#Is deeply linked with homophobia and misogyny | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bwhitex · 7 months

Text

Exploring the Attraction to Submissive Partners in Masculine Men Across Sexual Orientations

Introduction

Understanding why masculine-identifying men are attracted to submissive partners across various sexual orientations involves dissecting complex psychological, social, and evolutionary aspects. This exploration seeks to unpack the myriad factors that contribute to this attraction, which can manifest in positive, neutral, and negative reasons. By scrutinizing the evidence from peer-reviewed research, I aim to shed light on the patterns and intricacies inherent in these relationships. This analysis is not meant to stereotype or generalize but rather to provide insight into the individual and societal forces at play. Considering straight, bisexual, pansexual, and gay masculinities, I delve into the multifaceted nature of attraction, examining how it aligns with broader themes of power dynamics, cultural influences, and personal preferences. This investigation is crucial in fostering a more nuanced understanding of masculine desires and the spectrum of submissive partner preferences.

Heterosexual male selection towards submissive

Research indicates that heterosexual men may seek out partners who are perceived as submissive for various reasons ranging from positive to neutral, and potentially negative.

Positive Reasons

Complementarity

Evidence suggests that heterosexual men often look for partners who complement their traits. This desire for balance in a relationship is supported by the findings of Buss and Shackelford (2008), who argue that individuals are generally drawn to partners who can provide a complementary dynamic, with some men showing a preference for submissive partners who align with their own assertive qualities.

Protector Role

The concept of the protector role is deeply embedded in evolutionary psychology. Snyder, Kirkpatrick, and Barrett (2008) highlight that this role may drive men's preferences for submissive partners, as it can activate their instinct to protect and provide, fulfilling an evolutionary predisposition.

Confidence in Leadership

Durkee and Goetz (2014) have explored how confidence in decision-making and leadership correlates with a preference for submissive partners. This dynamic can be seen as a positive expression of masculinity, especially when it is based on mutual consent and respect.

Neutral Reasons

Social Norms

Historically, social norms have placed men in dominant roles, which Eagly and Wood (1999) suggest could impact their preferences subconsciously. These societal expectations might shape personal preferences even if individuals do not actively endorse them.

Personal Preference

Attraction can be influenced by individual tastes, as Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, and Trost (1990) observed. Some men might naturally gravitate towards submissive partners, independent of societal or psychological influences.

Mutual Satisfaction

The concept of mutual satisfaction in consensual power dynamics is supported by Baumeister and Vohs (2004), who argue that such dynamics can fulfill personal desires and contribute to a satisfying relationship for all parties involved.

Negative Reasons

Control Issues

Wetterneck et al. (2012) present the idea that a preference for submissive partners might be linked to control issues, where the underlying motivation is a desire for dominance and power, rather than mutual respect and partnership.

Insecurity

Insecurities may lead some men to prefer submissive partners as a way to assert dominance and assuage feelings of inadequacy. This is supported by the findings of Twenge and Campbell (2003), who discuss how insecurity can influence relationship dynamics.

Misogyny or Homophobia

Negative attitudes toward women or feminine individuals, such as misogyny and homophobia, can also play a role in partner preference. Pratto, Stallworth, and Sidanius (1997) showed that such attitudes might lead to preferences that are based on power and control rather than equality and mutual respect.

Bisexual and Pansexual Men selection towards submissive

Bisexual and pansexual have unique reasons to select towards submissiveness or desire it and according to research it’s about diverse expression, empowerment, compatibility, exploration cultural influences, power imbalance, stereotyping and validating

Positive Reasons

Diverse Expression

Bisexual and pansexual men may find fulfillment in the ability to express a spectrum of dynamics with partners of different genders, embracing the multiplicity of roles. Diamond's (2008) work illuminates this fluidity and diversity in sexual orientation, recognizing the inclusion of varying power dynamics as part of sexual preference.

Empowerment

The empowerment that comes from being able to gratify and guide submissive partners can be affirming for many masculine bisexual and pansexual men. Klesse (2006) explores this sense of empowerment within the context of diverse sexual identities and practices.

Compatibility

The draw to submissive partners among bisexual and pansexual men might also stem from a quest for compatibility, aligning with Peplau and Fingerhut's (2007) findings that individuals tend to seek partners whose power dynamic preferences complement their own.

Neutral Reasons

Exploration

For bisexual and pansexual men, the allure of submissive partners can involve exploration of different power dynamics and roles, a concept investigated by van Anders (2015) in her research on the breadth of sexual identities and expressions.

Cultural Influence

The impact of cultural narratives on romantic and sexual dynamics, particularly the glorification of dominant-submissive relationships, shapes the inclinations of bisexual and pansexual men. This is underscored by the media's role in molding and perpetuating relationship archetypes, as discussed by Ward (2003) in her critique of media portrayals of sexuality.

Personal Fulfillment

Engaging with submissive partners may also cater to personal longings or fantasies, which are independent of societal expectations or psychological frameworks. Weinberg, Williams, and Pryor (1994) delve into the complexities of personal fulfillment in sexual relationships.

Negative Reasons

Power Imbalance

A predilection for submissive partners can be rooted in a troubling desire for dominance, potentially leading to detrimental power imbalances. Barker (2013) cautions against power dynamics that eschew consent and mutual respect.

Stereotyping

Stereotypes about gender roles can inadvertently shape the preferences of bisexual and pansexual men, compelling them toward submissive partners based on these flawed archetypes. Herek's (2002) research delves into how stereotypes affect perceptions and expectations of sexual orientation.

Validation

The quest for validation of masculinity or sexual identity can drive some to seek out submissive partners. Anderson (2009) examines this dynamic, noting the potential harm when relationships are used as a platform for confirming personal identity through control.

Gay Men

For gay men in research it’s more about the fulfilling meaning of role compatibility, personal dynamics, trust and care, freedom from traditional gender roles, variance in preference, individual compatibility, validation of dominance, misogyny transference and internalized homophobia.

Positive Reasons

Personal Dynamics

Many gay men find a natural alignment with submissive partners that complements their own dynamic preferences. Research by Peplau, Spalding, Conley, and Veniegas (1999) illustrates the variety of relationship dynamics within the gay community. In their study on relationship dynamics within the gay community, Peplau, Spalding, Conley, and Veniegas (1999) shed light on the intricate patterns that characterize intimate partnerships, including the roles of dominance and submission. Their research highlights that many gay men have a tendency to pair up with partners whose submissive or dominant roles complement their own preferences, thereby creating a dynamic that suits both individuals' personalities and desires. Such arrangements are not unique to gay couples but are seen across various forms of relationships, suggesting that people naturally gravitate toward partners who balance their own traits and behaviors. This natural alignment may be influenced by a variety of factors, including personal satisfaction derived from fulfilling a particular role, social and cultural influences that shape one's understanding of and preference for certain relationship dynamics, and the psychological needs that such roles fulfill. Furthermore, the success of these relationships often hinges on effective communication and the ability to negotiate roles that align with each partner's expectations and comfort levels. The work of Peplau et al. (1999) importantly illustrates that the gay community is not monolithic in its approach to relationships and that there is a rich diversity of dynamics at play.

