#i am rooting for you heterosexuals | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cantpickastruggle · 10 months

Text

Just finished binging the whole of Ugly betty cause i needed to know the iconness that is this show and i loved it except that i am so dissapointed on them losing literally one of the best slow burn potential ever that is Daniel and Betty . I have been whining over the ending for so long cause as the show progressed all i could root for ever as a couple was Daniel and Betty and finally when it was implied that they are endgame it just felt so lackluster cause it was such an open ending and i hate open endings, and knowing that they end up married in the og telenovela actually kind of hurt and healed me at the same time. Like i get the point of the open ending being that it would be sudden to have them end up romantically like that but like there were so many times they could've started by implying their feelings for each other but they failed every time and i am very sad over it . This is literally the first time ever i actually want to actively go ,search and read fanfics on a straight ship.

#ugly betty #daniel x betty #i am rooting for you heterosexuals #america ferrera

174 notes · View notes

sciderman · 8 months

Note

VENOM IS SONY??? Well, that explains a lot then

disney would NEVER give us this

#sci speaks #mind you i am thinking about the sony clause where peter parker has to be heterosexual.#but it's oaky. venom can be gay.#and i do believe one day andrew garfield will win his battle for bisexual spider-man. i'm rooting for him.#he played peter so fruity in nwh?? you guys saw that right?? his fruitiness like. tripled in nwh. he was so fruity.#radiated bisexual energy in every frame of that movie.#sorry i'm so off topic here.#but like even the way he talked was. really fruity. like there was a subtle fruity lisp there. his attitude. it was immensely fruity.#sci talks movies

221 notes · View notes

henrybelly · 8 months

Text

honestly when i tried to figure out why some fans are so mad at ivypool these days i was looking through avos and. the scene where ivypool apologises to twigpaw for not supporting sending a patrol for skyclan is genuinely very sweet??

i actually saw someone characterize this as "ivypool forcing twigpaw to forgive her". is it crack you smoke. is that what you smoke. you smoke crack?

#she apologises THREE SEPARATE TIMES #she acknowledges that dovewing and tigerheart's situation made her ignore twigpaw's feelings #she reassures twigpaw that this is the right thing for the clans. she tells her she's proud of her & tc is lucky to have her #you guys do understand that to apologise you have to Do Something Wrong?? or is that the part that's so unforgivable?#i am fASCINATED by the treatment of dove and ivy by the fans in recent years #i'm still pondering it but i think there are a few root causes #1) I think a lot of people read oots as kids and hated dove & identified with ivy because of the underdog storyline #maybe this fandom worship of dovewing is kinda part of that? wanting to feel like you've grown out of fandom misogyny?#but i also feel like 2) tigerdove has really increased dovewing's popularity #and i think because ivypool is so staunchly opposed to their relationship people then have to villainise ivypool #3) is maybe too spicy of a take but to be honest #i think people are subconsciously way more comfortable with a woman whose story ends in heterosexual marriage and childrearing #dovewing's mom role in TBC to shadowsight probably helped her popularity #so ivypool whose relationship w Fernsong & her kits is much less of a focus. and is mUCH less maternal #and who still exhibits Ugly Female Emotions like anger and hurt #and who God Forbid now holds a position of authority...#is too complicated to fit into :) she's such a good mom :) she's such a good mate #dovewing is easier to like because she tends to be a victim of circumstances (🤫 and often lacks agency in her storylines)#since ivypool regularly uses her agency to Fuck Up #fans revert to idealising dovewing because not only is she too good to do bad things. she also doesn't do Things in general #never mind that ivypool is the one who sacrifices and apologises #anyway <3 i think if i made a full analysis of ivy and dove post OOTS i would get too many spicy anons so i will cower in the tags

83 notes · View notes

aromantic-pantyanarchy · 5 months

Text

It's me. I'm the cis, heterosexual, aromantic man. I will never marry, I will never be married, I will grow into middle age and elder age and I will die unmarried. I will be forced to support a household of myself on only my wages alone for the rest of my life. I will be asked about women and marriage and children by my family for the rest of my life (or men, the progressive ones might say). I may not ever come out to them. I feel like I burned my coming out on something stupid. I don't want to explain it. I don't want to run them through the definitions and intricacies. I don't want the acceptance without understanding, placating me with ceased questions and poor explanations to other, drunk adults.

I like my hair to be long, I spent a year with it dyed a golden blonde with dark roots because I like the trashy party girl aesthetic. I want to dye it again with pink tips. I like painting my nails, black and blue are my favorite colors. I like wearing chokers. I also like wearing baggy jeans and ratty hoodies. I like having stubble. I like having chest hair. I like having a square jaw and broad shoulders. I wish I had a flatter stomach and a thinner profile frame. I don't know what this makes me, perhaps this is something no more GNC than Machine Gun Kelly. I think about this a lot, how queer my appearance truly is. I should think about it less. I have thought long and hard about if I could be trans or if I could be non-binary or if I could be genderqueer and the conclusion I ultimately came to is that I most enjoy being a man open to whatever self-expression I want.

I don't date, but I've thought about it. I would like to meet people, and I would like to have sex with them. But I don't want to hurt them. I fear if I explain what I am beforehand it'll scare them away. I fear if I explain after they'll feel manipulated or abused. I don't know how many people in the dating scene want what I want. I fear my own lack of experience will make me a bad lay, an embarrassing story to tell to confidants in hindsight. I fear my own virginity, a boundary to those I wish to be like. All of these fears are baseless, as I've not been able to even begin a single relationship in my life. Despite this I still heavily identify with terms like "slut" and "manwhore" and "thot" because my interests lay so deeply within casual sex, sex without great intimacy or emotion. This may be some form of stolen valor. I hope the true sluts are not too mad at me.

