#that post is like. living in a world where straight is the minority and gay is the norm
Note
Why is it all about being gay for you? You have reduced yourself to just being gay. How sad you have made this your whole personality. Gay gay gay, isn't there anything else interesting or notable about you?
Based on your message, I could rightfully ask why you make being homophobic your whole personality? Why this focus on being anti-gay? Isn't there anything else about you that would be interesting to share?
This is a themed blog, I'm writing my thoughts, feelings and experiences as a queer person who is LDS, so me being gay is going to be a frequent topic. My Facebook account doesn't look like this blog because it doesn't have the same focus.
Have you seen the world we live in? It is designed for straight people! There are messages about being straight everywhere. Practically every television show, movie, book and graphic novel features straight characters. Straightness is highlighted in commercials and on billboards. Straight straight straight everywhere I look. Straight people assume everyone else is straight unless they're told otherwise.
I heard Ben Schilaty say to imagine you went on a cruise and after it had left port you discovered it is a gay cruise. Everywhere you go on the boat there are gay couples and there's activities themed for gay culture. People keep coming up to ask if you're cruising alone or if you have a partner. Everyone is assuming you're gay. How would you respond in this situation, would you be telling other cruisers that you're straight?
It's well-known that for someone who is in a minority situation, that minority identity becomes important to them. An interesting example is when someone moves to a different country from where they grew up, they can experience an identity crisis and wind up emphasizing their identity in ways they never did when they lived in their home country. Like a British person living in American who has the Union Jack flag and a picture of the king in their home when they didn't have those things while living in England.
I attend a church which is hyper-focused on non-queer identities, so of course my queer identity is going to be important there. All the church teachings about living a heteronormative life leaves me wondering "what about me?" "What will heaven look like for me?" "What is my purpose in life?" "How am I to experience joy in this life?"
I suggest the anon show a little compassion and just let people express themselves as they want. If you don't like what I post, move along and follow someone else's blog.
38 notes
·
View notes
Text
Overlap between the radical feminist and rationalist world today.
If you don't know what Rationalists are, it's a Silicon Valley-centric subculture/ideology about trying to be more rational, in theory. In practice, it means you've read either everything posted by Eliezer Yudkowsky on LessWrong, or (more commonly today) everything posted by Scott Alexander on SlateStarCodex/AstralCodexTen.
Scott Alexander is well known for his, uh, interesting ideas on feminism and women. He is a proponent of the idea that women are just naturally not inclined towards STEM fields and that this is a better explanation for their underrepresentation. He is especially famous for having written 'Untitled', where he argues that pop feminists who talk about nerd entitlement are cruel character assassins and that hating fedoras is a dogwhistle for hating Jewish men.
You may think a subculture like this would be primed for sceptical, non-mainstream thinking about transition science, at least, but Rationalism has a very high rate of trans women (MTFs) participating in it, and a very high rate of defending the interpretation that the 'best thing we can do' is to just go along with the idea that trans {gender} are {gender}, in a sort of utilitarian "it causes the least harm" sort of way.
(There are some people in the subculture strongly against this, including sex dysphoric men, but they are a small minority.)
With all this in mind, I think of this part as exemplary:
Scott: This is going to sound insensitive, but as far as “bad US medical policies” go, 2,500 children having their lives low-key ruined is nothing. I can think of a dozen US medical policies that are much worse than that!
It is certainly the case that the actual, objective number of kids going on puberty blockers or youth transition is pretty small. Even as doctors try to make these treatments accessible, there simply aren't enough treatment centers to meet what they see as rising demand.
Now if you want to say "I'd rather focus my energies on an issue that objectively affects more people," I get that. But I don't trust Scott on this issue, for the reason that he is a noted anti-feminist (as in, he thinks feminists and feminist activism is untrustworthy) and a noted apologist for current levels of female representation in fields (it's 'inherent interest' after all).
For me, I see the misuse of youth transition as a way to turn gender non-conforming kids and gay kids into gender conforming straight kids who are more attractive. (The end goal of making youth transitioners into more sexually attractive partners is stated everywhere.) I also see that the ideology behind youth transition is used to pathologize gender non-conforming and gay kids into thinking that there is something horribly wrong with them and that they are "really" the opposite gender. Even if only a small number of kids actually get to take the puberty blockers, the ideology supporting the puberty blockers - that gender non-conforming behavior and dissatisfaction with one's birth body are incontrovertible signs of permanent cross-gender identity - is harmful and pathologizing to gnc/gay kids. This ideology has effects beyond the number of kids with access to clinics and "supportive" parents, and I'm seeing it in how every slightly gender non-conforming teenage girl I meet is calling herself non-binary or transmasc. The erasure of gnc women is a tragedy and a false salvation to the pains of misogyny.
I don't expect any of this to matter to Scott, though, because he has shown multiple times on his blog that he is really not that interested in women or outcomes for women. He thinks if someone is distressed and wants to transition and shows signs that transition would help, then they should be medicalized. I doubt he cares about what this means for gender non-conforming women or gay women. It is possible he thinks gender non-conforming women are on some spectrum of transness anyway, and that we'd have been happier transitioned than not.
I'm mostly just surprised at the lack of curiosity. One of the things I like about Rationalists is the sense of curiosity. It's a group that really attracts strange people who like to think very deeply. Scott is a psychiatrist. He suspects something weird is going on with youth transition, yet he's utterly uncurious about what it is, or why. Is he afraid of seeming 'obsessed' with gender? Does he think that gnc girls being medicalized and pathologized at a young age is no big loss, because they can just rebuild identities as 'trans men', so it's not worth spending time on?
Having read the accounts of detransitioners, I know that they are constantly minimized and silenced on account of being a 'small number.' I also know that detransitioners, whether youth or adult, have valuable things to add to the conversation. Even if it's a small population that we're helping, I want to help them, because I know most people's response will probably be like Scott's - "oh, there's so few of them, that's not a big deal." It is a big deal to the people affected, and it's a big deal to everyone who is told in some way that something is wrong with them because they are gnc/gay/autistic females.
25 notes
·
View notes
Text
I think episode 8 of Yuri Kuma Arashi is kind of the perfect example of the issues I’m having with this show. Because on the surface, all the symbolism and commentary are spot fucking on.
I’ve danced around it a bit in my posts, but to me, YKA is very clearly commenting on the “pure yuri” genre, as it’s sometimes known. To simplify for time, it’s a certain attitude that goes into writing yuri stories where the girls are shut off from the real world. They don’t read like actual lesbians living full lives, they come off as porcelain dolls kept safe and pristine in their little doll houses. It’s an infantilizing strain of writing that doesn’t really care about portraying queer experiences as much as it cares about selling fluffy fantasies of surface-level cute gayness, separated from the reality of what it actually means to be gay in today’s world.
To be clear, I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with queer escapist fantasy like that. God knows us LGBTQs could use a few perfectly happy stories where we don’t have to think about how much the real world sucks for us. But there’s a certain point where it feels like a lot of yuri stories aren’t written to actually speak to a genuine lesbian experience, but just to present a safe, non-threatening plastic approximation of it to make it more palatable to hetero consumers. Trapping queerness in an unbreakable bubble where it can play out in harmless separation from the real world, a greenhouse full of beautiful flowers that can’t survive outside its walls. No need to think about gay people’s place in “normal” society, either from the perspective of a gay person trying to navigate it or a straight person trying to understand and empathize with their struggles. And I say this as someone who’s loved plenty of fluffy yuri stories: it’s not healthy for so much of the genre to be dominated by that stuff.