Role Compatibility

The compatibility of roles in relationships can be a driving force for attraction to submissive partners. This is discussed in the work of Harry and DeVall (1978), who explore the negotiations of roles in gay relationships. Roles are not about efficiency in use, but in purpose and sense of love and belonging. Seeing yourself fit, work well, have a part or even, predeterminely defined by culture.

It’s securing. When discussing the selection of a submissive partner in male relationships, especially in the context of the work by Harry and DeVall from 1978, it's important to consider the dynamics of role compatibility and the negotiation of these roles. A dominant male may be attracted to a submissive partner for several reasons.

Individuals often look for partners who complement their own characteristics. A dominant male might feel more comfortable and efficient in a relationship dynamic where his partner is submissive. This can lead to a sense of harmony in the relationship, where each person's role supports the other.

Cultural norms and societal expectations can shape preferences for relationship roles. These cultural scripts may predispose individuals to seek out partners who fit certain roles, such as submissive or dominant, that align with their own identity or societal norms.

As suggested by Harry and DeVall, a more cooperative or submissive partner may take on a larger share of the relational work, which includes efforts to maintain and nurture the relationship. A dominant partner might find this distribution of labor attractive because it allows them to feel cared for and supported.Selecting a submissive partner can also be related to the dominant individual's sense of belonging and identity within a relationship. A submissive partner may validate the dominant partner's identity and provide a relational environment in which they feel most authentic and comfortable. Relationships are a balance of power and control. A dominant male might prefer a submissive partner to streamline this balance, as predefined roles can clarify expectations and reduce potential conflicts over decision-making.

Trust and Care

For some gay men, engaging in a relationship with a submissive partner can be an expression of trust and care, fostering a protective and nurturing environment. This aspect is touched upon in the studies by Kurdek (2005), focusing on the dynamics of care and support in gay relationships. In the field of relationship dynamics, particularly among gay men, the work by Kurdek in 2005 provides an insightful analysis into the roles of care and support. When a gay man chooses a submissive partner, it can be seen as a gesture of trust and a commitment to creating a nurturing environment.

Provides me. With concrete contextual evidence of someone to trust and vulnerability. Selecting a submissive partner often hinges on the foundations of trust and the willingness to be vulnerable. They are presenting are visibly vulnerable and trust worthy. Such relationships are built on the understanding that each person will respect and care for the other, fostering a secure and supportive atmosphere.

Dominance in this context does not necessarily equate to control, but rather a responsibility towards the submissive partner's welfare. This protective instinct can be central to the development of a deep and enduring bond between the partners. Psychological ownership is seeing yourself in the person,controlling the persons, continuing in and or with that person. The stewardship to the union is first seeing how easily one looks to rape and dominant. The more cooperative one is also, the easier to control and smaller frames, and more cooperative behavior is “allowing”, and affirming to “direction or aim”, his aim. The terms dominant and submissive don't preclude the pursuit of equality within the relationship. Kurdek's findings suggest that a balanced exchange of emotional support and shared decision-making is common among gay couples, ensuring that both partners feel valued. The dynamics within a relationship, including those of dominance and submissiveness, can contribute significantly to the levels of emotional support the partners provide to one another and to their overall satisfaction with the relationship. When roles are accepted and appreciated, it leads to a more fulfilling partnership.

Kurdek's research indicates that gay relationships are just as nuanced as any other, with successful partnerships characterized by mutual respect, care, and support, regardless of the dominance and submissiveness that might be present.

Neutral Reasons

Freedom from Traditional Roles

In male same-sex relationships, the concept of "submissiveness" can be complex, as it is not dictated by traditional gender roles. Submissiveness may manifest in terms of sexual role preferences, where one partner may prefer a more receptive role, commonly referred to as "bottom" (Moskowitz & Hart, 2011). However, it is important to note that these roles can be dynamic and not indicative of overall relationship dynamics.

In the broader context of the relationship, submissiveness may also relate to personality traits or behaviors where one partner may be more accommodating or prefer that the other partner take the lead in decision-making (Peplau & Spalding, 2000). This dynamic is often negotiated and agreed upon by both partners and does not necessarily reflect the broader societal expectations of gendered submissiveness.

Moreover, the selection towards submissiveness in some male same-sex relationships could be due to a variety of factors, including individual preferences, compatibility, and the balance of power and affection within the relationship. It is essential to consider that these dynamics are as diverse as the individuals involved and are not representative of all male same-sex relationships (Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007).

Variety of Preferences

The gay community encompasses a wide range of preferences and attractions, including those to submissive partners, as highlighted by the research. Sexual and emotional variance within human populations, including preferences for certain personality traits such as submissiveness, can be understood as contributing to emotional and social diversity. When males select partners based on these traits, they might be fostering relationships that enhance their emotional well-being and social connectivity.

Firstly, the concept of conflict navigation implies that individuals who possess or prefer traits like submissiveness may avoid confrontations that could be detrimental to their social standing and physical well-being. By fostering relationships with submissive partners, individuals might reduce intra-group tension and violence, which in turn could lead to a more stable living environment. This stability is crucial for the survival and emotional health of the individuals within the group (Buss, 2016).

Secondly, the nurturing aspect suggests that individuals who exhibit traits associated with submissiveness often excel in caregiving roles. Caregiving is an important social role that contributes to the well-being of group members, particularly the young, elderly, or infirm. This nurturing behavior enhances social bonds and can create a supportive network that benefits all members of the community, thus promoting group continuity (De Waal, 2008).

Thirdly, behavioral diversity refers to the range of behaviors exhibited by individuals within a population. A diverse set of behaviors, including varying sexual and emotional preferences, contributes to a flexible and adaptable social structure. Behavioral diversity allows populations to respond to environmental challenges and social changes effectively, thereby supporting the community's resilience and long-term survival (Sapolsky, 2017).

In summary, the selection for variance in partner preferences, including traits like submissiveness, is a strategy that can enhance the survival and continuity of individuals and their communities. It does so by promoting conflict navigation, nurturing relationships, and behavioral diversity, each contributing to a more emotionally and socially integrated population.

