#*heteronormal male-identifying muses

[lesbians4armand]

okay have been thinking about this for a while so here’s a non fandomy post about my lesbian experience with gender.

first and foremost i consider myself a cis woman, my pronouns are she/her. but this gender identity also feels very informed by my sexuality.

I think despite how horrific the Covid quarantines were they provided an incredible space for self exploration as the full detach from society meant a lack of performance, this is why wilder styles in makeup and fashion became popular during this time, but it was also a popular time that we were talking about sexuality and gender identity because of the isolation and looking within that happened.

I was a young adult when this happened, just out of my teens, never truly having thought about my gender identity. I identified as bisexual for a long time, which i now come to realise was mostly due to comphet (a discussion within itself), but i was never really aware of the full spectrum of queerness.

I think a lot about the Dolly Parton quote “find out who you are and do it on purpose” as that seems to sum up my thoughts very well. I’m cis, but not because it was a default state that i never thought much about, it was a conclusion i came to through exploration and it’s something i recommend to all people. Find out who you are, explore the masculine, the feminine, everything in between.

Gender identity at the time was like a clothes shop, you could go into a fitting room and see how things felt, how they looked. I came out wearing the same clothes I went in wearing, but so thankful that I knew they were right instead of wearing them because I always had done. And sticking with the metaphor I’m so happy for those who went in and came out wearing something else, that’s wonderful!

But knowing for a definite fact that I was a woman, and felt uncomfortable being referred to as anything else, I came to realize i was a lesbian, and a lot of the exploration I went through was subconsciously coming to terms with that. I didn’t want to be a man, I was just gay and still blinded by heteronormativity and compulsive heterosexuality.

Now I come to gender presentation, different to identity. I don’t post images of myself online (at least not in fandom spaces, i keep my personal things separate) but I am very feminine. Having these explorations before also made me realise I do prefer the feminine. There are specific sorts of presentations and even identities that come with being lesbian in a society that is so male focused, while having no interest in men. These seem to have been a lot harder for me to figure out.

How do you be masculine while having no desire for or to be a man? How do you be feminine when you have no desire to be with men as society expects you to be. Do the makeup and hair dye and dresses I wear mean I present less queer?

I’m a woman, there’s no difference in me gender-wise to any woman who is not a lesbian, yet it feels like a totally different experience. Maybe I’m still coming to terms with it or maybe lesbianism truly is something entirely different in a society that values men over anything else.

Any other opinions from lesbians, transgender people, or nonbinary people would be greatly welcomed, but this is also a musing post rather than a philosophy, argument, or an identity

[grahamstoney]

MUSE President Defends Heteronormative Gender Stereotypes In Upcoming Production of Guys & Dolls, Saying “It’s Hilarious”

New Post has been published on https://grahamstoney.com/shows/muse-president-defends-heteronormative-gender-stereotypes-in-upcoming-production-of-guys-dolls-saying-its-hilarious

MUSE President Defends Heteronormative Gender Stereotypes In Upcoming Production of Guys & Dolls, Saying “It’s Hilarious”

Sydney University Musical Theatre Ensemble (MUSE) president Daniel Baykitch has responded to criticism that the society’s upcoming 2022 production of Guys and Dolls employs heteronormative gender stereotypes by stating, “Yeah. But it’s hilarious.”

The production team has brushed off criticism for casting leading roles Nathan Detroit (Oscar Seifried), Miss Adelaide (Claudia Redolfi), Sky Masterson (Tavis Bancroft), and Miss Sarah Brown (Belinda Thomas) based purely on talent and ability demonstrated during the audition process, without any apparent concern for increasing non-binary gender diversity.

Other major characters such as Nicely-nicely Johnson (Louis Vinciguerra), Benny Southstreet (Jesse Donaldson-Jarrett), Rusty Charlie (Kieren Gregory) and Big Jule (Graham Stoney) also appear to have been awarded based on merit without any attempt to address historical injustices that occurred long before any of them were born.

“It’s a musical comedy classic,” said Producer Gayathri Kathir, adding that they were just trying to put on a fun show for everyone and didn’t think gender would be such an issue for a comedy about how the two traditional genders traditionally related in the 1950s.

Director William Rogut pointed out that several cast members who did not identify as male were nevertheless cast in roles traditionally played by men, including Harry The Horse (Georgia Togher) and General Cartwright (Maggie Hartsuyker). “They’re doing a brilliant job of it too,” he said, while adding that casting Avide Avernathie (Andrew Smallbone) was obviously anti-ageist, as if this were somehow sufficient to satisfy the modern woke agenda.

Assistant director Daniel Sirmai highlighted the integrity of the casting process saying, “This is the best cast MUSE has assembled for any production of Guys and Dolls all year!”

When it was pointed out to choreographer Sophie Highmore that the Hotbox dancers (Lisa Kanatli, Johanna Kleinert, Paris Freed, Georgia Simic, and Caitlin Whiter) are all beautiful stereotypical cis females, she responded, “Yes, and their dancing is amazing!”

Musical director Kevin Wang pointed out that the show has arguably the best score of any Broadway musical. “That’s why I wanted to do it,” he said, adding that the rich dissonant harmonies of the crap shooter songs contrasting with the consonance of the mission tunes has stood the test of time.

Assistant musical director Rachael Pearson agreed, pointing to the lack of gender dysphoria in the show’s beautiful melodies.

Costume designer Caroline Xie said that the use of traditional heteronormative 1950’s costume styling is actually a positive thing, because it avoids confusing the audience and prevents characters being misgendered. “Nobody likes being misgendered,” she added.

Ensemble members Jack Fahd, Bonnie Fitzgerald, and Alice Kotowicz dismissed the controversy by saying that the rehearsals were so much fun that the show is bound to be a hit, while the actor playing Lt. Brannigan (John Vrionis) simply said, “I never saw crap shooters spend so much time in a Mission!”

Nevertheless, critics suggested that the inclusion of only two traditional genders and the focus on heterosexual attraction in the original 1930’s story by Damon Runyon, 1950 script by Frank Loesser and book by Jo Swerling and Abe Burrows displayed a distinct lack of cultural foresight. The fact that the show is hugely entertaining in the way it deals with universal themes of love, loss, and redemption, and its parallels to Shakespeare’s classic Romeo and Juliet is no excuse.

Socialist Alliance have criticised MUSE for employing a capitalistic monopoly by charging money for tickets and making them available though only one vendor. “We’ve got to fund the show somehow, and at only $40 for adults or $35 for students the tickets are a bargain,” said MUSE secretary India Wilson adding, “At only $28 a ticket, I’m sure the socialists would love to make a group booking. That’s way cheaper than overthrowing the government.”

Gender diversity advocates have suggested that the best way to protest Guys and Dolls’ egregious assault on modern thinking is to buy all the tickets and stack the seats with your friends having robust ego integrity, to avoid any snowflakes being triggered by the show’s patriarchal suggestion that whatever a man does, “The guy’s only doing it for some doll.”

Whether MUSE will get away with this offensive act simply by putting on a show that’s hilarious and hugely entertaining remains to be seen. Find out for yourself by going along.

MUSE at USYD presents: Guys and Dolls 12th – 15th October 2022 ARA Darling Quarter Theatre Buy your tickets here. Let your friends know by RSVP on Facebook.

GUYS AND DOLLS A Musical Fable of Broadway Based on a story and characters of Damon Runyon Music and lyrics by Frank Loesser Book by Abe Burrows and Jo Swerling Licensed exclusively by Music Theatre International (Australasia). All performance materials supplied by Hal Leonard Australia

Note: All the quotes in this article are made up. The people cited are all real, but they never actually said them. The show is also real, and the cast really are amazing. Go see it.

[swanqiu]

the mun and the muse. ✨ ——— picrew link.

[thereadingmoon]

TW: Transphobia and gender dysphoria

Spoilers: A lot! Part 1 here

TL;DR: "A female!Aiden could’ve had a message to add to the novel, because representation is deeper than just making a character this race or this gender. Representation can and should be meaningful, and not just face value." Anyway, here, I spiral about the in-world ramifications of a female!Aiden. This could either mean he's gender non-conforming or this sci-fi justice and criminal rehabilitation system is transphobic and would willingly misgender someone in the program. This is a very suppositional and theoretical ramble.

A female!Aiden has a lot of cards to bring to the table, but I don’t know if any of them would complement the story. That’s the issue, I think. All elements of a story must do something in a story, otherwise they’d be scrapped. What is the artistic merit of a female!Aiden and what could a female!Aiden bring to the story other than representation?

I have an interesting take on this idea: the introduction of malicious misgendering in these thought-prisons and possible parallels to the transphobia in the justice system. This idea involves some hinting in one chapter, as well as some off-the-cuff headcanon worldbuilding. Let’s look into it.

Aiden is caught in some sort of technologically advanced prison/rehabilitation center in an autocratic state. Turton didn’t say anything about the state’s views on sexuality and gender orientation, but I like to assume that they’ve solved heteronormativity and are generally relaxed on the ideas of gender identity. Let’s assume that Aiden identifies as male, and thus he is only given male hosts in the prison. If he was alright with being placed in a female host, they’d place him in a female host, no issue. That’s the simple headcanon.

But the introduction of gender-blind hosts changes some things. Let’s look at Aiden’s in-world thoughts on the possibility of having a female host.

My hand grips my cane. Whoever this Mrs. Derby is, she’s acting oddly and asking the same questions I am. Perhaps I’ve found another of my rivals.

Or another host.

The suggestion makes me blush, Ravencourt’s familiarity with women extending only so far as acknowledging their existence in the world. The thought of becoming one is as unintelligible to him as a day spent breathing water.

The 7 ½ Deaths of Evelyn Hardcastle, Chapter 15

It’s very vague, and it’s possible that Aiden is mixing into Ravencourt’s feelings, but as we see here, Aiden at this moment could either be ambivalent, on the fence, or uncomfortable with having a female host. In-universe, Aiden adopts his hosts' mannerisms, memories, emotions, and their biological conditions. To me, seeing how Aiden would react to a female host would be very interesting compared to just having a female host for shits and giggles or just-so representation. How would he feel, as someone who prefers identifying as male? Would he feel a discernible difference, biologically or socially? How would the people he met and knew treat him differently in a female body?

