bullshit is coming out of Jason’s mouth, Tim is not listening. “You’re going into shock! We gotta get some extra heat in here, or maybe actually call the hospital; I’m not equipped for this—“
Jason’s hand closes over his mouth. Tim gives him a second to remove it, then he licks it.
Jason just grins. “As I was trying to say: It’s always like that. My body temperature never went back to normal after daying.”
“Nnr?”
“Never.” Jason shrugs. He looks completely unbothered in a way that leaves Tim incensed. That’s just stupid. Did Jason just accept the fact that he’s in constant discomfort as if that’s not a thing there should be—should be—multiple solutions to, what the fuck. Tim is gonna fix this, so God help him.
Tim is so busy coming up with 315 possible solutions that he even forgets to bite Jason’s hand for a moment.
(Only a moment, though. “Ouch!”)
Attempt Two
“I’m not sure how you think piling more blankets on me will help me raise my core temperature.”
“Of course it’s not.”
Jason raises an eyebrow at the three blankets currently on top of him. “Right. Silly of me.”
Tim rolls his eyes. Men. So ungrateful. “Your core temperature is obviously affected. That’s why I brought heating blankets.” Many, many heating blankets. Jason ends up looking somewhat like a disgruntled duck by the end. Tim has pictures to prove it.
Thirty minutes later, Tim takes Jason’s temperature. Still way, way too low for a human. He sighs. That would’ve been too easy, huh.
“You know,” Jason waggles his eyebrows, “there’s a rather more traditional way of warming up under the blanket.”
Tim swats his head. “Keep it in your pants.”
“Even if I wasn’t, you wouldn’t be able to tell under all these blankets,” Jason tells him mournfully.
Tim decides that retreat is the better part of valor. For today. Just until he can stop imagining what Jason could do to… warm up.
Attempt Three
“A hot bath.”
“A hot bath.”
“…you think I haven’t tried that?”
No. No, actually Tim doesn’t, and his expression must adequately convey that cause Jason throws his hands up. “Okay, no, I haven’t, not really. My place isn’t that fancy.”
“It certainly doesn’t have this tub. Now shoo, get out of these clothes.”
“Why, darlin’, you only ever had to ask.” Without ceremony, Jason pulls off his shirt, then begins working on his belt. “Alright, tell me: What makes this tub special?”
“From observation, I conclude that your resistance to high temperatures has also increased,” Tim begins in an excellent mad scientist voice, just to drop it right after. “Or you wouldn’t be able to wear that fucking jacket in summer. So I engineered a tub that will slowly heat up to a temperature just above 50 degrees Celsius.”
“I sure hope so,” Jason grumbles as he climbs in, unabashed in his nudity, “cause right now it’s really fucking cold, babybird.”
Funny cause Tim thinks it’s definitely getting hot in here.
Hoping his face doesn’t heat up—haha—, he looks down at his phone and activates the heat settings on the tub. “At least,” he says thoughtfully, “we don’t have to worry about accidentally causing a heart infarct or anything like with normal freezing victims. I think.”
“I’m gonna pretend I didn’t hear that.”
“We’ll take it slow, anyway.”
Almost two hours later, Jason’s skin is red and wrinkled and covered in glitter from Tim’s bath bomb. He’s still cold to the touch.
Attempt Four
“Tea? Really?”
“You like tea.” Jason has been hanging around Tim’s place often enough that the younger man knows. (If there’s a corner of the top shelf just dedicated to Jason’s favorite blends, well, they don’t talk about it.) “And anyway, this tea is special.”
Jason put down the cup. “Tim.”
“Yes?”
“Tell me you didn’t get this from Ivy.”
“I didn’t get this from Ivy,” Tim recites just a little too dutifully. Truthfully, he hasn’t—it’s of his own creation in the lab—but seeing Jason squirm is just too funny.
“The things I do for you, babybird,” Jason sighs and exes about half of it. When nothing obviously terrible happens, he drinks the rest in small, careful sips.
“Nothing?”
“A hint of chamomile—I get that one, soothing—and… bergamot?”
“Yeah, that’s your favorite, right?” Tim’s taking down notes and is only half-listening. “How do you feel? Any warmer?”
When Jason doesn’t reply right away, Tim does look up. “Jay?”
The older man has a slight smile on his face. “A little warmer, yes.”
Tim brightens and jumps up. Jason lets him stick the thermometer under his tongue without any objection. Tim is a little disheartened when it climbs up to 33°C and stays there, again, though he tries to stay focused on the positives: “I guess it’s a start, though. After all, the perception of warmth is just as or more important than the objective temperature.”
“Uhuh.”
“Also, you didn’t turn green, so that’s good.”
“Tim!”
Attempt Five
“Okay, if this doesn’t work, I don’t even know anymore.”
“Please tell me you’re not hooking me up to electrodes.”
“Sorry, that’s too dumb a lie even for me.” Tim is about to demand that Jason takes his shirt off again—an unfortunate side effect of this type of experiment, really, how terrible that he has to ogle those pecs and abs again—when he pauses. “Wait. Is that… a bad thing?”
Which is terrible phrasing for Is this something that was used to torture you? but Jason seems to get it cause he shakes his head. “Nah, just didn’t know you’re into that.”
“I’m not!” Tim isn’t.
…at least, he doesn’t think he is? There’s certainly something to be said about the inherent homoeroticism of applying gel to another man’s skin and attaching electrodes. He’s so caught up in the entire thing—and the way Jason’s muscles jump and twitch when Tim applies his own brand of stimulant ray to them—that he doesn’t notice how quiet Jason is, too.
However, in the end, the thermometer still reads 33°C.
“Fuck,” Tim mutters. “I really thought I had it.”
“Guess I can put my shirt back on.” Jason makes no move to do so.
“Yeah.” Tim is looking at his notes again, trying to figure out where he went wrong. His joking words at the beginning aside, there are still options, avenues for him to pursue. It’s just that these are the most promising ones, and Tim can’t bear the thought of failure. The idea that Jason will just—will just have to live like this, forever cold and disconnected—
He lifts his face when he hears Jason putting his shoes and jacket on. “You don’t have to leave. I can still—“
“Nah, it’s fine. There’re only so many sex jokes I can make before even I can take the hint,” Jason sighs. “Thanks, though, Tim. I really appreciate the effort.” He turns toward the window.
It takes 4.7 seconds for Tim’s brain to catch up with that, and then another 2.4 for it to convince his body to move.
“Jay! Wait!”
The Solution
The afternoon sun throws golden rays into their bedroom. Tim can feel her rays tickle his face, his eyes, so he turns further into the embrace that’s been offered to him all night. Jason doesn’t wake up, just snuffles out a slight snore and pulls Tim half on top of him as if his boyfriend is some sort of overgrown teddy bear.
Tim snuggles into the crook of Jason’s neck contently. In his opinion, there’s no better place to be: His lover underneath him, chest rising and falling with every breath he takes, warm and alive and here for Tim…
Wait.
Warm. Jason’s warm.
Tim scrambles up and frantically reaches for his bedside, where the damned thermometer has a place of pride after the last time he got sick, and Jason returned the favor by taking his temperature every five minutes.
“Babybird…?” Jason’s voice is rough with sleep. Tim feels a little bad about waking him up, but: !!!!
The thermometer climbs. And climbs. When it stops, it reads 36°C degrees.
“That makes absolutely no sense,” Tim whispers, awed.
“Nope,” Jason agrees amiably. “You’ll figure it out, though. Can I have some more snuggles first?”
On the one hand, Tim is dying to look this up in the literature and maybe talk to someone who knows Lazarus Pits better. This doesn’t make sense scientifically, so there has to be some magic involved, right? Perhaps the pits are more into metaphors than they thought, or—there are so many possibilities, and Tim can’t wait to explore them.
On the other hand… Jason’s looking soft and warm, opening his arms for Tim, and he’s smiling. It’s no contest, really.
Tim presses a kiss to Jason’s cheek and sinks back into his embrace, scientific pursuits forgotten.
193 notes
·
View notes
Note
Idea: Stasya decides to prank Evie as revenge for all the pranks she's pulled. What's her plan and how does it go?
First she consults with Sullivan:
Nastasya: So hey, Evie was a kid when she was Embraced, yeah?
Sullivan: *Looks at Stasya like she's an idiot*
Nastasya: Does she still CONSIDER herself a kid?
Sullivan: When it serves her, yeah. She likes to lull people into a false sense of security with her "I am baby" act.
Sullivan: Seriously though, she had a rough childhood and I think rather than being upset she'll never get older, she's happy to have a second one she'll never leave. A lot of people Embraced at that age are close enough that they consider themselves adults after a while but I don't think that's the case with Evie. So let's assume yes. Why?
Nastasya: I was just wondering if it would be inappropriate to drop her into a pit of dicks, that's all. I want to get my own back and my pranks tend to be en-ess-eff-doubleyoo.
Sullivan: My gut tells me she'd think it was funny, but I tend to get the sense with Evie that it's better to play it safe. Especially if the dicks are squirming. Like they tend to be when you're involved.
Nastasya: o7 Got it.
So I KNOW this question meant Evie, but this turned into a prank on Beckett put on as a show for Evie (both figuratively and literally). Hopefully that still counts lol. There is another prank at the bottom tho which is on both of them!
She ultimately decides to prank Evie by going for Beckett himself. She approaches everyone that Beckett's ever pissed off uh, some of the people who Beckett's ever pissed off because I don't think even Nastasya has that much free time, and goes, "hey, want to help me play a prank with Beckett?"
"What's in it for me?"
"I will do it as a favour to you."
Naturally the answer is a unanimous "fuck yes."
In Maddyverse, this takes place after BJD and therefore post-Dracon, but before Sascha and Beckett become friends. (I don't know if Sascha and Beckett ever become friends in Evieverse but I'm sure this could happen there too.) So Sascha's not talking regularly (if at all) with Stasya either, but they get wind of what's going on and offers to be bait, which Stasya gladly (if a bit warily) accepts in exchange for free access to one of her journals.
Nastasya: which journal.
Sascha: whichever one has information on *me*.
Nastasya:... not to be an embarrassing stalker on main -
Sascha: You've always BEEN a stalker on main.
Nastasya: but I've got like. Eight of those.
Sascha: ugh. I skim through all of them and choose one, then. Deal?
Nastasya: Deal.
So one night, Beckett learns that Sascha is going after a Gehenna-related artefact. Naturally, his response to that is "oh no you DON'T" and picks up the trail and races to catch up.
Once Sascha is aware Beckett is on their trail, they "accidentally" lead him to the beginning of the chain then drop back, grab the popcorn, and watch.
So Beckett ends up visiting a lot of people from Beckett's Jyhad Diaries, who are like, ohhh, you just missed it, I just found out that X is involved! and sends Beckett further down the chain. Every time Beckett appears to lose interest and chase after something else (he tends to do that in BJD), Sascha just casually dips back in to increase the sense of urgency.
But then it gets weird: it becomes apparent that Evie actually has the artefact and is slowly making her way through Beckett's contacts on some kind of misadventure. The story appears to be that Evie stole the artefact from Beckett, and is now appealing to people she knows Beckett's pissed off for help to hide from him and sharing blackmail materials along the way. The "blackmail materials" are videos of Beckett being really silly -- dancing with underwear on his head, casually filming an entire parody of a Rick Roll where he's the star, reciting memes in a cringy context, waxing lyrical about Dracula, replacing the Screaming Cowboy in that one meme, etc. The contacts all know the videos are fake, but they pretend to take them seriously and there's a few running gags of "hey, Beckett, there's a production of Dracula that'll debut in Edinburgh where I hear the actor playing Dracula is very attractive!"
(I'm sure by now Evie will have caught on to what's going on. Beckett will realise Vicissitude's involved, especially as Evie's been by his side the whole time so he knew all along it wasn't her. also because he definitely did not star in any embarrassing videos. Nastasya is hoping by this point that Evie keeps going along for the ride instead of telling Beckett what it is.)
The treasure trail leads to the final dress rehearsal of the production of Dracula that Beckett's contacts have been joking about the whole time, which is being treated as the production itself, but with a friends-and-family audience before the debut. Beckett's assured that one of the actors is a ghoul of the vampire responsible and has the artefact in their possession. They end up with two free tickets and are encouraged to watch the show and wait to investigate until after the play is concluded. Beckett, naturally, would rather spend this time backstage picking on actors but maybe Evie encourages him to watch the show first, maybe she doesn't. Either way, they'll quickly notice that the cast has been a bit genderbent -- Van Hellsing is now a woman that looks rather a bit like Evie, and Mina is now a man that looks a lot like Beckett. There is a lot of homoeroticism between Dracula and "Beckett". Like a LOT.