I made this blog several years ago because a mutual of mine reblogged memes making fun of aro and ace people, making fun of the concept of aphobia, and in addition well known aphobes. I didn't feel comfortable talking about aro stuff on my main blog, for as little as I talk about it. Living through the ace discourse of the 2016 era has largely caused me to cringe in embarrassment any time I am forced to discuss my orientation with people who aren't aro or ace themselves. I no longer follow this person. I unfollowed many people I was mutuals with from that time, most of them because they posted too often about how much they hated men and I didn't want to see that, some because our interests simply drifted too far apart, only one for explicit aphobia reasons. (Also one because they became a "both sides are bad, any vote is wasted" libertarian, but that's unrelated.)

I guess at this point I don't care deeply about what strangers on the internet think of me. If a trusted friend told me that they don't think I'm truly queer that may hurt. But I am going to continue to use the word for myself. I take up no resources. I go to events that are open to me. If an event was not open to me, I think I'd not want to go anyways. I am not a hypothetical, I am not a strawman, I am a person with lived experiences both within and exterior to the queer community. If you hate me, I will permit you to continue to do so. But ultimately, I am who I am, I cannot change these facts, and I would not choose to do so even if I could.

#aromantic #aro #aro positivity #reference to aphobia

5K notes · View notes

batmanisagatewaydrug · 8 days

Note

Do you have a list of good sex ed books to read?

BOY DO I

please bear in mind that some of these books are a little old (10+ years) by research standards now, and that even the newer ones are all flawed in some way. the thing about research on human beings, and especially research on something as nebulous and huge as sex, is that people are Always going to miss something or fail to account for every possible experience, and that's just something that we have to accept in good faith. I think all of these books have something interesting to say, but that doesn't mean any of them are the only book you'll ever need.

related to that: it's been A While since I've read some of these so sorry if anything in them has aged poorly (I don't THINK SO but like, I was not as discerning a reader when I was 19) but I am still including them as books that have been important to my personal journey as a sex educator.

additionally, a caveat that very few of these books are, like, instructional sex ed books in the sense of like "here's how the penis works, here's where the clit is, etc." those books exist and they're great but they're also not very interesting to me; my studies on sex are much more in the social aspect (shout out to my sociology degree) and the way people learn to think about sex and societal factors that shape those trends. these books reflect that. I would genuinely love to have the time to check out some 101 books to see how they fare, but alas - sex ed is not my day job and I don't have the time to dedicate to that, so it happens slowly when it happens at all. I've been meaning to read Dr. Gunter's Vagina Bible since it came out in 2019, for fucks sake.

and finally an acknowledgement that this is a fairly white list, which has as much to do with biases with academia and publishing as my own unchecked biases especially early in my academic career and the limitations of my university library.

ANYWAY here's some books about sex that have been influential/informative to me in one way or another:

The Trouble With Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life (Michael Warner, 1999)

Virginity Lost: An Intimate Portrait of First Sexual Experiences (Laura M. Carpenter, 2005)

Sex Goes to School: Girls and Sex Education Before the 1960s (Susan K. Freeman, 2008)

Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex (Mary Roach, 2008)

Transgender History: The Roots of Today's Revolution (Revised Edition) (Susan Stryker, 2008)

The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women (Jessica Valenti, 2009)

Not Under My Roof: Parents, Teens, and the Culture of Sex (Amy T. Schalet, 2011)

Rewriting the Rules: An Integrative Guide to Love, Sex and Relationships (Meg-John Barker, 2013)

The Sex Myth: The Gap Between Our Fantasies and Realities (Rachel Hills, 2015)

Come as You Are: The Surprising New Science That Will Tranform Your Sex Life (Emily Nagoski, 2015)

Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men (Jane Ward, 2015)

Too Hot to Handle: A Global History of Sex Education (Jonathan Zimmerman, 2015)

American Hookup: The New Culture of Sex on Campus (Lisa Wade, 2017)

Histories of the Transgender Child (Jules Gill-Peterson, 2018)

Revolting Prostitutes: The Fight for Sex Workers' Rights (Juno Mac and Molly Smith, 2018)

Ace: What Asexuality Reveals About Desire, Society, and the Meaning of Sex (Angela Chen, 2020)

Pleasure in the News: African American Readership and Sexuality in the Black Press (Kim Gallon, 2020)

A Curious History of Sex (Kate Lister, 2020)

Boys & Sex: Young Men on Hookups, Love, Porn, Consent, and Navigating the New Masculinity (Peggy Orenstein, 2020)

Black Women, Black Love: America's War on Africa American Marriage (Dianne M. Stewart, 2020)

The Tragedy of Heterosexuality (Jane Ward, 2020)

Hurts So Good: The Science and Pleasure of Pain on Purpose (Leigh Cowart, 2021)

The Right to Sex: Feminist in the Twenty-First Century (Amia Srinivasan, 2021)

Love Your Asian Body: AIDS Activism in Los Angeles (Eric C. Wat, 2021)

Superfreaks: Kink, Pleasure, and the Pursuit of Happiness (Arielle Greenberg, 2023)

#bookblr #sex edventures 2024

545 notes · View notes

drdemonprince · 7 days

Note

in regards to the concept of abled people not existing/abled folks being expected to do more in relationships with disabled folks... You make some good points about us all being disabled in different ways and not recognizing it, but I still feel that there's quite a vsst gap materially between say, an ADHDer who can lift and push 50lbs easily/without pain and one who can't. And i have run into big roadblocks in relationships with other lefty types as the person who can't! And I think that expectation should be talked about and accepted more because I know a lot of "leftists" who would never think to apply this to stuff like doing the dishes because they're hellbent on everyone doing Equal Amounts. It's all fun and IG graphics about disability justice until they decide that youre Nonbinary roomate named sock who doesnt do the dishes etc etc , then see yourselves to the door!