So theoretically, I should be really receptive to what YKA is doing. A vicious deconstruction of the harmful expectations that the pure yuri genre places on actual queer people? How it boxes in their experiences and stunts their humanity by reducing it to a harmless, commodified product? With a main villain who was explicitly broken by being locked one such box until she began to see herself as filthy for every minor misstep and grew obsessed with trapping all girls like her in those boxes too, scared the world wold break them as badly as it broke her? I should be so on board for that. That’s exactly the kind of commentary I should be foaming at the mouth over.
The problem is that the show serving that commentary just isn’t very interesting on its own terms.
Like, do I understand the point of Yurika’s role as antagonist? Sure. Do I get the importance of the metaphors that drive Kureha to try and kill Ginko? Absolutely. Do either of those things make me care about them on a deep, personal level? No. Because the sad truth it, these characters are not interesting outside their place in the metanarrative. Strip away the commentary these characters exist to serve and there’s basically nothing left. You can watch Utena without a master’s thesis in feminist theory and still care about Utena trying to save Anthy from her shackles. You can watch Sarazanmai without a PhD in child psychology and still have a blast with the kids’ struggles for connection. You can even watch Penguindrum, confusing mess though it may be at times, and care about Kanba, Shu and Himari even when you don’t understand exactly why things happen the way they do. But you cannot watch and enjoy Yuri Kuma Arashi unless you care more about the overarching metaphors and message of a story than the story itself. If anything, it reminds me less of any other Ikuhara show and more of the similarly meta-narrative heavy Re:Creators: a very good message that I definitely agree with, but man does the story conveying that message not measure up on its own.
48 notes
·
View notes
Text
Here's a question I keep puzzling about - what requirements would you set for a book for it to count as 'diverse'?
This sounds like a straightforward thing, but people seem to mean different things when talking about 'diverse' media. For some it's more about the contents, for some it's about the identity of the author.
Clearest cut case of course is if the author is from a racial or sexual minority, writing about characters from sexual or racial minorities.
...But this would exclude straight (or 'straight') authors writing about queer characters, which, depending on where you live in the world, can still be very much a risky thing to do.
Or how do you categorise a queer author writing a straight story? Is A Room With a View diverse?
(Maybe not - Forster wasn't exactly openly out at the time, or any time during his life and unlike Maurice this book is not about being gay. But HE still WAS very much gay, which coloured all his experiences, so maybe yes? Do you see my problem here?)
Or an author from a racial minority writing a story with a mostly white cast? Do you count The Count of Monte Cristo as a diverse read?
(This one is a more definite yes in my opinion because it's not like Dumas could just hide his skin colour, he had to openly exist as a mixed race person in 19th century France.)
My confusion only grows when someone uses the term as just anything that doesn't have a fully white cast, regardless of background or origin. This post was partially brought to you by someone referring to anime as diverse. Not anime with gay or non-Japanese characters, just. Anime in general. Because the characters are not white. Which I guess matters so much in a medium produced in Japan, where most of the stories are set in Japan and feature a full cast of Japanese characters.
4 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hi ya'll 🌻anon here! I wanted to thoughtdump after seeing someone post 'I see all this discourse about queer identity and labels and i kinda agree but disagree with both of them but I just call myself queer' and like, it struck me that a lot of people might not know how important queer identities are for some people?
I grew up in a small town in the deep south, heavily indoctrined by a christian family, homophobic and transphpbic media, and hostile culture, it was isolating and grew self-hatred into me that I still struggle with. I literally didnt have a word for 'gay woman' or being transgender until college, I did not know these were possible, that other people who felt like I did existed.
While I was starting transition, my therapist withheld hormones from me unless I was actively dating a man, and combined with internalized transphobia telling me no cis woman woupd ever see me as a woman, and internalized homophobia telling me that I should just be straight, I was suffering being indoctrinated again that you cant be a woman without being attracted to men.
Without the identity, the language of lesbianism, I honestly wouldn't be here today, I was self-harming and suicidal until I was able to get hormones away from my therapist and be myself. I had language to communicate to others how I felt, a community of people who felt like I do that I can talk about these experiences with.
I think people who aren't part of any particular queer identity, or aren't invested in one, have trouble understanding how it opens up our world, we don't live in a magical fantasy world where everybody has knowledge of all of the spectrum of human experiences and and nobody faces discrimination or oppression for their differences.
So yeah, it matters that we have language for an idea that may save someone's life, sue me for caring about that.
-🌻
Hi!
A lot of people since labels are not important for them they treat as if they aren’t important for anyone else. People need to understand if they do decide to label themselves with something specific, the least they could do is respect the label’s meaning.
If our society wasn’t misogynistic, homophobic, racist and transphobic labels wouldn’t be so important.
A straight person doesn’t really care about the fact they’re straight and keep using that label every time, and that’s because they have their rights and experiences respected.
If lesbians were respected (or if any other identity that’s a minority) we wouldn’t keep needing to remind people of who we are and fight for our rights.
And not only that, language exists for communication, and communication exists to facilitate things. Misusing words and ignoring their meanings isn’t doing anything, that’s not helpful and that’s only making communication difficult.
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
People are using the social justice language of less than a decade ago to argue points antithetical to the original goals. The SJWs may have been pro-trans but it was also basic understanding that women should be allowed and encouraged to hate men, that black people should be allowed and encouraged to white people, that gay people should be allowed and encouraged to hate straight people etc. It was uniformly understood that oppressed people need a voice in this world, and that that voice isn't always going to be kind or friendly. And that 'hating' your oppressors has little to no real-world impact outside of hurt feelings.
Now one of the most widespread and oldest oppressor groups in the world we're not allowed to 'hate' because it means you hate their other intersectioning identities. The language of intersectional social justice is being evoked to argue for a hyper-individualistic and flaccid anti-politics.
It's startling to me that you could make this point for hating 'cis' people, able-bodied people, straight people, white people. Why even differentiate 'qu**r' people out if under this exact same logic we're not allowed to hate cis gay people because some of them are black? But that's the point, isn't? We're not allowed to hate person of x oppressor group because they're also of y oppressed group, but then we're not allowed to hate the oppressors of y either because they might also intersect with x. In the end. there's nothing to differentiate what makes an oppressor and oppressed because anyone could be any of them at any time. And, with gender, anyone could secretly be nonbinary and therefore part of the only group that's publicly allowed to get away with talking about the evils of their oppressor class!
The anxieties of the social justice era, of 'pop feminism vs gamergate', of black lives matter, of gay marriage, of increased representation of 'minorities' in the media, is rapidly coming into view. We're in an era of backlash. Like an abuser learning therapy language to be a more effective abuser, the apolitical centrists and worried masses have found an effective way to silence those who truly wish to enact change. Feminists, gay rights activists, BLM protestors and beyond were never going to be given the benefit of the doubt, our movements were never going to be seen as 'fair'. That's part of the whole reason we decided 'actually, we're allowed to 'hate' our oppressors and say 'male/white people tears' etc.' They're stealing that from us. The concept of the terf has been the perfect in-road into destroying all the gains that have been made. Literally every uncomfortable leftist politic will eventually be tacked onto the terf umbrella.
Fortunately, my hope is that this is fundamentally unsustainable. The red scare was a period in politics where being a 'communist' was seen as a catch-all term for anyone wishing to 'destroy america', whatever that means - but in reality, it was anyone who advocated for progressive politics and said things that went against the conservative status quo. The current right-wing have dredged up the same argumentative style with phrases like 'cultural marxism', but the left have found something similar with the 'terf'. If you may notice, even the right wing have started to use the phrase. Right-wingers and left-wingers alike will absolutely use the terf boogeyman when they need to. Eventually, the word terf will be so comedically meaningless whilst trans politics will be so unavoidable that regular people should be able to reasonably escape the term simply by sheer number alone. But that is a while away yet. In the meantime, I simply watch and brace myself for the next braindead post like the above that pops up on my feed due to using the 'radfem' tag.