After they go backstage after the show they find "Evie", who makes a big deal out of "protecting the artefact" in her arms. Eventually Evie and Beckett wrangle it out of her, and she disappears.
It's a book. Specifically, it's a hardcover copy of Dracula. It's been embossed with gold leaf and rebound into a fancy leather cover, but it's definitely Dracula.
It's signed by Beckett. It has a letter inside the cover.
Dear Evie,
I wanted to get you back for all the Beckett-related pranks, but Sullivan veto'd my idea of dropping you in a pit of dicks, so I thought I'd play one on Beckett for you instead. I hope you enjoyed the show. I certainly enjoyed arranging it. The actors are stand ins - sadly the real run will have a "proper" Mina and Van Hellsing. Absolute tragedy and a waste, I say.
Oh, and, enjoy the gift. No matter what Beckett says, he absolutely signed it. I was the one who asked him to, even if he didn't recognise me at the time. I've been waiting to spring this on him for years.
Love,
Auntie Stasya
xoxoxo
PS -- They were all in it. Do remind Beckett that it's wise not to anger everyone he meets. I managed to cultivate quite a few favours just for the opportunity to fuck with Cuthbert Beckett. I hear some of the Kindred I roped into it showed up to the performance.
Nastasya probably doesn't see Evie that often - Sullivan mostly works on the west coast, though I'm sure he brings Evie whenever he needs to travel if she's not with Kara or Beckett - but she is genuinely fond of her "niece" and finds her pranks hilarious, even when they're at her own expense.
I'm sure at some point or other, when she and Beckett are on actually friendly terms, she'll play a prank on Evie herself. She and her coterie fleshcraft themselves to look like Beckett while they're in NYC, and when Beckett briefly steps out for whatever reason, a fake Beckett comes back and wanders off with Evie, first starting subtle then slowly acting more ridiculous until it's obvious it's a fake Beckett. At which point they track down the "real" Beckett (it's another fake) who gets offended at this prank... rinse and repeat until the real Beckett actually shows up (he got distracted with a fake Evie) and they're being followed around by 3-6 Becketts (depending on whether or not Ilias, Sascha and Sullivan are available/want to get involved. Possibly 7 Becketts if Rose joins in - I think having ONE Beckett who looks exactly the same as the others but obviously hiding her forehead would be hilarious - or even 8 if Evie uses her Chimerstry) all claiming they're the real one and "clearly this is a sign of Gehenna!" no this is not based on the prank the squad once played on Jan Pieterzoon at a convention.
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
Are the g0ys and Man2Man Alliance Really Homophobic?
As an alternative to the “gay” sex model, this blog has endorsed the g0ys and the Man2Man Alliance. Though their philosophies differ in some aspects, they agree on the fundamentals. Both oppose the predominance of anal play in same-sex activity. Both criticize the link made between “gay” culture and general same-sex activity. Both say that our current sexual labelling system is woefully inadequate, and should be abandoned as soon as possible.
Because of all these points, these movements have earned the wrath of the “gay” movement. It doesn’t matter that that they advocate for homoeroticism too. As such, the “gay” leadership frequently labels these groups homophobic. They say that these groups contain men in deep denial, who don’t want to fully embrace the homoeroticism inside them.
The g0ys have been a favorite target. Perhaps in response to their increased publicity, Queerty published a extremely mocking article about them in August 2017. Attaching a picture of enthusiastic masculine guys at the top, Queerty characterizes their opposition to anal as “their biggest hangup”. After two block quotes of the front page, the article ends with a GIF file of a woman reacting in shock.
Interestingly, the article never takes on any claims the g0ys make. But I digress.
The point is, when the “gay” leadership insists that both groups are homophobic, we must see if that accusation is true. Indeed, are the g0y movement and the Man2Man Alliance homophobia. The answer will determine which groups have merit, and which ones do not.
What is Homophobia?
Like the contradictory word “gay”, homophobia carries two contradictory meanings in the “gay” community. In fact, the contradictory definitions of “gay” actually lead to those of homophobia.
One is the conventional definition also used in the “straight” world - dislike or prejudice against same-sex activity and attraction, and against people who engage in such. So under this definition, slamming frot or mutual masturbation counts as homophobia. Making nasty comments about same-sex attraction counts as homophobia, along with ostracizing or ridiculing someone who perceives such. This is the definition most people know when they hear the word.
A more specific definition exists within the “gay” community - criticism or opposition to any key aspect of “gay” culture. Under this definition, it doesn’t matter if you oppose all same-sex activity or not. This definition holds all “gay” culture as sacrosanct and above criticism. So if you question the association between drag and homoeroticism, you’re homophobic under this definition. If you want to act masculine while being openly into men (aka “acting straight”), you’re homophobic. If you don’t want to bottom during anal sex, you’re homophobic. If you don’t want anything to do with anal, you’re one of the most homophobic people on Earth.
Interestingly, the second meaning is never openly defined, but it’s used just as much as the first one. Thus, the word is used as a weapon to silence any valid criticism of “gay” culture, whether it comes from “gays” or “straights”.
You must keep these definitions in mind whenever you hear the “gay” leadership label anything as homophobic. They use both freely, without ever admitting that they use more than one definition. Since most “straights” (and even some “gays”) don’t know this, they might become confused about what the LGBT movement labels as homophobic.
You must also remember these definitions whenever the “gay” leadership discusses the g0y movement and the Man2Man Alliance. This leads to the question posed in the next subheading.
Why Are These Movements Considered Homophobic?
It’s very interesting that the “gay” movement openly labels those groups as homophobic. Under the conventional definition, there’s no way that they can be labelled as such.
Even through a cursory look at their websites, their stance on same-sex activity becomes perfectly clear. Everything about these pages radiates homoeroticism. For example, nearly each post of the Alliance ends with a picture of two men kissing, fully nude and with their penises firmly pressed against each other. Many pages of the g0y website exhibit men who are fully or half naked. Some Alliance pages show men masturbating each other, while others show them ejaculating. Each story in the g0y collection describes male-male sex in graphic and titillating detail.
Their openness doesn’t stop there. Both of them openly, repeatedly, and insistently advocate for the safe and responsible practice of same-sex activity. They say that it’s not just for “gays”, and that our current labeling system should be abandoned. They don’t condemn any kind of frot or mutual masturbation. They don’t even oppose oral, though they do put out advisories about it.
The only activities that they staunchly condemn are anal ones, because of their physical and psychological dangers. Furthermore, they both shout that masculinity and same-sex activity are not opposed to each other. They proclaim that “gay” culture shouldn’t be intrinsically linked to anal, and actually criticize much of “gay” culture.
This should clue you into why they are labelled homophobic. The “gay” establishment is using their more specific definition to do it. As such, it doesn’t come from an objective standpoint. It’s done to prejudice people against these movements, and keep them from digging deeper and seeing what they’re really about.
To drive the point home, consider this - as a side argument, “gay” media says that these movements consist of guys in denial. They say that these men don’t want to fully accept that they’re into men.
My question is, what are they denying? They’re openly and explicitly saying that they’re into men, and that they support and endorse same-sex love. They include myriads of intensely homoerotic content on their websites, whether in photos or text. In the face of that, it’s very hard to say that these men are denying being attracted to men.
As mentioned before, these movements also say that same-sex activity isn’t “gay” and shouldn’t be labelled as such. In expressing this, they’re not trying to say that such activity isn’t sexual or that it’s “straight” behavior. They’re denying being part of a group whose interests and activities don’t represent their own. Remember that “gay” is a sexual identity, and not a sexuality. Identities can be assumed or denied at will. So given that, is such a stance that unreasonable?
Most of all, they’re denying the sovereignty of the “gay” leadership (and their culture) over them. To me, that’s what really irritates the “gay” movement. Remember that in the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy, “gays” have exclusive authority over same-sex activity. That gives them a lot of power, because under that idea, anything they say about same-sex activity becomes law.
By saying that same-sex activity isn’t “gay”, they’re saying by extension that the “gays” don’t have a monopoly on same-sex activity. As a result, they are calling that power into question, and are saying that other voices are just as valid. The “gay” leadership doesn’t appreciate the idea that they don’t have the final say on homoeroticism.
As a side note, they are also denying the thrust of modern sexual philosophy - that homoeroticism is inherently abnormal. This leads us to the question posed in the next subheading.
Who’s Really Homophobic?
As has been shown, the Man2Man Alliance and the g0y movement are not homophobic, at least by the conventional definition. While they may be homophobic according to the “gay” specific definition, that meaning was created to silence dissent. Thus, that definition is completely invalid.
Instead, if any group is homophobic, it’s the “gay” movement itself. There are many reasons why I say this.
First of all, they truly believe that homoeroticism is inherently abnormal, and should be treated that way. They fully support modern sexual philosophy, with all its rules and regulations that suppress and distort expressions of homoeroticism. They could only support that philosophy if they believed it to be true.
However, they don’t just stop at believing it. They use its central thought - that homoeroticism is abnormal - to guide how they conceptualize same-sex activity. That’s partially why they support the practice of anal, because it vainly mimics “normal” heteroerotic activity. That’s also why they support drag and a plethora of dangerous anal practices. Since those activities are considered abnormal by most, they seem to be a perfect match.
To drive the point home, let’s see that homophobia in action, as shown through two examples.
Firstly, let’s look at the article “How It Feels to Get F---ed In The Ass”, written by columnist Ryan O’Connell. To be clear, this piece fully supports the practice of anal sex between men. We won’t focus on that support, as much as why he supports anal sex. Notice this quote: “[anal sex] just literally feels unnatural because you’re using an exit as an entrance. Funnily enough though, that’s how you derive a lot of enjoyment from it. The unnatural feeling enhances the pleasure.” In other words, even he admits that anal sex feels unnatural and abnormal. Yet, instead of repelling him, he gets pleasure from it because it’s unnatural. How can he feel comfortable saying that in one second, and yet advocate for same-sex love in the other, unless he internally hates his attraction to men?
The other concerns reaction to the ITV show “Bromans”, which aired in the UK during 2017. For context, “Bromans” is a reality show which throws modern British men into a replica of Ancient Rome, and explores how well they could survive in that society. In keeping with the standards of Greco-Roman society, the men are naked or nearly naked around each other for substantial periods of time. As this blog has covered in the past, this kind of contact helps foster homoeroticism, which is displayed clearly in the show.
This time, the article states how in a new episode, two contestants are talking with each other while eating. While dressed only in brief-like material, they are discussing each other’s penis size, and start feeding each other on camera. To me, that’s pretty hot, and I would have loved to see more. Note however how the writer describes the moment in the article’s first line: “This show gets even more ridiculous by the week.” After describing the events therein, he then says “Let’s just say we needed a cold shower after watching this scene…”
I can’t remember reading anything like that anywhere in the g0y or Alliance websites. I think they would have reacted the same way I did - that it was hot to watch. Yet, this writer feels compelled to describe these events in very negative terms. He’s not denying that he wasn’t turned on, but it certainly doesn’t sound like he enjoyed being turned on by this show.
Granted, it might be out of frustration that they feel free to do that while not identifying as “gay”. Yet, that thought in itself reinforces the supposed abnormality of this behavior. Under that thinking, no “normal” man should express affection for another man. So how could this writer feel comfortable saying that unless, on some level, he thinks that he shouldn’t be turned on by this content? Why else would he say that he needed a cold shower? Personally, all I wanted to do was see more of the show, and without any kind of guilt.
Thus, not only are the “gay” movement being malicious, they’re also being hypocrites. They routinely say very homophobic thoughts about their own attractions, yet that’s not considered homophobic. When the Alliance and the g0ys advocate open and free practice of same-sex activity, they’re labelled homophobic because they oppose how the “gays” do it. And most amazingly of all, this makes sense in the cluttered logic of modern sexual philosophy.
However, there are wider implications of this discussion.
Wider Implications
Because of these definitions, and how the “gay” leadership uses them, we must reanalyze what is labelled homophobic in other areas of life.
Firstly, we must look into how “straight” people (particularly men) react to same-sex activity. To the “gays”, the dislike or disgust of some “straights” toward same-sex activity stems from homophobia. As such, the solution partially depends on providing better education about homoeroticism. It also depends on “straights” to stop being prudes, and just embrace the sexual practices of most “gay” men.