You're absolutely right that there are differences in what various disabled people can do and the privileges that affords. It's glaringly obvious as a problem in Autism spaces, where people who can mask and speak like me are listened to and trusted and frequently talk over people who are nonverbal and cannot mask.

Even there, though, there are massive problems in attempting to rank-order someone's level of ability rather than just speaking specifically about these things in terms of privileges and oppressions. People assume I'm capable of all kinds of things I am not capable of, for instance, or hold me to ableist standards of productivity and ability because I "seem more capable. And Autistic people whose disabilities are more obvious have the opposite problem -- they are denied agency, presumed to be incompetent, not permitted to take on challenges they could find stimulating and worthwhile, and are dehumanized, etc.

And so where I'm getting with this is that we can't determine from the outside what a person is capable of doing, or what they should be capable of doing. It's not that far of a logical path to go from saying "Oh, this ADHDer is not physically disabled, they can lift 50 pounds, they can do a lot of things that I can't do" to saying "This ADHDer didn't unpack all our luggage for two weeks after our trip, they are lazy and not pulling their weight."

Someone might have the literal physical ability to do something in terms of strength or mobility, but not have the ability to complete a task because of the disabilities they do have (ADHD, in this case), and even if we are disabled ourselves we may be primed to see those people as lazy, uncaring, not pulling their weight, and all kinds of ableist interpretations.

So broadly I get your point, it is undoubtedly true some of us have abilities that others don't. but I think there's no way to put this idea into practice beyond just trusting people when they say they cannot do a thing, and not passing harsh judgement against people we think ought to be able to do a thing but don't (and maybe can't). This goes back to the original point of the discussion -- wondering why so many other people seem to fail disabled people and not show up for them.

To your second point, about a lot of even leftist people bringing therapy and instagram infographic "boundary setting" advice to their relationships and expecting all chores to be divided up equally, yeah that's a big problem and it's been a big problem in interpersonal relationships for many decades at this point. Most people overestimate the portion of the chores that they do, underestimate the work their partners or housemates do, and aspire to "equity" in a way that drives them absolutely crazy with score-keeping and resentment. There's a lot of research on how that outlook absolutely poisons heterosexual relationships and has done so pretty much ever since women started getting the ability to say no to a chore. It's a big problem of individualism under capitalism at its root, I think.

And the social change needed is much the same thing -- people need to learn to actually trust their loved ones when they say they cannot do the dishes, cannot clean the gutters, can't drop off the rent check, etc. I think a disability justice politics of raising everyone's class consciousness regarding their own disabilities and others is the way to go, and a massive strengthening of community ties.

91 notes · View notes

sevensoulmates · 2 months

Note

I've never been more convinced then I ever have of Buddie canon and I think we're about to get Buddie canon confirmed in the bachelor party/wedding episode.

I think these 2 episodes, 4 and 5. One told through Buck's the other told through Eddie's are clearly telling a story of two separate queer journeys. One of acceptance(Buck) and the other of repression(Eddie).

I think this episode is going to end with Eddie doubling down on his relationship with Marisol because Buck being bisexual is going to draw feelings inside of Eddie that he is absolutely terrified to explore and he thinks that being with a woman is just going to make those feelings that are getting stronger and stronger for Buck go away, they won't.

Then in episode 6 which is the Bachelor Party/Wedding episode, as Ryan said Eddie is going to let go, have fun and see where it takes him. When Ryan said that I have never been more convinced that something is happening between Buck and Eddie after the bachelor party and it's going to be something very non platonic that will be the reveal that Buddie is canon.

I'm very much inclined to agree with you, especially about episode 4 being Buck's journey of accepting his queerness, and episode 5 being about Eddie's journey of repression. Buck and Eddie have always been narrative parallels on equal and opposite journeys, both heading for the same place but going about it through very different personal arcs.

Like I've said before, I think things are going to get worse for Eddie before they get better. And I think you're so right that episode 5 is going to be things "getting worse" because he's going to double down on Marisol. The more I've been hearing and sussing out with people, it seems like Marisol's sticking around past episode 5 (which sucks, I know! We were all hoping!) but I can see why that choice is being made because unfortunately if we want to explore Eddie's comp-het, then we need a woman around for him to be comp-het with! I think that's likely why they also switched up on Marisol's personal style this season and had her go from tomboyish in s6 to very femme in s7. They needed to represent her being a little bit more of the "perfect woman" for Eddie again a la Ana Flores. Especially in contrast with Buck and Tommy who are very masc-presenting men.

Most of the time when people talk about compulsory heterosexuality in an academic space they are always talking about women because comphet is inherently a byproduct of patriarchy and misogyny. But, as most of us are aware by now, patriarchy has deep-rooted harmful effects on men too. I can't claim to be anywhere near an expert but I would love to see it explored deeper with Eddie given that a lot of his story has also revolved around him deconstructing other aspects of toxic masculinity and hypermasculinity.

Like does Eddie really enjoy going out with Marisol? Or does he like the freeing feeling of being able to cuddle up with a woman in public and know that no one is judging?

There's a lot of academic theory that goes into compulsory heterosexuality but if you look at the "Am I a Lesbian? Masterdoc" and apply everything there to Eddie, it's almost point for point him.