That last part is something I’d love to see. Throughout the story, we see Aiden try his best to work past his host’s limitations. With Sebastian Bell, he’s coming to terms with the man’s moral failings. With Lord Ravencourt, he’s forced to find someone else to be his feet, eyes, and hands due to his immobility. With Johnathan Derby, he constantly had to keep Derby’s addiction and perversion in check. If he were placed in the body of, say, a female servant like Anna was, he would have to find workarounds for both the sex and class stratification, furthering Turton’s critique on the treatment of working class women in his setting. If, alternatively, Aiden was turned into a higher class woman, it’d be interesting to see how we’d interact with the world around him. Or, it’d be a gateway to paragraphs of Aiden waxing poetic about gender dysphoria and sympathizing with the plight of women.

If Aiden was maliciously misgendered when he’s not comfortable with being female, it also brings up a whole lot of in-world ramifications that are disturbing: in the Evelyn Hardcastle universe, the justice system would be as shitty to trans or gender nonconforming folk as our present justice system. Making Aiden a woman if he is uncomfortable with it suggests that the people who run the rehabilitation program are fine with misgendering people on purpose. This is horrific when you remember that the goal of this rehabilitation program is to keep the prisoners inside long enough to the point of losing their sense of self and forgetting who they were to make them “better people.”

Just to be clear: This is not me shitting on the idea of a female!Aiden. This is me overthinking the lore of this universe once this point of purposeful misgendering is brought up. This book doesn’t shy away from talking about issues like sexism or elitism. In fact, this book was meant to be a sci-fi critique on the idea of making these prisons a reality in our world. Bringing up transphobia in the justice system in such an oblique but horrific way would’ve been so memorable. In doing so, it would’ve added to the discussion the story is setting and added context and consequences in the rules the author was setting. A female!Aiden could’ve had a message to add to the novel, because representation is deeper than just making a character this race or this gender. Representation can and should be meaningful, and not just face value.

I personally would love to see a novel that addresses malicious misgendering in a technological mental prison, but that novel isn’t Evelyn Hardcastle because that’s not the story it was intended to be. Literature is first art and then a platform for social critique, and it’s a platform that can only handle so many ideas before unravelling. And the best part is that even if those ideas aren’t intended by the author because we can impose our own ideas and feelings on pieces of media in any way we like!

If you’ve read this far, I’d be open to hear your thoughts on a female!Aiden and possible storylines or any musings you may have, because there are a whole lot of possibilities to be made here.

Want to see more essays like this? Check out my blog’s masterlist for more hot takes or book recommendations.

[yriol]

I'm back to the discourse™ again but just trying to explain, in my opinion, where the problem arises from.

First thing first I think we need a premise about fanfictions and I'm going to use a parallell between fairytales because I think that fairytales and fanfiction have the same function. I mean why does the protagonist have a stepmother she needs to defeat/kill?! Because every girl, in her subconscious, has a conflictual relationship with her mother that she often fails to recognize/understand and she has no way to vent it. So people came up with fairy tales. The old and jealous stepmother wants to imprison her beautiful and young stepdaughter (because no "real" mother would ever be willing to hurt her daughter... of course). But the girl rebels and she or someone else kills the evil stepmother. Of course no-one would kill their (step)mother because she's jealous but children needs this metaphor to elaborate their conflict between the desire of independence from the mother and the need they have for her. We are talking about projections of our psyche that take shape in the fairy tale without hurting anyone.

That's why I think ff are not only harmless (even when it comes to the most pervert of the fantasies) but usefull. Usefull to give voice to your frustration and to help us to process them. Because how many women are dissatisfied with their lives and project their frustrations or desires onto non-existent couples?!?

Going back to JoeNicky it is pretty obvious, in my opinion, that most women, especially cis-het women, identify more with Nicky because in the movie the character is presented to us as more feminine. Nicky is shaved, while Joe has a beard. Joe is more muscular (although not that much) and even the slight age difference helps to create the basis for the typical straight couple... I mean they could easily have made them both be born in the same year, what would have changed for the purpose of the plot?!

That's why I believe that it came "natural" for cis-het women to identify with Nicky. And of course if a woman identifies with Nicky she gives Joe the part of the male when she projects those fantasies on the JoeNicky couple. And so Joe's the one who penetrates/kidnaps/rapes Nicky.

Probably, if Joe's character had been introduced to us as more feminine (no beard, smaller, longer hair... as he is in the comic) maybe women would have identified more with him. Maybe... But in the movie they really put more femininity on Nicky. Let's just think about how they sleep: Joe is the big spoon, generally associated with the male. Joe is the most open to show attachment, physically as well. He's passionate and romantic. In the van speech™ Joe is the one that talk about his love, Nicky is "the object" of the love (and by the way for Joe Nicky is the moon, another feminine metaphor). Joe is the artist, Nicky is the muse. Nicky is the one who cooks (I know it never shows up in the film, but the fans know it and that's enough), he's empathetic, nurturing, caring. Even in the deleted scene of the car (that should have been at the very beginning of the movie) we know that Joe is the one who drives and Nicky is in the passenger seat. Again a classic male/female dynamics. Also Nicky has a past as priest... and that allows us to portray him as the most shy because of his big Catholic guilt towards sex 😏

Honestly, more than a problem of racism here I see a problem of heteronormativity. I mean... even in the official fanart Netflix commissioned for the show they are in a typical man/woman pose

Edit: I'm adding this other point to my analysis about the heteronormalization of the JoeNicky couple and it’s about Keane and his assault against Nicky.

At the end of the movie the immortals have to kill everyone in the building because their secret is exposed and they can’t let it be spread in the world. The plot doesn’t need another motivation to lead the protagonists to kill everyone. More specifically we don’t need the scene where Joe goes after Keane to kill him. But he has to because Keane assaulted Nicky. This is heroic and romantic and it’s another proposed of the classic trope of the hero and the damsel who needs to be avenged.

The scene where Keane kills Nicky is unnecessary and really disturbing because it has the traits of a sexual assault that only serve to the purpose of giving Joe (the hero) the motivation to go after the bad guy and kill him to avenge his love interest. I mean… Keane could have just shot both Nicky and Joe to their torso or legs to slow them down and run away. But he actually grabs an already laid down Nicky by the hair, knees him at the stomach (to make him gasp) then shoves the gun in Nicky’s mouth and shoots. Which is very very unpractical if you want to kill a person, but quite sexual. And that’s why I (and many others) found that scene very disturbing.

This trope (the bad guy that assaults the young, pretty lady, the hero’s love interest) is something we see in pretty much every action movie. Because it serves as a personal motivation for the male hero to kill the bad guy, avenge his disrespected lady and do all the hero stuff.

So, this is another point that I add to my analysis to the heteronormatization of the JoeNicky couple. The murder/assault of Nicky (the love interest in this case) by Keane (the bad guy) only serves to send Joe (the hero) straight to Keane to punish him for shooting Nicky reinforcing the idea that Joe is the “brave knight” of the two while Nicky is the “damsel in distress”.

[spellsandpixiedust]

What does your muse think of their own gender?

Liam was born as and identifies as male; and would probably not have to question his gender or defend it in the binary-minded society he lives in... if that very society wasn't extremely heteronormative as well. Him being gay and especially the 'role' he assumes in the sheets, have caused others to point fingers and label him as 'girly', 'the woman in the relationship' and other ridiculous bullshit people come with when they can't understand homosexuality.

So while Liam is a cis-man, he's not a stranger to defending his gender identity, and he always will be very vocal about it as well.

[asocier]

          now we’re gonna talk about leah’s family life/dynamic bc :^) i never get to but it’s so pivotal to her character so i gotta put this out there:

          leah’s considered second-generation vietnamese, which means her parents were born in vietnam and immigrated over to the states. history lesson aside, they basically came over during the 80s and made a life for themselves in california. leah’s mom is a nail technician while her dad is uhh -- he’s kind of had a lot of different jobs over the years, his most current one being the manager of a convenience store. lowkey though, her dad works a lot of different kind of informal jobs for those in the community like being a handyman or cutting other people’s yards, so he’s always busy.

    ��     leah’s family is pretty tight knit; she’s an only child, so she got a lot of attention from her elders growing up whenever they visited, but she’s didn’t grow up in an intergenerational household ( meaning her grandparents/other relatives didn’t live with her and her parents; this type of home situation is fairly common in asian households due to filial piety, where the children take care of their parents for life essentially ). i guess you could say circumstances worked out such that leah’s parents were allowed to have their own home, though they both continue to play active roles in providing for their parents ( leah’s grandparents ) when necessary. leah isn’t the only young adult in her family though, nor is she the youngest -- she has plenty of cousins, though not all of them are in america. 

         i could go into a lot of depth about leah’s grandparents and her other relatives, but she doesn’t really talk about them a lot in threads because, well, they’re not as big of a part in her life as her parents. HOWEVER -- despite them not being directly influential in leah’s life, most of her extended family members share a very strong belief in very traditional catholicism, so what goes for her parents sort of goes for most of the family too. but it’s important to note not everyone in her family is catholic; some adhere to buddism and others are agnostic or atheist. again, not super important, but it’s something to think about since it allows leah to have some outlets if she needs different perspectives from those in her family. anyway --

         catholicism is something leah was exposed to since before she understood what it was. she was baptized as an infant, had her first communion, has been confirmed, and of course, has attended those catechism classes as a kid. there’s plenty of religious imagery and symbols in her house, and her family has made it a routine to attend mass every sunday along with obligatory services during certain times of the year. all in all, her family is devout and do a lot of things they do because of their faith. 

       while faith plays a big role in why leah’s parents are on the conservative side, it’s not the only reason. they hold very traditional views partly from growing up in a different culture, partly because of generational differences. it’s also important to note that saving face drives leah’s family dynamic quite a bit, and it’s a big reason why leah’s parents placed very high demands on her while she was growing up. how she dressed, what she did in school, who she hung out with, her romantic life ( or rather, her lack thereof ) -- all of this was dictated in part by her parents one way or another. 