In reality, most “straight” men aren’t completely opposed to same-sex activity. Instead, they’re reacting to the link made between same-sex attraction and anal play. These men are justifiably disgusted by the optics and disease of anal play, and fear the physical injury caused by it. However, in the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy, “gays” have exclusive domain over same-sex love. Furthermore, the “gays” insist that the highest fulfillment of homoeroticism is anal sex. Thus, the literal and figurative stench of anal play spreads to all same-sex activity, which creates that strong reaction.
Believe me, when you say that anal play need not play a part in same-sex love, a lot of “straight” men begin to change their tune on same-sex activity. Of course, the “gay” movement will never broach the subject. If they did, it would mean that some criticisms of “gay” sex practices are valid.
Secondly, we must look at the implications on the definition of “homosexuality”, as the “gay” movement sees it. Within the United States, most “straight” people see any same-sex activity as “homosexuality”. Meanwhile, to the “gays”, “homosexuality” is mainly defined by anal play. This is why any opposition to anal is labelled homophobic, and I doubt they would be so insistent with other activities. We must acknowledge that this inconsistency affects what is labelled homophobic by whom.
Thirdly, we must acknowledge that “homophobia” is being used as a slur by the “gay” leadership. By labelling the g0ys and the Man2Man Alliance as homophobic, the ���gay” leadership is trying to keep people from reading their content. In this case, they are being labelled “homophobic” purely because of political and social rivalry. It has very little to do with sex. As such, this demands that future claims of “homophobia” from the “gay” leadership must undergo deeper scrutiny.
Conclusion
As an alternative to the “gay” sex model, this blog has endorsed the g0ys and the Man2Man Alliance. Though their philosophies differ in some aspects, they agree on the fundamentals: they oppose anal, current sexual labels, and the link between “gay” culture and same-sex activity.
Because of this, the “gay” movement has accused them of being homophobic. They have also accused them of being in denial, and not wanting to embrace their own homoeroticism. Because the accusation were so serious, this post focused on whether they were true.
As you just saw, the issue is much more complex. What counts as homophobic depends on who you talk to. In the case of the “gay” leadership, anything that criticizes their culture is homophobic. In that case, it doesn’t matter where you stand on general same-sex activity. As such, it is used as a weapon to silence dissent inside and outside the “gay” community, even if said dissent is valid.
This is why the g0ys and the Man2Man Alliance are labelled as such. If you look at their websites, you quickly find that they are anything but homophobic. They simply advocate a different model of homoeroticism, and deny the authority of the “gay” leadership over same-sex activity. That’s why they’re labelled homophobic.
Meanwhile, the “gay” movement routinely displays homophobia in their actions. A “gay” writer openly said that he loves anal sex because it feels abnormal and unnatural. Another one blurted out a very homophobic reaction to a rather homoerotic reality show in Britain. Why aren’t these reactions considered homophobic? Apparently because they have the right opinion on anal sex.
Thus, given that they show homophobia so loosely, I personally label the “gay” leadership as homophobic. After all, they themselves believe that homoeroticism is inherently abnormal and should be treated that way. You can’t do that unless you really believe that homoeroticism is nothing to be proud of.
So I advise you to take their output with a grain of salt. Take another look at the g0ys and the Man2Man Alliance. Focus on the points they’re making. You might walk away with a different viewpoint.
Also, please read further on this site, to further your necessary education. I urge you to read “The ‘Straight’-’Gay’ Dichotomy: How It Works”, to fully understand how that system functions. I also urge any who read this to go to “For Straight People (though not exclusively)”, which will point to philosophies and forms of same-sex behavior that don’t hinge on demonstratively false concepts. Also read the page “History of the Concept of Homosexuality”, to see how this concept evolved into its modern day meaning. Don’t be afraid of talking about what you learn to others.
Most of all, don’t take an accusation of homophobia at face value. You’ve just seen that it can be used as a weapon. Whenever you see it being used, take a close look at it and use your own judgement.
#g0y#man2man#gay#lgbt#homosexuality#homosexual#bisexuality#Bisexual#Gay Christian#gay christianity#lgbt christian#lgbt christianity
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Ok, this is in reply to this thread started by @1895itsallfine that I can’t reblog because someone in it got me blocked (? I guess?).
It deals with the reasons why S4 went down as it did, why johnlock was abandoned after S3/TAB, and asks if the BBC or ACD trust are to blame.
I’d just like to chip in my 2 cents.
I don’t think so. The BBC produced things like London Spy. They don’t have an initial problem with gay characters. Most ACD stories are in the public domain. Allegedly, the BBC pays the trust anyway. Imagine the trust in 2017 taking the BBC to court because they made Holmes and Watson a gay couple on their show. The public outcry! It would fall back badly on the trust. There might have been a silent pay off instead. The BBC is not some small player, it’s one of the biggest TV corporations in the world. If they wanted to, they could have taken on the ACD trust.
Of course, there’s always politics to consider. The BBC gets critizised by the Torie government a lot. The head of drama changed. And one fandom theory goes that it would be such a big scandal/secret to make Holmes and Watson gay that it was something that had to be fought for, that it was controversial and probably a big reveal, that perhaps some people high up were against it. Which I never understood.
Honestly, I think the first misconception of parts of the fandom - and especially tjlc - was that it would be a BIG thing to make Holmes and Watson a gay couple on a Britsh TV show. It might be in Russia, or China - but not in Western Europe in 2009. It just isn’t. If they wanted to, they could have done it - and no one could have stopped them. But they didn’t want to go there in the first place. That was the second misconception of the fandom (but it was not without reason, it was deliberately fed).
That wasn’t our fault. We were baited. The BBC explicidly wanted a sexy Holmes. Now, if we look at the pilot, it’s stuffed full with gay text - it’s not even subtle. Moffat says now this was some kind of trial run and never made for airing - but the other story goes that they hadn’t really to pitch the series to the BBC. They just bought it as they heard modern Holmes. So why make this pilot if not for airing, when there’s no need for a pitch? Of course, I don’t know, but perhaps it was for airing, and then the BBC said it was too blatant. Not because it was too gay. But it left NO DOUBT who would be shagging by ep 2. And that’s just bad for making money.
How long did X Files or Bones play will they - won’t they? That’s why people tune in. Therefore, the romance has to come slowly. And, in case of Sherlock, something else came into play imo: Why just keep the slow burn to the gay? Why not insert a few female ‘love intersts’ as well, and give them all just enough legibility that it just might happen? That’ll keep much more fans on edge, wanting more, than just viewers shipping johnlock or not caring who fucked whom anyway. So, we got marreid to my work (classic asexual interpretation), and Molly in S1 and Irene in S2. They were there to tease, to broaden the possible fanbase - because they didn’t know at the beginning how big this show would become.
Another love interest was, imo, Moriarty. I think the plan was for a thing between Sherlock and Moriarty. Look at their text in the pool scene for example! Just the text, not the acting. I think they were somehow supposed to be the main gay ship of the show. Only, as it happened, they shared about 10 minutes of sceentime together, whereas Ben and Martin had so much more - time and chemistry.
So, suddenly, there was also the possiblity of johnlock growing stronger. Only, I think the writers truly underestimated the power of this ship. Sheriarty would have been the dark mirror to Sherlock’s arc from great man to good. It would have fueled some fantasies, but, as it would have been an inherently ‘bad’ thing, bringing out Sherlock’s sociopathic tendencies, it wasn’t meant to be if the show should have ended happily. But I truly think that much of the homoeroticism that Gatiss said he’d toyed with was more directed towards this pairing - Sherlock as gay (he says so at Angelo’s while turning John down) and Moriarty as well (Sherlock deduces it while Jim said he just acted, so yeah, a little ambiguity was needed to keep the female ships sailing as well).
But because of the leds chemistry, in S2, they fused some more johnlock into the show as well. Their two leads were going through the roof, as was the whole show - and remember, Moffat said they had no plan past S1. For anything. Not even for Moriarty burning the heart out of Sherlock. They weren’t even sure if the show would be renewed! There was no hidden masterplan for a gay Holmes coming out married to John. They continued to play with it, to tease, but tuned up other ships as well by introducing Irene. They gave every fandom just enough to keep them hooked. It’s called marketing. Not art. Not representation. All this might come in, but at the core is always money - even with the best intentions.
And they were all very successful with it. The show was a massive hit. The leads became A-list stars. They weren’t that much available any more. Now, actors usually don’t have a say in scripts. They just act. They don’t write. Are they to ‘blame’ for what happened, all the tension that went nowhere in the end? But as there was never a plan for more than one season, and the scripts came late, they might as well have gone with what they thought were the show was heading... But remember all the constricting statements here as well, of Ben saying Sherlock shagged Irene etc. while Martin said the show was the gayest on television and a love story. They didn’t know, they were just in it! They just did the best they could to keep everything open. We don’t know how much the actors and actresses knew, how much the directors knew. But the secrecy increasedaas the show progressed. Or was it just lack of a plan, disguised as something clever? It was so hyped that it had to disappoint sometime.
And with S3, the big separation occoured. Mary was introduced in some illfated attempt at feminism. Perhaps the gay had been too much and it would have been obvious that Sherlock and John would shag like in the pilot!verse after Sherlock’s return without a hetero love interest for John? Or just another ship was perceived as needed, to keep the tension? When Sherlock had Molly and Irene, John could get something more permanent than his girlfriends? Remember, the money, they wanted to sell this show to as many people as possible.
Mary opened up the possibillity of Warstan as well as keep John and Sherlock separated - which was needed for the slow burn to continue. And she was another lead, if the male stars weren’t readily available, to fill up the story (or convention panels). Look how much time she had in S4! But that was a huge mistake. People didn’t take to her - even casual fans - because Mary just doesn’t belong in the Sherlock/Watson universe.
You know, another misconception I see in some discussions is that many fans seem to think creators don’t make mistakes. But people do, all the time. The writers just miscalculated. And please, keep in mind, we johnlock shipper are but a tiny, tiny percentage of the fans! We alone won’t keep this show afloat. But we were strung along as every other ship on the show.
I think the emergences of tjlc after S3 was just some form of selfdefence. Fans were unable to accept that johnlock wouldn’t become explicit, but might stay a ship like any other. It was wishfull thinking, and a sign of the dismissial and failiure of the mary Watson character. Fans had been fed so much gay innuendo by now, they didn’t want to believe that the writers wouldn’t just go through with it.
The style of the show added to the possibility of such a reading, beautifully shot scenes that fall apart when you analyse them too deeply, but are perfect for giffing them in tiny bits. This was actively encouraged by the editing, the writing and acting. For example, the greenhouse scene in TAB starts with a conversation about Irene, as does the hug scene - but I always see just Sherlock glancig at John on my dash in johnlock context. Or hugging John, without the Irene bits or Mary. That is perfectly fine with shipping - but it creates a false reality if taken at face value. It creates the overwhelming impression that it HAD to be johnlock (I don’t know if other ships do the same?). But that is how the fans interpret stuff (content designed to allow for this reading, but also for others).
The creators, on the other hand, got shown raunchy art and porn stories. But they have no context for it either They don’t have time to read the brilliant prose, to admire the excellent paintings, or even read some of the in depth analyses. It’s not that they don’t want to (I think) - it’s just two different spheres. And, btw, if fans send death threas to actresses or stalk the actors or claim their marriage is a sham etc - I wouldn’t interact with people like that as well. Of course, this is not the majority, but these are the instances that stick out and are remembered. On the other hand, creators/actor/actresses need the fans, we create the hype, we buy the stuff, we make them. So, it become some kind of hated co-dependecy - you depend on people that you kind of despise or not understand.
The role of Sherlock Holmes is especially dangerous to fall pray to this over-enthusiasm. He’s an icon. Because deep down, many people perceive him as a real person, not as a ficitonal character. And therefore people ask how Holmes would function in their world. Rathbone had to setp away from it. Brett struggled. Yet audiences project on them and throw their hopes and fantasies at them. And sometimes that just runs riot.
And the series happend too far apart. People just lost interest (see the dropping of the vieweing figures, nearly halfed from S3 to S4). TV is a fast art form. New trends emerge every day. BBC Sherlock, for its first two seasons, was at the peak. It was some of the best television of its time. But the writers thought what was needed was MORE, BIGGER, LOUDER, to keep the audience interested - only, that doesn’t seem to have worked. It didn’t get them the audience back. Sherlock shrunk from a PHENOMENON to just a TV show. As I said, people make mistakes - and audience tastes change and differ.