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
i got tagged in that thing about ‘post 8 shows to get to know me better’ which like... i feel like none of this makes any sense and i am dating myself here. but nevertheless.
1. buffy the vampire slayer (1997 - 2003). listen. it’s iconic. i have complicated feelings about it now, given everything we know about what the actresses went through on set with joss whedon, but at the time, it was formative. faith in the leather pants eating twizzlers in that apartment that the mayor put her up in is one of my earliest “oh i’m kinda gay” moments. belonging pt 2 still makes me cry. willow and tara. i’ll never be over it.
2. queer as folk (1999 - 2005) obviously, in the late 90s / early 2000s i was searching for queer rep anywhere i could find it. we had just gotten direct tv, i think so my dad could watch the sopranos. little did he know, i was watching 30 year old brian fucking 18 year old justin taylor on the lowest tv volume possible after sneaking into the living room at 2 in the morning after everyone else had gone to bed. is it good representation? is it fucked up that the relationship that anchored the show was between a grown man and a teenager? i wasn’t thinking about it like that when i watched it. i was just absolutely in awe.
3. the l word (2004 - 2009) listen. if you watched the l word and wanted to bang shane, you were probably straight. if you watched the l word and wanted to get railed by jennifer beals, you were just a mortal. if you watched the l word and wanted to be jenny schecter before she got that little dog... you were me. i may have been the only one in the world? i don’t know what that says about me.
4. charmed (og) (1998 - 2006) i watched charmed reruns literally every single day after school. i adored charmed. beautiful powerful women living in san francisco with the most bonkers late-90s / early 2000s fashion fighting demons? i was all in. i remember my dad telling me that he thought holly marie combs was “plain looking” and i’m still offended. Its been 25 years.
5. south of nowhere (2005 - 2008) i feel like i was the only person in the world who watched this show. it was on nickelodeon (???). it had 3 seasons. gabrielle christian moves from ohio to los angeles and falls in love with mandy musgrave. it disappeared and tbqh i can barely believe it aired when and where it did.
6. crazy ex girlfriend (2015 - 2019) a show about older ppl for an older me. i obviously relate a lot to a california attorney with a complicated relationship with her body and mental health struggles. so. i stopped watching before the last season so i could continue to live in my fantasy world where rebecca was with nathaniel. i know i’m in the minority, but i thought they were perfect together. the chemistry was off the charts. he matched her intellect. i loved it.
7. orange is the new black (2013 - 2020). i mean, it basically started off the rise of netflix’s original content, right? i mean, now, looking at how netflix treats their original content creators, it’s bad. but still. and i think about danielle brooks saying "so I'm sitting there, bbq sauce on my tiddies" all the time. and i’ll never be over what they did to poussey. and how they handled it the next season by painting the killer corrections official as sympathetic. i didn’t watch anything after that season.
8. skins uk (2007-2013). this is another one that i have complicated feelings about, given what the now-adult actors have said about their experience filming the show as teens. the star power this show brought us though. dev patel. daniel kaluuya. jack o’connell. kaya scodelario. it was really something. i remember downloading it and watching it on my first laptop sitting on my fire escape and smoking as a college student and thinking that i was just so deep and grown up. how embarassing lmfao fml
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
Just remembered a thing about like, what I posted and like
and like it's so fuckin weird to me how we speak of so many issues as if they're all separate when in the end they are usually a combination of 2 things
anti choice and racism
now I can't really speak on the latter, considering I'm as white as it gets, but the first one
so. trans rights? when people wanna go against them, they wanna take away their CHOICE to transition (or not) and then go on to demonize them in as many ways as possible
gay rights? people wanting to take away the CHOICE for people to be in queer relationships, then putting all possible effort in to make us look bad
the right to do abortions? literally what the pro choice vs pro life fights have been about, especially the making people feel bad for their choice even more, basically putting an unborn baby's life above the person's who carries it
disabled rights? with intellectual and physical disabilities included as well? also personality disorders included? ableists wanting to take away again the CHOICE and the way for these people to get the care and medication they need and want, and then also going out of their ways to make these people look worthless, scummy, and often even as the villains, or at least the bad people you should avoid
intersex rights? the CHOICE taken away, both from the parents and the child to not have invasive surgeries that are just gonna most likely ruin the child's life, even going onto saying it shouldn't matter because intersex people are rare (not true at all btw) and so why should there be laws protecting these basically non existent people, once again. being a problem, in a round about way, being, somehow, bad people
like Idk if it's just me but it always seems to be the case. Where especially right wingers just can't stop acting like all these minorities bother them and they just NEED to comment on it and have to be included, just like the straight pride thing! like, it's so weird to me how they so often go on to judge you in so so many ways and try to reinforce what they see as good
as if people of the world, who are different from them are only there to be an asset they can react to, get angry at and maybe even kill if they're that far gone
like this anti choice vibe is all over the place, AND NOT WITH JUST RIGHT WINGERS
they are just a good example due to their tendency of not hiding the darkest shit they want to do to you just cuz you have to use a wheelchair and have a trans pin on your bag or something
I absolutely see this with other people as well, where it seems like they are pro choice until it's about a group they don't like
like when gay skinny people will be like yasss slayyyy until a fat man tries out being a drag queen and they proceed to half subconsciously berate him for trying to do that while fat, or worse, tell him that he's being soooooo brave for this
anyways my point was that all this anti choice thing seems to have, basically 2 goals in mind: eliminate or assimilate
it's like, it feels like a losing battle
especially feeling this as I'm fat and my body image is not consistent at all, all because of this kind of, anti choice, semi fash mindset, maybe I could even call it an ideology-
anyways it either kills us or numbs us to the point that we don't fight anymore, and maybe even die to that at that point, especially if it's about getting necessary medication and aid to literally survive
anyways my point with this- why are we fighting each other? we're all hurting just about the same way, by the very same people, the very same system
best we can do is hold each other up, just a bit higher so maybe we can live just a little longer, or maybe even get something done even, whatever it is, even just society getting a little better is good
#rambling#sorry for the big post. this has been plaguing my mind#I guess to the racism part. as much as I know#it's once again othering and belittling. and especially for americans of colour I know that#they sure do like to throw them in prison and take away the choice of living just one another normal life#and pretty sure this lives in certain amounts in other places too in some ways. I'm just not that well versed in that#but good god the othering is absolutely disgusting#like obviously I don't experience it myself but the way I hear literally anybody talk about roma people around me-#anyways rant over.#feel free to add anything if you maybe wanna give more perspective to something I forgot or literally anything#I don't mind. very much you can reblog this
3 notes
·
View notes
Note
I dont even think ben millers tweet was wrong or misogynistic. Do you really think that most suburbanites were really on the front lines helping these gay men instead of treating them like pariahs? Theres the habit of ppl lazily slapping white onto their misogynistic jokes and then theres them pointing out intersections of race and class that did have a hand in the way some ppl were affected and viewed the aids epidemic. Most of the white women that helped them were working class and queer, not straight suburbanites due to the fact that what attracted a lot of people to suburbia and still does is that they get to live in homogeneous communities free of minorities.