          it’s really important to note that this isn’t because leah was a slacker in school, dressed in a way that was too revealing, hung out with bad people, had too many failed relationships -- it could be argued that her parents were just trying to look out for her, and in a way, that might be the case. but leah was a straight a student, dressed moderately most of the time, and had good friends. she wasn’t like cedric who was actually going out doing things and rebelling. leah was a good kid, but her parents still found things to nitpick. 

         she couldn’t wear jeans with holes in them or crop tops, couldn’t hang out with friends ( don’t even think about hanging out with platonic male friends ), was criticized for partaking in seemingly frivolous extra-curricular activities, had a strict curfew, was ( and still is ) forbidden to date -- the list goes on. one thing i really want to emphasize is the fact that leah’s parents aren’t abusive: they’re oversolicitous. this all stems from a genuine concern about leah’s safety, about wanting her to have a good reputation and her well-being. but also, her parents want to maintain their reputation as well, so in a way, it’s also selfish. whatever the driving force really is, by the time leah was in high school ( and still now in her canon timeline ), she feels suffocated by the fact she lacks the independence that her peers have. it became incredibly apparent in high school when her friends were able to drive by themselves to parties or outings and were beginning to date and experiment with their sexuality. it’s safe to say that by age 18, when leah was a senior in high school, she was not considered an adult by her parents. 

        a big, big, big thing i really wanted to talk about in this post is how leah’s parents played a role in the development of her sexuality and, for those interested in shipping with her, how much anxiety leah has about moving a serious relationship forward due to her parents in a true canon timeline. 

         leah, as mentioned earlier, isn’t allowed to date in her true canon. period. not until she has finished all of her schooling at least, whenever that may be. thus, anything romantic or sexual that has happened to her since her first relationship ( unless plotted otherwise ) is something she would keep to herself and a close group of friends. she doesn’t tell her parents anything about her love life let alone her sex life, so everything is bottled up tightly and kept under lock and key. sometimes i overlook this aspect of her character for the sake of ship development ( since it’s hard to really develop any kind of ship if leah is straight up just like “no, sorry, my mom said no” ), but to put it out there, this is how things would really be. 

        essentially, realistically, there would have to be a point in time in which leah gives your muse “the talk” about her parents, about how she keeps her relationships private and a tight secret. not because she’s ashamed, but because she doesn’t want her family to attack the relationship, nor does she want her family to consider her to be a disappointment for being disobedient. it’s an incredibly difficult subject for her to talk about, so by default, she never brings it up until she has to ( especially since it’s awkward af ). but yeah, dating is a risky game with leah in the long run. 

         also important is the fact that leah identifies herself to be pansexual, which, ( unsurprisingly ), would not fly with her parents. so any relationship that wasn’t heteronormative would cause a lot of tension between leah, her partner, and her parents. but i can tell you right away that when leah loves, she loves hard, and she’d be willing to drop everything for your muse. she doesn’t think the teachings of the catholic church is fair in that regard, so she’d fight her parents until the bitter end if your muse sticks beside her during it. 

       uh, uh, uh i think that’s all i wanted to talk about right now. i guess i really wanted to put out there that while leah is out here living her best life in the short run with interesting sexual encounters, lots of flirting and dating, and all that good ( and not so good ) college hook-up culture, in the long run, she’s incredibly anxious about letting her family in on her love life, so any serious ships would have to keep that in mind since i don’t think it’s realistic for things to be smooth sailing 100% of the times in ships. 

[fuzziekins]

I would like to ask you all of the pride questions from that one post.

Dammit Steve XD

Gender and pronouns?  Female and she/her are fine, as far as i know i’m cis. i don’t care if you call me dude, though. Dude can be anyone.

Romantic orientation? i use demi-whatromantic, with demiromantic as the microlabel. Most people know whatromantic as quoiromantic or quoi. i think what/quoi is typically known as a microlabel, but i relate to that more and feel it describes me more compared to demi which is why i focus more on that aspect.

Sexual orientation? In lamest terms? Asexual. In my terms? Stereotypical ace. In specific terms? S-x repulsed asexual.

Past labels you’ve used? i didn’t use anything before discovering asexuality because naive and oblivious, as far as i know. Before demi-whatromantic i briefly used demiromantic as a placeholder even though that didn’t totally feel right on its own.

How long have you been using your current labels? Asexual since late October 2017 and officially, or i guess out, since February 2018. Demi-whatromantic i think has been for maybe 6ish months now?

What made you pick your name? i had no say in my name lol. I haven’t changed it at all

What names have you gone by previously? Unless nicknames count for anything, just my regular boring name.

What names have you considered using? i’ve only ever considered using other names for me as a Pokemon trainer in the games which is obviously not the same. But, for the record, every time i start a game using the male trainer i’d use the name Larry.

Do you like your flag(s)? i don’t focus on the demiromantic flag as much, only because i feel less of the connection to compared to ace and what. The asexual flag has definitely given me a new appreciation for purple, but as a former art student i’ve been taught that black is typically the absence or color and white encompasses all the colors. so i do wish the ace flag had more colors just so i can stop referring to purple as the “only” color. i definitely appreciate and like the look of the whatromantic flag, but i don’t think as many people are aware of what it looks like or that it even exists. i especially love the shade of blue used in it.

Favorite flag(s) visually? Gonna be unoriginal and say the gay pride flag just because i love rainbows. 

Favorite colors? Blue has always been a favorite of mine, and i used to gravitate mostly towards lighter shades of purple but now i just include purple in general.

Favorite animals? Puppies, kitties, bunnies, hamsters, monkeys, ponies.... Actually, probably best just to say adorable fluffy animals.

Favorite things about being LGBT+? i like having an explanation for being me. i don’t look my age to begin with and i definitely don’t act like it. So people assuming there’s something wrong with me mentally because of it, or wanting to avoid me in general.... i know people have their feelings about stereotypes and a lot of times it is negative, but for me knowing that a stereotypical ace basically describes who i am, it feels reassuring. And i like knowing that i don’t have to act or think or do completely of what’s expected of me because in a heteronormative world, being LGBT+ completely flips that around. Even if to me, it doesn’t always feel like i have a place because i don’t know many queer people and i don’t get involved in things in general, somewhere in my mind i know that there���s a place for me.

Are you dysphoric? Not that i know of.

Are you religious? Nope. i don’t fast, i don’t keep kosher, i don’t go to temple, i never went to Hebrew school.... But it doesn’t make me any less connected to my religion and, as selfish as it sounds, i still wanna make a point of it and remind people, hey us Jews exist, too!

Are you questioning your identity? Some parts of it i do question sometimes, mostly in terms of aesthetic attraction. But i fluctuate with including that attraction in my identity. And i do question how much, if at all it does or could play a part in my romantic attraction. 

Are you in a relationship? Haha, funny. Nope.

Are you out of the closet IRL? For the most part, yes. It’s primarily in terms of saying i’m asexual or just queer, but part of that depends who i’m talking to, if or when it comes up in conversation, and how comfortable i feel talking to people about it.

Is your family supportive? i honestly don’t know if my extended family knows, even though i do post pride related things on my Instagram which some of them do follow and i have posted about it there. But, as annoyed as my mom can get with my ace jokes or comments sometimes, she accepts me for who i am and supports me, and has, probably before even knowing the term asexual existed, had an assumption a typical relationship happening for me was slim. And i know without a doubt that if my dad was still around he would definitely be supportive of me and not cared what i identified as, what i looked like, who i liked or didn’t like, or anything like that. 

Favorite LGBT+ celebrity or historical figure? Neil Patrick Harris is definitely one of them, and i think another favorite is probably Demi Lovato.

Favorite LGBT+ couple IRL? Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka. i love NPH and the family that he and David have are just the most precious things ever! Plus the way they go all out for Halloween every year? HELL. YES.

Favorite LGBT+ canon character? First one that comes to mind is Asami from Legend of Korra. Because Asami. Another one is Cyrus Goodman from Andi Mack. i loved watching his journey on the show and also knowing that there are kids who were watching Disney Channel that could not only relate to and look up to him as a queer character but also as a queer Jewish character. Plus he was just the most precious character and i just wanted to hug him!

Favorite LGBT+ canon fictional couple? Korra and Asami from Legend of Korra; Stef and Lena from The Fosters; Kat and Adena from The Bold Type.

Some characters you headcanon as LGBT+? Elsa and Honeymaren from Frozen 2. Don’t get me started, i will NEVER shut up. I’m going down with that ship.

Some LGBT+ pairings you ship? i know i already said Kat and Adena from the Bold Type. As of the current season they are - spoiler - not together and have not been done the justice to them as characters or their relationship. I continue to ship them, i love the chemistry the actors always have between them and how believable it is for their characters, and i’m just anxiously waiting for the day when they can hopefully FINALLY get back together.

Any celebrity crushes? If by crushes you mean celebrities i admire, look up to, think are cute, and would probably watch almost any show or movie if they were in it? Zendaya. The same has also applied to Corbin Bleu.

Any fictional crushes? As long as the same rule applies to the previous question and also includes being obsessed yet completely in control of that obsession and that character is also a muse for creativity? Elsa.

A trope you dislike about your identity? Probably that it’s a phase or i just haven’t met the right person yet. It took me probably too long to know let alone even understand why i didn’t think so much of romance or relationships and why i was never looking for or really wanting an actual relationship. For the most part, that’s been my whole life so to say my whole life is just some kind of phase or imply that i’m living it wrong? Just. No.

A trope about your identity that applies to you? Maybe this falls more under the stereotypical asexual label, but that aces can be very childlike. i’ve always been a kid at heart, i never really acted like my age, and yeah i can be really naive or clueless about a lot of things. 

Something you wish people understood about your identity? Probably just that people understood it’s an actual identity. It’s not a choice, it’s not a phase. It’s not a label someone created just to be able to fit in somewhere or for sh-ts and giggles. It’s an actual, legitimate, real identity. 

