#And especially being in a wlw ship fandom you guys were horrible

[stardustedknuckles]

God sometimes I think I should engage more with fandom instead of insulating so that it's just me and the few people I trust not to drive me crazy, and then I rewatch a tense moment in campaign 2 and I feel myself getting stressed not from the actual events but from the way everyone lost their goddamn minds and/or were horrible about who should've done what. And I'm like oh, that's right. I'm good where I am. Maximum quality content from me necessitates not actually seeing what anyone else has to say because nothing tanks my enjoyment and will to participate faster than people arguing and being shitty about something that brings me joy.

[gayregis]

Yes!! Let's talk ab Phillippa! She used to be my favourite sorceress when i read the books for the 1st time (mostly bc my teenage self didn't know a lot of wlw rep oof). She obv suffers somewhat from written-by-a-cishet-dude syndrome, but i like her villainy the most from the saga. I like her contrast with Yen (they are both considered talented but bitchy cold-hearted etc but Yen cares about her family and that influences her and the way she achieves her goals while Phil is the end justifies the means type) and with Vilgefortz (they want same thing from Ciri but Phil thinks she wants it for less selfishness more greater good type of reasons (still not valid) while Vilgefortz is open about doing this for himself. Also she's the evil mastermind Vilgefortz wishes he was! He's just evil, sitting in his evil castle sending around goddamn Rince out of all people, getting results more by luck than judgment...). She's Magnificent Bastard and i really hope they wont ruin her in twn by shrinking down her role or by making her SuperEvil like they did Fringilla 😔 she's cunning and power-hungry enough on her own, no need to add extra layer of immorality bc someone could forget she's a villain here. 🦇 (sorry it's 3am here and i... also want more Philippa content that's something more than people calling her a c*nt)

this ask is SO blessed i started happy stimming gfgsdfksj

yes!!!!!!!!!!! philippa to me is a really interesting character (even though she suffers from being written by a man as all the female characters in the witcher do) but she as a villain is severely overlooked. and she’s only ever addressed by the fandom in the manner that she is either a neutral character or a protagonist, which annoys me a lot, perhaps more than i tend to show, because as you said she’s really the mastermind vilgefortz fucking wishes he was. 

i love how competent the lodge seems to be, they hold meetings and discuss complicated lineage and have a whole plan marked out with spies (fringilla) and international participation. of course, things go haywire in the end, because philippa and the other sorceresses are unwilling to admit that sometimes there are things in life one is not able to exert control over, that nature is just too random to rule over, because to them, that would be a defeatist’s perspective... but they had a plan, at least, they were organized and led in a semi-democratic manner with of course philippa leading, but holding meetings in which everyone was allowed to voice their opinion and argue. it’s so much more fleshed out than vilgefortz, who was just evil for power but really vague about it and seemed to just be that kind of over-the-top tropey villain. 

i think your comparison with her to yennefer is spot-on, they both are painted as power hungry and selfish... i love that philippa is hungry for power and ambitious in politics, and yennefer doesn’t really care about politics and has always just done her own thing. their contrast also comes in what you describe, why they feel that their goals are justified. the montecalvo scene grew on me a lot especially after i listened to the audiobook version of it, because it really portrays philippa and yennefer as opposing forces. 

i guess some might take issue with the fact that philippa is gay because she’s evil in the series, especially because her whole deal is that she is willing to sacrifice the life (freedom) of a child (ciri) for political stability, as opposed to yennefer, who wants to protect her child (and husband), so it might be seen as “lesbians want to destroy the sanctity of marriage and hate children!” ... but i don’t think this was the message, to me i don’t think representation mattered sort of at all to sapkowski, so i personally don’t think of philippa as representing lesbians as a whole, i think she is just gay and that’s a coincidence. she’s not meant to be good representation anyways so it’s not a big deal to me.

and on that note, philippa as a villain was a really nice statement to me ... i mean, because usually i feel that it is the guys being evil. and there are of course the male villains of vilgefortz, bonhart, rience, emhyr, the aen elle if elves have gender, etc. etc, but philippa is a special case because she’s competent and also as a character she isn’t bogged down by “feminine issues” in her evil ... such as that one might expect a woman to be more empathetic towards a child, etc. i think it was actually kind of humanizing because it demonstrates that anyone has the ability to commit evil actions.