Some examples:

[brackets] are me turning "men" to "women" from the original text for clarity

Deciding which [women] to be attracted to – not to date, but to be attracted to –based on how well they match a mental list of attractive qualities.

I like the idea of being with a [woman], but any time a [woman] makes a move on me I get incredibly uncomfortable.

I do not like the reality of being with [women], only the idea of being with [women].

I like the idea of marrying a [woman]/being in a relationship with a [woman], but I can always pick out a reason to not want to date any [woman] that is interested in me or any [woman] suggested to me

You view relationships with [women] as a chore, burden, or just something you must deal with.

Picking a [girl] at random to be attracted to

Choosing to be attracted to a [girl] at all, not just choosing to act on it but flipping your attraction on like a switch

the [girls] I like are always hyper [feminine] [girl's girls] who embody everything about [womanliness].

Only/mostly being attracted to unattainable, disinterested, or fictional [women] or [girls] you never or rarely interact with.

Reading your anxiety/discomfort/nervousness/combativeness around [women] as attraction to them. Confusing your anxiety around [women] for “butterflies” or being flustered.

Dreading what feels like an inevitable domestic future with a [woman]

You have every reason to be happy in your relationship with a [woman], but you just aren’t / everything is going really well, but something is missing and you can’t figure out what

Thinking you’re commitmentphobic because no relationship, no matter how great the [girl], feels quite right and you drag your feet when it comes time to escalate it

Going along with escalation because it seems like the ‘appropriate time’ or bc the [girl] wants it so bad, even if you personally aren’t quite ready to say I love you or have labels or move in together etc.

Or jumping ahead and trying to rush to the ‘comfortably settled’ part of relationships with [girls], trying to make a relationship a done deal without investing time into emotional closeness

Your relationships with [women] are devoid of passion.

Feeling like you have to have relationships with [women] and/or let them get serious in order to prove something, maybe something nebulous you can’t identify

Getting a [girl]friend mostly so other people know you have a [girl]friend and not really being interested in [her] romantically/sexually

Wishing your [girl]friend was more like your [male] friends

Worrying that you’re broken inside and unable to really love anyone

Having had people think you were gay when you had no suspicion you were gay

That got longer than I intended but I wanted it here anyway because it just proves (at least to me) that this is the story they're doing with Eddie. The only ones I didn't include were the parts about sex because other than Shannon we actually haven't seen how Eddie reacts in sexual moments with women.

As for the bachelor party/wedding, I do think a lot is going to happen there, and likely a lot of Buddie clues, big and small, but I still don't think anything physically intimate (kiss, hookup, etc) is going to happen. The only exception might be hand-holding, a hug or like a slow dance. Those I could see being plausible.

#911 abc #911 speculation #eddie diaz #speculation #buddie speculation #buddie #comphet! eddie diaz #this was a lot more than you originally asked for but when my brain starts whirring it can't stop my bad

72 notes · View notes

ineffable-doll · 1 year

Text

Shipping is so much more FUN when you're aspec.

I'm not super fandom savvy, having only ever been active in one of them in any meaningful way, but I am familiar with the online culture surrounding shipping fictional characters together. Something I've personally witnessed is that the thinking around platonic v.s. romantic is extremely binary; a relationship can be one or the other, and a platonic relationship is the failing outcome if you, as an audience member, preferred the latter. This reflects much broader societal thinking, so it makes sense that most people approach shipping this way.

However, when you're aspec (anywhere on the aromantic and/or asexual spectrums), this idea doesn't necessarily apply. Suddenly, platonic and romantic are not opposing ideas, they're just two potential options on a very, very wide sliding scale / multi-dimensional graph wherein the significance of a relationship is completely disconnected from its label.

A huge part of shipping culture (again, just from what I've witnessed) is that Explicit Confessions and/or an onscreen mouth kiss are necessary to make a ship canon, and that not happening means Your Ship Isn't Canon And Therefore Isn't Important or Valuable (and gets used as a way of invalidating other people's ships). However, for a lot of aspec folks (and others, of course), romance is not automatically more valuable than friendship, and an end goal for a particular character dynamic becomes a lot less about fulfilling A, B, and C to verify the couple as "real" in the eyes of the mainstream or even the fandom as a whole, and instead is more about wanting to see characters happily in one another's presence. Specifics vary wildly case to case, so I'm gonna leave that fairly broad.

Ultimately, I have found myself shipping characters in the usual way less and less as I've learned more about my own aspec identity and experience. I care less if characters kiss; I care less if characters declare three little words...though I also am very familiar with the history of queer erasure and definitely root for explicitly romantic queer rep. And all this doesn't mean I don't have couples I support - I very much do. But whether their relationship is specifically romantic matters very little to me, with rare exceptions. (In fact, I often find myself "shipping" characters platonically - seeing a couple that would make great best friends being forced along standard, heterosexual romantic beats.) Mostly, I want the characters I ship to be around each other, to support each other, and to love each other in whatever capacity is fulfilling to their arcs and to the narrative.

Or, to put this all in a more digestible meme format:

Allos: If the couple doesn't kiss then the ship isn't canon

Me: but have you considered that the real kiss was the friends we made along the way?

#aspec thoughts #asexual #aromantic #aroace #aromantism #asexuality #aspec #writing #shipping #fandom #just something I've been thinking about lately and wanted to share #this isn't just about Good Omens but definitely applies #are they besties? married? dating? don't care #they just should be around each other and be happy that's it #personal

770 notes · View notes

strawberry-crocodile · 4 months

Text

If TERFs can be said to have a singular ideology, it's this; that the root (the radix, so to speak) of oppression is sexism on a biological level. They posit that AMAB people (which a TERF will define as "men") are biologically oppressors predisposed to harm, and AFAB people (which a TERF will define as "women") are biologically victims predisposed to suffering.