Something you dislike about being LGBT+? I feel like i can’t fully comment on it because sometimes i don’t fully feel LGBT+. Not having more than a couple of friends who identify as queer, not actively getting involved in the community or really wanting to be around people in general...i can only say what i dislike based on what i’ve seen online. And what i don’t like is that the LGBT+ community is supposed to be that - a community. It’s supposed to be a place where we can all relate to each other somehow, support each other and rely on each other. It’s supposed to be a place where, regardless of what label or how many labels we use, if we’re not straight it’s our place. We belong. But people still find a way to want to kick people out or treat people badly just because they don’t understand or agree on the label. Or maybe they don’t like or understand why someone chose a certain label or doesn’t have one at all or just uses queer. People still find a way to exclude and ignore and that’s not fair at all.

If you’re not cis, do you want HRT and/or surgery?

If you’re not straight, who was your first same-gender crush? Are we still going by either of my crush definitions from earlier....?

Do you align with any gay subcategories? (Butch/femme, bear/twink, etc.) Not that i know of. I don’t think i even know a lot, or maybe any of the subcategories at all besides those mentioned.

Do you have any LGBT+ idols? Elton John is the one that comes to mind. Knowing the life he had, the addictions he struggled with and ultimately overcame, becoming an activist and philanthropist especially for HIV/AIDS, growing up on his music... He dealt with a lot and has gone through so much but he’s come out so much stronger and has not only had a successful career but has also tried to do his part to help others for a cause that he believes in. 

Do you own pride merch? Would you like to? A pride hat, 2 pride scarves, a few pride pins, an asexual lanyard.... i would definitely like to have a t-shirt with an ace pun at it at some point, though.

Do you have a type in partners? Probably water. Or were you talking about actual human partners and not Pokemon partners in the games?

Do you have a type in friends? i actually don’t think i chose any of my friends. As far as i can think of, all of the friends i do have came into my life kind of by accident or by chance and they’re the ones who have stuck around. i do think most of my friends though have senses of humors and are loyal, although the closest ones are definitely WAY more levelheaded than i am! XD

[voxofthevoid]

Idk if your blog is the place for this discussion, and I know it's missing the point that trans people had made (but I dont want to speak for them) - from my perspective rule!63 for only one character in m/m ships is inherently homophobic. Changing one character to Fem is forcing a heteronormative structure on gay pairings. As a gay person, I see enough straight pairings, why do this in m/m fics?? If you're exploring discussions around gender, try making both rule 63 otherwise that's an excuse.

(Sorry about the late response - been a busy week(s) and the topic required some thought.)

Not gonna lie, I was very confused when I first saw this ask before I realized it was prompted by this post I reblogged. I’m not sure this blog is a place for this discussion either, at least in terms of visibility. This isn’t a discourse blog or any sort of discussion-oriented one, just my personal trashfire. All I can give you is my view on this.

Addressing the trans perspective first - I can’t speak for every trans person out there, no one can, but my perspective as a transmasc guy is that rule!63 has a place in fandom that’s very different from that occupied by trans narratives. Writing a cis male character as cis female or vice verse isn’t even comparable to writing a trans narrative. The way gender is conceptualized is these two cases are poles apart, and the you can potentially explore gender dynamics is also different. One cannot be replaced by the other, and that doesn’t mean rule!63 has to be chucked out the window while we focus solely on trans stories either.

Because as a trans person, I can tell you that 99% of the time, I stay the fuck away from trans narratives, whether or not they’re written by fellow trans folks. It hits too close to home and is usually very triggering. The 1% of time is an exception and even then, it takes a lot out of me. And I’ve trawled around tumblr enough to know that I’m not the only trans person who feels this way. Rule!63, with its cis main characters is a wholly different thing.

Now, onto your claim that Rule!63-ing just one character in a m/m pairing is inherently homophobic:

I disagree.

To start with, a good amount of m/m content in fanfic are of non-canon pairings. Which means the gay representation already doesn’t exist. Fanfic isn’t representation - it’s fans compensating for lack of representation and combining it with subtext or just generally playing around with sacred canon for any number of reasons. And just as some fans choose to ship male characters who’re canonically straight/unconfirmed together, some fans will ship the same male characters with other female characters. Neither one is more or less valid than the other.

The same way people are drawn to particular ships, they’re drawn to particular characters. And a huge part of fandom is made up of women - queer, straight, cis, trans. They might want to explore their existence in relation to their favorite character(s), and sometimes, they may do this using Rule!63. 

This is by no means the only reason a writer would rule!63 a guy and ship him-turned-her with another guy. And all these writers aren’t necessarily women either. It’s not like we know the gender of an author just from reading the content of a story. The above example was just one possibility that came to mind when you said this sort of Rule!63 is inherently homophobic. I’m a straight trans guy (clarifying because this is tumblr - I identify as a man and am attracted to women), but the stories I write are of gay and bi men, because exploring masculinity is more comfortable for me than exploring femininity, for obvious reasons. Point is, my fics reflect neither my gender (trans man) nor my sexuality (heterosexual).

You see the issue in trying to suss out motivations through fictional content? And this is just a mild example.

I understand wanting to see more queer content. I’m in the same boat. But the solution to that isn’t blaming Rule!63 writers. Use filters generously to blacklist content you don’t want to see. Either create or otherwise promote the kind of content you do want to see.

Because no, changing one half of a fictional m/m ship to female isn’t enforcing heteronormativity on gay characters. The gay rep didn’t exist in the first place. I’d argue that “ukefication” is closer in line to viewing male same-sex relationships through a heterosexual lens. A writer changing a male character to female is just playing in their fanon sandbox, as is their right.

It’s their story. They can do whatever they want.

I’m not saying there are no Rule!63-ed straight stories written because the writer is homophobic. It’s likely. People come in all flavors, some of them shitty. I don’t see why a m/m pairing would appeal to a homophobe in the first place, but I’ve also trawled around the internet often enough to see that people might support queer characters in fic, then turn around and be bigoted towards actual lgbtq+ people.

But the accusation that it’s inherently homophobic is in no way substantiated.

I do think it’s different when we’re dealing with a pairing that’s canonically m/m.Then, you have actual gay representation, and changing one of those characters into cis women would offend a lot of people and for good reason. My last fandom and ship revolved around a canon gay couple - Viktor and Yuuri from Yuri on Ice. Most wrote them as cis men, some wrote both as cis women, others wrote one/both as trans characters. Rule!63 for just one was rare, and the few times I saw it, I noped the fuck out. My current ship is non-canon (let’s not go into the subtext and tropes and marvel’s bs). At the end of the day, Steve and Bucky aren’t gay representation because that’s up to Marvel, and we know what they did. I’ve seen fics that portray them with a wide variety of genders and sexualities, and some of them show them as a straight couple. Unlike with Yuri on Ice, these stories don’t seem offensive to me. I may or may not engage with them, but the content alone is harmless.

(Anyone wants to add to this, feel free. As I said, I’m not a discourse blog, and these are my musings, not the gospel. Different people will view this issue differently. But do be civil.)

[faerph]

it makes it sound like you believe wlw relationships involving bisexual people/muses are less valid than ones where the women identify as lesbian.

Okay here’s the thing.

I’m not saying they’re less “Valid” im saying people will not be as interested in a muse they don’t think they can ship with a male character. I’ve been playing wlw muses (especially lesbians as I am one) for a while and it’s a trend I’ve seen over and over. My friends who play lesbian muses have seen it over and over. 

It’s partially an issue of platonic ships being devalued in the rpc (and irl), mlm ships being fetishized so goddamn much that irl mlm are uncomfortable, and a lil sprinkle of heteronormativity but mostly! it’s just shitty! and people who write lesbian muses should be allowed to talk about it! 

It’s not trying to tear bi girls down, I’m just stating that when someone goes “Im making a new muse!” and their followers get all excited, that excitement evaporates and they’ll get maybe a handful of ride or die followers when they make that new chara a lesbian :/

[enchantedevents]

A Walt Guide to: The Annual Bachelor(ette) Auction !!

Last summer, we sold our gents and male-identifying babes to raise money for the Sexual Health & Wellness Club. This year? It’s the ladies’ (and female-identifying babes’) turn! If you’re just joining us, let me break it down for you – a bachelorette auction is when eligible local bachelorettes are auctioned off onstage, and the highest bidder wins a tres classy date with them, totally free at any Walt location! We have the hookup like that. This event is perfect for summer because everyone has semi-free schedules and it’s kind of a perfect way to start a summer romance. That is, if you’re looking for one. Otherwise, it’s just a way to get out of your cottage and into something fun! Plus, it’s all sponsored by the Sexual Health & Wellness Club, so your money goes to a good cause. What you need to know:

♡The event will be on Friday, July 13th (yikies Friday the 13th!) in the Abra Cadabra Auditorium on Walt U’s campus.

♡Members of the Sexual Health & Wellness club can participate as emcees to complement our wonderful auctioneer/host and hype the audience up get them to give us all of their money!

♡All girls and nonbinary babes over the age of sixteen are welcome to participate! We can’t sell you off to any adults if you’re under eighteen, but that’s why you invite your high school friends to come bid with their lunch money or whatever! If you plan to sign up, fill out the following form and submit it to this blog!:

Name:

Age:

Would you consider yourself a beauty or a beast?:

Snow White lived with seven little men. Would you prefer to be bid on by Happy, Dopey, Grumpy, Bashful, Sneezy, or Sleepy and why?:

Finish the sentence: “Who needs true love’s kiss when I can wake someone up with my _____________.”

What is your favorite part of your body and why?:

Would you say the size of a person’s wand matters most, or the magic they make with it?:

If your last partner claimed you were a fixer upper, would you keep that relationship or let it go?

Which hot Walt MILF do you relate to the most?:

A. Ariel Triton -- I’m a dreamer who's ambitious and determined! B. Tinker Bell -- I’m feisty and a little bit mean, but that’s what’s so cute about me! C. Cinderella -- You’d conduct a kingdom-wide search for me because I’m that unforgettable! 