but in the fandom the content i see for her is either just ship (nothing horribly wrong with it, just that it’s bland and doesn’t take her character and character motivations into account at all) or fluff which outright ignores her character traits and placement within the narrative and relationships to other characters. i suppose this is somewhat the fault of tw3 for declawing her so to speak, but it’s really annoying because it’s pretty much the only philippa content that exists. like, where is the appreciation of her as a villain, a really good and smart one at that? 

and yeah, for twn, i don’t think they even casted her yet, even though they’re doing blood of elves, where she makes her character debut... yet they casted for fringilla and francesca, so i have no idea what’s going on. i think they might be replacing her with someone else (tissaia? or that new violet OC they have? or vanessa-marie OC? idk). so as always i have little faith in them but i’m sure they’ll find a way to butcher her character somehow ... 

it’s just that philippa is such a specific and kind of nuanced character, she’s really not basic in any kind of way unlike the other villains of the series kind of are. and it’s interesting to me but no one ever seems to approach her with this intent to analyze her, they only care about her appearance, romantic potential, or the fact that she got her eyes cut out in tw2 or killed radovid in tw3. 

like ok, but can we first talk about how she basically ruled redania by controlling the puppet king vizimir (even though she would never admit it and told tissaia she was lying when she called her out on it (iirc))? that’s kind of insane and demonstrates the political power mages can have in this fictional setting. and that statement tissaia makes to her in time of contempt, that she was once so proud of her as a student, but now she has nothing but contempt for her... i want to see that explored. philippa is kind of a takedown of the #girlboss trope as well and i like that

[divagonzo]

Unpopular Opinion: many things been said against Romione shippers/Fic demonizing Lavender to make Hermione look better But I haven't seen as much complaining about the demonizing of Dean Thomas in Hinny fics set in HBP and afterwards. I lost count how many times I have recently (and by popular Hinny authors!) read fics where Dean was demanding,pushing and trying to pressure poor Ginny into having sex/was bad at it and then being a petty and bitter towards Harry. it reeks of racism. 1/2

2/2 I mean I feel it's partly JKR fault because she went out of her way to make both Michael Corner & Dean Thomas ''horrible boyfriends' (which in Dean case is BS the only thing in canon showing friction is Dean 'pushing' Ginny through the portrait and that can be just as much about Ginny trying to be a 'strong independent woman who needs no man') but if Lavender can get sympathy in fic so should Dean, who we've seen more in the books and who came across as good decent guy.

PS, also getting tired of the biphobia i've seen in some corner of the Seamus & Pavender fandom about how Seamus-Dean-Lavender-Parvati were really gay/lesbian all along and their m/f relationship was fake. Because of apparently bisexuals didn't exist until now... [eyeroll]

I need my demarcation line.

‘ello Nonnie. Fancy a cuppa?

I guess I’ve not been reading much lately over on the other side of my Canon ship (aka Harry & Ginny) to have come across any Dean discourse much anything that could be construed as demonization. (Then again, I have been busy so...)

Damn this got long quickly. Under a cutline just out of necessity.

If I am hearing you correctly, the fic writers are choosing to paint Dean in a negative light to emphasize why Ginny would want to break it off with him before getting with Harry. I must have my head in a hole because the only one I’ve read involving Dean in the last few months was the lovely one from @floreatcastellumposts and that was how Dean and Harry interacted in DH at Shell Cottage. (I admit I do have some appreciation for the subtle angst and how troubled Harry is and how few people he trusts in his life. Been there, done that, binned the t-shirt.)

I’ll also agree completely how HBP altered the characters considerably to make the plot work, including Dean, who up ‘til they was either a wallflower or a background character turn into a problematic male character (and also one of the few Men of Color in the entire series which I find more troubling but I digress.) because of the forcing the plot to have Ginny make him redundant before getting with Harry.

Fic writers can take those small nuggets of information and expand the ideas for such (even if I find it personally squicky AF to have a 16-year-old and Under 16 having those physical relations. *shudder* (Heck, I have problems writing any Linny Under 18 fic that involves anything more than hand holding - but then that’s my Ace showing there.) but to take it to such an extreme and petty expansion of idea is, well, not my cup of tea at all. (There’s plenty I will nope right out of and walk away without commenting if there is a tag I see that will make me shudder or get squicked.) But him being petty and sullen and bitter that he did (in those fics) have s* with Ginny and was bad at it?