Within this framework, AMAB trans people are invasive predators here to ruin womanhood, take away valuable resources from "real" women, and also molest any "real" woman around them. AFAB trans people, within this framework, can be viewed in a handful of ways; as innocent "women" who are trying to escape the innate pain of womanhood, as victims of the trans agenda, or perhaps as turncoats helping "men" infiltrate "women's" community.

In practice, this generally manifests as targeted harassment and just general vocal hatred for trans women, and anywhere from hatred towards AFAB trans people to welcoming them (with the assumption that they will detransition). Within this framework, trans women- who are marked by being AMAB- are valid targets for being essentially tainted by sin, while they- the AFAB TERF- are ontologically good, no matter how much vitriol they hurl.

You'll notice that the general ideas here also line up with, well, regular common sexism; men (AMAB people) are active doers, and women (AFAB people) are passive objects; it simply reframes it to the perspective of a woman who is suffering under it but refusing to question it.

Specifically within the sphere of tumblr, "TERF" has taken on a sort of Godwin's Law quality where, like fascism, it's become a thing to call someone you disagree with, which waters down its meaning. But if you've been paying attention to transmiandry thruthers and the trans women who interact with them, you may notice the idea of "sex-based oppression" come up, and you may realize that it is. Literally exactly what I am describing TERFism as. You may also notice that the invasive predatory AMAB and the innocent AFAB incapable of harm is a pattern many trans women have been on the wrong side of.

Do not understand the TERF as "woman who hates men"; in practice, many TERFs are happily heterosexual women, many are happy to welcome trans men, and so on. Understand TERFism as a way to fit these misogynistic ideas about "biological sex", wherein the Male is the culpable actor and the Female is the innocent acted upon, into the language of feminism. And understand that the shape of it comes from within our culture, and that it's something you are at risk of falling for.

#dalucaray #transmisogyny #transfeminism

67 notes · View notes

animentality · 1 year

Text

Futanari and omegaverse are like literary cousins.

Honestly, you could almost call them symbolic pornographic sisters.

Women want men to have pussies, men want women to have cocks. Both ideas are inescapably homosexual, queer in some way, defying what could be considered the natural order of things, despite being rooted in heterosexual ideals. They seem very popular on the internet, but when explained aloud, to anyone, would only invite shame and unwelcome speculation. And yet, I am sure they're more popular than we know.

The key difference though, is that Omegaverse extends an olive branch by actually having women with dicks too, where futanari is regrettably favored by straight men, and thus does not extend the same emotional intelligence, although I will say this. femboys are on the rise. And the word bussy, linguistically or biologically determined, has exploded in the past two years.

These two are like yin and yang. Water and fire. Earth and air.

Dark and light.

It's not so simple as, they cannot exist without one another, but rather that they are one another. They exist on opposite sides of the same coin and cannot be seen together unless that coin is spinning, and then, only in glimpses of post nut clarity.

Please don't report me to Tumblr staff for putting this on your dash. It can stay our little secret.

No one reblog this. No one see it either, for that matter.

#ao3 #fanfic #writing #writers on tumblr

309 notes · View notes

mumblingsage · 7 days

Text

Semi-baked thought but recently I have read 3 different professionally published gay romances that were...fine...some more satisfying than others, but what stuck out to me was the extent to which the characterization and dialogue lacked surprises. A bi guy in an M/M romance recommendation thread on reddit pointed out the extent to which published romances gravitate toward a particular flavor of feminine man paired with a particular flavor of masculine man and it's hard not to keep seeing once it's pointed out. In each of the three books the more 'masculine' guy was bisexual. I love bisexuals (it's self-love), I love characters with differing relationships to their gender, but I'm also fighting down thoughts of a drinking game.

It's not the exact same flavor as the original Fandom Ghost but it is a Ghost. [And specific enough that it is a Ghost, not an archetype.]

Perhaps the bigger lacking-surprises issue is a craft one where everyone just Says What They Mean too often, and in rather bland ways. I don't mind the occasional revelation of Truth from the Heart; I am reading romance! But how you do it matters, points can be won for style; there's a low quotability quotient and less satisfaction because, again, it's romance, we know they're going to communicate these particular ideas, we're here to be charmed and surprised by how they do it. (In parallel to the romances, I'm reading Robin Hobb's character-driven fantasy novels, and one thing I will say for her, the characters' dialogue + narrative is a firehose of surprises in a way that often reads as more truly romantic.)

If this was fanfiction of my Blorbos I would be more easily satisfied, or perhaps the generic-ness would be less noticeable because I'd be backfilling richer details from canon. When it's happening to original characters, it leaves a feeling of dissatisfaction.

There's also a thing where the side characters root for the relationship in rather flat/uninteresting ways; I'm willing to admit some of this is Just Me having a higher angst preference than the target audience, but at the same time I've read older romances (old enough that they're standardly heterosexual) which, for all their myriad other sins, give side characters much richer and more complex emotional affects and roles. And I think some of it is approach/style more than content: if I summarize various side characters, they sound perfectly interesting, but on the page they fall flat because they just Say What They Mean in polite and generic ways. [This a flaw that annoys me in fanfiction too. Once you've read enough, you already know what they're going to say, usually, but you want the way they say it to make some impression. "Say" can be broadly construed to include body language and symbolic action - my kingdom for an extravagant gesture.]