Where will you be taking your lucky highest bidder?: (Be creative! All fun places in Walt are fair game, and you can mix and match up to three, but don’t be afraid to add a little extra – you’ll just have to pay for it! Ex: “Well I’d pick them up in my horse and carriage. start with dinner at Tony’s, go for a movie at the Enchanted Cinema – popcorn extra buttery. ;) But we won’t fill up on the candy and snacks because afterward, we’d share a milkshake at Elsa’s and end the night with a long walk on the beach.”)  

RULES

As previously stated, teens bid on teens, adults on adults. 

Winning your prize is great and all, but don’t be gross! This auction consents the two of you to one (1) date, nothing more. That is, unless you want to – in which case, stop by the Sexual Health & Wellness club’s office and we can help you be prepared!

We’re not about being heteronormative here! So bidders can be of any and all genders. If you get bought by someone who doesn’t align with your orientation, turn it into a friend-date! Don’t be a bad sport!

BACHELOR AUCTION: AN OOC GUIDE

♡Send in your muses’ involvement with the auction!

If they’re participating and getting auctioned off, fill out and submit the fun little survey!

If they’re going to bid, you don’t need to let us know, but if you have planned plots to do with this event, let us know of the match you’ve got planned and we’ll post it! 

♡Once we rack up all the “pre-sales” (ie, sales planned by muns ooc), any muses left over will be fair game to be bid on for a week! Send this blog a message saying “MUSE bids on MUSE” and you’ll have 24 hours to get outbid. If someone else bids on the same person, I’ll put the names in a randomizer and whoever’s chosen randomly wins the date! Happy bidding! 

[redvanillabee]

Musings on A Study in Pink (1)

Trigger Warning (General): Mentions and discussion of homophobia and suicide

More specific trigger warnings will precede each part of the meta

Summary: The theme of the show has been clear since day one. Heteronormativity, homophobia, and toxic masculinity will kill John, Sherlock, and Johnlock if the former are not stopped.

This meta is a series with three parts:

Part 1: Shot in the left shoulder – the Cabbie as a John mirror

Part 2: ‘You can’t have serial suicides’ – media, chain suicides, and social problems

Part 3: ‘Who’d be a fan of Sherlock Holmes?’ – The biggest obstacle to Johnlock

All transcripts taken from Ariane Devere Sherlock episode transcripts. Appropriate pages will be linked after each quote.

All S1-S3 screenshots taken from screencapped.net  

Part 1: Shot in the left shoulder – the Cabbie as a John mirror

TRIGGER WARNING: Discussions of homophobia and suicide; image of fake but realistic blood

The main flow of the case in ASiP goes like this: the Cabbie is one of those ‘just want the best for his kids’ parents. He is diagnosed with a terminal illness. Motivated and enabled by Moriarty, he goes on a potentially fatal murder spree, leaving four people dead in his wake. Sherlock eventually solves the case, but the Cabbie is ultimately stopped by John.

In short, the main characters at play are: Moriarty, Cabbie, Sherlock, and John. Moriarty and the Cabbie are the main enigmas. What do they represent?

In Part 1 we will focus on the Cabbie and what he might stand for.

The Cabbie: the ‘this is for your own good’ homophobic parent  

One important thing to note is that while the deaths appear to be suicides, they technically aren’t – they are murders. The Cabbie forced the victims to take their own lives. So what exactly motivated the Cabbie to go on this killing spree?

SHERLOCK (thoughtfully): No. No, there’s something else. You didn’t just kill four people because you’re bitter. Bitterness is a paralytic. Love is a much more vicious motivator. Somehow this is about your children.

…

JEFF: When I die, they won’t get much, my kids. Not a lot of money in driving cabs.

…

JEFF: For every life I take, money goes to my kids. The more I kill, the better off they’ll be. You see? It’s nicer than you think. [x]

Sherlock correctly points out that the Cabbie is motivated by what the latter believes to be love for his children—a love that manifests in a rather twisted and bloody way, in this case. He believes he has his children’s best interest in his heart, but he leaves behind a bloody trail. Even if his children do end up getting the money, they are bloody money. If the Cabbie takes the wrong pill and dies, there is no promise the money will arrive at the hands of his children. He believes what he is doing is good for the kids, but in the end, the kids very likely will not benefit from it.

Remind you of anything? To me it sounds like the kind of homophobic parents who want their kids to ‘stop being gay’ because they ‘love’ them. ‘I don’t want you to be bullied or hated by the society so stop being gay’ kind of parent.

What the Cabbie does for a living seems to support this reading, too. The Cabbie drives a cab around (duh). But wait—what exactly are the words used to describe him in the show?

The Cabbie, or the London cabs, ‘passes unnoticed wherever they go’, and the Cabbie ‘hunts in the middle of a crowd’ [x]. Or, in the even more poetic words of Pilot!Sherlock, the cabs are cars that ‘pass like ghosts, unseen, unremembered’; we would willingly and perhaps unconsciously trust them: ‘every day we disappear into their cars and let the trap close around us’. 

In short, as Pilot!Sherlock says, the London cab, these public cars, is ‘the invisible car’, ‘the perfect murder weapon of the modern age’. [x]

What do cars mean? @the-7-percent-solution​ explained, in this short meta,  that ‘a way of implying male virility in writing is through the use of cars’. In this sense, then, the London cab represents a kind of male virility that can ‘hunt in the middle of a crowd’, implicitly trusted and taken for granted. In the sexual understanding, the type of male virility that could hunt in the crowd without attracting attention would be straight male virility.

In other words, the Cabbie is basically cruisin’ around London with his car of murderous heteronormativity, hunting down closeted people.

ASiP Recap: the Cabbie’s victims as John mirrors

It is established in the fandom that all victims of the Cabbie are John mirrors [x]. Let’s take a quick look again at who exactly are killed by the Cabbie:

A knight of the realm, locked in a loveless marriage while having an affair with a cutie wearing a purple silk shirt

A young man who fears he would look gay if he shares an umbrella with his friend

(This is a line deleted from ASiP, in the scene where the young man says he’s running home to grab an umbrella because he does not want to share his friend’s.)

SHERLOCK: Take my hand.

JOHN (grabbing his hand as they race onwards): Now people will definitely talk. [x]

An MP who has a drinking problem and tends to drink-drive unless intervened

Jennifer Wilson: another who is locked in a loveless marriage, having a string of lovers, and has a stillborn daughter whose initial was RW.

Specifically, all the Cabbie’s victims are mirrors of John after he meets Sherlock. (John might have had a drinking problem before he meets Sherlock, but it seems particularly serious after TRF; there are a lot more references to him drinking.)

As mentioned above, the Cabbie subtextually stands for heteronormativity and homophobia. In other words, John, in all these incarnations, is killed by heteronormativity and homophobia. But wait, there’s more to the Cabbie.

Cabbie as a John mirror

TJLCE lays out the following as signs that a minor character is a mirror [x]: 

They look like a main character

They dress like a main character

They have the same name as a main character

They act like/speak like/are in a situation similar to the main character

They hang out in front of mirrors

There are several signs that the Cabbie may be a mirror for John. They both wear knitted jumpers/cardigans. They both have light-coloured hair. John and the Cabbie look just similar enough that one would try to connect the two. Besides, both John and the Cabbie are shot in the left shoulder.

(Some say he is shot in the heart, but it is unclear on screen, and the locations of the shots seem close enough that we can assume they are shot in a similar spot.)

SHERLOCK: In Afghanistan. There was an actual wound.

JOHN: Oh, yeah. Shoulder.

…

SHERLOCK: The left one.

JOHN: Lucky guess. [x]

The Cabbie is also the first person on the show, apart from John, to be shown in possession of a (fake) gun. More importantly, he embodies both life and death like John.

Cabbie: good pill (life), bad pill (death)

John: being a doctor (life), being a soldier (death)

These are all clues that the Cabbie is some kind of John mirror; specifically, the Cabbie is a mirror of John in the army: John is an army doctor and is shot in the left shoulder during his time in the military, and owns a gun because of his military background.

In short, the Cabbie is an army!John mirror.

But there’s more.

Cabbie as a mirror of John’s dad

While writing on the Cabbie as a John mirror, I could not seem to get very far with that analysis. That is when I started noticing details that seem to suggest the Cabbie can be read as an image of John’s dad.

I mentioned above that the Cabbie looks similar enough to John that we can make the connection. While similar, he looks quite a lot older than John’s age, which is early to mid-thirties. In fact, he looks like he could be John’s dad.

John’s dad would have had two kids, a son and a daughter—John and Harry. Likewise, the Cabbie has a son and a daughter.

Does army!John plus a son and a daughter immediately make a character a mirror for John’s father? Well, John is likely not the only military man in his family. There are theories that John’s father could also have been in the military. As @shinka lays out here, for instance, Major Barrymore in THoB shines light on the relationship John might have had with his father. John’s father, like Major Barrymore, could have been an ‘old-fashioned, traditionalist’, Thatcher-worshipping man, most likely hyper-masculine and homophobic. Incidentally, that is what the Cabbie supposedly represents. 

In short, the Cabbie is also a mirror for John’s dad. Since the ‘military’ aspect of the Cabbie applies to both John and John’s father, it says a lot about John’s background, and the impact his father has on his life…

John’s childhood and military life—was John truly happy in the army?

So far in the show, we know very little about John’s past, and I doubt if it will ever become a major plot point. However, we are able to speculate based on what the Cabbie stands for, and whatever we have already seen in the show.

John’s father—like Major Barrymore, like what the Cabbie represents—is likely an old-fashioned, traditionalist, Thatcher-loving man, possibly also rather homophobic.

The Cabbie has a photo of his children as, well, children, but he seems too old to have children who are that young. He either hasn’t seen them since that age, or, on a more symbolic level, insists on only ever thinking of them as their younger selves.

John and Harry at that age would have been when they either have not realised their sexualities, or have not come out yet. John’s father would have refused to acknowledge the gender and sexualities that his kids come to identify with as they grow up.