I wish the trope of “immediate sex god” would die a thousand papercut deaths because most guys at 16-19 can barely control themselves, much less think of the other person to make the experience a memorable one. (And let’s expand that to 15-95 but I digress.) There’s a reason it’s called wham/bam/thank you ma’am. That’s about how long it takes at that age for a guy. (oops! Showing my age there.)

I personally have zero issues with Dean and Seamus as a ship even if I will never write it (I won’t write MLM having dated 2 in the closet and one stayed in because of safety reasons) but those who do can do.

I do find that The Author did make a bit of a mess of the characterizations in book six (and I won’t even get into how there is a discord of continuity of ethnic heritage involving Lavender Brown) including how Dean was made to look like he was being possessive when for all we know, he was being kind and Ginny was in a foul mood.

But let’s hit on that PostScript which to me is the enormous hippogriff in the room.

Admittedly, Biphobia and Bise/xual erasure is prevalent and it’s upsetting, even to me, the cranky Crusty Ace Dragon. Telling someone that they aren’t what they claim (either saying their straight, really are gay but in denial, or gonna cheat and would you just pick one and stick with it? absolute rubbish.

(I’m intentionally not touching on Pansexual but I can later if need be.)

I’ve heard of plenty who get told they are likely to cheat because they are bisexual. I’ve heard plenty who get told would you make up your mind? and the ever-present, “You can’t be bi because you’re in a het relationship” like that has any bearing on who you are as a person. Hubs and I are visually in a het relationship but we’re not since we’re both Ace Spectrum (aka not-straight - him being Grey and me being Demi) but no one dares tell him such. No one dares mention that to me, either. (Especially after my repeated diatribes on gatekeeping I experienced in the 90s while wandering the alphabet wastelands.)

Frankly, it’s disgusting. And let’s talk about those who want even more bloody gatekeeping, referring to gay men and lesbian women as “Are you a Gold Star XXX?” which is the most epic bullshit I’ve read this year (and that’s taking some serious liberties but I digress.) What kind of bullshit is this, a damn purity test? Not everyone realized coming out of the womb they were gay. Some came to it later. Some stayed in the closet for safety reasons. Some stayed in because it was a no big deal otherwise.

But to tie it all in.... to invalidate the experiences of Lavender and Seamus (and Dean, too) as calling it fake is rude at best, insulting at worst. Now it could be said as performative (which plenty who aren’t straight do go through ‘til they know for certain - or at least did back in the dark ages) but then there are so many under the LGBTQIA umbrella who have had performative relationships to either fit in, hide, or trying to get another to cure them before accepting they were, in fact, not straight. But then that’s the thing about dating in your teens and early 20s - learning who you are but also what interests you and what traits you would want in a long-term partner (if that is a goal) and also what traits are a hell naw breaker for you.

But to expect some kind of irrational purity from the outset and slandering those who had to find their own way down winding roads to where they are happy and content with who they are (with gender and expression and orientation and preferences) and to have all of those experiences invalidated because you’re not pure enough for someone hateful and vicious and unworthy of someone who has probably gone through hell and back just to find their identity of who they are.

The hypocrisy of it stinks worse than I do after a full day of hiking in 25* temps.

So in short, Seamus and Lavender were never fake. Performative, maybe, but not fake. Dean and Ginny dating? Never fake. Erasing any possibility that Seamus, Dean and/or Lavender are Bisexual? That stinks highly.

Quit fetishizing MLM and WLW single-sex relationship. 

[fandompitfalls]

Ew, Het!

Originally posted: 6/18/2021

Today we’re going to discuss a hidden secret in the fandom community; queerphobia.

Now you might be thinking, Fandom Pitfalls, you’re absolutely wrong on this one, the fandom community is utterly inclusive! And you’d be partly correct.  Fandom is inclusive, so long as you fit specific rules.  One of those rules is: “all characters are gay” (or at least, the important ones).

If there are two hot guys*, it stands to reason that they will get shipped. (*the nature of the two hot guys have been mention in other posts). And that is valid.  Shipping is personal. You ship who you love, ship what you like, and all ships are valid. Fandom is inherently queer, it had been for centuries, as long as there have been stories, there have been people secretly (or not so secretly) rearraigning characters to fit their personal head canons.  As far back as Conan Doyle, Wilde, Shelley, Stoker, the Bible, readers have taken characters and fit them in their own image. If that image was two men living together in secret domestic bliss in a set of rooms in London or a vampire having a lascivious affair with both the woman of his dreams and her fiancée, fandom has always prospered.