Coming back to johnlock, that reading is as old as Holmes stories. It was mostly underground, of course, as long as homosexuality was illegal, and is therefore not well documented, but it was there from the beginning. And I’d say that every adaption over the last 40 years had strong homoerotic undertones. Yet, they all got stuck at the desperately unspoken. Because, in the end, Holmes stays an enigma. That has proven bigger than the need to extrapolate his sexuality. And if it’s just kept as subtext, anyone can take away from the adaption what they like. Only, BBC Sherlock went over the top and made it text - without seeing it through by delivering the consequence. That’s why it feels so shallow now.
Perhaps that’s were BBC Sherlock failed the most spectacular. They wanted to explain Holmes, who he was, how he became himself. Therefore, they also had to address his sexuality in a contemporary adaption. But, with all the ships introduced, that became increasingly difficult. Other adaptions, who didn’t want to explain Holmes, could get away with the desperately unspoken (or with thrilling cases, or the 100th Irene Adler story). But the BBC version had so strongly invested in the characters and their relationships that there had to come something off it in the end. Which happened in S4 with Warstan and platonic parentlock.I don’t like it, but that’s what happened. Everything else is interpretation - but the facts are Warstan and parentlock without sex. Because that’s what we are shown.
But the problem is - so many other interpretations are justifiable from the text we got - Adlock, Sheriarty, Sherlolly and Johnlock. Shit! There were just too many possibilities due to inconstistent writing, lack of plan and the tendendcy to keep all parts of the audience hooked. They wanted to make money and sell it all over the world. Plus, Moffat has the tendency for not following through. This created a very muddled narrative, that was made up as they went along with it, and culminated in big disappointment because it was simply impossible to deliver on every hint made over the whole show.
And fandom had it’s share in it. After S1 aired, people openly addressed the homoeroticism and asked about it. And Mofftiss answered, telling openly that they toyed with it, but that it would never happen. I’ve never seen a statement that said: We will do Johnlock! But I have seen some that said: We like to explore the possibility but won’t go through with it. Those are the facts - even if I don’t like them. They hinted, but when asked openly, they denied. But I didn’t believe them. Which was my decision. And maybe I could make an rgument and say: But look at your show! Yet, they never explicitly promised Johnlock. That was my reading. I refused to believe that people would write a gay show but not see it through. I was wrong, apparently, as people are idiots.
And this is where the conspiracy became dangerous. To be fair, Mofftiss had been pretty straightforward. They didn’t lie about it. We just hoped they did. Because they were so secretive regarding plot twists - but they never lied on a grant scale.
I see S3 onwards as Mofftiss becoming sick of denying. Show, don’t tell. They gave us Mary, but some/me ignored her (because I think she was boring and badly written). And, as it was suddenly a secret conspiracy, johnlock shouldn’t be mentioned anymore. Fans stopped openly asking about it after S3. Why? Is it something raunchy, something bad, something ridiculos to be ashamed of? No. But fandom, and some BNF’s, unwillingly perpetuated this notion by telling other fans not to ask about johnlock as it had to stay a secret. Again, why?
Where is the problem with a gay Shelrock Holmes in 2009, 2010 or 12017 in a Western country? Sure,it would have caused some outcry, but that’s also publicity. The actors are too famous to be touched by it. The creators write gay characters into their other shows. If they wanted to, it would have been possible with Sherlock as well. But they didn’t want it. And they said so - while still delivering their gay jokes! That was a mistake - but see above, people make mistakes, and they had lost the touch with parts of the fandom, and perhaps weren’t aware of how advanced (in a good, progressive way) our discussons had become.
And they did win awards up to TAB. Everything went in their favour. Why change anything? They thought, maybe, they were infallibe? And they do many other projects than just Sherlock. No one involved focuses on it 24/7 like we do.
But I don’t think there’s still need fo a big conspiracy theory, or that someone forced their hands. We had enough of this. Johnlock, sadly, was never intended on BBC Sherlock. They queerbaited the hell out of the show (like they teased other groups with Sherlolly or Adlock, or Warstan even, which were left hanging just like us) - that was wrong. And they turned around too late. I don’t sense much johnlock in S4. I hoped for it - but I can only see it when I squint and ignore portions of the text. Which is ok to do so for a ship. But, sadly, I still have to rely on a few seconds footage of a hand touching a nape! I mean, it’s 2017! I saw a rimming on prime time television in 1999 in Queer as Folk. I just don’t want to be fed these little bits anymore. That’s what makes me so angry. At myself as much as at Mofftiss.
It would have been time. It would have been possible. They didn’t do it. They wanted some strange feminist version, not a gay version. Just because Gatiss is gay, that doesn’t mean he has to make everything gay (I think that’s incredibly sexist, btw). But he could have.
In the end, their version wasn’t just as contemporary as some of their viewers.
It’s sad what happened. Some things make me still really angry. But this adaption is over. I’m still struggling to love parts. I’m still writing ficiton - because I love Sherlock Holmes and John Watson. I always have. I’ve been shipping johnlock for over 30 years. I can continue. I only hoped for a while I didn’t have to just ship it.
As long as we as fans continue to spin conspiracy theories, there will be no honest exchange with the creators (if such a thing is even possible with fandom and writers). The illusion created by twitter etc, that there is a contact between fans and creators, an understanding, is just that. An illusion. They don’t know us - we don’t know them. I doubt an exchange of ideas is even possible.
Yet, fan attitudes change - not so much as creator attitudes. They still guard their creations, while fans want to engage with and transform the characters. That’s the only resolution. BBC Sherlock will not change. It has aired. Perhaps there will be S5, or specials. But it will stay as it is, ambiguous. And even if not - after this S4, I won’t believe in johnlock, even if I saw it. It would be by the grace of Holy Mary, after John did beat Sherlock up and Sherlock sacrificed everything for him. I have to say, as the dynamics on the show played out, I don’t care much for the last instalment of this adaption any more. I try to ignore it. Or do my own. On good days, it works.
@monikakrasnorada because I saw you in the post that triggered this looong outpouring.
38 notes
·
View notes
Text
Ok now guys sit down and read
... if you think you can handle it. This post is about Kihyun, Monsta X and kpop culture in general, and it’s going to be a long ass post. I’m going to write it partially to sort out my own thoughts so pardon me if it’s messy or way too long for your convenience. Pardon my English too, I’m not native. But I made an entire new sideblog for this particular post and possible conversations that follow because I felt my own blog wouldn’t be the right place for that. I’ve known Monsta X since their debut because I have been here from the very beginning of hallyu but I wasn’t their fan until two months ago... and now I feel like I’m ready to make a comment about them, or technically about their fans.
This post talks about Kihyun and Monsta X but it could also be addressed to ANY kpop idol and fandom ever so feel free to replace the names with the ones you find relevant to your own interests.
tl;dr: Kihyun is not going to stop losing weight because of the very nature of kpop industry, and we are partially to blame.
Kihyun has apparently been losing weight a lot recently and his fans are worried about it. Rightly so, because his weight does seem to trouble him, given the fact that he was supposedly overweight a long time ago. That for sure makes him anxious for staying fit, since he’s grown up in Korean culture, where they’re downright paranoid about your weight. The unhealthy obsession Korean culture has for skinny people is sickening to watch. After living there and befriending several Koreans I can pretty safely say this. After doing academic research about kpop culture and kpop idols as ambassadors of Korean soft power/culture and acting as the very face of South Korea, I know that kpop is a manufactured, unoriginal marketing tactic where big businesses compete against each other, good-looking bodies sell and nothing else matters. And this brings me to my point.
The thing is: when we mention our concern for Kihyun’s weight, we’re being 100% hypocrites. We’re being lame ass people trying to find balance between social justice activism and the fact that Korean marketing system AND the actual government exploits, objectifies and sexualizes idols in order to raise sales. And the truth is that you can’t find a satisfying balance. If you call yourself a feminist, SJW or whatever else activist you can think of, you can’t possibly defend kpop culture. You can’t wish Kihyun to gain more weight and still hope Monsta X continues to promote their activities the way they have done so far.
Yeah you heard it.
I’m a fan too. It’s a psychological fact that beautiful, hard-working people make a lasting impression. And kpop is a specifically delicious treat since it doesn’t only bring you cute and childish women (as in: easily controllable and innocent), it also brings you cute and childish men to look at. Aesthetically pleasing, boyish and androgynous men who loyally work for the government/country are deeply rooted in Korean history, since Korea has always linked beauty and intelligence to each other, and they have never appreciated hypermasculine soldiers quite like the way they appreciated smart and fashionable noblemen. So yes, they have a long history of creating obedient and stunningly beautiful male entertainers (dancers, clowns, hwarang etc.) - and they’re good at it. It works. It works so well it pleases both sexes in the audience, and that’s how it has always been. They have also had kisaengs, beautiful female entertainers, and these two groups have never been mixed together, so that’s how they are nowadays, too. Boy groups and girl groups are separate, and that increases our loyalty to them, since it creates an illusion where it seems like they are only interested in us fans. Or then they play with the idea of homoeroticism, which makes us believe they wouldn’t “betray” us and start having relationship affairs with someone outside of the group.
Without kpop I wouldn’t know much about Korea. I wouldn’t have travelled there, I wouldn’t have lived there, I wouldn’t have started my Korean studies. I wouldn’t have Korean friends. Right now kpop interests me for mostly academic purposes, but I can sincerely admit Korea wouldn’t be my second home country if it wasn’t for kpop. It has had a great impact on me, and I for sure know it has the same effect on everybody else too. I like kpop music and I admire kpop idols and their efforts freaking much and I think they’re one of the most hard-working people on Earth. Yet I still think that kpop stands for almost all the things that are fucked up in Korean culture, and I’m ready to admit kpop is problematic as hell and we would be better without it.
Back to Kihyun (I’m making this so much bigger than I thought, oh my). Don’t you dare say Kihyun should not lose weight when you all are simultaneously supporting and promoting a culture where all of this is absolutely NECESSARY. Kihyun is not losing his weight because he’s being uninformed about it being detrimental to his health, he does it because he knows EXACTLY what he’s doing. And considering all the messages we and the rest of Korea are giving him, he thinks he’s also doing the right thing. And no matter how much we try to say “don’t starve yourself”, he’s going to take it as a compliment.
Let’s face the facts. Kihyun’s been in the Starship Ent. for ages. He was a trainee for like 5-7 years before debuting so for a big part of his life, striving to be an idol is the only thing he knew and cared about. He wouldn’t be an idol now if he had any other, more important plans. Not with all the work, pain and effort he had to go through, similarly to any other idol ever. He’s apparently been overweight before and he seriously explained that he passed out for being so heavy, which doesn’t make any sense but explains the medical hysteria and fatphobia Koreans have (and please don’t say “not all Koreans”. I know that. I also know it’s part of a bigger phenomenon where almost all cultures are involved. But I think this problem with all the consequences it currently has all around the world with people wanting to look like kpop idols is so important it forces me to make generalizations). Kihyun also knows the impact of the hallyu wave. Kihyun knows his face and actions are being observed in every country of the entire world. He knows he represents Korea as the government wants it to be represented: elegant, fashionable, sexy, fresh, young, rich, healthy AND skinny. He knows that he’s good-looking, and he’s proud of that. He knows that other than his singing voice, his visual appeal is the only thing that will ever matter to people. He knows he exists just because of us fans, and the messages (intentional or unintentional) we give to him are the guidelines he follows.
We give loud applauds to the most visually stunning performances. We scream the hardest when Wonho opens his shirt in front of us. We praise them for being so beautiful, for having muscular or skinny legs, for being tall, for having smooth skin, for having white teeth, for having sexy abs. We love their music, but we love their visually appealing music videos even more. We love their “meaningful” lyrics, but even more we love their smooth voice, their Korean that most of us don’t even understand. We call Kihyun beautiful and handsome, and the things in him that can’t be praised as something conventionally attractive, we call “cute” or “funny”, just to show him we support him no matter what, but which actually even further reinforces the idea that some parts of him are flawed.