The Cabbie (heteronormativity/homophobia) hunts and kills John mirrors, in the belief that what he is doing is good for his kids. We can imagine John’s father claiming the same thing—fiercely or even violently homophobic, John’s father could have, at one point, claimed that he needs to stop his children from being lesbian/bi for their own good. In doing so, he, like many homophobic parents, is driving John to the point of potential suicide.

The fandom has many theories on why John joined the army. Some popular theories include: Medical Corps cadetship covers tuition for a desperate closeted bi teen boy who has moved out of home, or wanting to feel useful while fulfilling his thirst for danger, etc. These are all possible reasons, but if John’s father was indeed in the army, then there may be one more: John may have joined the army to prove himself to his father.

As explained above, John’s father was probably in the military himself. He could even have been a Major, as @kinklock theorises here. We see that in the way John becomes more insecure in front of Major Reed in TSoT. He becomes ‘almost submissive, and seems to be trying to avoid eye contact’, hasty to reassert his title and achievements, and appears shot down when Reed dismisses him:

JOHN (pointing at his ID card): No, sir, I’m Captain John Watson, Fifth Northumberland Fusiliers-

REED: Retired. You could be a used car salesman now, for all I know. [x]

Wellingtongoose reckons, in their meta on John’s career, that John is originally in the Medical Corps, reached the non-combatant, purely administrative rank of Major, but then later switched to be trained as a combatant for whatever reason, which is how he can be both a doctor AND a soldier, and only a Captain at around age 35. His administrative rank as a Major would hold no power in the ‘gritty manly world’ of the Army, which adds a whole other layer to John’s self-esteem issue in relation to his father.

That is not to say, though, that John was unhappy in the army. He clearly takes great pride in his work and achievements. The army is also where John gets to embrace his sexuality to a fuller extent, and address his attraction to men. 

For once, he has a pleasant relationship with a Major. Remember, however, his issues from his childhood remain unaddressed and unresolved. While he may have enjoyed his time in the army, he is still, consciously or not, living in the shadow of his father.

So John shoots the Cabbie…

When John is shot in Afghanistan, he is ripped from the work that he likes, the place that respects him, and the person that lets him be himself (to an extent at least). He is left financially and mentally struggling in London. At the start of ASiP, we have John, suicidal because he is forcibly removed from the one place where he enjoys himself. He would have felt like he has lost his purpose again, ridden with self-doubt, and feeling like somehow he has failed to prove himself.

Being invalided out of the army, however, does have one saving grace—one that we have seen time and again in fanfics:

If John has never been shot, he would never have met Sherlock.

Sherlock is key to John’s growth and recovery. He gives John the love and acceptance that has been missing from most of John’s life so far. Sherlock accepts John’s dual occupation (read: his bisexuality) right off the bat without reducing it just one part of it, and provides John with a non-civilian (read: non-heteronormative) lifestyle that John craves:

SHERLOCK: You’re a doctor. In fact you’re an Army doctor.

JOHN: Yes.

(He gets to his feet and turns towards Sherlock as he comes back into the room again.)

SHERLOCK: Any good?

JOHN: Very good.

SHERLOCK: Seen a lot of injuries, then; violent deaths.

JOHN: Mmm, yes.

SHERLOCK: Bit of trouble too, I bet.

JOHN (quietly): Of course, yes. Enough for a lifetime. Far too much.

SHERLOCK: Wanna see some more?

JOHN (fervently): Oh God, yes. [x]

When John shoots the Cabbie—in the same place where John himself is shot, he is symbolically killing the lingering oppression from his father that he has since internalised. Most importantly, John shoots the Cabbie to save Sherlock.

[x]

Sherlock lives means John Watson lives. By shooting the Cabbie—confronting and tackling ‘his doubts and his own crippling self-esteem issues’ [x], John can finally find happiness for himself, with Sherlock (the beginnings of which we have seen in TLD), and resolve his suicide crisis that we have been alerted to at the beginning of the episode. 

Bonus: Beth Davenport MP and S4 Car Crash Theory

After S4, as a branch of the Mind Bungalow Theory, @toxicsemicolon proposed the Car Crash Theory. You can read about it in detail in the linked meta, but simply put, the Car Crash theory suggests that John is involved in drink-driving accident, and while he is injured, whatever goes on in his head is what we see in The Final Problem. 

Do we have another drink-driver on the show? Yes we do, and she is conveniently a John mirror: Beth Davenport MP, aka the Cabbie’s third victim, and ironically enough, the Junior Minister for Transport.

This MP has a drinking problem, and, from a conversation between her two aides, seems to have a tendency to drink-drive unless intervened:

JANUARY 27TH. At a public venue, a party is being held. A large poster showing a photograph of the guest of honour is labelled “Your local MP, Beth Davenport, Junior Minister for Transport.” As pounding dance music comes from inside the room, one of Beth’s aides walks out of the room and goes over to her male colleague who is standing at the bar. He looks at her in exasperation.

AIDE 1: Is she still dancing?

AIDE 2: Yeah, if you can call it that.

AIDE 1: Did you get the car keys off her?

AIDE 2 (showing him the keys): Got ’em out of her bag.

(The man smiles in satisfaction, then looks into the dance hall and frowns.)

AIDE 1: Where is she? [x]

Unfortunately, however, even though her aides prevented her from potentially killing herself and others through a drink-driving rampage, she still runs into the Cabbie and is murdered. It is also the report of her death that prompted John to make the blog post about the serial suicides (details in Part 2). If we follow the reading in this part of the meta, unless John’s demons from his childhood are tackled, even if his current problems (e.g. drinking) are resolved, he would still end up in the same dead end, literally.

Side note: if cars represent male virility, and John (and John mirrors) drink-drive…says a lot about John’s sex life, doesn’t it?   

Part 2: ‘You can’t have serial suicides’ – media, chain suicides, and social problems

Part 3: ‘Who’d be a fan of Sherlock Holmes?’ – The biggest obstacle to Johnlock 

Part 4: ‘I that am lost, oh who will find me?’ – John Watson’s Final Problem

[anaxolotladay]

So this is like. a weird thing. and i'm having trouble.

I've been researching gender identities for a while, and. llll...like, i found a description of 'bigender' that feels like it describes what i feel, really accurately: ”Bigender people may experience dysphoria in which they want their body to reflect traits from two distinct sexes, or experience dysphoria at some times but not others.” (x)

But at the same time, thinking about identifying as it without being able to present "accurately" to how i feel when i feel makes me feel like i'm. lying;;;

I’d considered genderfluidity in the past. During middle school (puberty), the dysphoria was crippling- ofc I didn’t know it was dyshphoria / what dysphoria was at the time, nor had any semblance of ANY concept of “gender”. I hated the idea of being feminine for a very, very long time (unless I was wearing something that didn’t remind me of my chest / didn’t make me feel ugly / was somehow “beneficial” to my wearing it), and I’m certain there was a lot of internalized misogyny on top of that. Getting older, I learned to love myself more, and appreciate who I was not for what I could be, but for what I was at any given time. The past few years, I’ve felt... weird. Because I don’t often experience the same dysphoria anymore. For the most part, I look in the mirror and am reminded that there are boobs and hips that totally work in my feminine favor, and gosh damn do I look hot sometimes. But at the same time, maybe a few times a month, those exact features make me cry just to know that I’m forced to bear them.

The thing is though, I’ve never felt uncomfortable as a girl. In elementary / middle school I used to wish I was a boy, so I would feel “normal” about my hobbies (elementary; thanks, heteronormativity) or so that I might feel attractive (middle school / high; I genuinely hated this chest for a very, very long time). But, the idea of “tomboy girl” was so comfortable during elementary, and by high school, I stopped giving a damn about heteronormative standards. 

I’ve never felt a dysphoria severely enough to desire to totally transition. At the same time, “non-binary” isn’t what I want. I  l o v e  feeling “girly” and “feminine” and I’ve come to even enjoy the “womanliness” of these breasts, but at the same time, my heart starts to race when I picture myself with short hair and a baggy shirt that would hide my chest (or, heaven help me, maybe a binder). 

For a really, REALLY long time, I haven’t really known WHAT exactly I’ve wanted, or WHO I’ve wanted to be. Female pronouns feel very comfortable, but I feel like it’s because it’s been that way for so long. In that same vein, picturing someone calling me by male pronouns feels foreign and weird, but simultaneously, I kind of love it when people do that online (when referring to my muses)?

I don’t know. I don’t know. “Bigender” doesn’t feel exactly right, but I’m really warming up to that description. The dysphoria isn’t the same anymore, but could gender identity be influenced by a euphoria? 

My big problem is though, while I feel like I would like to use this as a label that does sorta feel “right” sometimes, I don’t think I could ever comfortably switch between pronouns without being able to present in that desire way at that point in time. I’d feel like I was “lying” to myself. NOT TO MENTION, I keep second guessing these thoughts, because I as a person am JUST INHERENTLY INDECISIVE. And what if this is my scared-to-take-risks self fighting against another facet of my identity? I don’t knnnnow, and I’m so confused;;;; I feel comfortable most of the time, but not all the time?? And sometimes, the desire to just have a completely flat chest (and maybe weirdly enough, somethin hanging between my legs) overwhelming? It’s an honest struggle, picturing my breasts as anything other than just “in the way of” my chest. And that can’t be right. I love the way they make me look, but despise the way they make me feel.

For the moment, I’m not planning on identifying as anything beyond cis-female.... yet. But the more times I type “bigender” in this big stupid rambling, the more the idea of it feels congruent to how I view it, and the more appealing the identity becomes. Gosh... I don’t know... And BECAUSE I don’t know, “coming out” to people who know me would make me feel even more like a “liar”;;;;; can i secretly identify as “bigender” just to myself?? is that a thing;;;

[womens-studies-degree-blog]

Lesbian Representation in “The L Word”

December 2007

           Showtime’s television series The L Word centers on a group of girl friends living in Los Angeles. All but one of the women are lesbians; the show is made by, about and, presumably, for lesbians, a concept unprecedented in mainstream television. With complex and varied lesbian representations, the series serves as an important site for lesbian identity-formation. By virtue of being an explicitly and thoroughly lesbian show, The L Word forces its female viewers (and even male viewers in some ways) to reconfigure the psychic process of identification/ objectification. Thus, in spite of some problematic representations in the show, it ultimately disturbs previous understandings of the lesbian gaze, such as that prescribed through a Lacanian perspective rooted in binary notions of sex and gender.