I understand what you’re saying here, and yet, I still feel that Ben Miller’s tweet was fundamentally misogynist. In fact, I feel that the original tweet IS an example of slapping “white” before “women” to cloak a disparaging remark about women in some kind of acceptable veneer for the wider online public. I do not think that the tweet offers any real substantive insight into the horrendous treatment gay men were subjected to by the American public, including both men and women, during the 1980s and ‘90s. The tweet is purely speculative, based on the imaginary scenario of suburban white women having access to Twitter during the AIDS epidemic. And for what reason? What value does this tweet have in enlightening anyone about LGBTQ+ history? No one had Twitter in the late 1980s because it did not exist, and there is no world in which that fact changes. So what can be the point of a white MAN specifically tweeting about the implied cruelty and heartlessness of white WOMEN… in a completely imagined scenario? Is this tweet supposed to educate? To me, the obvious purpose of this snide tweet - beyond collecting likes and retweets and general positive internet attention - is to incite derision of women for something that they can’t control because THE TWEET IS ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE.
I find it rich that not only is a white man tweeting about the supposedly unique awfulness of white women, but in so many responses to my Tumblr post on the subject, people have continued to reply with the most sexist stereotypes in mind. A man describes someone as a “white suburban woman”, and suddenly, people are frothing at the mouth, conjuring up Nancy Reagan and Anita Bryant. Ben Miller did not specify “STRAIGHT white suburban women”, nor did he say anything about these women being cisgendered. There is an implication in the phrase “white suburban women” that relies entirely on sexist stereotypes, so much so that people reblogging my post with the most inane and reaching comments have filled in the gaps in their heads to conjure up the most deplorable “Karens” they can imagine. (No matter that Karen is a sexist and ageist term, mind you.)
It’s undeniable that many suburban white women were horrible to gay men during the AIDS epidemic. I am in no way refuting that. But you know who were also awful to gay men? Suburban white men! And you know what group rallied behind many gay men during the AIDS epidemic? LESBIANS, many of whom could be counted as suburban white women! People seem to so quickly forget about the existence and history of lesbians, and that speaks volumes to me. Ben Miller tweeted about “suburban white women”, and suddenly, the potential queerness of these women disappears!
I have people replying to my post with comments about mothers throwing their young gay sons out of their homes as proof of the evil and reactionary ways of suburban white women. And even though that scenario has undoubtedly occurred in too many homes throughout the years, is there anything uniquely female about that action? Where are the fathers in this scenario, and why are they not being held responsible for their actions against their gay sons?
Women are consistently held to a higher moral standard than men, and so many of the responses I’ve gotten to my post only reinforce that.
#vomitago#ask#asks#i have so many thoughts in response to this but this is all i can articulate right now
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Oh come on now.
Please learn the actual definition of child sexual abuse materials (and why people use that term), and the EXTREMELY long history of governments and courts trying to figure out how to ban the bad "obscene" stuff without banning stuff that you, dear poster on tumblr, would absolutely think should not be banned (for example, even on the broadest possible scale: do you think all realistic depictions of children's genitals should be banned? If yes, do you then think doctors should not receive any training on how to take care of kids if they have injuries/diseases in their genital regions? And this is one of the easier distinctions to solve!)
lololing at the idea of my getting anything sexual out of porn (or, like, anything) - weird that that's where your mind went straight away, though, especially since my post was mostly about technical textual analysis.
Speaking of, if you want to imply that I just want to commit sex crimes, this is the post you pick? Really? The technical textual analysis post? This blog has existed less than two months and I already have multiple posts up defending the humanity of people convicted of sex crimes and arguing for their better treatment and against the existence sex offender registry.
But I guess if you tried to engage with those, you might accidentally read some of the realities they include about the harmful effects of the kind of rhetoric you are using, of the real people whose lives are destroyed because fearmongering and "think of the children" campaigns allow governments to brand homeless people who are caught urinating in public (where they are forced to live) as sex criminals who were potentially exposing themselves to children, of how not just historically, but presently, now, today, anyone who wants to give kids to understand and control their own sexuality and reproduction (or even just, like, know that they might be gay or trans) is accused of "grooming" because that is "exposing minors to sexual content" - which, you know, to return to point number 1 above, is actually true! If you explain to teenagers how their own genitals work with pictures or with explicit words, you are effectively engaging in a form of underage sexual content!
It's so much easier to engage with stupid fandom fights instead, where you can make up the fictional people who might be hurt, and construct a strawman of your enemies who are all just evil pedophiles, than to actually engage with real people, real victims, and real world harms.
#drama post#i'm more amused than anything#but i've been having Fun Brain And Sensory Times for days now#which makes me have zero patience for this nonsense#and no ability to do real world tasks that actually matter#also to be clear most of my annoyance is genuinely at the fact that this person could have chose much better evidence against me
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
They had a thing- don't do the Harlem Shake in actual Harlem
Update
Obviously the Homeless Grub boogie is the "purple horseshoe" taking for CEOs who posted gay consumer-orientated advertisements featuring the
4/3
Look. Even Mozilla [basically if you're initiated as a () Mason such reminder pointers that (even) Jesus (is Lucifer)] will calmly *tell* you in the "Hmm. We're having trouble finding that site." Not to say that this proprietary program did this, but in the culture, if you have any form of "financial hindrances?" in the proceeding, it means the assumptions were not unentangledly cognitively dissonant. You have to have that kind of cognitive dissonance, the thing itself, backed up in fed operative implanting
What happened to the late hippie movement under the Sexual revolution, the same goes for you
4/4
On Duke Nukem 3D's LA Meltdown: as with that referencing befor
As the example, when the Harlem Shake reached a certain point of popularity, it did not become common circulation: it got corporatized, and that ruined the concept
no it did become in circulation
Update
If muh white kids (*implying*) don't get this treatment as from liberals and minorities, they (ultimately) get treated as CEOs hence their entitling of themselves in their [dime-a-dozen] lives
You're forgetting that boomers, as the long-going precedent, haven't raised their children the way society [still unabashedly] establishes!
but why is that
I already answered the question when I asked why. Children ask their parents why are we learning all this gay *jew* shit
Proven by the way when gangstalking comes up and we in-line undergird it, *we never did that* - we never did. Just as hence the Wario apparition was never great like *America*. We just wanted things our way.
Update
Obviously Dark Souls is a hand-having of what is already inherent about interdimensional unholy whiteness
Chicago made a sacrifice Satanically in the 1900's, so
You go on sex dot com, they have Bidimensionality Above All
4/8
I know there's something more underneath the surface to continuing Dark Souls on proper mouse and keyboard (RUN KEY SOCIALLY * * DISTANCED * *
I'm still calling it Lacey's Doll House post-eclipse
If you're not one to recall "red hand" ugliness (explanation for that one guy's
Update
Obviously that post-2006 anime style of purity was appreciated for what it was by * no one * when it was told it's just moe
Instead what we have is as if it was the titleship of, for the sake of the token example, the Tale of Despereaux coming straight out from Hollywood being [?] its underbelly
People think like those who try to own the other side of the political spectrum are not actually doing Dark Souls as it would be done if it was to be handled on PC, when in reality I'm trying to "own" the first boss of Silent Hill 2, in and of itself, forming the example for that to be hand-had downstream [out of genuine [?]concern] so that it just doesn't *garner* any further
update
That garner is a splice.
The original is the new season of *Panty and Stocking with Garterbelt*, in itself
If you(all) aren't going to submit yourselves to that, why would we *give* you that?
oh -why you're a virgin
Everything they said about "you better *save* your nigga", they're doing for *me* - *That's gangstalking* - *that's* why no one ever pitied me - they're doing the Lord's work
alright- raasclat *Christmas* is about already-automatic systems rubberbanding the editing
There is no editing. When Kanye says "potty trained", he *is* not tweaking.
What I'm getting wrong is in the word origins. If the world knew what we have done, I wouldn't even *get* to use - wait that's very important - I'm getting my ass blown out as a white retard, and that forms the rubberbanding motive for our newfound releases as white men, we put up our walls and then we go home.