Individual Compatibility

As with any relationship, individual compatibility is key, and for some gay men, this means being with a submissive partner. The studies by Gottman et al. (1998) emphasize the importance of compatibility in relationship satisfaction. Male same-sex relationships are characterized by unique dynamics that distinguish them from heterosexual relationships. One of the key features of these relationships is a tendency towards egalitarianism; one way is through “submissive” traits, even without predefined gender roles, partners often share responsibilities and decision-making more “fair” (Kurdek, 2005). Empathetic listening skills and mindfulness of communication style and patterns, is thinking of someone before making decision. That partner suspends their ego first. Sense of “fair” within male same-sex relationships may also differ, leading to complimentary and symmetrical styles of relationships, research suggesting that gay couples tend to utilize more effective conflict resolution strategies, they are are also both likely to be higher in “agrebleness”, a lot of where those submissive traits and characteristics are observes. Traits and characteristics like being by less belligerence and more expressions and receptive to and reciprocal of positive emotions compared to their heterosexual counterparts (Gottman et al., 2003). Additionally, due to historical marginalization, male same-sex couples often rely on extensive support networks that include chosen family and friends, which can be critical sources of emotional and social support (Weston, 1991).

Despite growing social acceptance, male same-sex couples continue to face external challenges such as discrimination and legal hurdles, which can exert stress on relationships. Nonetheless, these couples often exhibit resilience, like a couples they developing unique but strong coping mechanisms to navigate societal challenges, together (Meyer, 2003). Furthermore, discussions and practices surrounding non-monogamy tend to be more prevalent in male same-sex relationships, presenting a contrast to normative expectations of monogamy in heterosexual relationships (Hoff & Beougher, 2010).

Negative Reasons

Internalized Homophobia

Internalized homophobia can play a role in the preference for submissive partners, potentially reflecting unresolved issues with one's own sexuality or gender expression. Herek, Gillis, and Cogan (2009) discuss the impact of internalized homophobia on relationship choices.

Dominance as Validation

For some, a preference for submissive partners might be a way to validate their own sense of masculinity within a gay context, as discussed in the work of Taywaditep (2001). This can be harmful if it stems from societal pressures rather than genuine personal preference. In exploring the dynamics of dominance and validation within the gay community, we can consider the work of Taywaditep (2001), which delves into the complexities of sexual roles and personality traits such as agreeableness. The agreeableness domain, which encompasses traits like cooperativeness, empathy, and a tendency to avoid conflict, is often socially and sexually selected for, as it can promote harmonious social interactions.

The preference for submissive partners in some individuals might serve as a mechanism to reinforce their own dominant roles and thereby validate their sense of masculinity within a gay context. This form of validation can be seen as an adaptive social strategy that aligns with traditional gender norms and power hierarchies, even within non-heteronormative relationships. By selecting partners who exhibit submissive traits, individuals may affirm their own dominance, which can be gratifying and serve to elevate their social status within certain contexts.

However, this preference can become problematic if it is not a genuine personal desire but rather a response to external societal pressures that dictate certain expressions of masculinity and femininity. When individuals feel compelled to conform to these expectations, it can lead to psychological distress and strained relationships. The validation of one's masculinity through the dominance of another may perpetuate harmful stereotypes and contribute to a cycle of social enforcement that devalues the natural diversity of personality and sexual expression.

Taywaditep's work highlights the importance of understanding sexual preferences and roles not only through the lens of individual desire but also in the context of larger societal influences. It is essential to consider the emotional well-being of all individuals in sexual and romantic dynamics and to promote a culture that respects and celebrates the full spectrum of masculine and feminine expressions.

Misogyny Transference

Misogyny can manifest in gay relationships when one partner prefers submissive partners as a reflection of societal misogyny, despite the absence of women in the relationship. This is explored in studies by Kimmel (1996), who analyzes the transference of societal attitudes into personal relationships. Kittiwut Jod Taywaditep's work that is commonly cited in discussions around submissiveness and internalized homophobia among gay men is his study titled "Marginalization Among the Marginalized." In this study, he explores the concept of "de-gaying" and internalized homophobia, where some gay men may distance themselves from stereotypically gay behaviors and appearances in an attempt to fit into mainstream heterosexual norms.

In his article, “Marginalization among the marginalized: Gay men's anti-effeminacy attitudes “ Taywaditep examines the phenomena of anti-effeminacy among gay men, discussing how societal expectations and internalized stigma can lead to the endorsement of traditionally masculine traits and the rejection of femininity. This can result in some gay men exhibiting submissiveness and other behaviors that conform to societal expectations, often at the expense of their own identity and self-esteem.

Taywaditep's work is significant in understanding the complexities of internalized homophobia and the ways in which societal attitudes concerning gender and sexuality can influence the behaviors and self-perceptions of individuals within the LGBTQ+ community. It sheds light on the pressures to conform to certain norms and the psychological impact of such pressures.

Conclusion

The attraction to submissive partners among masculine men across sexual orientations is influenced by a multitude of factors. Positive reasons can include complementarity, a desire for a protector role, confidence in leadership, diverse expression, empowerment, and role compatibility. Neutral reasons might involve social norms, cultural influence, exploration, personal fulfillment, and individual compatibility. However, negative reasons such as control issues, insecurity, misogyny, homophobia, power imbalance, stereotyping, internalized homophobia, and dominance as validation can also come into play.

Sexual compatibility is a crucial aspect of relationship satisfaction, as it encompasses the alignment of sexual desires, preferences, and the willingness of partners to engage with each other's needs. Pepper Schwartz, a prominent sociologist, has emphasized the importance of this compatibility in her research. She argues that a mismatch in sexual desires can lead to frustration and decreased relationship satisfaction. In her work, Schwartz has also highlighted the role of communication in navigating and enhancing sexual compatibility between partners. Her research provides a framework for understanding how sexual interests must be negotiated and met within relationships to ensure mutual fulfillment.

The psychological appeal of power dynamics, such as submission, in sexual attraction can be traced through various theories. Evolutionary psychologist David Buss has explored how evolutionary factors might influence sexual preferences, suggesting that certain traits, including submissiveness, could signal reproductive fitness or compatibility. Moreover, power dynamics in sexual relationships may be influenced by cultural and social norms, as discussed by social psychologists. Roy Baumeister's work on masochism, for instance, proposes that the desire for submission can be seen as an escape from self, providing a form of psychological relief from the pressures of identity and self-awareness. This body of research collectively sheds light on why submission might be a component of sexual desire for some men, highlighting the complex interplay between biology, psychology, and social influences.

Interpersonal Exchange Theories, such as Social Exchange Theory, can be used to explain relationship dynamics and the concept of individual compatibility. These theories posit that relationships are maintained through a cost-benefit analysis where each partner assesses the rewards and costs of being in the relationship. Compatibility, in this context, is seen as the degree to which partners can meet each other's needs and expectations while minimizing costs or conflicts. The theory suggests that individuals seek relationships that provide the greatest rewards with the least costs, which can include emotional, social, and sexual aspects of the relationship. Hence, compatibility becomes a balance of mutual satisfaction where the perceived benefits of the relationship outweigh any drawbacks.

References:

Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 134-146.

Snyder, J. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Barrett, H. C. (2008). The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates? Personal Relationships, 15(4), 425-444.

Durkee, P. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2014). The evolutionary psychology of men's coercive sexuality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(2), 89-90.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408-423.

Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 97-116.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 339-363.

Wetterneck, C. T., Burgess, A. J., Short, M. B., Smith, A. H., & Cervantes, M. E. (2012). The role of sexual compulsivity, impulsivity, and experiential avoidance in internet pornography use. The Psychological Record, 62(1), 3-17.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2003). "Isn't it fun to get the respect that we're going to deserve?" Narcissism, social rejection, and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(2), 261-272.

Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Sidanius, J. (1997). The gender gap: Differences in political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British Journalof Psychology, 88(1), 31-48.

Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women's love and desire. Harvard University Press.

Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its ‘others’: Contesting the terms of non-monogamy. Sexualities, 9(5), 565-583. doi:10.1177/1363460706069986

Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405-424. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085701

van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via Sexual Configurations Theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(5), 1177-1213. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0490-8

Ward, J. (2003). Not gay, not straight: Sexual fluidity among men. In L. D. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences (pp. 73-94). Columbia University Press.

Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Dual Attraction: Understanding Bisexuality. Oxford University Press.

Barker, M. (2013). Rewriting the rules: An integrative guide to love, sex and relationships. Routledge.

Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(1), 40-66. doi:10.1086/338409

Anderson, E. (2009). Inclusive masculinity: The changing nature of masculinities. Routledge.

Peplau, L. A., Spalding, L. R., Conley, T. D., & Veniegas, R. C. (1999). The development of sexual orientation in women. Annual Review of Sex Research, 10, 70-99.

Harry, J., & DeVall, W. B. (1978). The social organization of gay males. Praeger.

Kurdek, L. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? *Journal of Marriage and Family, 66*(4), 880-900. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00060.x

Gottman, J. M., Levenson, R. W., Gross, J., Frederickson, B. L., McCoy, K., Rosenthal, L., ... & Yoshimoto, D. (2003). Correlates of gay and lesbian couples' relationship satisfaction and relationship dissolution. Journal of Homosexuality, 45(1), 23-43.

Hoff, C. C., & Beougher, S. C. (2010). Sexual agreements among gay male couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(3), 774-787.

Kurdek, L. A. (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 251-254.

Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674-697.

Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. Columbia University Press.

Buss, D. M. (2016). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. Basic Books.

De Waal, F. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279-300.

Sapolsky, R. M. (2017). Behave: The biology of humans at our best and worst. Penguin Books.

Moskowitz, D. A., & Hart, T. A. (2011). The influence of physical body traits and masculinity on anal sex roles in gay and bisexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(4), 835-841.

Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405-424.

Peplau, L. A., & Spalding, L. R. (2000). The close relationships of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A Sourcebook (pp. 111-123). Sage Publications, Inc.

Schwartz, P., & Young, L. (1984). Sexual compatibility and the sexual desire-motivation relation in females with hypoactive sexual desire disorder. Behavior Research and Therapy, 22(2), 205-213.

Baumeister, R. F. (1988). Masochism as escape from self. Journal of Sex Research, 25(1), 28-59.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kimmel, M. S. (1996). Manhood in America: A Cultural History. New York: Free Press.

Taywaditep, K. J. (2001). Marginalization among the marginalized: Gay men's anti-effeminacy attitudes. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(1), 1-28.

#unpacking Submission to men #submisive and breedable #submisive sissy #subbmisive

1 note · View note

novumtimes · 4 months

Text

Theater expresses regret for Richard Dreyfuss remarks at Jaws event

A Massachusetts theater expressed “regret” for actor Richard Dreyfuss’ remarks during a start-of-summer screening of the movie “Jaws,” the venue said Monday. Dreyfuss appeared for a Q&A at the Cabot Theater in Beverly on Saturday as part of a screening of the 1975 blockbuster directed by Steven Spielberg. Witnesses on social media said he addressed topics from Barbra Streisand to transgender people to women, using words that Cabot Executive Director J. Casey Soward said in a statement Monday “do not reflect the values of inclusivity and respect that we uphold as an organization.” Video verified by NBC News shows Dreyfuss appearing onstage in a breakaway dress that is removed by stagehands to reveal him in slacks, a dress shirt and a jacket and using a cane. The Dreyfuss Initiative, an Encinitas, California, nonprofit organization dedicated to reinforcing civics education in the U.S., did not immediately respond to emails and a phone call seeking comment Monday, a holiday. The sold-out event was billed as “An evening with Richard Dreyfuss + Jaws screening.” The theater is about 23 miles north of Boston. “Jaws” was set in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, about 120 miles south of Beverly. Audience members interviewed by The Boston Globe said they paid $300 each for tickets that included a meet-and-greet with Dreyfuss but were appalled when, they said, he disparaged women in film, the MeToo movement and LGBTQ rights. Sarah Hogg told the newspaper that remarks about transgender children prompted them to walk out with their partner. Soward said in the Cabot Theater’s statement that the venue shares “serious concerns … following the recent event with Richard Dreyfuss.” He continued: “We deeply regret the distress that this has caused to many of our patrons. We regret that an event that was meant to be a conversation to celebrate an iconic movie instead became a platform for political views.” Dreyfuss, 76, has been the source of controversial remarks in recent years, most notably his response to the Academy Awards’ announcement last year that entries for the Oscars will have to meet certain diversity and inclusion standards. “No one should be telling me as an artist that I have to give in to the latest, most current idea of what morality is,” he said in an interview on PBS’ “Firing Line With Margaret Hoover.” The purported remarks Saturday drew both criticism and support. An audience member, saying she was echoing a comment on Facebook, characterized the event as “An Evening of Misogyny and Homophobia With Richard Dreyfuss.” Born in New York City, raised in Beverly Hills, California, and based in San Diego County, Dreyfuss scored a breakout role in the 1973 film “American Graffiti.” But it was his portrayal of a marine biologist in the ultimate summer movie, “Jaws,” that made him a top-shelf performer in Hollywood. Dreyfuss has used some of the credit he has earned on screen to decry the state of education and politics in the U.S. and opine “in favor of privacy, freedom of speech, democracy, and individual accountability,” according to his initiative’s website. Source link via The Novum Times

#The Novum Times

0 notes

dashiellqvverty · 6 years

Text

like it’s a perfectly good take to say that trans men, because they are men, hold some level of privilege in certain circles but that is NOT the same as saying “trans men are men and therefore hold the same privileges as cis men and should be treated as such” because that is a horribly oversimplified viewpoint

#just. you know. thinking about this today #would be super cool and sexy if cis people didn't like. pretend to understand the experiences of trans people #acting like trans men are exactly like cis men essentially like. imagines that trnsphobia doesn't exist #like yes they are the exact same gender BUT they have /fundamentally/ different experiences of the world #if all men were viewed as such by society then it would be different but transphobia is also deeply linked to misogyny and homophobia so #r.txt

3 notes · View notes

odinsblog · 3 years

Note

Hi, I've only started truly following American politics in the last 5 or 6 years, thanks to the orange turd, and I keep wondering: was the Republican Party always *like that*? This unreasonable and just outright brazen in their contempt for the common people? Was there a time when it was just right-leaning instead of lunatic? I'm European, so I can't really relate either way, but it boggles me how a party this insane could gather so many followers.