He faces the same problems all of us women face in our daily lives multiplied, because he’s a celebrity and he’s a product of this Korean culture where men also face similar objectification. He comes from a culture where man has to have not only a good skin and muscular body, but also be tall, have a low voice, act tough (yet romantic and sweet towards women), speak clearly, have multiple talents, be hard-working and popular. Kihyun is witty and he’s smart, yet he has to face the fact that Shownu will always be considered much more masculine and sexier than him. He wears insoles because he doesn’t want to be called tiny and small. He makes jokes about his and Wonhos’ lisps because he wants to get ahead of us before he has to hear us pointing out how “cute” it sounds. He loses weight because he wants to look even better, sharper, sexier. And no matter what we tell him, he knows that the skinnier he is, the more satisfied fans he has. He knows that the only way to be successful is either be muscular or skinny, and since he has both types living and breathing right next to him, he strives for the type that seems easier for him. He DOES see how I.M is being treated, even if they’re almost exactly the same height - out of them two, Kihyun gets called “cute” and “tiny” and “sweet” much more often than I.M. I.M’s legs are “legs goals”, I.M’s voice is so “sexy”, I.M is “hot”. How often have you seen someone compliment Kihyun for something OTHER than his face or singing voice? Wonho’s legs are dripping sex, apparently, but nobody ever even mentions that Kihyun has legs. Shownu has strong and beautiful arms, but Kihyun has chubby and tiny hands.
So what else do you think he’s going to do than lose weight?
If he has to be tiny, if he’s receiving so-called compliments on being such a small guy, he’s going to be the fucking most awesome small guy in the whole world. If he can’t be masculine like Shownu, Wonho or Jooheon, he’s going to turn himself into the sexiest, skinniest prince there is. If he has to have a lisp, he’s going to blame Wonho for having the same problem and turn the attention away from him. He’s selling us a representation of an ideal Korean guy, and he’s most likely not only told to do that, but also willingly and very much intentionally doing it. If he has succeeded to make a career out of pure hard work and determination, why wouldn’t he have a similar determination to shape his body as perfect as possible? He’s done it before, he’s doing it TOGETHER with all the other idols and he sees no wrong in doing it.
They all lose weight right before upcoming photoshoots, albums and comebacks. They all run from surgeries to beauty clinics to gyms to cosmetologists, just to look beyond perfect, just to serve us fans, just to reach for this unreachable ideal they see when they look at their own music videos and edited photoshoot pictures. They do hard work to set us a new standard of a perfect human being, just so that we would buy their products and everything that has their face on it: smart phones, beauty products, perfumes, moisturizers, razors, games, cars, anything.
They go to hundreds of different shows: cooking shows, sport shows, variety shows, culture shows, singing/dancing shows, competitions, charity programs and self-made reality shows just for us to see their faces nonstop. They give up all their freedom for us to follow them all night and day, and they know they’re going to get scolded if they don’t look good while doing it. And they have internalized it, they have learned to hide their faces behind masks because they genuinely think their bare faces look, if not downright awful, at least unprofessional. And considering how work-oriented and hierarchical Korean culture is, they will never really come out of this cycle - they will never question it at all. We are their main source of income, and if their managers and bosses think something pleases us, they're bombarding us with that until to the point we get bored.
So saying that we support Kihyun no matter what is a lie. Saying that we support Monsta X members for being lovely, nice people is a lie. We don’t know who they are in real life, we don’t even want to know. Instead we create a stereotyped illustration of each Monsta X member and think of that image as the truth, even when their real personalities resurface and contradicts it. Even when their personalities show complexion, change and variation, we rather stick to the image we created. That’s how it is, because that’s how the Korean marketing system wants it to be. Kpop is not about real people, it’s about hundreds of people working together (beyond company borders) to create us a vivid, flashy representation of a perfect Korean. And they’re making it into a huge (fake) competition, because competitions make more money, more fans and more excitement.
Kpop creates anxiety, anorexia, suicides, perfectionism, unrealistic beauty standards, harmful surgeries, unhealthy competition, unhealthy working conditions and imagery of what it means to be a “real” woman or man, but it is not going to stop, because we’re not doing anything to stop it. We’re addicted, we like it too much. Stopping to support kpop is just not a realistic option, because there are millions of us, and we are easily attracted to ideas like these. So what must be done instead?
Telling Kihyun to stop losing weight is a good start, but many other things must follow that statement. Giving Kihyun narrow, almost fanfic-like features and repeating them over and over again as the only meaningful discourse is also harmful, for reasons we might not even realize at first. Look at these four features for example:
1) I haven’t seen anything very mother-like in Kihyun’s personality ever, but if people insist on making him the “mom” of the group, you must remember that you’re simultaneously reinforcing the idea that some actions he does should be considered feminine, and thus they must be pointed out. Because he cooks and cleans and nags, that makes him a mom? Why can’t a dad do that? Or a brother? Shownu is apparently a dad because of his caring, but distant personality, and Shownu and Kihyun are shipped together just because of this tempting opposition. Perfect: small, soft and feminine Kihyun; big, tough and masculine Shownu. I also do ship people together, even though I can admit it’s often getting slightly problematic for various of reasons, but I could never ship Showki for this exact reason. Why should we emphasize these roles so much? Why must fans think of even the tiniest interaction between them two as a sign of this forced mom-dad setting? Monsta X members also joke about it occasionally, but they know each other in real life, so they can also see each other in different circumstances. Also they're trying to please us and make it easier for us to recognize them as new fans. Why do we think we get to define them both like that and thus force Kihyun to think there’s something inherently feminine (read: wrong or fetishized) in his actions and body? He's grown up in a culture that's very conservative and works for an industry that highlights the idea where masculinity and femininity are very much separate entities. He's told how a ”real” man acts and behaves every day, so I don't think he's taking the mother role as a compliment. No, much more likely it just makes him want to change himself.
2) Kihyun gets called short and tiny all the time, even though he's technically not. If he doesn't lie to us badly, he's 175 cm tall which is 2 cm taller than the average height of Koreans. He's not shorter than I.M, but they don't get the equal amount of comments about their heights. He doesn't have smaller hands than I.M, either. He wears insoles because Korean men in general are very self-conscious about their height, so it's not a neutral thing to him, even if it should be. Just because he's slightly shorter than the rest of the Monsta X members doesn't make him short, but even if it did, if we want to make things right, we are supposed to give more space for idols with different body types, not emasculate and fetishize those that are smaller. That's what calling him ”cute” in an environment where we all clearly prefer tallness over shortness sounds like.
3) Kihyun's (or Wonho's) lisp is not cute or funny. It's just a lisp. It shouldn't have connotations, it shouldn't even be noticed at all, if we were able to face it neutrally. To me it sounds beautiful, but since Monsta X members are joking about it so much, I must think they're not being comfortable with it. That might be because it's also linked to femininity, gayness and childishness. We as fans have a crucial role when we give comments about it, because it's further making him believe that it's something absolutely remarkable about him, even though that's not true. I've seen fans comment that they laugh everytime they hear Kihyun's lisp, and even if that is meant in a positive way, I don't think that's the message Kihyun gets. Laughing and cooing at his attempts to act sexy or professional or him just being himself... it can be a good humor, but it can also belittle him, especially when we are not his real friends.
4) Mentioning Kihyun's puffy, chubby and hamster-like cheeks/body/hands and saying you miss them is probably not going to make Kihyun gain more weight. It's not helping him at all. I know, having cute and soft features should be a compliment to a guy, too. I'm sure there are men who are empowered and happy to be able to identify themselves as something like that. However, it doesn’t look like Kihyun is one of those people. Even though he sometimes enjoy acting cute, more often he does not. Deduced by him refusing to do certain ”stupid” things, trying to act cool or making cringey faces often, he's the most easily embarrassed person in the group, and I think that's also giving hints of him having a certain type of masculine identity, where he doesn't like showing affection, acting silly, doing aegyo or being soft in general. We might want to encourage him to act differently, but that's his reality and possible coping mechanisms, and we don't know his background story. He's probably losing weight to look more masculine. Less cute and puffy. And since the other members just recently (in a live performance) checked his abs and deemed them not worth showing to the audience, he's still working on it. He's most likely trying to lose even more weight, since he's not actually that skinny yet.
So. In order to make it a little bit better, we should acknowledge the fact that he's a real person, not just a bunch of attractive and less-attractive body parts he should work on (by gaining or losing weight). We should treat him like we don't know him, because we actually don't. We should respect him as a person who's gone through a lot of shit, because that's most likely true. We should be thanking him for all the effort he sees everyday to make us poor souls feel ”aesthetically pleased”. We shouldn't assume we can define the relationships between him and the other members. We should make him less like a fanfic character (unless we're making one of course) with black-and-white personality, and more like a person with a complex mind. We shouldn't be doing those memeboards with three-point-lists about Monsta X personalities for new fans. We should recognize and cherish the moments where Kihyun (or the other members) act in a way that doesn't fit into our narrative. That includes the moments where Wonho doesn't actually want to act sexy or show his body, or even talk at all. He's being quiet and reluctant in shows surprisingly often, yet some of his fans think of him as over-confident person who wants to share his body with his fans at all times.
And most importantly we should acknowledge that as long as we keep supporting kpop, we can't really support the idols as they are. We must accept the fact that these two things contradict each other. We can't say we're worried for their health if we simultaneously happily pay them money to help them continue living their lives like that. Kpop is beautiful, inspiring and funny, but kpop is also an utter pile of shitcrap that hurts people, and we must admit that. Kihyun losing weight is an essential part of kpop, the very core of it, and we must be able to recognize we are part of the problem, too.
#kihyun#monsta x#wonho#jooheon#changkyun#hyungwon#minhyuk#shownu#i.m#kpop#long ass post for REAL#nobody is going to read it ok but it made me feel better writing it#lol a therapy session
14 notes
·
View notes
Text
“Work # 978: Chronicle of a Life Retold”
1
In my opinion, the late 1970s was the last gasp of true artistic freedom. I initially got involved with the precursor to the CEAC (Centre for Experimental Art and Communication), the Kensington Arts Association right after school in ’75, because there was an involvement with the gay liberation movement and they seemed to be doing interesting things other than simply just slapping paintings on a wall. As an art student I was very interested in conceptual art and the KAA was very much on the same wavelength with me, so it seemed a natural fit. It’s hard to imagine today, but by comparison there was very little activity in the art world at the time. Discounting the commercial secondary market places in and around Yorkville, there was only the Isaac’s and Lamanna galleries, at Yonge and Bloor, that were presenting current work; and the alternative artist-run places were only beginning to pop up – KAA and A Space opened in the very early ‘70s, Art Metropole around 1975, and all the others were later.
In 1970 a loose grouping of people (read commune) living in a vernacular Toronto house at 4 Kensington Avenue (just north of Dundas) in the Kensington market neighbourhood formed what would become by 1973 the Body Politic newspaper and the Glad Day bookstore, which would have been at the beginning of the second wave of the gay liberation movement in Toronto. I was still a starry-eyed art student so this was a little before my time, but gay issues were central to my art practice from that time onward.
The work I was doing at the time was certainly encouraged by KAA and in truth there were limited venues at the time that would have welcomes unabashedly gay-themed work. General Idea was dancing around the edges and being euphemistic about it for commercial careerist reasons, but they grew increasingly conservative and opportunistic as time went on. While its nostalgic today to talk about ‘liberation’ against a backdrop that positions any gay person as being as controversial as being a blond, at that time in the early to mid ‘70s there was a current of activity among groups and individuals who were like the grandchildren of Warhol working parallel to conceptual artists – the Cockettes, John Waters, Gilbert and George, Charles Ludlam, Jack Smith (and me). We were Warhol plus gay liberation. Even as late as the mid-70s society was very harsh in dealing with gay people – lack of job protection, the relationship with the police was fraught, but more interestingly, the art world was notoriously homophobic (I’d venture to say it still is) – so for anyone to make gay issues a central part of their art practice was quite radical at the time. I remember being asked by our Canada Council officer, Brenda Wallace, “why was so much hostility between A Space and the CEAC – is it because their gay?” How could I possibly answer that without laughing in her face?
The issues today are different, and in a way more challenging, because with tolerance comes blandness . . . (Being tolerated is, in essence, merely being allowed to exist, akin to the Irish novelist/playwright Sebastian Barry claim that “people talk about tolerance, but it’s not really about tolerance. It should also be about emulation and reverence and learning from.”)
My involvement with KAA was gradually increasing over the course of 1976 and at the time I was making a series of theoretical drawings for proposed environmental installations involving bodily fluid such as shit walls, cum floors . . . The only one actually realized was a room-sized floor-installation of cum – “Work # 059: Semen Floor” (1976) at the same time I participated in a KAA project in cooperation with Ryerson University to produce a series of multi-camera broadcast quality videotapes with the goal of having artist-made videos shown on television. My project was intended to be an S/M fashion show but the camera crew stormed out in protest at the appearance on camera of a man naked except for boots, leather vest and chaps. The screen shot here is from the couple of minutes that was taped.