           In many ways The L Word produces problematic representations reflecting the misogynistic pornographic conventions that Annette Kuhn delineates in her article “Lawless Seeing.” Kuhn discusses the “pleasure of power” (272) in voyeurism (whereby the pleasure of looking is one of power as the object cannot see the viewer [272]) that traditionally implicates a male subject and a female object. Kuhn argues that “the photograph speaks to a masculine subject, constructing woman as object” (273); traditionally gazing upon the female through a masculine lens, this vantage point thus constructs “femininity as otherness” (273). The L Word repeatedly adopts this cinematic technique. In the episode “Lifeline”, Shane approaches Cherie’s house in darkness, following her movements in a stalker-like manner while Cherie, well-lit inside her home, remains uncertain about Shane’s approach. This voyeuristic foreplay mimics the objectifying pleasure power described by Kuhn; initially, the femme Cherie represents the female object while the androgynous Shane, sheathed in darkness, represents the male subject hunting his prey. Upon their meeting at Cherie’s front door, and once both established as women engaged in lesbian sex, they both become objects viewed through the windows. The viewer no longer adopts Shane’s perspective and thus assumes the position of a third-party voyeur.

           Similarly, various sex scenes in The L Word are interrupted by a third character: Shane interrupts Carmen and Jenny in “Late, Later, Latent”, and Jenny’s then-fiancé, Tim, walks in on Jenny and Marina in “Lawfully”. Seemingly staged for a spectator and, notably, often a male one, such scenes mimic the feminine “to-be-looked-at-ness” (274) typical of pornography. The L Word exemplifies its incorporation of the male voyeur with its Season Two character Mark, a man who installs hidden cameras in the bedrooms of his lesbian roommates.

In addition to constructing an implicit male voyeur, The L Word encourages the heteronormative male gaze, paradoxically, through its use of camera angles that fragment the female body into bits and pieces, a pornographic convention Kuhn describes as “dehumanizing” (274). According to Kuhn, shots of thrust bosoms, raised buttocks and open legs construct woman as feminine and therefore different (275), and thus “reducible to a sexuality which puts itself on display for a masculine spectator” (276). The L Word’s publicity shots alone epitomize the show’s breast fixation, with all of its characters elegantly and unnaturally clad in plunging necklines. Furthermore, the “V” shape of the open-leg angle proves a popular closing shot for sex scenes, such as those between Shane and Cherie (“Lifeline”), Helena and Dylan (“Late Comer”), and Shane and Carmen (“Life, Loss, Leaving”), to name a few.    

           By insisting on sexual difference (Kuhn, 277) and, by virtue of photographic convention, equating visibility with truth (Kuhn, 275), pornography “as a regime of representation…constructs a social discourse on the nature of human sexuality” (Kuhn, 271). By adopting many pornographic conventions in its sex scenes, The L Word thus reflects this discourse which posits the feminine as object in a subject/ object binary.

According to Laura Mulvey, the psychoanalytic implications of this binary serve to perpetuate the patriarchal order. In a Lacanian reading of the voyeuristic tendencies of cinematic conventions, the two pleasures in looking are scopophilia and narcissistic identification, the former reserved for the female object and the latter for the male subject, or voyeur. Film and television reproduce sex-driven scopophilia through the voyeuristic separation of a glowing screen in darkness (Mulvey, 216). As with the “presubjective moment of image recognition” (Mulvey, 218) in the Lacanian mirror stage, the viewer then conceives of the screen’s image as the ideal ego to identify with. Because film traditionally constructs male characters as voyeurs in the stories themselves, much like The L Word’s Mark, audiences narcissistically identify with males as the “bearer of look” (Mulvey, 219) and females as the “image” (Mulvey, 219). As the image, and therefore the signifiers of sexual difference (as discussed above), females then produce castration anxiety in males, a problem cinematically conquered in one of two ways: either the voyeuristic demystification of the female character or the fetishistic scopophilia of her (Mulvey, 225). The L Word adopts the latter strategy in its pornographic reproduction of the male gaze, discussed above. Furthermore, the show’s problematic opening sequence reduces the characters to dolls: the cast, plasticized and shining with gloss, pose in choppy sequences that mimic the awkward movements of a Barbie doll. This snapshot of The L Word thus promotes a fetishistic playground of pretty lesbians.

Mulvey describes the former strategy for “handling” women as sadistic; the film must investigate, demystify, punish and save the woman (225). Despite the uncontested centrality and complexity of The L Word’s lesbian characters, the show’s storylines create the sensation of an omnipresent, lesbian-hating world to battle. Carmen’s family disowns her when she comes out (“Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way”), Dana’s parents continually struggle with her homosexuality, and Max and Bette repeatedly encounter homophobic characters in the workplace. The episode “Last Dance”, in handling Dana’s death, juxtaposes the Christian, homophobic service provided by Dana’s parents with the illicit memorial that Dana’s friends conduct at a secluded waterfall. At the Christian service, the priest delivers a eulogy in which he muses that, given more time on earth, Dana “would have settled down with a loving partner, someone to care for her, a strong, devoted man, a loving man…” at which point Alice interrupts with, “What are you talking about? Dana was gay” and storms out of the church. Substantive and moving, the latter scene, in which the ladies commemorate Dana’s life and scatter her ashes, suffices to explore Dana’s death. Therefore the first scene, a homophobic tragedy, solely serves the sensation that The L Word zooms in on a lesbian world from outside rather than representing a lesbian world in its own right. The show thus reflects the Lacanian demystification of woman-as-object, illustrating the ways in which this woman-centered show in fact reproduces the patriarchal symbolic order underlying cinematic conventions.

           The L Word’s overrepresentation of femme lesbians further incurs the notion of heteronormative representation. According to Claire Whatling, femmes are traditionally read as the object-choice for masculine-identified butch lesbians and as not “committed” (64) to homosexuality. The L Word promotes this reading with a constant teetering towards heterosexuality: Alice is bisexual, Jenny enters as a straight woman who “becomes” a lesbian (and, along with Shane, suffers from father-related psychological issues) and Tina temporarily “returns” to heterosexuality. Because the equation of lesbian with butch “doubly erase[s]” (Whatling, 60) the lesbian femme, her prominence in The L Word raises an interesting question: does the series serve butch scopophilia or femme narcissism?

           Whatling addresses this issue through her deconstruction of the masculine/ feminine binary which stresses the limitations of psychoanalysis for understanding lesbianism. In a Lacanian reading, women must identify narcissistically “and hence masochistically” (Whatling, 56) with objectified women in film. This stems from the psychological process whereby the male identifies anaclitically with the mother as the Other, lacking what he wishes to possess (the phallus), while the female identifies narcissistically with the mother and thus the self as the Other, or that object which is striven for (Whatling, 37). With lesbian desire, however, the relation is both narcissistic and anaclitic as both oneself and one’s object of desire become the sexual object; “female homosexuality is, in this sense, not a failure of Freudian femininity, but, on the contrary, an excess of it” (Whatling, 43). Thus, psychoanalysis renders lesbianism a logical impossibility. Given this fact, Whatling reflects that “to argue that the cinema allows for a proliferation of lesbian scopic pleasure beyond the rigours of either the narcissistic or the anaclitic is a profoundly banal conclusion to come to” (71). This banality then calls for a more complex reading of lesbian representation and identification, a task that begins with an understanding of the lesbian gaze.

           In their analogy of women’s fashion magazines to pornography, Reina Lewis and Katrina Rolley argue that fashion magazines are implicitly lesbian with women as their intended viewer. The vantage point then becomes “a lesbian gaze in which the pleasure of looking is experienced simultaneously with the pleasure of being looked at by a woman” (182), and is thus a uniquely female position without recourse to and in subversion of the male gaze. Free from the constraints of a masculine/ feminine binary, femme lesbians can identify with the butch and the male hero (Whatling, 75), among other characters; essentially, the lesbian viewer re-imagines herself as the subject in unconventional ways. Hence, in response to the previously posed question, “the frame of vision” (Whatling, 74) of any female viewer watching The L Word “remains tied to the economy of the lesbian” (Whatling, 74) and therefore resides beyond binary notions of the male—or masculine— gaze upon the feminine object. Indeed the lesbian gaze introduces a viewing pleasure logically inexplicable through a Lacanian reading.

           Further complicating the male scopophilic reading of lesbian representation, David Loftus’ interviews with heterosexual men who enjoy lesbian pornography reveal that men can in some ways adopt the lesbian gaze. Some men interviewed envision experiencing a female type of sexual pleasure while watching lesbian pornography (56) and some envision being a “gay woman” (58), even the subservient one, a concept that disturbs notions of male dominance in pornography (58). One interviewee states that, in lesbian sexual relations, “a man is not necessary” (Loftus, 59). The transferability of the lesbian gaze suggests that, even with men watching, The L Word becomes solely lesbian terrain. Thus, the lesbian gaze challenges traditional psychoanalytic readings of lesbian representation in The L Word which reduce the show to an ascription to heteronormative codes.      