A couple of things here that you need to understand in order to understand today’s Republican Party. First and foremost, they have always been the party of white supremacy. At first, it was a more casual, covert, plausibly deniable kind of racism. But ever gradually, over time it has become a party of outright, “masks off,” in-your-face, racists. Which brings me to my second point: at every step in the devolution of the Republican Party, the next step has always been foreseeable. From Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump, and from Newt Gingrich to Mitch McConnell, Republicans have gotten incrementally and progressively worse, and much more overtly racist. Which is why I always call bullshit! whenever someone says, “The GOP they knew was never like this before.” Republicans have always been that bad, and the current racist Republican de jour couldn’t have existed without the previous racist Republican de jour who paved the way for them. It’s a completely predictable devolution.

The GOP is a party of white supremacy, misogyny, Islamophobia, ableism, antisemitism, homophobia, and more. It’s like a one-stop-shopping mart for everything wrong in America.

And it’s almost a certainty that whoever comes after McConnell and Trump will be even worse.

Ofc, I would be remiss if I didn’t at least mention the re-alignment of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party (please see this link).

I suppose you could argue that when Black people made a mass exodus from the GOP back in the 1960s (because of Civil Rights), that that was probably when conservatives truly began their slide into the abject racism and lunacy we so clearly see today. And sure, if your only comparison is the GOP, then the Democrats might appear to be better, but they are not without their share of very significant problems either (for example). When we force the choice to be “better than Trump” or “better than Republicans,” we are setting ourselves up for failure. Anybody is better than Trump or Republicans, that sole, low bar qualifier does not mean that they are worthy or up to the job of governance.

Anyway, after all of that, Idk if I’m the very best person to ask here on tumblrdotcom. Sometimes my political hot takes are either too wide, but not deep enough, or too deep, but not broad enough. I encourage you to research this more if you want a more technical answer, perhaps from someone who studies politics far more than I do. As a Black man living in Amerikkka, I admit that sometimes (most of the time, actually ) it’s not all just academic to me. It’s deeply personal because the impacts on my life are very real.

The older I get, the more I feel like the craziness here is not only worldwide, but also (loosely?) coordinated. So finally, anon, I don’t want you to think that Europe is in any way exempt from the racism and lunacy that you’re observing here. It isn’t. If you don’t see it where you live, look more closely. I assure you, it’s there too.

#anon #ask #answered #politics #republicans

75 notes · View notes

fandomshatelgbtqpeople · 2 years

Note

One of the links you post, one of the mods, to a blogger about homophobia in say the Encanto fandoms I think said in one of their tags, that sometimes being against all forms of shipping in like a nerd bro sort of way can be queerphobic and misogynistic. I hadn’t thought of that

Yeah, we can talk about that some!

There was a post that circulated on tumblr years ago about how in general, women in fandom tend to engage in transformative ways whereas men in fandom tend to engage in knowledge collecting. So a male Star Wars fan might engage by memorizing all the different kinds of (star)ships and a female Star Wars fan would be more likely to get into shipping and write fanfiction. Now of course there are men who read and write fanfic and women who know everything there is to know about A-wings, but it holds true that when someone thinks of a shipper or a writer or a fan arts, they're picturing a woman. Data taken from AO3 readers bears that out.

Now, the main criticism I've seen about shipping is that it ignore critical analysis of the media. There's a lot of reasons that argument doesn't make sense. (People not engaging in critical analysis on tumblr doesn't mean they're not doing it at all, and many people come to tumblr specifically when they want to talk ships; Shipping as we know it today has been around for about 70 years; etc.) The main reason is that shippers often do engage with themes and character arcs, especially when they're also reading or writing fanfiction. A lot of critical analysis goes into writing metas and fanfic, even when they're about a ship. Certainly more than someone memorizing facts about a battle cruiser is. And yet it's shipping that gets criticized as being inherently frivolous. Because shipping is a "women's hobby" and shipping is about romance with is, as we all know (sarcasm), a frivolous, brain-rotting genre.

And then you bring queer fans into it. I can't say with authority that a larger proportion of queer fans are shippers than straight cis women, though data from AO3 suggests this is true of AO3 specifically. However, shipping has historically been a vital method of queer self-expression in fandoms. From my experience, most queer fandom communities revolve around ships, most queer fans gravitate towards media with ships they find compelling, and most homophobia directed towards queer fan communities have been over ships. Shipping is deeply important to queer fans and inextricable from queer fandom.

So yeah, I think all the hand-ringing about how shipping is destroying people's ability to engage in critical analysis, aside from not making sense, is tied up misogyny and queerphobia.

#mod k

19 notes · View notes

menalez · 3 years

Note

Okay sorrh this is long I got a couple of receipts from sapphicdesi and don’t wanna send screenshots since I have social anxiety but the post genderistseku used was a bad one to call out sapphicdesi, but it doesn’t discredit all the hostile things she’s said about bisexual women

it’s nothing new, they all deeply hate lesbians. they refuse to admit they are homophobic oppressors and how homophobia and problemtic the bi community is. she has me blocked and so do many other of her deranged friends who have some osa victim complex / oppression fetish. they really act and speak like no other women experience misogyny.

(Bi women really aren’t it from an anon) they really aren’t. they’re the worst. rabid homophobic misogynistic narcs. who apparently spew the most racism here too. i’m gonna post all the asks / discussions i never did, they can keep harassing me. a bi tra or bi woman from radblr sent me such a racist yesterday i’m a post it when i wake up

(In response to an anon) but isn’t funny i’m called crazy and hateful for saying they aren’t oppressed nor victims for being into dick and men? im insane and evil for saying heterophobia isn’t real? and for being upset at how lesphobic and abusive they are? most bi women think lesbians need to be converted and raped by males. they are so deeply deeply narcissistic and fake feminists.

(In response to an anon talking about how they prefer straight normal friends above gender “queer” people) it’s also so fucked up because a lot of the gendies are actually heteros/bis. but you know bisexuals have always been homophobic and annoying. Even having no males and dick or threesomes w ur ugly bf in my bio im a lesbian, rejecting tras/tw got me banned on tinder bc of bis/trans/gendies. Always triggered white people.

