jaycewithawhy

[jaycewithawhy]

Completely personal preference but gonna be real with you, vampires and werewolves and stuff like that just don't hit the same for me without the angst, the guilt, the terror, like what's the point, "oh but what if he was just a puppy," yeah yeah, that's nice, I don't care, what if their very being was tearing them apart from the inside, what if the hunger never stops clawing and clawing and clawing even if you have it under control for the moment, not to say there's not exceptions or variations, those who've come to terms with or revel in their nature or etc., different opportunities for silliness or softness for sure, but to strip *all* manner of horror or discomfort from the lore, it's like wow, where is the appeal, the flavour, I hope you're hungry FOR NOTHING, just like your "vampire" apparently

[jaycewithawhy]

Jason Todd I know what you are (bi-coded).

[jaycewithawhy]

Human Romeo kind of looks like young Kurt Cobain and Bjorn Andresen. I tried fixing his blood.

Details:

i HOPE YALL ARE DOING OK.

[jaycewithawhy]

quick P drawings bc i wanted to draw him in my fav outfit. also gemini should be allowed to verbally abuse your enemies a little bit, as a treat

[jaycewithawhy]

So like, it's obvious to me reading the comments on my post that anti-porn people are largely like, afraid of porn. Like the concept of a sex video is really spooky to them. They're not making thoughtful critiques of the porn industry, which is genuinely a really fucked up industry, they're mostly just spooked by the concept of a sex video and what it could Do To You If You See It.

I said this in another post, but it's like, the difference between "a ton of coffee is produced using slave labor" (valid, important criticism of the coffee industry) and "coffee turns people into raving coffee addicts who forget how to interact with anyone because they're so obsessed with their coffee" (objectively not true, insane viewpoint).

It's literally just sex videos. They really cannot hurt you.

[jaycewithawhy]

The sentences "Asexuals can still have sex" and "Aromantics can still date" need to go up on the high shelf for everyone except aces and aros talking about their own experiences. From now on, everyone else has to use the revolutionary new phrase "Asexuals and aromantics can do whatever the fuck they want forever."

[jaycewithawhy]

been building a collection of posts from like minded individuals

[jaycewithawhy]

[jaycewithawhy]

It will get cold again eventually. The summer will not last forever. I’m not doomed to live in this unbearable heat for all eternity. <- said while gripping the countertop so hard that the tile is starting to crack

[jaycewithawhy]

while I do think there are definitely films with gay reputations higher than how gay they actually are and there are very real instances of queerbaiting....there is truly nothing more irritating to me personally than gay film/tv fans saying a movie or show "wasn't gay enough" and all they obviously mean is "I personally couldn't jerk off to this cos there was no kissing or sex". an obvious example of this is how a lot of white gay ppl discuss Moonlight (2017). But I also just watched Burning Days (2022) a super compelling political thriller about a closeted police prosecutor who moves to a small Turkish town to investigate corruption and gets caught up in a blackmail scheme by the mayor because he's gay and trying to stop the shady shit going on. The tension between the lead and the handsome bisexual journalist who's trying to warn him about all this is SOOOOO palpable I was barely blinking when they were on screen just 👀. They don't technically "get together" because the film isn't a romance but essentially the whole plot is driven by how the prosecutor is so easily marked for ostracizing because he's gay. Tell me why one of the top reviews of this film that has a gay main character in a plot driven by hostility to him being gay and one of the top reviews is "could've been gayer" can ppl please either grow the fuck up or just go watch porn if all you wanna get out of a film is shallow portrayals of intimacy. youse are so boring the way you'll just dismiss the queerness of something wholesale if that queerness isn't the most obvious form of intimacy, or if it doesn't make you horny. and isn't it so interesting how these comments are most often made about LGBT films focused on people of colour??? Transparent. Exhausting.

[jaycewithawhy]

✨🏳️‍⚧️ A short pride comic, hope you’re all well 🏳️‍⚧️✨

[jaycewithawhy]

[jaycewithawhy]

Starting to get mildly frustrated at the thing where canonically asexual characters are presumed to not be canonically aromantic even when all evidence points to that conclusion.

And, like, I get that a lot of time it's coming from alloace people who are tired of being presumed aro and I don't exactly blame them for being defensive, but I do think they need to take a second to familiarize themselves with the way a character's asexuality is actually handled in canon before rushing to assure everyone that the character doesn't have to be aro too or implying that anyone presenting the character as canonically aro is only pushing a headcanon.

Because I have on multiple occasions seen people who openly admit to not being familiar with the source material confidently state that a canonically asexual character is not canonically aro despite the character in question explicitly tying their experience of "asexuality" to a lack of interest in dating and romance. But because they didn't use the term aromantic within the text itself it's not treated as canon. And, like, author intention/coding shouldn't always be considered canon, but it's also not great to say that a character's clearly intended queer identity can be discounted because the author didn't use the most up-to-date chronically online terminology to communicate their intentions.

With any other sexuality, people are generally comfortable assuming that a character's romantic orientation is the same as their sexual orientation unless otherwise stated. Yes, aspec people as a whole are more likely to use the split attraction model. Yes, technically that romance repulsed character could be gray-romantic or demiromantic. Yes, there's no reason an asexual character should be assumed to be aromantic if it's not indicated either way.

But... like... if it is indicated that the character is aromantic, then not acknowledging that is erasure, plain and simple.

I'm not saying anyone should harass people who write romance with canonically aroace characters, or that there isn't value to writing characters across the asexual and aromantic spectrum, even if it means deviating from those characters' canon identities.

All I am asking is two things:

1. Familiarize yourself with what canon actually is before jumping into a conversation about a character's canon sexual and romantic orientations.

2. Take, like, two minutes to think about what you're saying and whether you would still feel comfortable saying it if the conversation was about portraying (for example) a canonically gay character as biromantic in fanworks. If you wouldn't, maybe think about why those two scenarios feel different to you.

And I do genuinely mean think about. I'm not trying to push any specific conclusion here. My ultimate goal is for people to be more thoughtful about how they engage with this issue, not for everyone to agree with me.

[jaycewithawhy]

[jaycewithawhy]

reblog for something t4t to happen to you this summer.

[jaycewithawhy]

Sun out tum out

[jaycewithawhy]

never gonna be let go by martha wells at this point