In deconstructing masculine/ feminine binaries, The L Word in fact engages in bricolage, as Judith Butler’s writings on sex and gender support with various ideas pertinent to a revised understanding of lesbian identification/ objectification. Firstly, in her chapter “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” Butler challenges the notion that butch/ femme role playing in lesbian relationships reproduces heterosexual norms, arguing instead that drag and these roles in fact highlight the non-existence of an essential heterosexuality. According to Butler, drag proves that “gender is a kind of imitation for which there is no original” (21). The character development of The L Word’s Max reflects Butler’s argument. In the episode “Lobsters”, Max enters the series as Moira, Jenny’s stone butch girlfriend from small-town California, and feels rejected by Jenny’s friends from the outset. Having assessed nothing but Moira’s flannel-clad appearance, Carmen and Shane immediately act coldly towards her. Later, Carmen justifies disliking Moira by criticizing her seemingly rigid attitudes towards lesbian roles: Moira tells Carmen and Jenny, “you girls just relax, let us butches unload the truck,” referring to Shane. Carmen, amused and mocking Moira’s assumptions, slaps Shane’s arm and says, “big butch, go unload the truck.” When all of Jenny’s friends discuss the newcomer at a dinner party that night, Carmen more harshly reprimands Moira for her statement, and the ladies proceed to contemplate the pairing. “Maybe she’s Jenny’s type,” Dana muses, to which Alice sarcastically replies, “Because Carmen’s such a stone butch too” (Carmen and Jenny previously dated). Bette then states that Moira “comes from a place where you have to define yourself as either/ or. It’s probably the only language she has to describe herself.” Tina, reverting to the question of Jenny’s choice, wonders why Jenny “would want to role-play like that.” This conversation appears oddly hypocritical: Alice dates both femme and butch women throughout the series, and Carmen and Shane consistently role play, most notably at their entirely heteronormative wedding (“Left Hand of the Goddess”). Interestingly, when Moira begins her transition to Max and appears at a party in fashionable men’s clothing, the ladies warm up to her, gushing that she “looks like a hot guy” (“Lifesize”). Still role-playing but now Los Angeles appropriate, Moira temporarily overcomes her ostracism. Thus, a class issue disguised as a gender issue, the ladies’ initial, hypocritical treatment of Moira highlights the constraints of a gender-binary system.        

Ultimately, The L Word condemns Max for his choice to transition. He becomes a ragingly jealous boyfriend and Jenny leaves him. He then suffers throughout the fourth season as being different and confused, juxtaposed with the lesbian characters secure in their identities. In a pivotal scene during Max’s transition, Kit, a black woman, seemingly emerges as the show’s critical voice. “What if,” she asks Max, “I lived my life feeling white inside, and then the next day I woke up and I could change the color of my skin, the features of my face to become white? Would you encourage me to do that? What’s white inside? What’s male inside? What’s female inside? Why can’t you be the butchest butch in the world and keep your body?” (“Late Comer”) Here Kit challenges the notion that sexuality resides in an essentially sexed body. By condemning Max and trumpeting the emotional failures of his transition, The L Word thus reflects Butler’s argument that “the parodic or imitative effect of gay identities works neither to copy nor emulate heterosexuality, but rather, to expose heterosexuality as an incessant and panicked imitation of its own naturalized idealization” (23).

Butler’s semiotic analysis of the lesbian phallus and its ability to deprivilege the dominant order (“Bodies that Matter”) clarifies how lesbian representation such as that of The L Word disrupts and therefore “exposes” the hegemonic imaginary of heterosexual morphology. Butler explains that the psychic subject is internally constituted by the Other and is therefore never self-identical and always disrupted by the Other (“Imitation”, 27). Thus, contrary to a Lacanian reading, as Whatling argues, identification and desire must not be mutually exclusive. “If to identify as a woman is not necessarily to desire a man, and if to desire a woman does not necessarily signal the constituting presence of a masculine identification…then the heterosexual matrix proves to be an imaginary logic that insistently issues forth its own unmanageability” (“Bodies”, 239). Likewise, the privilege of the phallus as signifier is reproduced through a symbolic order in which the phallus “gains [its] privilege through being reiterated” (“Bodies”, 89). In the same way that heterosexuality must constantly repeat performances of itself to justify its essential nature, the connection between signifier and signified frays when women exchange the phallus amongst themselves. As a symbol, the phallus only exists insofar as something represents it; thus, the lesbian phallus deprivileges the masculinist, heterosexist phallus (“Bodies”, 90). Importantly, Butler notes that:

To speak of the lesbian phallus as a possible site of desire is not to refer to an imaginary identification and/or desire that can be measured against a real one; on the contrary, it is simply to promote an alternative imaginary to a hegemonic imaginary and to show, through that assertion, the ways in which the hegemonic imaginary constitutes itself through the naturalization of an exclusionary heterosexual morphology (“Bodies”, 91).    

The very presence of the lesbian phallus then further complicates notions of female objectification/ identification: as with the lesbian gaze, this symbolic process supersedes the dominant order underlying a masculine/ feminine binary and challenges the priority of heterosexuality central to Lacanian theory. As Butler states, origins such as essentialized heterosexuality “only make sense to the extent that they are differentiated from that which they produce as derivatives” (“Imitation”, 22). This tautological nature of sex and gender binaries thus renders them limited in comparison to the bricolage of the sexual derivative present in The L Word. The “hyperfemmeininity” (Whatling) of the series, paired with the relative marginality of traditional role-playing to the characters’ relationships, ultimately challenges the many, related binaries: butch/ femme, masculine/ feminine, subject/ object. The show’s characters rarely feel compelled to justify their desire; thus, by consistently ignoring the request for an explanation of femmeininity, The L Word denounces the very binary upon which such a concept depends.    

Although many critics of The L Word thoroughly examine the potentially problematic elements discussed earlier, the subversive psychoanalytic approaches that Whatling and Butler adopt allow for the bricolage of sex and gender binaries. Given this reconfiguration of pleasure power, even the show’s pornographic conventions can be re-read in a subversive manner: The L Word includes many more face shots during sex scenes than pornography does, challenging the dehumanizing reading of bits and pieces. Moreover, the third-party “voyeur” created by the camera lens could suggest equality of power between the two lovers, rather than the duplicated object of the male gaze. Such readings, rooted in a lesbian framework, allow for alternative representations of female sexuality. While Foucault might argue that the affirmation of homosexuality is an extension of homophobic discourse (Butler, “Imitation”, 14), and while The L Word can symbolically reproduce the patriarchal order, one needs not consider such notions when reconfigurations of the lesbian gaze subvert heteronormative discourse altogether. Given that only sixteen years ago Butler described lesbian subjects as “abjects…who are neither named nor prohibited within the economy of the law” (“Imitation”, 20), the recent introduction of complex lesbian subjects in mainstream representation suggests that there is yet much future direction to be taken. At the risk of tokenizing (Season Four simultaneously introduces the show’s first two lesbians of color and the first lesbian with a physical disability), The L Word continues to expand its representations. Perhaps with time, the show and other artistic endeavors will further challenge the cinematic conventions underlying a history of representation that has rendered the lesbian invisible.            

 Works Cited

Butler, Judith, 1993, Bodies That Matter: On the discursive limits of “sex”, Routledge, London and New York.

Butler, Judith, 1991, “Imitation and Gender Insubordination”, Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories, Diana Fuss (ed.), Routledge, London and New York, pp. 13-31.

Chaiken, I. (Writer), & Anders, A. (Director). (2006). Last Dance [Television series episode]. In I. Chaiken and R. Lam (Executive Producers), The L Word. Hollywood: Showtime Networks Inc.

Chaiken, I. (Writer), & Chaiken, I. (Director). (2006). Left Hand of the Goddess [Television series episode]. In I. Chaiken and R. Lam (Executive Producers), The L Word. Hollywood: Showtime Networks Inc.

Chaiken, I. (Writer), & Hughes, B. (Director). (2006). Lobsters [Television series episode]. In I. Chaiken and R. Lam (Executive Producers), The L Word. Hollywood: Showtime Networks Inc.

Chaiken, I. (Writer), & Kaufman, M. (Director). (2006). Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way [Television series episode]. In I. Chaiken and R. Lam (Executive Producers), The L Word. Hollywood: Showtime Networks Inc.

Chaiken, I. and Lam, R. (Executive Producers). (2004). The L Word [Television series]. Hollywood: Showtime Networks Inc.

Chaiken, I. (Writer), & Minahan, D. (Director). (2005). Life, Loss, Leaving [Television series episode]. In I. Chaiken and R. Lam (Executive Producers), The L Word. Hollywood: Showtime Networks Inc.

Chaiken, I. (Writer), & Peirce, K. (Director). (2006). Lifeline [Television series episode]. In I. Chaiken and R. Lam (Executive Producers), The L Word. Hollywood: Showtime Networks Inc.

Chaiken, I. (Writer), & Robinson, A. (Director). (2006). Late Comer [Television series episode]. In I. Chaiken and R. Lam (Executive Producers), The L Word. Hollywood: Showtime Networks Inc.

Kuhn, Annette, 1995, “Lawless Seeing”, Gender, Race and Class in Media, Gail Dines and Jean Humez (eds.), Sage Publications, pp. 271-278.

Lewis, Reina and Rolley, Katrina, 1996, “Ad(dressing) the dyke: lesbian looks and lesbians looking”, Outlooks: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities and Visual Cultures, Peter Horne and Reina Lewis (eds.), Routledge, London and New  York, pp. 178-190.

Loftus, David, 2002, Watching Sex: How Men Really Respond to Pornography, Thunder’s Mouth Press, New  York.

Mulvey, Laura, 1984, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”, Art After Modernism: Rethinking Representation, B. Wallis (ed.), The New Museum of Contemporary Art, New York, pp. 361-373.

Rapp, A. (Writer), & Brock, T. (Director). (2006). Lifesize [Television series episode]. In I. Chaiken and R. Lam (Executive Producers), The L Word. Hollywood: Showtime Networks Inc.

Stenn, D. (Writer), & Goldwyn, T. (Director). (2005). Late, Later, Latent [Television series episode]. In I. Chaiken and R. Lam (Executive Producers), The L Word. Hollywood: Showtime Networks Inc.

Troche, R. (Writer), & Minahan, D. (Director). (2004). Lawfully [Television series episode]. In I. Chaiken and R. Lam (Executive Producers), The L Word. Hollywood: Showtime Networks Inc.

Whatling, Clare, 1997, Screen dreams: Fantasising lesbians in film, Manchester University Press, Manchester and New York.