It was at the new John Street location that I became much more directly involved, and that space was needed because the programming required it the Kensington location was merely the narrow ground floor of a not very large house; 86 John Street by comparison was two floors of quasi-industrial space that could easily accommodate large events and elaborate programming. It was here that the CEAC name began to appear alongside KAA. I’m unsure when the move actually happened but I surmise that it was in late ’75 because in January 1976 an exhibition of Body Art opened and in April, following my fiasco at Ryerson, I curated a performance art festival, “Work # 042: Bound, Bent, and Determined (a Look at Sado-Masochism)” with works about S/M by Andy Fabo, Wendy Knox-Leet Paul Dempsey, and Ron Gillespie (now Giii). It’s the only time in living memory I’d seen an audience of Leathermen in full regalia (outside of the Opera). This was also the beginning of our international exchanges and performance art tours. In total, there were three European tours with multiple stops at venues from Aalst to Zagreb; one-offs throughout southern Ontario and the northeastern United States; international conferences; and representation at Documenta. The John Street location only operated until September 1976 when the 15 Duncan Street flagship location opened and the CEAC was officially born. This was a ground-breaking event in the history of Canadian art – it was the first time in history that an artist-run centre (and queer-Marxist-dominated one at that) in Canada purchased a permanent home thanks to a $55,000 grant from Wintario. The four story building, located at the north east corner of Duncan and Pearl streets, was a substantial one indeed and CEAC occupied the top and bottom floors with the middle occupied by pre-existing tenants, one of which was the Ontario Liberal Party. Aside from museum spaces, the main performance area on the top floor was easily the largest gallery in the city, and the basement level was similarly large and open, and would eventually become the homes of the Crash ‘n Burn, Toronto’s first permanent punk rock venue, followed by the Funnel, Toronto’s first permanent venue for experimental film.
It was at this time that I was hired as assistant programming director and a few months later, in the late spring of 1977 participated in the second performance art tour of Europe with work presented in Amsterdam, Aalst, Warsaw, Lublin, Bologna, and Ferrara and participation in conferences in Warsaw and Paris. This was followed by an invited to participate in the Free International University’s Violence and Behaviour workshop at Documenta 6 in Kassel, Germany.
During every iteration of Documenta, a survey of the best in cutting-edge art that happens roughly every five years in eastern Germany, Joseph Beuys would install himself for one hundred days in the Fridericianum, a lavish 18th century palace and one of the oldest museums in Europe, and become Headmaster of Free International University. Its program at Documenta VI dealt with a range of contemporary social themes and issues where radical and creative new thinking was needed to overcome existing problems, including human rights, urban decay, nuclear energy, refugees, the Third World, violence, manipulation by mass communications media, and labour issues. These topics were discussed in an interdisciplinary way by a changing stream of international politicians, lawyers, economists, trade unionists, journalists, community workers, sociologists, actors, musicians, and artists. The participants invited to participate in the “Violence and Behaviour” workshop included a contingent from Toronto’s CEAC, a group from South Africa, the British behavioural performance team Reindeer Werk, and a contingent of the Polish contextualists. While Beuys maintained a commanding presence in the museum for the entire run of the exhibition, the “Violence and Behaviour Workshop” was only a small part of his programme and lasted at most a week to ten days. “Work # 971-(02): Dossier # 02 (Violence and Behaviour Work-shop, Documenta VI)” (2016) is a trio of archival documents from those workshops. I am next to Beuys at the far left, videotaping the proceedings. While unrecorded, my lecture on homoeroticism and the simulacra of violence in punk and leather/S&M, while widely praised afterwards, aroused much hostility from the audience in attendance. At the after party when the workshop had finished Beuys launched into a series of demeaning and contemptuous impersonations of his invited guests and ended his thanks by sticking his tongue down my throat. I’m probably one of a dwindling number of men that had been aggressively kissed by an actual card-carrying Nazi (As far as I know he’d never shown any contrition for his wartime exploits). Beuys thought of us as his students; we came to think of ourselves as props. He was a HORRIBLE man, and when he died in 1986 I didn’t shed a tear (crocodile or otherwise).
“Work # 954: Then and Now (Parkside Story)” (2016) brings together two works created thirty-eight years apart which, when united in marriage, question some of our most basic assumptions. The first work, written not long before being sexual assaulted by Joseph Beuys, consists of a grumpy and waspish account of two evenings on the town at the legendary Parkside tavern in 1977 – on its own not of insignificant historical interest – but combined with the second more politically provocative work from 2016 the paradox of present realities in conflict with nostalgic longing comes to the fore. The intent of embedding the incendiary position that “things were better when everyone hated us” on top of a murky and confrontational image is not to malign the magnificence that a certain degree of normality has been allowed to envelop our lives, it is about mourning some of the things we’ve sacrificed in achieving our state of grace. This shift back and forth in time illustrates that, in Luc Sante’s words “utopias last five minutes, to the extent that they happen at all. There will never be a time when the wish for security does not lead to unconditional surrender.” We have allowed, welcomed even, the wholesale corporate sponsorship of our existence – the benevolence of which doesn’t lead to more freedom and creativity, it leads to less. I remember hearing stories, after the gay liberation movement went mainstream in the late 1970s, of single straight men becoming fretful (the poor delicate things) of lunching alone with other men because of, shall we say, appearances. Such was our power to terrify.
The text reads:
“January 14, 1977. Arrived at the Parkside at about 10:00 p.m.; sat down and scanned the room. Not yet full to capacity but quite crowded nonetheless. “The Look” is as it always has been – that of a pseudo-working class dress: flannel shirts, denim; some leather, but not much tonight. Generally everyone takes care of their bodies, physical fitness abounds. I seem oddly out of place – the clothes are right but the body is all wrong. I’m really a wreck tonight, more so than usual. Soon we are invaded by two groups. The first being a pair who’s fantasies lie in the Vogue/Gentleman’s Quarterly life-style; one tells me with relish that they’re going to New York in March and asked if I’d ever been. I said regularly, he said, no seriously . . . I said, regularly. We devised a plan to get them to leave saying we will meet them later at another bar. Lies of course; it worked. The second group was of four fitting the stereotype of the room. They too seemed devoid of intellect. We changed tables to sit with two friends and a third who was a diminutive version of Karl Beveredge; I told him so but, of course, he didn’t know what I was talking about. Conversation was very pleasant. These two have finely-tuned sensibilities; certainly a rarity. Around closing-time we all decided to go dancing. I went only as a treat to myself because I worked hard all week and was pleased with my progress.
“The situation there was similar – many of the same people, same general look. The atmosphere in the Parkside is very casual; no obvious sexual searching exists. The disco was the opposite – people standing, wandering around; waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting. Maybe the next one will be . . . waiting, waiting. As always I seem to arouse no interest, for I’ve never really fit into the stereotype. I began fantasizing them all masturbating into mirrors. This situation inhibits me to the point of being afraid to ask anyone to dance. A rejection tonight would be heart-breaking.
“I left; 4:00 a.m., went home.
“February 12, 1977. Got to the Parkside about 9:30 to meet David there but he didn’t show up until 10:15. The crowd was the same as usual; didn’t know a soul. Everyone dressed alike. Everyone very butch but I could only pick out one person that didn’t have his lumberjack shirt ironed. I wore black police boots, green work pants (dirty) black t-shirt inside out with the right armpit torn, hair all over, the beginnings of a Hitler moustache. A much raunchier version of the rest of the room; the Xerox machine was broken, I guess. David arrived, we had couple. Changed tables for a more central location because our view of the landscape was blocked by pillars. Had a couple more, discussed Robert Handforth’s looks, too bad he’s the enemy. Went down the road for a couple after much debate but David wouldn’t be served. So we went back. Sat with a friend of David’s I remember him from the march but can’t recall his name. Went to another table, I can’t remember why; had a couple more. Conversation was about commercial films. Ended up God-knows-where in the East end. David getting the attention of two while I sat like a lump. All went back downtown for a burger at Fran’s – typical service. Got a ride home at about 4:30. Ron was up, had some tea and went to bed.”
I stumbled upon this text entirely by accident. After a health scare forced me to get my affairs in order I began researching my own career at the Clara Thomas Archives and Special Collections at York University, which houses the CEAC archive. When I found this long forgotten hand-written document my brain screamed “what the fuck . . . !” Having never been a diarist, what I find perplexing is why did I begin with this account of a couple of nights on the town, and why did I stop after only two entries? Had I been disciplined enough to continue one can only imagine the shock and horror that would have been provoked by firsthand accounts of the crises our community faced with the AIDS epidemic and beyond.
To say that the Parkside Tavern was ugly would be an understatement. Attracting the leather/levis cohort of the community and located at 530 Yonge Street, this exclusively male enclave in the back room of the tavern was a brightly lit and minimally furnished dive. It was a room that style forgot. The Parkside had all the charm of a backwoods Legion Hall. But this would be an insult to every Legion Hall in the country.
It was absolutely my favourite place.
“Work # 954: Then and Now (Parkside Story)” has only ever been shown twice; as part of a mini-career survey at the Robert Kananaj Gallery in Toronto in early 2017 and, more significantly, for one day at the 519 Community Centre as part of the 2016 Nuit Rose festival. I stood in the corner of the room when it was displayed like a nosy spider and was stunned by the reaction to the work. Aside from the idiots that can’t pry themselves away from their phones, the text was devoured and tempers were flaring. I remember in particular an older woman and her much younger friend heatedly arguing – the young woman would have none of it, the very idea that gay life before her birth may have had anything to offer was not only an absurdity, it was an insulting dismissal of her world-view. Her much wiser companion disagreed. Loudly. The work was constantly surrounded by a crowd. At another moment a man turned away in tears; not old enough to have been to that marvelous dump but perhaps in silent agreement with the older woman that contemporary urban gay life is a bit . . . sterile and over-designed?
2
At the end of 1978 I moved to New York City and I simply detested it there. The filth, the segregation, the expense, the pretentiousness, the provincialism . . . I was ready to come back after six months, but then I me someone who would turn out to be the man of my dreams, John Hammond. At the time I thought “ok, I’ll give it a shot. But if it’s not perfection I’m out of here.” Twenty-one years later John came around to my way of thinking and agreed that New York was indeed a shit hole and acknowledged it was time to move on. So we sold our house (in the slums of Brooklyn) and headed north in the spring of 2001. Had we waited six months, current events would have rendered our house worthless and we’d have been stuck there. But let me digress . . .
Art was completely on the backburner. I’d come to the conclusion that by the end of the 1970s art had hit a brick wall; that the very idea of an artist as innovator had played itself out, that the narrative of art history had come to an end. This was bolstered by the rise of the post-this and neo-that’s and all of their attendant derivativeness. Aside from all of these theoretical questions, given the health crisis gay men were beginning to face, art seemed kind of pointless when everyone around you was dropping like flies. It was not until the early 1990s, once I’d been able to digest the horrors of the previous 15 years, that I made tentative steps to revive a long dormant art practice. As a consequence, during this period my time was occupied with jobs as the art director of Christopher Street magazine and the New York Native newspaper. Concurrent with this, for a time, I was also an on-call page designer and night art director at the Village Voice. In my spare time I was the co-founder and chief archivist of the International Gay History Archive (now housed as part of the Rare Books and Manuscript division of the New York Public Library). At the end of this period saw my archival collection providing the backbone for the landmark 1994 exhibition at the New York Public Library “Becoming Visible: The Legacy of Stonewall” and publication of the accompanying book “Becoming Visible: An Illustrated History of Lesbian and Gay Life in Twentieth-Century America” (Penguin/Putnam 1998).
Instigated by Carlos Gutierrez-Solana, director of the New York non-profit Artists Space, the gallery would dedicate an area near the front entrance as an “AIDS Forum”, to be in place until a cure was found and showing work by a different artist each month that had been inspired by the epidemic. It was a noble idea, but most of the work was sentimental claptrap. In early 1993 Carlos commissioned me to create a site-specific installation directly on their walls (Sol Lewitt-style) as part of a multi-artist, gallery-wide project evocatively titled “Activated Walls”. During their fund-raising period, the artists worked in the gallery during regular business hours, supposedly allowing the public to witness the mythical “artist process” as it unfolded. After the opening with the standard bad wine the exhibition would remain for the also standard three weeks and them be painted over and destroyed. Based on previous work, Gutierrez-Solana knew I would in all likelihood create an inflammatory polemic and thus increasing the profile of the gallery. I was being groomed as the next sortie in the on-going culture war.