This is where you get the lyric origins "Don't want to be an American idiot" - that's where the *popularity* gets in
You better not look into your soul, or else you may strike gold and get rich
That's why men stick dildos in their ass - they live alone and they have no fun
They have nothing to *glorify* it's all over
Update
I keep getting my fat ass run laps around and it hurts
If you're going to be true to the truth, you have to admit, forming the word origin for fixation to people saying you got to admit, in itself: virality has its stem word; going places, really going places means it's spilling all * over *; you have to keep going means you have to return to the source, repeating over * and over *
It's an *obligation*
4/10
Okay, I've already reached the absolute world limits on everything else.
Before you even lay eyes on the Happy Mask Shop salesman, realize that the thing in the root cellar of SpookI's Doll House is just the white kid in his prime state(the thing, being in itself
Your kid went to that rock concert? Do you know what he did?
I think I'm getting the wrong *idea* here. Here in the country we have a common lexicon calling that the Greatest Generation. It is.
I mean you say they went off from the way society wanted, but all they did was smoke drugs. You call that your greatest? Open microwave (spam - open microwave -open
[ -open - That's iX's Americanized
Basically "all I see is cum on your *teeth* | Because you are a whore".
If that wasn't the basis and so preconceived malconclusion of the Earthbound series, then I don't know what whoredom is in the sense of so much as concept
Obviously that's the *source* of our sex as it being gratification. and I [ - *succinctly!*] *oppose this* - that is my political platform.
updoot
Mal-? It's obviously closer to the *truth* because all they did was go around and have wavy backgrounds while white america flourished under run-down
And conclusion- they actually did conclude it- N64's- well you know the
4/13
Doing endless with mouse + keyboard
This game's things it calls projections are what, coming from real life internet reaction, are nefarious,
taking what came from what you're coaching yourself with and saying yes, that's you unabashed
Regardless, these are enough to scare the shit out of me right in place of where I thought it as ironic (pretty much Mandela Catalogue)
Anyway, so there won't be a massive pothole, I bought Dark Souls II Scholar of the First Sin on PC
People rate that psychological pulse testing so highly these days, but in the endless, I actually remembered a video combination of "This was my favorite MF Doom song" and the one with Bart Simpson and realized something I had done disrespectfully that was my actual inner monologue - that's what actually gets past everything, and the game was fully unregistering
4/17
*This* is why I'm skeptical to those who even go near Disney Channel: If we followed the hymn "I am one of them, and so are you" like all Christian Democratics like they always have for the Internet perception of thousands of earth-belonged generations
"We're all in this together" would make the unspoken battoning of the original Illuminati admit that what we are doing as scientists is the most mindless or dope as rap gamers would have thing of all: tapping into natures that no one in conversation would have as it would make them *look* bad
Update
Whitoid communities - I know you're *scared* of me, but it doesn't matter how many minorities take up the place, white *supremacy* remains the marker seeing as we're all living in a warzone -* unanimous *
Trying to ignore the NIN reference, when you have science that deals in physical attributes like warzones running humans over of whom the Bible said the body is the temple, you undergird thousands of years of brain research that has been done on the human genome
We are fearfully made, and when we stepped into that, we turned the script soundly into a lie because we are not going to associate with God-forsaken Democrat ** Republicans **
What they see on TV is not what they think. They get this urge like if anyone tries to hide what they think, they'll blow it off
Commander Keen GBC got some mixed reactions
*okay*- when liberals get up in your arms they're not "owning the right"- They're revealing they're that "scary" generational schizophrenia you've been having over something like those key doors giving the error sound over your existence
-White people need(on need: DIRELY motherfucking need) to be afraid of themselves - not themselves, themself
Because if you're unsure of the source of your terms among the chaos, there's only one thing
update
What they're really saying is you should check your privilege, because to whom those terms belong is a fickle nword
This has always been the nature of my friends
Empathy being what HAS ALWAYS BEEN what I should be out there thinking of being *doing*
, what should I be out there being *doing*? *Yes*! the same recursive - (you would have to (not "be psycho to be a politician") get over your minor ** problems **)
-Meaning, being a Republican who (Donald Trump) thinks he can run the world, racist,
>Meaning, you could be a * jew * and get over your discrepancies.(hindrances?)
for most people, it's a new
You know how the Bible says to be read by all the kings of the earth? That nature of having a varietopia but having all but one white ice cream taken out, for children, looking at those in the regressive state hm hmm
Pathetically to save face on my part, what they *do* have
is to tell you if the Bible wants to stay afloat which Silent Hill 3 addressed mind my ass
you'll have to fill these shoes- bbooooaaa
Who is the Bible in address to? the sand desert wandering migrants
when you're out there, what do you have in the traditional sense? not much
What *do* you have? ass
The regressive state is as it was *supposed* to, what takes you there
-The white people trying *hand-having* this redirection with, "Here Lies...<- dotdotdot", but that doesn't work- in the last days men will *seek* death and not find it - it the wordage *means*, *Look* -it's right there - It's not hurting anything, we just need to look at one more thing - what were you doing when we were trying to get you this
Notice it's not, the song, "What I Really Want to Know Is, Are You Gonna Go My Way"
The Way is a thing rooted to Biblicality. Here it just means go- live your eterni
If you're gonna do any of that, you are not. Period!
okay. Here it just means go -live your eternity on earth, and feel and *be* fresh (it doesn't mean, go and be *willy-nilly* like all these Trump-supporting loving haters
Look. The world-economic policy is, *your soul* is not yours
Thus we have "gingers don't have souls" -if I said it was that way, it's a lie. We white Chosenites have a Metric Ton to * atone * for, and a long waytogo
If that kid from diesel patches had anything to say, it's that paying for a home means redirecting (lots) to music to live in, a lyric by Kendrick * Lamar *
Look at that word - atone! atone! atone!
4/19
Rare movie night! It's a Friday
I think - I say - I'm pretty sure
The issue with the legacy of 2010-culture Princess and the Frog is precisely that it *was* considered the next LION KING - as on the front cover
Not unlike what people considered what happened to the Thief and the Cobbler in publication in actual reality, guess
It's a lynchpin
0 notes
Text
Some of you might think it's an extremely courageous, singular, ideosyncratic and unexpected -- truly shocking -- I mean like Gandhi level of peacemaking -- move of mine to post a link to an imdb profile of a documentary who's director was a
straight man
yes a straight man! are you really so ideological, so pathologically homosexual, that this frightens you so much? Scared? Intimidated? Unable to find the fire of love burning with the brilliance of 1000 suns for the straight man that I'm able to find?
well, that's what I'm doing. Though the film is about gay subject matter, yes, the director IS straight. At least I assume so. I don't know the details of Laurent Bouzereau's life at all, actually.