(In response to an anon talking about a post where bi women claimed to like penis over vagina) oh my god ew no I never saw that can you link me? but that doesn’t surprise me at all, bi women don’t love women or respect women at all, only dick and treat lesbians like walking sex toys. they want us to be raped and used by dick so bad and then for themselves. straight women are more tolerable at this point, at least they aren’t pretending to like women. and it’s funny bi radfems think they’re any better or less homophobic. I’m so fucking sick of the homophobia everywhere, bisexual women hate lesbians/women so so fucking deeply I don’t know what the fuck is wrong with them, they’re fucking homophobic dick obsessed demons. of course lesbians to them are just their to lick their pussy and cuddle them, just for their boredom but real relationships and real sex? gotta be men and dick! and then they spew vile shit about lesbians all day long and how they love women more than us and are so gay. I hate them the same as trans males at this point. misogynistic homophobic demons who talk about dick like it’s water they’d die without. also if you’re an offended bi who’s gonna send me hate asks after this don’t bother just unfollow me and blog about how much you hate lesbians and how we oppress you for your love of men and dick.

bi women are fucking demons who don’t love women and hate women. especially lesbians who actually love women and only women. lmao apparently we’re not really lesbians if we don’t like straight men in dresses who fetishize us but they are lmao, like look at how they start listing their bs gender labels to showcase how they’re better for wanting to fuck everyone aka men w stupid labels. “all women” lmao het men in dresses ain’t women, trans “women” are evil lesbian fetishists and neither of you love women you’re homophobic creeps.

I just looked up bi on her account, there’s a lot lot more but I just used these since I don’t want this to be super long.

She doesn’t site things for most of(couldn’t find sources on her blog for any of these claims) this stuff and mainly uses her own experiences and others around her. I don’t doubt her experiences or her life exposure to hateful bisexuals but imo it doesn’t justify how hostile and hateful she’s being in return to bisexual. Im gonna cut it here since this s already long and I really already feel anxious about this

Sorry again for this

i agree genderistdeku should’ve used a different post if she wanted to illustrate a point and that her post choice was a bad one. to me it just came across as almost laughing at a lesbian for being abused by a bi woman. i understand that someone facing abuse at the hands of any type of minority doesn’t justify hating said minority, and i wholeheartedly agree there, but it just came across as malicious and like she’s laughing at sapphicdesi for what she experienced. i assume that wasn’t her goal or her intention, but that’s how it came across. based on the quotes you provided (i did not check to see their accuracy), there were clearly far better posts to choose from if her argument was that sapphicdesi is prejudiced against bi ppl.

for the first post you quoted, i agree the bi community is unfortunately deeply homophobic today. but i disagree bi ppl necessarily have an oppression fetish, many definitely are quite privileged and sheltered but many do in fact face a lot of shit for being bi. 2nd post, i think she has every right to criticise racism & homophobia, at the same time i think especially as woc & lesbians, we have to be very mindful about what we say and how we say it. i don’t think she genuinely hates bi women and i think she is simply hurt & traumatised, and to me it comes off like she’s very frustrated with the homophobia & other prejudices she sees spewed by many bi people. + im sure she’s very wary bc of what she experienced, and i can somewhat understand as i also faced abused at the hands of my ex who happens to be bi. but people don’t always know ur intentions from what u write on here and ppl often divorce your words from the context you wrote them in as well. for this reason i think we should be careful, and esp as woc we don’t get cut the same slack that others are.

for the rest, i get the vibe that she’s very frustrated by the homophobia she’s seen expressed on here and seemingly feels very betrayed by bi women. i don’t blame her bc i know many lesbians feel this way, and sometimes i feel frustrated and exhausted from the stuff i see on here too. or the homophobia i see irl. when it’s stuff online, sometimes i just log off and talk to someone who i can trust and know can understand me & where im coming from. i havent really properly talked about this before, but my previous relationship was with a bi woman (so was my relationship before that but that’s another story). and the entire time in our relationship, she’d tell me that one day she’ll leave me for a man. like she just… would straight up tell me that unprompted. she’d often ask me how id feel if she suddenly realised she was straight. and id usually say nothing or just say idk and she’d just keep pressing & asking until i eventually breakdown into tears. constantly telling me she wants a relationship thats “normal”, that her family will accept, that she wants to have a kid within the next year, that if she finds a man she likes she’ll leave me for him. another time some guy was hitting on one of us at a gay bar and she just… turns to me and makes out with me and then turns back to him, and gives him a look. idk why she did that or what her goal was but it made me deeply uncomfortable. but i said nothing bc i was scared of her and scared of losing her too. and on top of that she would physically, verbally, and most of all emotionally abuse me. this is stuff i kept to myself most of the time but at times people in my life would see how she was and beg me to leave her (and i refused and told them they simply didn’t understand). so speaking on a personal level, i get it. but i just tell myself that i don’t want to be anything like her, i don’t want to let how hateful she is change me. i make the conscious choice to be mindful and tell myself there’s many bi women (& men, tho idk many) out there who are completely decent and normal. who support gay people fully and truly. normal bi people. and im lucky to know a few, like my best friend who when she slept w a trans woman told me she thinks i won’t like it bc it’s like being w a man, or my bi cousin who’s 7 years younger than me yet came out at a younger age than me (she was 11 i think). they definitely exist and they are what prove me to everyday that shitty people are shitty independent of their sexuality. sorry for ranting but, yeah. i wish sapphicdesi well bc i can tell she’s hurting and i can empathise with what she’s going through. she and i talked about that before i believe and i know it’s really painful when someone you loved and trusted takes advantage of you and hurts you the way her ex hurt her. it also can really hurt when the women you expect to understand & support you most, are ones you see spewing homophobic rhetoric. i hope she heals from that. but ultimately people take our words at face value and won’t see that when she says “i hate bi women”, she doesn’t literally mean “i hate all bi women”. they’ll just take it literally without knowing where she’s coming from.

#i was gonna say it’s diff from saying i hate straight women but actually it isnt that different bc if u say that on radblr they’ll just take #it as u saying u hate women or smth. ppl on here rly only get it if u say i hate men. not even if u say i hate white ppl or anything else #anything else will have ppl assuming the worst even if what u mean is ‘im sick of dealing with homophobia from x group of ppl’#and also since bi women r a minority n marginalised it comes off differently #also sorry for taking a long time to reply i only finally got time now #anonymous

10 notes · View notes

22degreehalo · 2 years

Text

So, I keep thinking back to something lately, and I think it's finally time for me to get all those thoughts out on tumblr. Because this is about a matter that I think has actually influenced a lot about how I think and feel about modern day activism: about progressivism, about neurodivergence, and about antis, all wrapped up and intertwined.

This is the story of my history with /r/shitredditsays.

(CW for discussion of misogyny, racism etc., and of a possible past CSA.)

So, when I first ventured onto reddit in the early to mid 2010s, I felt both cautious and guilty. This was right in the swing of my progressive awakening and I wanted to shout about misogyny and homophobia and everything else from the rooftops. Joining a website known for its techie 'brogressives' (who were actually NOT left wing but actually very right wing but just with weed added in, I was vehement) felt a bit like a betrayal of my ideals. I can't remember exactly why I even joined, but for the first few months I did little on the site but check up on /r/askscience and /r/askhistorians.