“Work # 163: Interrogation (An AIDS Forum)” (1993) was designed in the blunt, take-no-prisoners style of Russian constructivism and was completely at odds with all the variations of lyrical abstraction being vomited onto the other walls of the gallery. The walls were painted the colour of dried blood and a row of ten Xerox enlargements of prominent government scientists, journalists, and movement spokespeople were glued to the wall near the floor. Above these images was a stenciled (and carefully footnoted) text which declared in part that “these collaborators maintain their positions of authority through theft, questionable research, conflict of interest, fabricated data, bogus medications, lucrative publishing deals, and star-studded fund-raising scams. Along with their AIDS movement flunkies and media cheerleaders, they have conspired to stifle any research that does not centre on HIV theory”. Brightly coloured chalk lines, like laser beams against the red background, connected the individual charges with the heads of the accused. Very high up on the wall was stenciled “AZT=Death” parodying and implicating the “Silence=Death” slogan of the then fashionable ACT UP.
That the text was incendiary was beside the point; it was the calling into question the depth of the liberal pieties paraded around by the red-ribboned Chanel and Armani set that was going a step too far, and would prove to be explosive – leading to unintended consequences. Being photographed at the opening by Vanity Fair was no insulation against the social death caused by tossing a bomb into the middle of that year’s trendy cause. Even though the installation was described as being the best of the entire series so far, a week later the director was fired by the Board of Directors (which at that time included Cindy Sherman) and his replacement unilaterally cancelled the AIDS Forum project quicker than an executive order from Donald J. Trump.
3
As I’ve said, I simply detested New York City. Throughout this whole period I’d felt neither comfortable nor particularly welcomed there, but the feelings for my man so far outweighed my feelings for the city that we bought a little broken down house in the slums of Brooklyn in 1984 we spent the next several years transforming it into our home, playing host to an ever expanding network of artists, activists, actors and writers from around the world. Throughout the 1990s we were both becoming increasingly disenchanted and our trips to Canada increasing in frequency. The decision to leave was in many ways a no-brainer, John’s final years in the States were frustrating and unfulfilled, and all of our friends had either died or had already left, so by Christmas 2000 we were ready to leave New York.
After the grueling closing/packing/getting-out-for-good that any real estate transaction entails, the trauma of our final escape to Canada at the end of May 2001 was complete when we were nearly arrested. We were lost somewhere in the middle of New Jersey, driving in the wrong direction on a one way street into the oncoming headlights of a police cruiser. The cops had their flash lights out and their guns at the ready and were none-too-quick in concluding that these two pieces of human wreckage were not running the guns, or drugs, or white slaves, or weapons of mass destruction they had been hoping to find. I’d left Canada 22 years before with a small knapsack and was returning with the contents of a three storey house, plus a man and a large dog in tow; the onus was on my paltry shoulders to cross an international border and not screw up. I’d worked myself into a paranoid frenzy by the time we got to Niagara Falls, only to discover that the Customs and Immigration staff looked like they had pot parties after work and were actually excited with the prospect of a returning Canadian.
When I was approved as John’s sponsor and he had received conditional approval from Immigration through the family class category in April of 2003, he took to wearing a maple leaf pin in his lapel. I found this slightly cringe-inducing. But the depth of John’s growing animosity toward his own country peaked when he confessed a wish that he had been born a Canadian; this I found truly shocking.
We were partners in the truest sense of the word, with an avid interest in whatever projects each of us was pursuing at the time. We would help one another through our frequent bouts of self-doubt, and soldier on it the face of those financial crises that only seem to occur at the most inopportune of times. We would find ourselves both happily unemployed after getting out of particularly soul-destroying jobs only to discover that our house had termites; or in 2001 when we finally did the adult thing and invested all of our extra money in mutual funds on September 10th . . . In March 2004, after much toing and froing, we got married when it became possible at City Hall on our twenty-fifth anniversary. And then cancer paid a visit . . .
While John’s health had been fragile for some time, it seemed to have improved dramatically; he no longer needed to use an inhaler and he was for the first time in years relaxed and stress-free. When he was diagnosed with lung cancer, surgery was planned then aborted after a second test revealed that the cancer had spread to his pancreas and liver and the prognosis was very negative – 3-12 months. In August John complained of shortness of breath and was taken to the emergency room, his cancer had spread quite rapidly and was beginning to affect his kidneys. Plans were arranged for him to die at home but he passed away in the early morning of September 12, 2004 a few hours before the delivery of his deathbed. February 6, 2017
Bruce Eves creates conceptually-driven photo-based works that explore the shifting nature of time, focus, and perception, as well as the ever-changing relationship between image versus interpretation and memory versus present-day reality. He co-founded and was chief archivist for the International Gay History Archive (now part of the Rare Books and Manuscript division of the New York Public Library). His work is represented in a diverse number of public collections from the Museum of Modern Art in New York to the Tom of Finland Foundation.
0 notes
Text
Evolution and Same-Sex Activity: How the Former Encourages Contempt for the Latter
Even with all its rules and regulations, modern sexual philosophy pivots on a single belief. The belief is that same-sex eroticism is inherently abnormal and aberrant, and should be treated as such. This blog has demonstrated the many ways this philosophy functions, especially through the labeling system of “straight” and “gay”.
To be clear, it wasn’t difficult to understand the many ways it functioned. However, it was much harder to understand how it was justified. It was difficult to see why, in the face of contradictory evidence, certain authorities still staunchly believed in modern sexual philosophy.
At this point, I think that the theory of evolution is a major anchor of belief. I will make that case now, through two different articles that have overlapping elements.
Insight From Media Output: The Vox Article
My interest was first aroused by a Vox article from January 2018. It is entitled “Proof that Americans are lying about their sexual desires”, which was written by Sean Illing. It contained an interview with researcher Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, who wrote the book “Everybody Lies”. The book looked at Google and PornHub search results around the country. Those results were used to make conclusions on Americans’ everyday behavior, and whether that lined up with popular notions.
The results were noteworthy, but not surprising to this writer. Based on the data, Mr. Stephens-Davidowitz made the following conclusions: that “there are more gay men in the closet than we think” and “a lot of straight women watch lesbian porn”.
First of all, he quickly saw that “gay” men weren’t the only ones who watched “gay” porn. In fact, that was far from the truth, since a sizable number of “straight” guys watched “gay” porn too. Furthermore, viewership wasn’t limited to “gay” population centers like New York, San Francisco and Atlanta. Whether it was urban or rural, in the American Northwest or the American South, viewership was at similar levels throughout the country. Based on this, Mr. Stephens-Davidowitz concluded that “a lot of gay men remain in the closet.”
Now, I strongly disagree with characterizing these men as “gay”. As said many times before, this word has contradictory meanings that intrinsically ties same-sex activity to “gay” culture. Most “straight” guys probably wouldn’t rule out fooling around with male friends. However, they would be distinctly uninterested in “gay” culture, especially its obsession with anal sex. Thus, the use of the word is inaccurate. But that is an argument for another day.
Secondly, he also found that “about 20 percent of the porn women watch is lesbian porn…a lot of straight women watch lesbian porn.” As such, husbands should worry “whether their wives are more physically attracted to women than men.”
I also have strong disagreement with that conclusion. It displays how, in the “Straight”-”Gay” Dichotomy, bisexuality cannot seriously be considered real. It cannot recognize that if women love other women, it doesn’t mean that they love their husbands any less. It’s the same with men. Same-sex love and opposite-sex love simply exist in two different spheres. Again, that’s an argument for another day.
The real gem comes from the following paragraph from the article, which I will quote in its entirety:
“I have always wondered how homosexuality made it through evolution. Like, isn’t evolution supposed to make people desire heterosexual sex with fertile people? But after studying porn, I realized homosexuality is hardly the only desire that doesn’t make sense from an evolutionary perspective.”
Note the thought implicit in these sentences. From an evolutionary standpoint, same-sex desire doesn’t make sense. He can’t see how it can survive in the human race. As a result, he feels justified in saying that a fair number of men are closeted “gays”, and that husbands should worry if their wives are “gay”. In his view, same-sex desire is abnormal because it’s an evolutionary aberration.
In other circumstances, I wouldn’t have focused on that paragraph. Then I saw something written 11 years earlier, which was highlighted by the Man2Man Alliance.
Insight From Media Output: The Man2Man Alliance Post
The post was commentary on a New York Times article from January 25th 2007. The article covered the studies done by Dr. Charles Roselli, a researcher at Oregon Health and Science University.
For the previous five years, Dr. Roselli had focused his attention on rams and their reproduction. He was researching why 8 percent of rams have sex only with other rams, and not with ewes. This involved dissecting perfectly healthy rams to analyze brains, in the quest to see what made them “gay”. In the article, he said that he killed 18 a year for his studies. This means that at the time of the article, he had killed about 90 rams for his research.
PETA and LGBT advocacy groups were up in arms about his research. PETA was against any kind of animal research, and considered Dr. Roselli’s research to be especially outrageous. The LGBT advocacy groups were concerned that he might successfully find the “gay” gene. So they felt the gene might be used to eliminate same-sex desire in humans.
Now, admittedly the word “evolution” never appears in the article. However, the story is full of its concepts and ideas. Those concepts reveal the underlying intent of Dr. Roselli’s research.
For example, he said that the purpose was to “understand the fundamental mechanisms of sexual orientation in sheep…to seek ways to determine which rams are likeliest to breed”. Even at this point, we can see evolutionary concepts at the forefront. Implicit in the statement is the idea of natural selection. According to that idea, traits that increase survival are passed from one generation to another. Traits that don’t eventually fade away. As such, it also focuses on which varieties of animals are likeliest to survive.
This should clue you into the real purpose of the study. It’s not just concerned with breeding. Instead, it intends to study an evolutionary abnormality. To be specific, it’s studying something that supposedly inhibits reproduction, yet stubbornly exists in spite of natural selection.
As a result, they are unspoken assumptions being made in his research. Though he never says it openly, evidently Dr. Roselli views same-sex attraction is abnormal, and perhaps even unnatural. Thus, it poses a threat that must be studied and researched.
At this point, I must repeat a point made by Alliance founder Bill Weintraub. In 2007, there was nothing amiss with the sheep population. In the 11 years since that article, I can’t remember hearing of a crisis involving sheep. Plus, 8 percent is a very small segment of the overall population. So why was this such a pressing issue? The only answer is that he thinks it’s abnormal, and threatening enough that it can’t be ignored or accepted.
That’s not all. The article then quotes a press release, which says that the study “also has broader implications for understanding the development and control of sexual motivation and mate selection across mammalian species, including humans.”
In other words, the research wasn’t just focused on rams and ewes. Nor was it focused on passive observation. Another aim was to study how its findings could be applied to humans. It was with the aim of inculcating “normal” attractions in both rams and humans.
By the way, in case you were wondering, his research continues until now. He did an interview during 2013 on the same studies.
In any case, we can now make conclusions based on what we’ve seen.
Why Evolution Views Same-Sex Activity as Abnormal, and the Consequences
Over the past few years, the blog has shown the various mechanisms of modern sexual philosophy. It has shown how it is structured, and what that structure is based on. It has also shown how it has evolved, and what has spurred its evolution. It has also shown the various ways that philosophy has affected society.
Even during all that, there was always a question that seemed unanswerable. I could never figure out how this philosophy was being justified in people’s minds. In the face of mounting statistics and vast historical evidence proving that same-sex desire is normal, I couldn’t understand how the prejudice against it continued to endure. I also couldn’t understand how the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy survived in spite of that evidence.
Now, I think I have found that justification, or at least one part of it. From what can be seen, it is a consequence of the theory of evolution, and our society’s embrace of it.
According to that theory, and as referenced before, humans shed undesirable traits as they evolve to their highest potential. Undesirable traits are those that inhibit a species’ survival, including those that don’t help reproduction. Obviously same-sex activity can’t produce children, so in the eyes of the theory, same-sex desire is extremely undesirable. According to the theory, it should have been wiped out a long time ago. Since same-sex desire endures despite that, it is viewed as a strange anomaly, and as such theory proponents feel obliged to treat it that way.