I just felt that if I chickened out -- took the coward's route and did not post the link to the imdb website of this film directed by presumably a straight man -- all of western civilization would be shackled by identity politics, we will never truly be free, and western civilisation could collapse.
and yes, so the director of this documentary about the making of Cruising was probably straight. im sure nothing but digial lynch mobs will be coming for me now, nothing but the mob shutting me down for my courage to live my authentic self, but if we don't fight for freedom it will all be taken away by a coterie of self-absorbed gay men who absolutely have the will and power to do so.
it takes 1000 times more courage to be straight than it does to be gay these days due to how perceptions have changed
and hence i do bravely and freely submit that this link to an imdb profile of a documentary made by a presumably straight director is something i will bravely link to on my own page, regardless of the severe consequences that will be coming to me in 1984 where no human expression is ever permitted anymore and they come for you and destroy your entire life if you're not totally political correct at all time and it really is about the worst state of affairs and if only thinks weren't so out of balance and the straight white man had more more more more more more more more more respect there'd be more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more balance to the world and it would it would
heal the world
make it a better place
for you and for me and the entire human race except all those out-of-line-homosexuals and minorities who just are such a huge problem to the cosmic balance of the straight man's best interest
and with the exception of the Sorvenio character
and i remember saying to Paul
and the -- i'll need all the force of the gawds to actually link to a straight directed film... the courage needed in this cancel culture environment... but i'll do it
0 notes
Text
Colorful People
The Internet and social media are making things complicated when it comes to LGBTQ+ people. Indeed, there are some parts of that community that make things complicated because some of them want privilege. I'm going to start sharing negative sides of the colorful community, which is the LGBTQ+ community, on social media. There are some people, especially minors, who think that it is easy to just change and go back to being a straight person. It's annoying to see someone post on social media that they quit as a member of the community. There is one Ted talk I watch about being homosexual and survival. Some families need even one gay person in the family to survive. I firmly believe that being gay doesn't start in the environment where the person grows up; it starts in the womb of their mother. LGBTQ+ people didn't choose to be different, just like all the other people didn't choose to be themselves. There's nothing wrong when you choose to be yourself; it is wrong when you push other people to be like you. It is wrong to tell someone that they will go to hell just because they're different.
As a member of the community, when I first discovered who I am, I was not really ready to accept it. I was being too hard on myself. My thinking was that it's a sin to be gay and that God doesn't love me anymore because I'm different. But as I grew older, I realized that it's okay to be different. It's okay to be who I am. It's okay to let myself love who I love. Being gay is amazing, I can say. We see things differently, and we do extraordinary things. Most of us are creative, intelligent, and generally good people. We don't spread hate; instead, we share our colorful personalities and the sunshine with our loved ones. I remember someone on YouTube saying, "Gay people are always making noise, but what's the point, right?" It's not just a noise; it's about speaking up for our rights. This movement started a long time ago, and we are still fighting for it. There are a lot of members of the community who sacrifice themselves for freedom to be just the way they are. It's easier now to express who we are, but it's not always safe. Because other people still judge, hurt, and belittle someone just because of who they are. Imagine a world where colorful people didn't exist; it would be so boring.
We cannot deny the fact that gay people make the world a better place. I don't generalize, but most of them do make the world a better place. We have differences, and most of the time we don't accept things that we think are weird because of our beliefs. Beliefs that might be wrong. We live in a world where opinions and perspectives are just black and white. Reality is, there is way more color than we expected. If we only have one or two types of people, we can't work together. Through diverse art, opinion, perspective, and knowledge, we can create a better society. One of the most important things we need to accept is that we are all different, even if we come from the same nation or the same place. That's where fun is; we find happiness in diversity and acceptance for ourselves and for other people. We can start by accepting colorful people and looking at them as just normal people.
©jansal
Picture from Pinterest
0 notes
Text
I think something that needs to be discussed is that this homophobic harassment campaign against Dream is not new. It has existed since the start of his career.
People clocked him as gay and started calling him slurs. Dream once tried to extend sympathy to his queer fans over being called gay slurs even though he is not gay. And people told him he’s trying to farm pity, that he’s never going to experience homophobia. Dream had to delete his tweet that was only trying to connect with people. And as a man who has same sex attraction yes it is very much ‘real’ homophobia to call him slurs.
So many people saw him and George and either decided they’re gay or queerbaiting and pretending to be gay for benefits. Now I don’t think I need to explain but I will. The notion that coming out provides you with any sort of benefits is entirely rooted in conservatism and specifically transphobia. They invented this narrative that being a certain identity shields you from the world. Only so they can accuse people of faking and trying to ‘steal’ from actual minorities. Anyone who’s ever existed off Twitter knows this is complete bullshit.
As well to accuse someone of queerbaiting is to fundamentally misunderstand the term. Queerbaiting is when a corporation hints at but does not follow through on giving queer rep to draw in a queer audience. Dream has never marketed himself to a queer audience he grew one naturally because many of us identify with him. Dream is a queer human being yes but he can never be representation in a way a movie character can. Dream and George’s friendship has always been the way it is as their friends have confirmed. They are not under an obligation to act ‘less gay’ because it upsets people. That is people trying to disguise their uncomfortableness with same sex attraction and flirting under the guise of protecting the poor kids watching them. Think of the children will always be homophobic rhetoric.
And when this false narrative of protecting queer children builds up what happens is real people are backed into a corner and told they must come out or they will be called homophobic and harassed. Telling someone to come out is a horrible thing to do. And it is disgusting to see so many ‘leftists’ insist that they are doing the right thing. Dream owes nobody anything about himself or his sexuality. Never has and never will.
But Dream has come out as queer three times. Once winter 2021 on a Reddit post where he said he does not identify with any labels and his sexuality is still uncertain to him. Now in April 2022 he has tweeted again that he’s not gay because he’s attracted to women but also he is attracted to men. And then on stream days later to 115k people live stated that there is gay which he is not but that doesn’t make him straight. There is a whole spectrum and he’s somewhere and he doesn’t owe anyone anymore than that. (Also everyone saying Dream isn’t gay therefore straight is being obtuse on purpose. Dream uses gay very obviously to mean homosexual attraction never as an umbrella term. He always says LGBTQ+ community when he wants to refer to the entire queer community.)
And when Dream did come out what did he get? He was invalidated to his face. He was told he’s wrong and bad for responding to that invalidation. He was told he’s not queer enough that unlabeled doesn’t count. That it’s only damage control even though those same people were demanding he come out for making gay jokes. He was doxxed and harassed. People who’ve been sitting on this clip for nearly a year released something from eight years ago intentionally disrupt Dream’s coming out. Black and Muslim fans of Dream specifically but in general as well were being weaponized to cover up homophobia. And when Dream’s black and muslim fans stepped up and said they know it’s old but would like Dream to say something but it doesn’t change the homophobia people started calling them racial slurs. When Dream apologized for the edit, white people started rewriting the narrative even further. Denying any lack of support for Dream and blaming it entirely on the edit even though that was spread as a response to Dream’s coming out. And completely neglects to mention Dream’s apology and speaks over Dream’s black fans.
Nothing about how Dream is being treated is acceptable. He like every queer person is owed your validation. It is not a pick and choose. You are a homophobe if you think it is. Dream deserves support and he deserves a massive fucking apology.
438 notes
·
View notes
Text
Thoughts about Erik, why Wilhelm wasn't allowed to come out, and more.
Be warned, this is long, confusing, and I'm not even sure if I made any valid points. But I had thoughts on Young Royals, with no one to talk to, so here you go.
I've seen various different takes on Erik and what people thought his reaction would have been if Willie had come out to him, most of them being positive, and some as well saying how sad it was that Willie never got to come out to his brother. I have a different take, but bear with me it's gonna take a second to get there.
Something that I found interesting in the first place was that when August found out it was Simon and not a girl, he just seemed shocked, but not in a homophobic way that I had kind of been expecting.
Additionally, let's take a look at the comments on the video, I've split them up into three different groups. General comments (disbelief, surprise, pity, etc.), comments sexualizing them, and negative comments. (I've translated these as well as I could as they were not all captioned, but if I've made a mistake feel free to let me know!)
General Comments
"OMG Have you seen this?? The Prince is gay!!!!"
"Who's the other guy?"
"I'm dead"
"Finally some news to put Sweden on the map!"
"Poor boys, I feel sorry for them"
"So clumsy to get caught on film"
"I know where he lives!"
"I think the video is fake"
"Love for the boys"
Sexualizing Comments
"Royal porn"
"Sexy"
"Love"
"Sexiest video ever"
Negative Comments
"How will the monarchy survive this?"
"The end of the royal family, time for Sweden to become a republic!"