And until recently, everyone has stayed in their corners and lived and let live.  The invention of the internet and the ease and availability in which people from all over the world can share now share their own thoughts and theories had brought rise to not only the positive aspects of fandom, but the negative as well.  And one of those negatives is queerphobia.

Let’s just put this out there. Characters that identify as opposite sex can have a relationship and it not be a heterosexual relationship.  Let me repeat that.  Not all opposite sex relationships are heterosexual relationships.

This new knee jerk response of “Ew het!” invalidates queer and gender fluid relationships, making it sound as if the only valid relationships are gay relationships.  (When I say gay, I mean the aforementioned two hot men as wlw relationships, unless specified in the canon series, are usually ignored.)

This time around I’m going to be daring and use examples. The most godforsaken, dumpster fire triumvirate of fandom shows ever; SuperWhoLock.

The first in this fandom dumpster fire is Supernatural. On the air for fifteen seasons, there have been many minor queer characters on the show.  Some were the victim of the week, some were there to show that some couples can get out of the hunting business intact. Some, like Charlie, were major minor characters. The popular ship of Destiel ships an angel in a male body with one of the main male characters.  There is also gatekeeping in the fandom regarding a romantic relationship between Castiel and any character identifying as female.  This is one of the fandoms where “Ew het” is automatically thrown around.  Many of the women that are shipped with Castiel in fandom are immortal beings that are genderless and are merely taking on a female form.  Meg, a demon and part of another of the well-known ships in the fandom, is a demon and therefore has no form.  They have taken the form of a female host over the years, but at one time possessed the body of another of the male lead characters. Hannah, an angel that has also been shipped with Castiel, is also genderless and while they have taken the body of a female host, they have also inhabited a male host, that was received positively by Castiel in both forms. While Jimmy Novak, the body that Castiel originally inhabited and then just took the form of in later seasons, was heterosexual, it’s been noted that the angel Castiel, having no preference to gender, could be seen as pansexual or omnisexual.

The actual characters that are gay or lesbian in the shows are often forgotten or pushed aside in favor of a fan favorite ship.  All ships are valid, but automatically insisting that a male/female presenting relationship is automatically heterosexual, especially in this scope of the fandom, is erasing genderfluid queer relationships, making it inherently queerphobic. Seeing Dean Winchester as bisexual but invalidating his romantic relationships with the women in his life is biphobic. Bisexual people have relationships with people of the opposite sex.  It doesn’t make them less bisexual and it is gatekeeping at its worse to insist that only the same sex relationships count.

Continuing with the gender fluidity is Doctor Who. The last two years have brought this fandom its first female Doctor. A year or two before, Moffat paved the way by not only showing that Time Lords can willing change genders in their regenerations in the 50th anniversary episode, but also introducing Missy, the Master’s latest regeneration. The Thirteenth Doctor canonically makes the Doctor gender fluid thereby making any relationship they’ve had a queer relationship.  Their canon second wife, River Song has been acknowledged to be bisexual, making their marriage a queer relationship, despite seeing River only with the male versions of the Doctor so far.

Even other previous relationships with the Doctor, for example, the fan favorite of Ten/Rose, would be in actuality a queer relationship because Time Lords are canonically gender fluid. Even before Ten, Nine actively kissed Captain Jack Harkness, a canonical omnisexual man. The new incarnation of the show has never shied from the Doctor kissing anyone which is refreshing.

The final example in the disaster shows is Sherlock. As mentioned earlier, Conan Doyle’s beloved characters have been the subject of study since the late Nineteenth Century. Now, with the incarnations of BBC’s Sherlock, Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes and even Netflix’s The Irregulars, the subject of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson’s sexuality is a hot button topic for many.