(Oh - actually, I remember now: I was reading /r/thebluepill, a sub for mocking /r/theredpill, a sub for misogynistic pick-up artists. Basically the sorta topic that incels spawned out of, but I guess making fun of virgins was more fun than the actual wannabe rapists. :/)

And then there was /r/shitredditsays. It was such a relief to discover, and in a way I guess it mitigated my shame at being on reddit at all, because I full acknowledged that it was Bad and spent my time here discussing how it sucked and making fun of it! I could rest assured, now, that my actions were ~cleansed.~

Because that was the point of SRS: shpwing how terrible and unprogressive reddit was. The way it worked was that people would find terrible but highly upvoted (i.e. liked) comments, and post a link to SRS (as proof that it was real), with the title of that link being an exceptionally heinous quote from that comment with the number of upvotes in brackets next to it. As an example: "lol women can't do math. just give up already (+40)" That's just a made up comment but you get the idea.

Now I should mention briefly that the linking part already was enough to earn greater reddit's ire. There was a constant paranoia at the time about 'brigading' - people from one subreddit linking to another in order to encourage that sub's subscribera to go and downvote and/or leave nasty comments. Basically, the 'you set your followers after me' you see on tumblr, reddit style. Different subs (such as /r/subredditdrama) had rules in place to try and stop their own subscribers from doing that, but eventually most gave up as there wasn't a lot you could practically do.

But the reaction to SRS went beyond the already bitter anger reddit felt at the idea of any brigading. They fucking LOATHED SRS. The way the 'main' subreddits talked about it, you'd think it was run by McCarthy himself and anyone linked there inmediately went to jail. I felt a little nervous about admitting I liked SRS when I ventured out of my home subreddits, but secretly the hate was exhilarating and pretty funny. They would just get so angry about people quoting them!!

As for the people in SRS themselves, of course they were deeply snarky and cynical people. There were a lotta regulars who commented every day and were known for their particular kinds of jokes or memes. I was deeply intimidated, but - as was very common for me at the time - desperate for them to approve of me. I didn't comment often, but I had a little model of them in my head and was very scared about letting them down, and felt incredibly proud whenever I left a comment they liked.

However, from the beginning, there were things that more directly made me feel bad. They really liked to post 'kill all men' or 'kill all white people', precisely because it upset people, with of course the justification that it was just venting and not based in reality. I couldn't argue with that, but seeing all that talk of violence very clearly implicitly aimed at the specific reddit commenters quoted in those posts... it made me uncomfortable. I couldn't help imagine being in their shoes.

But that was ultimately a pretty tangential thing. There were two main subjects which formed the bulk of my conflict and eventual break with SRS, as mentioned above. First, I'll talk about the ableism.

Not that I knew that's what it was, at first. But more and more, I noticed a trend in SRS comments that left me feeling... uneasy. Like, they would very often post the stock joke "beep boop logical redditeur", making fun of the idea that redditors thought thought they were all so perfectly rational and Above emotion. Except they didn't just say this in response to posts claiming women were too emotional or whatever. Any post they thought was written too coldly or unsympathetically would garner that, even if I thought it might not have been intentional. Sometimes I could barely tell what they were even trying to accuse the redditors of but, well, SRS ate it up every time.

In one particularly vivid memory, they quoted a redditor asking why people feel so strongly about funerals when the person is already dead. This was actually a bad SRS example because after it was linked there, it was *heavily* downvoted in its home sub, and I don't think it's because it was brigaded. People fucking HATED this guy. And unfortunately for him, he (everyone assumed 'he') kept commenting. But, like...nothing he said was actually critical or mocking. In fact, as people told him more and more how insensitive and/or stupid he was, he kept replying back really earnestly, like he didn't understand but wanted them to explain. Which got him downvoted even more for 'playing dumb' or 'mocking them' or whatever. I felt more and more bad; even if he had done wrong (and he HAD left the original comment on a post about funerals, so I totally get why people found it tone-deaf) nothing made me feel like he'd actually intended to hurt anyone. I wasn't even sure he realised he was being hated.

But of course, SRS delighted in piling on even further. Finally, the ultimate Beep Boop Logical Redditeur! One person brought up the possibility that the guy was autistic, but only to complain about someone suggesting that in the linked thread: their brother was autistic, and he wasn't a raging asshole like this guy self-evidently was! They'd already decided he was an asshole, see, so no other argument could ever offer a non-asshole explanation for his behaviour. Instead, it was insulting to those people to suggest they'd be such assholes!

A bit of extra context: during this time I was still coming off of Star Trek fandom, where I'd felt a similar uneasiness about how harshly people would judge TOS/AOS era Vulcans. It felt almost discriminatory somehow... but Vulcans aren't even real, so that's stupid. I was only slowly putting the pieces together that it's because those Vulcan traits they judged so harshly were very much autistic traits.

So with all this being said, it's probably not a surprise that it was a bit of a revelation for me when someone mentioned on SRS that the subreddit had previously been overtly ableist. That is, that they had previously used to use 'autistic' as a commonplace insult for redditors. This was awkwardly admitted; I'd never before seen SRS admit that any part of it could be flawed, as the assumption was always that if you had a problem with their behaviour it must be because you're a whiny angry privileged man, and it was against the rules to ever claim the a post didn't belong in SRS. But apparently, SRS was (or had been) imperfect, until someone called them out and pointed out how bad it was for a supposedly progressive subreddit to be using autistic people as an insult. Even though SRS kept heaps of attempted call-outs posted publically, as the funniest posts on the sub, I never found this one.

But it was the first time I'd encountered the idea that progressives could be ableist, too. Before now, I'd thought it was only dumb right wing 4channers who would call people autistic as an insult. Now, I actually felt sorta like... maybe my earlier unease wasn't so ridiculous. And I idolised them all less.

But not little enough, or the next part would've gone down with way less struggle on my part. Because this is when anti-ism hit SRS.

I was a little startled by it at first, this judgement of dark fiction or kink or depictions of abuse, as it conflicted so heavily with what I'd learned from fanfiction communities ever since I was a young teenager. But I'd already had revelations about race and gender which I hadn't believed in when I was younger, so it felt like maybe this was the next step. I pushed past my discomfort, and told myself that they were right - just as they were correct it was bad to depict racism, it was bad to depict stories with age differences and the like.

But, some posts did start to feel sorta... silly? Reddit was still kinda childish, with a lot of teenagers on it, and a resulting penchant for shock humour. When that meant racist or homophobic jokes I agreed that they were bigoted. But a big stock joke was just, 'haha pedophilia :)' Like someone posts about a girlfriend and someone makes a joke about her being 12 or whatever and people laughed their heads off. Obviously just dumb edgy bullshit, right?