"Never been ashamed about being Swedish until now"
"Class traitor! Your mother cries for your sins"
Now, there are quite a few things I want to point out about Sweden that I feel should be taken into account here. Of course, we don't know the exact dates that the show took place, but we do know it is modern-day, and though it is a work of fiction, I am going to assume that anything that is currently true in Sweden at the moment, give or take a few years, would also be true in the Young Royals universe.
The first point I would like to make is that Sweden is one of the most LGBT-friendly countries, even being named the most friendly country in 2019. Looking back in history, 1944 was when Sweden decriminalized sexual relationships between consenting adults of the same sex, though it was still thought to be an illness. However, in 1979 it was no longer considered an illness. Fun unrelated fact, but Sweden was the first country to legalize gender change in 1979. (If you'd like to read more on LGBT rights in Sweden here are some resources. One. Two.) If Sweden is that progressive and is that LGBT-friendly, then I wondered what the problem was with Willie coming out, so I dug some more.
I'm American, so my understanding of many parts of the world is unfortunately skewed or incomplete, but I'm working on changing that. However, because of this, one thing that surprised me in my research was that the monarchy in Sweden is more of a unifying symbol than anything else. They have no political affinity or formal powers, but rather "the King’s duties are mainly of a ceremonial and representative nature." Of course in the case of Young Royals, the Queen inherited the throne, and Wilhelm would after her.
Something else I found interesting about the monarchy in Sweden is that the current Queen, Queen Silvia, did not come from a line of nobility, so when Queen Silvia and King Carl Gustaf married in 1976, it was highly unusual. (See more on the Swedish monarchy here.)
There is one last thing I want to point out about the current King and Queen. "In summer 2000, King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden made history when they ate under the rainbow flag at Djurgårdsterrassen, a Stockholm restaurant owned by gay owner Arto Winter. At that time, the decision was seen as controversial, and played a valuable role in moving conversations forward – while making the royals’ position abundantly clear." (Source)
Now, of course, I understand the difference between a fictional work and real-life situations, but at least in my opinion, these same ideals should carry through to the show that we see. If the King and Queen in real life have been openly supportive of the LGBT community since at least 2000, then although specifics might not be the same, some of those ideals should carry through to Young Royals, so what is the problem, right?
I'm not trying to erase the reality of homophobia altogether, because of course, that exists. We even see in the show through comments that there are some people who are worried about the state of the monarchy, are disgusted, or downright still think that not being straight is a sin, but we also see other comments as well. If Wilhelm were to come out, what would happen? Would there be some backlash? 100%. Would there be people who would support him? Also 100%. Would it make his life harder? Probably, but would he be happier? In my opinion, yes, but I guess that's a question that Wilhelm would have to gauge on his own.
Now I want to look deeper at the conversation that Wille has with his mother, the Queen, in the car on the way home so he can give a statement to the media. Below is an excerpt from their dialogue.
---
Wilhelm: Why can't I just have a relationship with him? And not say anything. Just live a normal life.
Queen: You're the crown prince. And that's a privilege, not a punishment.
Wilhelm: Yes, but I didn't ask for this!
Queen: Well, nobody has ever, ever asked for this! You are the only one who can take over the throne after Erik. Don't you understand that? You are so young. When you're young, love feels like the most important thing in the whole world. When I was your age, I too had an unfortunate romance. That was before I met your father. What I mean is, is it worth it? If you feel that the attention you've been getting so far is unacceptable, it's nothing compared to what you will endure for the rest of your life. We have a chance to cover this up, I urge you to take that chance. You may not get another."
---
Something I find interesting is how much Willie just wants to live a normal life, which I get. He is under so much pressure, from being a role model, his brother's death that he hasn't even had time to process, preparing to be king someday, and (kind of) being outed to the entire world, but at least his school. It's enough to make anyone want to live normally. I think the biggest thing we have to think about here is the Queen's question as well. Is it worth it? She is right of course, the attention he will get will always be there, but I do think that Willie would be able to find a way to be happy along with being King. It shouldn't have to be a case of either-or, and ultimately I don't think it is.
Now I'm going to move back to Erik, and really, this ties everything back to the start where I mentioned I had a different take on Erik's reaction to Willie being not straight. I think that Erik already knew. It would make sense for a variety of reasons. In the show, it is obvious that the two of them have a good relationship. We also hear Erik tell Willie, "you can trust him, he's like a brother," in episode one when speaking about August, showing that trust is something strong between them as brothers. I'm not exactly sure how old Wilhelm is meant to be in the show, but I estimate somewhere around sixteen. I would like to assume that sometime before attending Hillerska, he may have had a crush or felt some attraction to a guy. We also can see from their phone call in episode three, that they're not afraid to joke around with each other about such things, meaning that Erik would most likely be the first person that Willie would go to about such things.
Another thing that makes me believe Erik already knew has to do with people assuming that Simon is the first guy that Willie has liked. Now, I know things are not the same for everyone, but if we consider what happens when the video is posted, and Willie had to deny it is him, we can conclude that being anything other than straight in their family is not okay, simply because they are royals, and the media attention will be too much. Imagine you've known your whole life, you can't be something, the first instance you encounter that, you're probably not going to give in right away. I'm talking at least some minor internalized homophobia here or something.
So put that into the context of Simon and Willie's first kiss in episode two. Simon kisses Willie twice before Willie says "Well, I'm not... I'm not... Stop! Wait, wait, wait!" and immediately pulls Simon back towards him. Let's reflect back to episode one where Willie says "I’m not… I’m not allowed to speak about political issues." I'm not allowed. Of course, there are TONS of restrictions on what he can and can not do, kissing guys, probably being one of them. But if he was going to say I'm not gay or I'm not like that, why would he instantly pull him back in, contrasting what he was just going to say. In episode three, Willie does say, "I'm not like that," which makes sense. He's had time to think and isn't in the heat of the moment. What other explanation can he give? Sure, he could say he's not allowed to be like that but saying that would admit that he is. It's a circle, a very messy circle, but it is a... loop.
Going back to what I'm supposed to be talking about here, Erik. This isn't Willie's first rodeo, but Erik was there for the first. One last thing I want to talk about is the phone call that Erik and Willie have in episode three. Below is an excerpt from their dialogue.
---
Erik: You've met someone.
Wilhelm: I, uh... Yes, okay, but I... I don't think we're a couple or anything. I don't know what it is but can we just...
Erik: I get it. I get it. You don't have to tell me any... I don't wanna hear any details. Hey. Willie, enjoy yourself. Soon enough people will start having opinions and-
Wilhelm: They don't care about me. 'Cause you're the Crown Prince that they have opinions.
Erik: I don't get it. Why are you sitting in your room sulking when you have a crush to hang out with?
---
Firstly, Erik refers to Willie's crush as completely gender-neutral. "You've met someone" could very easily be "you've met a girl". The same goes for "you have a crush to hang out with". Very well could have been "you have a girl to hang out with". Sure, it could be completely coincidental, but we live in such a heteronormative society that it would just make sense for Erik to use female-gendered words. Unless, of course, he knew.
Secondly, "Hey. Willie, enjoy yourself. Soon enough people will start having opinions". This sounds very much to me like, enjoy your time while you can be yourself without backlash because soon you won't have that privacy. While I feel that, yes, the same may happen with anyone Willie was to date, him having a same-sex partner multiplies that, by a lot.
In conclusion, Erik knew Willie was not straight, Willie should come out, but when he is ready, and August is a really deep character that people don't give enough credit to. Gosh, I hope I covered everything, I probably forgot so much, but it's fine. Please let me know your thoughts if you've made it this far into the post.