#tl;dr more bisexual bottoms #(no that's too reductive. but also yes please)#also PLEASE make your dialogue more unhinged and quotable #once you spot characters Saying Exactly What They Mean it's a curse you bear for life #this also happened to a pure non-romance fantasy series I enjoy a good deal #knocked it from 4 to 3 stars in my heart :(#Robin Hobb's characters are allergic to full honesty and it's a refreshingly different aggravation #plus it makes their moments of honesty so much more powerful

25 notes · View notes

anti-terf-posts · 9 months

Note

Hi, this may not be the right place to ask, but I’m just wondering what’s so wrong with radfem ideology? I can’t really find any proper resources detailing why it’s wrong, besides screenshots of either toxic people saying toxic things, or screenshots of tradfem blogs. My own research hasn’t brought up anything either, as I can’t really find radfems saying anything horrible like a lot of anti radfem posts describe them saying. Again, sorry if this is the wrong blog, feel free to ignore this ask if that’s the case!

BEFORE WE BEGIN: I AM NOT AN EXPERT. I USED ARTICLES WITH NUETRAL OPINIONS ON RADICAL FEMINISM, AND BASED MY OWN OPINIONS ON IT. USE THIS AS A SOURCE AT YOUR OWN RISK

This one is actually kind of tricky, because some radfem beliefs are actually very valid and are arguably reasonable.

For example, Wikipedia states, "Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical re-ordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts" Which like, totally makes sense! The patriarchy needs to be dismantled entirely in order for women to have true freedom.

However, radical feminism dismisses the idea of legal/class based misogyny, which is ridiculous, considering the fact that women in higher classes often have more power over lower class women, and sometimes even enforce gender roles against lower class women (making them do household chores like taking care of the children or cleaning the house for them, etc.)

And let's not forget the racism rooted in radical feminism. Radfems claim that misogyny is the most basic form of oppression, which completely erases the oppression of people of colour, which has been around since almost forever.

In fact, in the early days of this movement, many black women refused to associate with radical feminists due to their ignorance of oppression against women of colour. It was only after radical feminists began to listen to woc, and start including them in their feminism that they decided to join the ideology.

Moving the discussion over towards prostitution and pornography. Radfems believe that both of those are inherently bad things. It is true that women in lower socioeconomic classes have a higher chance of being prostitutes, but it shouldn't be true. Yes, women who are coerced into sex work in any way should have the freedom to quit, but this should not clash with a woman's freedom to join the industry if she wants to.

So, sometime after the radical feminism movement was started, radical lesbian feminism began.

These women believed that they were helping women fight oppression and misogyny simply by being lesbians, because "heterosexuality inherently oppresses women". This statement is incompatible with the belief that women should have the freedom to do what they want. If lesbians are unable to control who they're attracted to, then why isn't that the same for heterosexual women? And let's not ignore the blatant biphobia that comes with that. A bi woman should have the freedom to choose to be in a male/female relationship without judgement (as long as she isn't being coerced into the relationship) and saying otherwise completely erases bi women's experiences as queer people.

Speaking of queer people, we all know and love the classic TERF, or, FART, as I like to call them. (Also, if you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic about loving TERFs. No one loves TERFs.)

Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists believe that the trans movement "perpetuates patriarchal gender norms," and "is incompatible with radical feminist ideology."

If you couldn't tell, this is greatly untrue. Radical feminism just believes that we need to get rid of the patriarchy and has nothing to do with how people identify. If you take a look at pretty much any article that discuss radical feminism, you'll see the history of anti-trans rhetoric being spread by the ideology.

Being anti trans is probably what radical feminism is most well known for. Over the course of many decades, the ideology has become less about women's movement, and more about punishing trans people for their existence. Hell, even a quick search of "radical feminism" on this god forsaken site will reveal that their main motive is no longer about women's liberation and has now become all about oppressing trans people.

As my mum put it; "it's the cycle of abuse. These women are so traumatized by the patriarchy and misogyny, that they feel the need to abuse the easiest target."

To recap, the radfem ideology is racist, biphobic, and most notably, transphobic. And if that's not enough to convince you that it's problematic, I don't know what is.

#asks #anon #trans #transgender #anti terf #anti gender critical #anti radfem

124 notes · View notes

transmascpetewentz · 10 months

Text

Moving The Goalposts: Infighting, Exorsexism, and Transandrophobia

I want to start this off not by getting directly into the meat of my theory, but instead by showing all of you a post that I came across today that illustrates exactly what I am talking about when I say that transandrophobes, and specifically TEHMs in this case, move the goalposts in a way that causes infighting within the trans(masc) community. This is a post by a pretty well-known TEHM whose blog I've been watching for a while.

What Jackson is doing here seems pretty obvious on the surface. He's making fun of nonbinary people who were AFAB because he perceives them as fakers and/or trenders. However, when you take a look at some of the other things that he believes, you realize that it just isn't that simple.

This is a post by one of Jackson's mutuals on here. If you don't know what some of these phrases mean, "trans heterosexual" refers to gay trans people (in this case, it's likely focusing on transmascs, but this rhetoric harms transfem lesbians too), and "trans homosexual" refers to straight trans people. What lavenderlad is trying to do is infantilize non-straight trans people, acting like we are complaining about nothing (maybe hysterical, even) for pointing out the oppression that we face from cishets and cis queers alike.

But it goes even deeper.

This right here is a very interesting post, specifically because lavenderlad seems to have changed his tune completely. As opposed to infantilizing us like in the previous post, he has now switched to transandrophobic conspiracy theories about how we are apparently some sort of dominant societal force despite being less than 2% of the population. My antisemitism radar is going off right now, too, because this sounds suspiciously like your average antisemite talking about Jews. He went very quickly from treating us like we're little girls who can't do anything to treating us like evil, scary men who are trying to invade his space.