It is purely an ideological stance that relies on an egregious logical fallacy. That fallacy involves denying the antecedent, where if X is true, Y is true, and since X is false, Y must be false. In this case, the fallacy looks like this -
If a trait results in reproduction, that trait is desirable and normal
Same-sex activity doesn’t result in reproduction
Therefore same-sex activity is neither desirable nor normal
By that logic, supporters of evolution feel justified in looking down their noses at same-sex desire. In their view, it’s a clunker that stubbornly refuses to go extinct. It’s a archaic and regressive condition that should have gone the way of the dodo, and yet it’s still here. As a result, why does homoeroticism deserve the respect that heteroeroticism receives?
This thinking helps explain how homoeroticism is treated throughout popular discourse in the U.S.
For example, this explains the view of most U.S. politicians toward homoeroticism, even those who embrace the LGBT-identified population. Quite a few of them might be sincere. However, that sincerity is usually based on a false premise - that same-sex behavior is a condition, and not an activity. If they don’t mind same-sex activity, it’s not because they view it as something normal. Instead, it’s because we don’t know what to do about it yet, and thus tolerating it is better than oppressing it. On the surface, such an attitude appears benevolent. However it’s actually quite patronizing, since it views homoeroticism as something to be pitied, and not something to be respected.
This also explains how most American residents view same-sex desire. In popular discourse, there’s a need to constantly justify being attracted to the same gender. It doesn’t matter if the people involved are “straight” or “gay”. To most of them, same-sex desire cannot be treated as something that simply exists. That would imply that same-sex activity is normal and natural, which is an unacceptable thought. A recent blog post on teen forums shows this clearly, where forum users excuse same-sex activity as the result of extreme horniness, teen curiosity, or bouts of “experimentation”. Others say that people into the same gender are somehow intergendered. Regardless of the reason given, all of them imply that same-sex desire isn’t a normal phenomenon, and must be caused by some quirk.
This gives another reason why within the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy, bisexuality is deeply and strenuously repudiated. Within that dichotomy, opposite-sex desire is “normal”, while same-sex desire is abnormal. The theory of evolution merely gives false legitimacy to that thinking. The “normal” and “abnormal” should not mix, which is what happens in bisexuality, which is why it’s hated so much. If the supposedly “abnormal” freely mixes with the “normal”, it implies that the nominally “abnormal” really isn’t. In the ideology of evolution, such an idea is unacceptable.
Most of all, this is why modern sexual philosophy presents itself as scientifically advanced. In its own view, it merely brings the theory of evolution to its logical conclusion, and that theory is one of science’s highest achievements. Modern sexual philosophy is simply a product of that line of thinking. As a result, its believers become entangled in an ideological trap that blocks them from accepting what statistics and history clearly show. The trap is this - if one believes themselves to be scientifically astute, they are obliged to believe that same-sex activity isn’t normal.
Problems Caused By This Thinking
Obviously, this belief contains and causes substantial problems.
To start off, its central assertion - that same-sex activity isn’t normal - is an appalling lie. This blog is full of content that disproves it. It contains statistics that blows that all away. It contains history (both ancient and recent) show that same-sex activity (excluding anal) was neither an abnormality nor an anomaly. That includes a multipart series on everyday nudity which clearly displays the homoeroticism inherent in most humans. It has content showing that before the late 20th century, not even Christianity believed that to be true.
Furthermore, the thought supporting the belief - that same-sex activity doesn’t help reproduction - is also false. While it’s true that same-sex activity cannot directly produce children, it does play an indirect role. The Man2Man Alliance reports that, when married members sexually interact with other men, their relationship with their wives actually improve. This is because, as Mr. Weintraub says in another post, “[the male-male interaction] makes them happier as Men, and better able therefore to make their wives happy.” Improved relationships turn into better and more frequent sex, which increases the chances for reproduction. Thus, no matter how you slice it, this belief is totally wrong.
To be clear, these lies have all kinds of consequences. For instance, they likely dictate how the “gay” movement conceptualizes same-sex activity. Remember that like “straights”, they also believe that same-sex activity is abnormal and aberrant, and should be treated that way. The theory of evolution merely legitimizes that belief, and partially because of their fraught relationship with religion, most “gays” believe in evolution. By its thinking, same-sex activity simply cannot exist on its own terms. For instance, same-sex activity cannot rightfully be non-penetrative, as is the case with frot. That would give those practices a validity that, in the eyes of evolution, is completely undeserved.
As a result, to achieve some kind of respectability, same-sex activity must ape opposite-sex activity. If opposite-sex activity is best fulfilled through penetration, same-sex activity must be the same. In order to be legitimate, in the words of Mr. Weintraub, “gay” sex must try its best to be “straight”. Since “straight” men insert their penises into human orifices (vaginas), “gays” must insert theirs into human orifices (anuses) too. Since only heteroeroticism is supposedly “normal”, only it can set the standard for “full genital maturity”. Since homoeroticism is “abnormal”, they must follow that standard if it ever hopes to be considered somewhat “normal”.
They also affect how LGBT-identified people view themselves. Think about it: it’s driven in their minds that the homoeroticism they perceive is helplessly abnormal. Since they are predisposed to it, and to an extent they can’t ignore, they believe that they themselves are “abnormal”. They believe that they are a completely different species from “straight” people, and that they must walk their own lonely journey through life, because the majority of people can’t give them any guidance.
This thinking can cause all kinds of psychological issues, and often does. It can cause low self-esteem, since they internalize the belief that they are abnormal and thus inferior. As such, they feel that they cannot carry themselves with much self-respect. They might also feel obligated to pursue other activities labelled abnormal, even if they are objectively dangerous. They might feel obliged to immerse themselves in fisting, rimming, and bugchasing. Since those are considered abnormal, and because they are also “abnormal”, those activities seem to be a perfect match. They feel comfortable labelling themselves “cumdump whores”, because in their minds, that’s all they’ll ever be.
Conclusion
I think it has become obvious that the theory of evolution doesn’t have effects only on science. It has also had an effect on how people view sexual attraction and sexual activity. It has been used to justify the belief that homoeroticism is abnormal, and that it cannot be treated with any respect.
To be clear, I don’t think the theory played an role in the development of “homosexuality”. Other processes were more instrumental in making it into a modern behemoth, especially since it didn’t refer to all homoeroticism until the 1980s. Instead, its role is a very late development. The theory is being used for hasty justification in the face of scrutiny.
Furthemore, I’m not advocating that the theory of evolution should be completely abandoned. I also have no desire to enter the debate on the theory’s veracity, because that’s beyond the scope of this blog.
However, I also think that this aspect of the theory deserves deeper scrutiny. The theory simply cannot explain why same-sex eroticism endures in human beings, and shouldn’t be used as a way to find an explanation. We must admit that, on this aspect of the human experience, the theory of evolution is just plain wrong.
And if belief about its supposed abnormality persists, let’s plainly call it for what it is: ideological posturing to keep this theory from admitting fundamental errors. It is posturing that ultimately hinders its own advancement.
As a result, we must accept that same-sex activity doesn’t need justification. Instead of shaping data to fit ideological reasoning, we should let the reasoning be shaped by the data. We must accept that same-sex eroticism is a natural and normal part of human beings, and that the LGBT world represents a very narrow understanding of it.
Other understandings do exist, and this blog can help you explore them.
Thus, I urge you to read further on this site, to explore another way to think about same-sex activity. I urge you to read “The ‘Straight’-’Gay’ Dichotomy: How It Works”, to fully understand how that system functions. I also urge any who read this to go to “For Straight People (though not exclusively)”, which will point to philosophies and forms of same-sex behavior that don’t hinge on demonstratively false concepts. Also read the page “History of the Concept of Homosexuality”, to see how this concept evolved into its modern day meaning. Don’t be afraid of talking about what you learn to others, because that’s the only way progress will be made.
You don’t need to accept the theory’s explanation for same-sex activity, because it simply isn’t accurate. Healthier ways to understand it exist, and if you let yourself explore them, I’m sure you’ll be better off for it.
Post-Scriptum
A 2008 post from the Man2Man Alliance gives further insight. It is entitled “An Attack on Men Being Together”, and it makes noteworthy remarks on the popular idea that same-sex desire is a biological aberration.
For full disclosure, this is not the first time I saw this page. This was actually one of the first ones I read from the Alliance, which was in early 2016. However, after doing much writing and research, the content took on a new significance.
In context, part of the post concerns correspondence between Alliance founder Bill Weintraub and reader “Gay Episcopalian” (aka Frank). The reader had sent a letter criticizing the Alliance and its approach to same-sex activity. He was especially irked by its statement that same-sex desire isn’t caused by a genetic quirk.
I will quote some parts of the discourse, as Mr. Weintraub responds to each point in the letter.
A few days before this post, Frank had sent this letter:
According to one of the posters on the frottage site, it is impossible for homosexuality to be genetic. The argument is that if it were, it would cease to exist. That is not true!
The fact is that there are genetically determined conditions which preclude the possibility of reproduction. One of them is Tay Sachs disease. It invariably results in death within a few years of birth, and yet it continues to exist. Not being an expert on the subject of genetic diseases, I am unable to recall any other examples, but I assure you that they do exist.
Of course this does not mean that homosexuality IS genetically determined. Rather, it merely proves that it could be genetically determined.
I have no ax to grind on the matter; I’m not much concerned about the etiology. Rather, I am concerned about wiping out the discrimination that those of us who are same-sex oriented must face. I’m particularly concerned about what negative attitudes do to youth who are same-sex oriented.
Mr Weintraub gave the following response to the first two paragraphs:
Who cares?
Look Frank, let me suggest to you that A GENETIC GHETTO IS STILL A GHETTO.
Let’s repeat that:
A GENETIC GHETTO IS STILL A GHETTO.
Isn’t it?
And that’s what you and the gay establishment are busily building.
Another ghetto.
Which you think you need to justify your existence.
I DON’T.
Because I know the historical truth about MEN and about WARRIORS.
Which is that they have loved each other for millenia.
When you buy into the argument that “homosexuality” has to be explained, genetically or otherwise, you buy into your own oppression.
You become your own oppressor.
You do the work of the homophobes – for them.
Why is the gay establishment so hot for a genetic “explanation” for “homosexuality?”
Because it justifies making “homosexuals” into a privileged and protected class.
“Served” by politicians and who in turn are served by political patronage jobs – and monies.
POWER, in other words.
But as I point out on my site, there was a time, not very long ago, when sex between people of the same sex was an activity – not a condition.
And when love, affection, and intimacy between Men was honored.
FOR ITSELF.
Not to make some political point, but because people saw same-sex affection for what it is – WORTHY.
At heart, you and your friends do not.
Instead, you continue to treat “homosexuality” as a pseudo-medical condition, which has to be explained.
How is the genetic “explanation” different from the psycho-analytic [sic]?
Both treat same-sex love as – different, odd, abnormal, and diseased.
It is NOT.
Ater more remarks on the letter, and having concluded direct commentary on it, Mr. Weintraub then said the following to his readers:
So, guys, what you see here, is a typical statement of sentiment from a gay-male who’s been oh-so-well acculturated by heterosexualization into the categories of sexual orientation.
He gets upset when we challenge the status quo – or better put, the DOMINANT PARADIGMS – about “genetics and gays” – and about “masculinity and gays.”
Because those two paradigms work together.
If “homosexuality” is “genetic,” that explains why so many “gay males” are “effeminate” and “need” to take it up the butt.
It’s genetic.
And calls for MEN to reclaim their WARRIOR birthright – by reclaiming their MASCULINITY – can be rejected.
Instead, “gays” can move into a tighter and tighter ideological and communal embrace with the “transgendered.”
Where the issue is not one of guys being free to love and be affectionate with and have sex with other guys –
but one of identity politics:
“I’m gay and I IDENTIFY with the transgendered because I’m genetically different and need therefore to imitate a woman during sex.”
And:
“I’m closer genetically to a male who wants to become a female – than I am to other Men.”
In other words, instead of disputing the belief that same-sex desire is abnormal, the “gay” movement enthusiastically supports it. It is because, if that desire is believed to be abnormal, it is the perfect way to make themselves a protected class. It doesn’t matter that they are damaging the image of same-sex love, or that it puts people’s health at risk.
Indeed, Upton Sinclair’s words ring true: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
#homosexual#homosexuality#gay christian#lgbt christian#evolution#gay#lgbt#gay christianity#lgbt christianity
6 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
eerizon
just doin’ things
letsfofina
Untitled
burninginthegymplplinko
200 tma doodles in 128 days perhaps?
cushions-and-cake
Glamourising couch potato-ism
girlfrangipane
in medias res