At least 95% of the fandom, the Sherlock fandom, not the literary fandom, would agree that Sherlock Holmes is not 100% heterosexual.  But neither is he 100% homosexual. Most of the consensus will agree that the great detective is queer, whether it be bisexual, demisexual, ace, grey. His relationship with Irene Adler, a dominatrix who said she was gay but also was attracted to men, making her (allegedly) a bi/pan lesbian, as well as his relationship with Jim Moriarty, canonically gay, showed that Sherlock could be attracted to people, perhaps not for the attractiveness but because who they are (as also shown in the relationship between he and Molly Hooper, another gatekept ship). The popular ship, Johnlock, has Sherlock in a relationship with his roommate/friend John Watson. Watson, who was married and has a child, would at most be bisexual. Erasing the canonical women John Watson dated, slept with, and married is again bi erasure at best.

Gay, as defined in the Oxford Dictionary, is: “a homosexual person (typically referring to a man)” (Oxford.com). By this definition, women and nonbinary people cannot be gay as they are not men.  Using it as a “catch-all” in fandom is not only incorrect but queerphobic to the rest of the LGBTQ fans who also identify with these characters.

Shipping is fun. Fandom is supposed to be fun. All ships are valid, and one person’s ship does not invalidate another person’s ship. Even canonical ships don’t have to ruin other people’s ships.  But to use “canon” as a trophy, a sort of “we won, you can’t ever ship your ship anymore because it’s not canon” is horrible gatekeeping.  To insist that a person who ships a m/f relationship is “gross” or “promoting heterosexuality” or “heteronormativity” is also gatekeeping.  Not all m/f ships are heterosexual. Jumping immediately to that conclusion about both the ship and the person shipping it is not only the worst type of gatekeeping, but it is also extremely queerphobic.  Don't turn into the people other's hate, this universe is large enough for all of us.

[motorcyclegirlfriends]

What is the bechdel test?

Also relevant:

@lena-in-a-red-dress​ replied to your post “youngbloodbuzz: [me seeing everyone reblogging that post claiming how…”

With the Bechdel test, I couldn’t remember if it was a total conversation test (where any dude talk took the convo out of the running) or a time test (which the scene would tech pass), so I admittedly have research to do. But I do wish men hadn’t been mentioned at all… from a storytelling/performance perspective, they could have easily hit all the same plot-necessary notes elsewhere in the plot-necessary notes without infringing on girl time at all.

(Bare with me, I’ll also be addressing some other recently popular fandom opinions in this break down.)

Application of the Bechdel Test:

The Bechdel-Wallace test is simply, “The movie has to have at least two women in it who talk to each other about something besides a man.”

It was inspired by the writings of Virginia Wolf in which she observed that women were rarely portrayed in ways other than in relation to men, with particular note that this weasels it’s way into fictional female friendship.

I think I’ve seen individual studies expand upon this by specifying that it has to reach some designated length of time (one minute, for example), but I’ve never seen it interpreted so that men being mentioned earlier in the conversation negates the fact that they were afterward talking about something other than a man.

If it were so, it’d seem rather arbitrary a rule. Would the second half of the conversation suddenly pass if they had cut away to something else in the middle, making it a separate conversation? How does that method tell us anything about the quality of the show or the characterization of the women?

Furthermore, the Bechdel test is not meant for singular scenes, it is meant for entire works. In this case—entire episodes.

Sometimes whole conversations between women will, in fact, be about men. And that’s okay, as long as there are also conversations between women about things other than men within the text. In this episode, there certainly were. There will be more episodes in the future with multiple women interacting without mentioning men at all.

Something that people seem to be forgetting is that there’s nothing innately wrong with women talking about men, it’s when it’s made to be the entirety (or majority) of their characters that there’s an issue.

The point of the test is not to stop women from caring about men or having any storylines to do with men, it’s to make sure that there’s more than that. That they aren’t reduced to only that.

So people’s issues with the scene actually have little to do with the Bechdel test, and more to do the fact that these women got together on a girl’s night and, for about half of the portion of it that we saw, they talked about guys.

People are upset about it as a sort of… girl’s night trope in a feminist way, and—more strangely to me—in a queer activism way.

The Queer Activism Way:

Recently (the past few weeks or couple months), I’ve seen an alarming number of posts with regard to Supergirl in which people forget that their experiences are not universal and that their personal discomforts do not necessarily equate injustice.

Perhaps the mere mention of relationships with men makes you uncomfortable because you headcanon the character speaking about it as a lesbian or it reminds you of how alienated you felt growing up and not being attracted to men, but that does not actually make the mention of relationships with men homophobic.