He moved the goalposts because it was convenient for him at this moment to contribute to the oppression of gay trans men.

To elaborate, there's a specific type of transandrophobia seen in these circles that Jackson and lavenderlad are using. They are applying both maleness and femaleness to us. They infantilize us like we are women, and use our perceived femininity to justify gatekeeping us out of their spaces, while also using very common anti-gay male and generally anti-marginalized male stereotypes such as us being inherently aggressive, invaders, our bodies disgusting, etc. It's exorsexism, plain and simple.

And I feel like these posts show us how transandrophobes and transphobes in general can cause infighting within the trans community. A feminine nonbinary person might look at Jackson's first post and go "see! trans men have so much better than me!" but in fact, trans men, both binary and nonbinary, aren't actually treated any better. The grass is not greener. Trans men who try to conceal our birth sex and/or transness are considered liars, trying to invade spaces we don't belong, and more; but trans men and transmascs who do not try to pass, who don't try to conceal our transness, are accused of being "not really dysphoric."

Do not be fooled into thinking that transandrophobes would like you better if your gender expression was different. They don't want trans men to be displaying our transness, they don't want us to go stealth, and they don't want anything in between. They want us to be cis. Do not argue with your trans brothers about who society hates more; because society will see you as whatever will prove a transandrophobe's point. Address the root problems of patriarchy and transandrophobia instead of letting infighting eat us alive.

#wentz.txt #transandrophobia #free blocklist #long post #anti transmasculinity

100 notes · View notes

holdoncallfailed · 2 months

Note

do you ever think about the parallels between damon and graham and paul and john? the childhood best friends and inseparable creative partners, one is the pusher for the dream, and the other one is the arty emotional live wire, the jealousy, competitiveness, emotional breakdown, and dissatisfaction/unhappiness with their dynamic. eventually, one gets a new creative partner, and the wedge becomes a chasm. yet only one of them got the opportunity to fully reconcile while the other was robbed of it.

of course, they're not the same, and the level of success does make for a lot of that separation. but I see how much time and effort it took for damon and graham to rebuild their relationship, knowing it couldn't go to what it once was but still working to repair it. glad they did, especially when you hear paul say that one should never put off telling someone you love them.

yeeeesss this has been a point of great interest for myself and certain other rpf scholars on this site (hi @elena-ferrante). watching paul in get back really reminded me of damon lol...i think it's interesting that part of the tension between d&g and j&p is that the domineering control freak "spokesman" member of the pair comes across as the one calling the shots but is in fact so full of admiration for and places such a high value on the opinion of the other that he becomes sort of deferential to him... i think they all struggle(d) with their identities and public images being intertwined. but i also think that there is/was more love between them than we could possibly understand from the outside. i really sincerely think that john and paul would have reconciled if they'd been given enough time.

speaking more broadly to your point about the wedge & the chasm: i think another thing about why bands are so interesting and why they capture the public imagination is that they frequently present this homosocial fantasy of companionship that is very much rooted in an adolescent configuration of life , i.e. hanging out with your friends all the time, doing whatever you want, responsible for only yourselves, obligated to each other out of a shared passion. and that lifestyle is not compatible with The Institution of Adulthood, i.e. stable career, marriage and family-rearing, which still feels compulsory—if not totally inescapable—for most people in [heterosexual] society. a band can be a world unto itself but it is not the real world. there are soooooooooo many examples of bands falling apart once a member gets married and/or commits to a new creative partner because that development inevitably ruins the fantasy on which the band was built, consciously or subconsciously. the real world comes careening back into focus...and you can't ever get that old life back once you've deviated from it.

i think the assumption within heterosexual society that homosociality is something that one "ages out of" is very pervasive (and homophobic, natch, but we don't have to get into that now). that homosocial relationships—or even friendships more generally—are always ultimately secondary to romantic relationships (specifically marriage) is something that i think a lot of people struggle with as they move further into adulthood (i know i am lol). it just happened on a much more drastic scale for these guys because of their fame.

also so much of the stuff in this post is very damon & graham coded...

well anyway let's all kill ourselves.

#Anonymous

28 notes · View notes

nourrris · 2 months

Text

I'm happy there was no season 4.

This could either be a popular, or very unpopular opinion, I'm unsure as frankly I've only began watching two days ago, and finished the show already, (god it was beautiful).

Anyways, I very firmly believe anything after a season 3 would have likely ruined the storyline, it ended on such a beautiful note, something that's so perfectly them. I'm also in a way, happy they never actually did kiss, although realistically I had been rooting for it to happen, the fact it didn't doesn't bother me one bit, it really brings out all the intimacy in their prior actions, and words, I love that their love was batshit insane, that it didn't need a kiss or pda to believe it was reciprocated, frankly surrendering eachothers lives together was more than enough for a confirmation.

But continuing on, I believe a season 4 would have been too messy, they left s3 on a very difficult position to recover off, and a position that didn't need recovering either, it didn't need fixing or changing - not one bit. It was so perfect in my opinion, their last things they did was kill a man together to save one another, then kill themseleves together, literally how much more fitting could it have been for these murder husbands? It just worked so well, that nothing can be more intimate than death for them, in my opinion.

Latching onto the last part of the first section of the post, I really liked how they portrayed the reciprocity of Will's feelings towards Hannibal. When Bedelia ask's Will if he 'aches' for Hannibal too, and it cuts off to another scene, I generally already took that as a yes, as it was a big damn claim, I don't think it's something you easily hesitate on, not when the person in question is a cannibalistic murderer. When he chooses to save Hannibal, and jump off the cliff with him though, that is the real confirmation of course, choosing to leave his wife and son, all friends and absolutely every inch of the life he made - for Hannibal, a man he physically could not get over no matter how hard he tried.