One last thing. I hope you'll notice how in this post, I never referred specifically to Wilhelm's sexuality, and I did that for a reason. I often see gay used to label him, and though I am unsure if that's being used as an umbrella term or specifically as in he only likes men, I think it's really important to realize that they're specifically making him unlabeled. In this youtube video Edvin Ryding, the actor who plays Wilhelm, says "What we're trying to do... We're not labeling Wilhelm's sexuality. I think that's good because it's like, it portrays that it's okay that way too. You don't have to. You shouldn't have to come out. It should be allowed to be a bit fluid, a bit out there." I just think that it is important as it's another type of representation that is not seen often.
#young royals#prince wilhelm#simon eriksson#wilmon#simon x wilhelm#young royals netflix#wilhelm yr#simon yr#august yr#erik yr#netflix#edvin ryding#omar rudberg#malte gårdinger#ivar forsling
191 notes
·
View notes
Text
Are You Confused About Ageplay/Regression?
(Don’t Worry, So Are Lotsa People)
Hello, friends! I wanted to write a thingy for those new to the world of ageplay/regression; because when I first started to explore it, I quickly realized I had no terminology or understanding of the complications of this world. I hope this gives some degree of clarity to anyone feeling confused.
The first important thing to say is this is a consensual world comprised entirely of legal adults. The definition of a legal, consenting adult depends on national/local laws, but they should govern your interactions 100%. While there are undoubtedly littles/regressors who are minors (I was one once!), those legally defined as minors should not interact with legal adults in ageplay/regression activities (and vice versa, obvz!).
It seems to me there are three basic groups that I can use to describe ageplay/regression; I don’t think these groups are discreet—there is fluidity among each one, so someone who heavily identifies with Group Two, for example, may also find connections with parts of an identity of Group One or Three. These groups cross all boundaries of race, gender, sexuality, etc and are not confined by monoliths or binaries. This is a world of freedom, experimentation, fluidity, and play inside and outside of the self, a place where trans/bi/lesbian/gay/asexual/queer/intersex, etc are welcome.
GROUP ONE: primarily defined by individuals who adopt an age other (usually younger) than their own to play a role. In this role, the ageplay individual may (or may not) experiment with sexual play and all attendant idiosyncrasies and kinks attached to it, such as (but not limited to), dominance/submission, puppy play, diapers, gay/straight sex, discipline, chastity, etc. The differentiating feature of this group is that their ageplay is voluntary, discreet, and often a means to an end (for example, playing out a scene). There is usually no larger connection to the play age other than the taking on of a role. The people in this group are valid and deserve to be treated with respect.
GROUP TWO: those in this group are defined by their voluntary regression (as opposed to the playing of role) in which they creatively and seamlessly embody a younger version of themselves (as opposed to a character—though the regressed self MIGHT carry a different name). Folks in this group have a profound and meaningful connection to their little side, sometimes referred to as an “inner child.” As opposed to those in the first group, their regression is usually (though not always) disconnected from their sexuality and focused instead on nurturing, play, and freedom. Group two littles/middles/regressors sometimes (though not always) have a caregiver who watches over them, and this can sometimes (though not always) take the form of a parental dynamic which might (though not always) include rules, discipline, and (non-sexual) punishments. This is the group I most closely identify with, and thus, the one I feel like I have the best handle on. The people in this group are valid and deserve to be treated with respect.
GROUP THREE: people in this group are usually comprised of those who (mostly) involuntarily regress to a younger age or for whom regression is neither roleplay nor a means of experimentation/play but instead a lived-life reality often connected to trauma, abuse, and abandonment during their chronological childhood. For those in this group, regression can be (though isn’t always) therapeutic, or, at the very least, a coping mechanism for the difficulties associated with recovery. Because those who are in group three have relatively little control over their regression—and because they fully and completely inhabit the mind of a child—they need protection from triggers for trauma and from the dissonances of the adult world that might frighten or (re)traumatize them. This protection comes often in the form of a caregiver but can also include a community of other regressors who create strict content rules and police them from the outside. The people in this group are valid and deserve to be treated with respect.
USEFUL TERMINOLOGY
DNI: Do Not Interact—often used by those in Group Three (or any other individual for whom ageplay/regression is inherently nonsexual) who engage with tumblr and other social media through involuntary regression and who seek to avoid triggers that might (re)traumatize or expose them to material not suitable for their regressed age. If you accidentally repost or respond to a DNI post and you are asked to stop, please apologize and do so.
NSFW: Not Safe For Work—used to indicate material that crosses over into the adult world; think anything PG13 and up. If it is something you’d be embarrassed to share with a coworker or colleague, it is NSFW. More importantly for this world, if it is material you would not show a child (or an adult regressed as a child), it is NSFW.
ABDL: Adult Baby/Diaper Lover—usually not disarticulated, though there are some Adult Babies who do not wear diapers and some Diaper Lovers who identify outside the realms of baby/toddlerhood. These would be individuals who define their little /regressed side as baby-early toddler and for whom the wearing of diapers is integral to their role/regression. The reasons or meaning of the diaper can be radically different depending on the individual and can run the spectrum from sexualized to punitive to comforting to conventional baby attire. Some ABDLs are also individuals who routinely struggle with incontinence either in their play/regressed self or in their adult world.
Little—any individual who identifies their role/inner age roughly between infant and school-aged; this is a pretty broad term, and I have seen it used to describe the ages 0-11, though the sweet spot tends to be 2-6.
Middle—a bit confusing, tbh: I used to think a middle was anyone who did not identity as a baby/toddler, but now it seems to describe ageplay/regression from preteen to teenager, let’s say ages 8-17, though I do think the sweet spot is more 12-14.
CG: Caregiver—any individual whose sole function is to provide care, affection, attention, and love to a little/middle/regressor. This can include the terminology/relationship of family, such as daddy, mommy, uncle, brother, aunt, etc. Or it can be non-defined and amorphous. Sometimes abbreviated “CG,” a caregiver relationship may or may not include discipline/punishment but is mostly non-disciplinary and inherently nonsexual.
DDLB/DDLG & MDLB/MDLG: Daddy (Mommy) Dom/Little Boy (Girl)—used to describe a dynamic whereby the caregiver of a little/middle/regressor mirrors some of the cadences of a Dom/Sub relationship, though this can be as mild as a conventional parental relationship—where there are rules, discipline, and punishments—to something hypersexualized and more in line with hardcore dominance and submission dynamics.
CGLRE: Caregiver Little Regressor—like DD(M)/LB(G) only completely nonsexual, though what that means can be contested. For example, some CGLRE folx see the imposition of any kind of discipline/punishment/rules on a little/regressor as inherently sexual (even parental discipline) and would, therefore, not include that dynamic as part of an authentic CGLRE relationship.
IMPORTANT NOTE: this list is by no means meant to be exhaustive and is only one boy’s understanding of a very vast and intricate dynamic, so friendly amendments, comments, suggestions, and clarifications are very welcome. NOT WELCOME: those who already harbor generalized prejudice or judgmental views about ageplay and regression; claims of any kind of authenticity or authority over what being little or regressed REALLY is/means; vitriol, hate, judgmental/self-righteousness, and other general meanie headedness. Such folx will be immediately and cheerfully blocked. I don’t/won’t listen to any of that noise, mkay?
The important thing is—no matter where you fit (or don’t) in this list/world, you treat those outside (and inside) your group with compassion, empathy, respect, and kindness. I will close by saying littles/regressors/middles/CGs/daddies/mommies are some of the nicest, sweetest, generous, and loving people I’ve ever met, and I am proud to be a part of this world <3
Please share this with anyone you think might need it!
Love,
Zander
510 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
gofordigitalindial
Gofordigitalindia
mollotovm
> MOLOTOV
juppsenn
V8 powered shopping trolley
somo4
soma
ddilemma
Senza titolo