First, the writers are under no obligation to make their characters the specific sexuality that you desire, especially when there is no lack of lesbian representation within the text. Moving forward with the romantic and/or sexual attraction that they have chosen for a character is not a violence against you, and believing that it’s a move designed just to hurt you comes off as rather paranoid and egocentric. 

It’s also worth noting that the writers stating that a character is attracted to men in no way prevents fans from shipping the character with a woman. Because, idk if you know this but… bisexuality exists!

Saying “we get it, you’re straight!” every time the character mentions having had a relationship with a guy is reductive and inaccurate.

(And I think it’s also worth noting that you’re probably making your local bisexuals uncomfortable when voicing how horrible it is that your headcanoned wlw is mentioning her relationships with men.

It may be coming from a place of “but we were attached to her being a lesbian! I was attached to her representing me, and having projected myself onto her, I feel uncomfortable when she is attracted to men,” but fans acting as if it is not simply a personal discomfort but an injustice that the character is made to be attracted to men? As a bisexual, it’s not a fun message to receive.)

And with regard to lesbian alienation in the face of discussion of relationships with men, Alex and Maggie were not uncomfortable hearing about their friends’ past significant others.

That is your personal trigger that you are projecting on two characters who are not at all left out in that situation, and who are actually—as the only characters in the room in a relationship—in a more enviable place than those there who are attracted to men.

This was a group of friends talking to each other about their past relationships. Just as it wouldn’t be wrong for your straight friends to talk about their past relationships in front of you, it is not wrong for the writers to have Alex and Maggie talk to their friends about their past relationships.

(Also, It’s likely that if Maggie were not there, they probably would have had Alex talk about her relationship with her.)

The Feminist Way:

It’s a bit of a cliche to have girls get together and talk about guys, but is it really that bad a thing? 

“But the scene perpetuates the stereotype that women get together and just talk about men!”

But the presence of stereotypical behavior within characters is alright, as long as there is enough representative content so that viewers do not get the impression that the stereotype is true for most/all people or most/all situations.

To compare, if there is a show filled with primarily bisexual characters and one of them cheats, it’s within the context of a group of bisexuals who have not cheated and thus can’t be mistaken for being representative of all bisexuals.

(This is why token characters can be so harmful.)

So if there is a show in which female characters regularly get together and interact in different ways and with varying topics, one half of a conversation in which they talk about their significant others who happen to be men is not indicative of negative representation of women.

This is why we use the Bechdel test, as low a bar as it is—to judge the discussion of men against the rest of the work. If it were not important to judge it against the whole of the text, the test would simply be “The movie has two have two female characters who never talk to each other about a man.”

Could this all have been avoided?

I really don’t think there is a different, natural way to bring up all of the elements that they wanted to bring up in this scene without mentioning significant others.

These are the topics they likely wanted to touch on:

1. Faith as a theme (“he asked me if I was baptized”)

2. Alex’s want for kids vs. Maggie not wanting them

3. Sam’s struggles with Ruby

4. Kara’s depression

Bonus: The tangible dynamic of Alex and Maggie being fully in the know with Kara, Lena knowing the half truth, and Sam knowing nothing

I’d be interested to see if any of you can actually come up with an alternative script for this scene in a way that isn’t too heavy or addressed later in the episode. 

(Using mothers as the link between these topics would work logically, with Kara’s depression being linked to the loss of her mother, but it’s a Heavy topic in a way that can’t be moved passed as easily as Kara’s “break up.” Not to mention Lena’s issues with her mom… It’d screw up the tone of the scene, and would be just a bit too on-the-nose with Alex’s current predicament. 

It’d also effectively skip through Sam’s storyline this episode right to the climax, because Lena would logically have given her the “my mom sucked, you’re doing pretty well” speech right there. (And again, that was a heavy scene that has no place at girl’s night.)

I also don’t quite know how you’d introduce faith as a theme or have Lena tell a funny story that doesn’t make everyone mildly uncomfortable if the topic is mothers.)

Perhaps you can figure out a way to have them avoid mentioning men at all, but you’re also more focused on that than the development of a natural and effective character interaction.

I think there’s a certain point where this becomes less about feminism and more about an intolerance to hearing about men.

And it’s understandable that this tolerance has suffered after last season’s focus on Mon-El to the detriment of Kara’s characterization and the Danvers Sisters interaction, but if you’re expecting them to actively avoid mentioning him or other men, you’re simply expecting too much.