It's perfect, sorry I just finished the show today (like a few hours ago) and I love it so dearly, I've never watched something where the ending felt so genuinely satisfying, even if it seemingly hadn't meant to felt like a finale in that manner, it worked amazingly, I'm very glad it wasn't a s2 situation with such an insane cliff hanger, or else I would have probably just.. never watched the show. Some say it does feel like a cliff hanger, but eventually you can come to terms and realize that their actions, a double suicide in the name of love(?) couldn't possibly surpass anything else they've done at that point, their action's have led them to either horribly idiotic situations, or blissful moments.

Lastly I wanted to mention my original assumption of the ending, I midway through season 2 found out Hannibal was actually a incomplete cancelled show, also prior to that I found through spoilers that will eventually has a wife. Those facts are important because I very weirdly am a person who cannot consume a media without spoilers, (my anxiety is due to that). So I just about know every ending of a show before I'm even halfway into it, although I tend to prefer to wait later, I wondered if finishing the show was worth it so i searched it up, and watched briefly the ending, It was very relieving as if it actually did truly end in a heterosexual way it would have immediately made me quit the show, as yes they are intimite but I still did want any type of closure, without it I would have felt at most pretty indifferent with the ending.

Anyways, the show is beautiful, I love it so so much, even if it's a complete change in genres for me, I love the characters, I love the artistry and creativity in the show, and god do I love the ending.

(edit a day later: guys i totally missed that last scene w bedelia at the end, i still prefer s3's ending but did not know it was implied they were alive!!??!)

#hannibal tv show #hannibal nbc #hannibal lecter #will graham #sorry if theres typos #tis 10:30am #ive been awake since 5pm #spent all day watching hannibal (whoops)

26 notes · View notes

canonically47 · 6 months

Text

my queer hcs for 2023 TDI reboot characters <3

hello all! after watching all the way through to episode four of the second season, i realized my old hcs kind of contradict canon, and they've changed drastically based on that.

here are my new and updated headcanons, how much of them is canon, and why i hc them this way!

headcanons:

bowie: gay (canon), cisgender, he/him

raj: gay (canon), transgender ftm, he/him

wayne: aroace, cisgender, he/him

caleb: straight, cisgender, he/him

zee: panromantic demiaroace, non-binary, they/them

ripper: straight, cisgender, he/him

chase: straight, cisgender, he/him

damien: biromantic demisexual, transgender ftm, he/him

scary girl: aroace, agender, it/she (it/itself preference)

julia: lesbian, cisgender, she/her

MK: lesbian, non-binary, they/she (they/them preference)

axel: bisexual, transgender mtf, she/her

nichelle: lesbian, transgender mtf, she/her

priya: bisexual, cisgender, she/her

millie: unlabelled, cisgender, she/her

emma: aromantic sapphic, cisgender, she/her

details such as reasonings, closeness to canon etc.:

bowie: canonically gay. there's not much to say about him. i don't see a bit of transness in him, but he is definitely a strong ally.

raj: canonicaly gay. also not much to say; i just think he's... a bit cooler than gender.

wayne: he's just like me fr!! well the aromantic part but! he is so much like me!!!

caleb: funnily enough, i hced him as gay before this season. now i have changed my ways; i'm actually rooting for him and priya to get together. look at that dynamic!

zee: zee is beyond gender and sexuality. they like everyone, but they only feel attracted to people sexually and romantically when they know them on a deeper level. i also am debating whether or not i like them and damien together atm, so that's cool :3

ripper: my man! his romance with axel this season is great so far, and i cannot for the life of me believe i am saying this. he's such a guy, and has proven himself better this season. just look at he!

chase: yeah fuck this guy that's all

damien: similarly to zee, sexual attraction only comes to my man if he knows the person. i feel like this is pretty in-character. i also hc him as biromantic, but he probably fears romantic interactions equally for each gender, for which he's questioned his sexuality multiple times and thought he might even be aromantic. i feel like this hc also appeals to both priyamien and dwayne shippers so you're welcome /hj

scary girl: it just is this way you're welcome

julia: look at her dynamic with MK. and then get back to me if you can't see it. /j

MK: same as above! i love mkulia <3

axel: heLLOOO have you LOOKED at her. she is bisexual but a DISASTER bisexual at that!!! i hc that before realizing her feelings for ripper she was helplessly in love with nichelle and just gazed at her from afar like... oh my god pretty girlfailure... must kiss... which is kinda the reason she fell for ripper too, SHE LIKES HER MEN, WOMEN AND ANYTHING BEYOND DUMB AS A ROCK!!!

nichelle: not much to say just. her!

priya: even before this season i could not for the life of me ship her with anyone, i settled for just heterosexual, but NOW i can see why. NOW... there's caleb. and i like where their relationship is going. seeing both caleb and priya so in love is hilarious and adorable. i still think she would be good with a girl, maybe not necessarrily one on the cast but. A girl

millie: she is so?? confused?? what the fuck is going on?????? like she likes people but also. not?? is that a thing????? what????????????

emma: she's just like me fr. she thought she wanted a man that treats her right GIRL NO! she doesn't want a man PERIOD!

and finally, pairings:

bowie x raj. do i need to add anything?

zee x damien. hear me out.

zee x emma but like... not romantically, not platonically, but a secret third thing

mk x julia. MKULIAERS WHERE YALL AT!!!

ripper x axel. i fucking adore them.

caleb x priya. the slowburn can and will be so real with these two.

47 notes · View notes