Well, SRS disagreed. They always had a mocking tone to them, but here, the gloves were off and they seemed so disproportionately angry. They sincerely claimed that all these jokes were deliberately crafted to destimgmatise pedophilia and that everyone who made a joke like that was a pedophile. I honestly just didn't know what to say. It wasn't...totally impossible. But most times, it felt like the joke was about how bad pedophilia was?? Like the intended response was 'FBI OPEN UP' for a reason. I totally agreed that these jokes were in bad taste and did not treat a serious subject with enough sensitivity. Maybe some of them even were trying to normalise pedophilia. But did they not think even some of them were just dumb 13 year olds who were overly comfortable with making jokes about dating 12 year olds because, I dunno, they were 13??

It sorta... just felt out of touch with reality. And that further pushed me away from believing in their judgement, although I still wished very much to be a good strong progressive who wasn't a baby and wouldn't flinch when they joked about wanting to murder me.

But the pedo fear just kept COMING. It soon felt like there was hardly anything else in the sub at all. Playing games with scantily clad teenagers made you a pedo. Having a younger partner made you a pedo. And all of it combined with this general diagust of 'nerd culture,' and did that tie in with their hatred of maybe-Autistic people above? Of course! They were obsessed with this image of the creepy nerd who loves pervy anime and hentai about little girls and how they all deserve to be violently tortured. All the violent comments I'd always been uncomfortable with got worse and worse, and I started feeling downright awful myself. I liked anime, some of which could be fanservicey sometimes. And I liked fanfiction about subjects they definitely would not approve of. I started to believe that I was really actually a bad person. I kept opening the subreddit every day because I felt I should, but it just made me feel awful every time. I'd always hyperempathetically felt that 'kill all ____' energy towards myself, but it had always seemed misdirected before. I was starting to worry that they would actually unironically feel that about me.

And then it happened. Something so awful, so callous, so incredibly dangerous that it overpowered my intense need for validation from them and let me swear off SRS forever.

It was about a post in /r/relationshipadvice, of course; those were infamous for stoking drama. In it a woman wrote, horrified and shaken,that she had come across a hidden text file in her husband's computer in which there was written a story. In that story, her husband, as a five year old, was molested by an older woman (if memory serves, his aunt). I can no longer remember if the story was explicitly set in the past or written as a hypothetical. But the people of RelationshipAdvice were surprisingly mature. They told her that it's not uncommon for trauma victims to work through their experiences through fiction, and that this does indeed look like what happened here.

And SRS was fucking. Livid.

He'd written about a child being molested, and that made him a pedophile - no questions, no if ands or buts. They were disgusted by the redditors of RelationshipAdvice for defending his behaviour, and claimed that anything they suggested about him having been abused was 'literally making up stories' to justify pedophilia. They all but demanded this woman give her husband up to the police immediately so he could rot in jail forever.

And I just. Couldn't defend that anymore.

This man had written about himself being abused, and they were seriously, with full moral righteousness, demanding that he be sent to prison as a sex offender? It was all just so bafflingly obtuse and cruel that I couldn't put up with it anymore.

I still felt awful for unsubscribing - I still felt like SRS must still hold some moral weight in my heart - but I was just so shocked and mystified and felt so helpless at everything they were saying that it wasn't difficult to do. In the time since, I only became more and more sure of it - like, yeah: that whole thing was really fucked up, right?

I don't know what happened to SRS after that. I rarely if ever heard the sub mentioned on reddit by this point, and they totally disappeared from relevance not long after. I think in the last five years I've heard one person even mention SRS.

I do think the shift to anti-ism split the subscriber base, but I think there were other reasons, too. When reddit started finally banning obvious hate groups like /r/fatpeople hate, it got harder to claim that the reddit admins themselves were right wingers. The rise of Donald Trump brought new tensions, but he was deeply controversial across reddit, and mocking his supporters was a job for /r/shitthedonaldsays. There was also /r/kotakuinaction, a sub for criticising gamergate, and mocking the old anti-SJW subreddit /r/tumblrinaction.

And, I think opinions in reddit generally just changed. I don't think it's as edgy as it used to be, and certainly not as overtly right wing at times. I'm not saying it never happens, and maybe I've just always had a biased viewpoint, but I feel like the general public perception within reddit really has shifted. Maybe it was the 2016 election that did that, actually - putting such right wing viewpoints so far into the public sphere that brogressives couldn't claim that racism or whatever wasn't a problem anymore.

But I think my experiences in SRS definitely caused some things to be associated together in my mind. To me, anti-ism too often stems from a fear and hatred of difference and different minds - there is one correct way and it's not possible to 'not know' or 'not inherently be' that way; anything unexpected is immediately denounced as a product of immorality. And it showed for me the ways that that particularly unforgiving and ruthless variety of activism can so easily hurt innocent parties more than anyone.

I wonder if it's still up. I sorta feel dumb for ever having trusted them so much. Maybe the real betrayal is how defensive I get of redditors acting autistic now, haha.

1 note · View note

ummadum · 4 years

Text

Why José Mourinho is problematic

I’m not a fan of José Mourinho and whilst I can come around to his tactics, I really doubt I will ever like him as a person.

Football is a very misogynistic, homophobic, racist and generally disrespectful place where people, especially powerful people, are not held accountable for their actions and words. This post is an accumulation of some of the very worrying things Jose has said and done over the years, that he has never acknowledged nor apologised for. I think that it’s important to keep these things in mind especially now, because the “José is a great person” idea is on the rise again. Whilst someone like Sergè, who also said some really disrespectful things, but someone who apologised for them and was willing to learn from his mistake, has his mistakes constantly brought up again, we are ignoring and burying all the things that are really wrong with our manager.

And if the club have asked Sergé to acknowledge and apologise for his statements (the right move), then we should do the same with Mourinho, who was much older when he said those things and had and has a lot more power and reach.

Homophobic

In 2012, as Real Madrid manager, Mourinho was caught on camera using “marocones” (which means faggot in English) to refer to the referees pre champion league match agains CSKA Moscow.

This is a link to the video [x] it’s about 20 seconds in.

The European Gay and Lesbian Sports Federation (EGLSF) released a statement [x] calling for action, which includes this:

Louise Englefield, Co-president of the EGLSF, an organisation representing over 17,000 lesbian gay bisexual and trans (LGBT) athletes across Europe, said: “Homophobia is unacceptable from anyone in football, much less from one of the game’s most senior figures. We are deeply disappointed that Mr Mourinho is casually using homophobic terms of abuse in his workplace. It is especially sad that these comments have been made during the International Football v Homophobia campaign week. This is a time during which the European football community should be joining forces to tackle discrimination and prejudice against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people . As long-standing partners of the FARE network, we call on UEFA to take action and impose appropriate sanctions.”

And yet nothing ever happened, no apology, no acknowledgment and no sanctions.

Racist

Josés stance on racism is an interesting one, because he has publicly stated that he is opposed to direct racism, yet does apparently not believe that there is an underlying structural racism problem in the world and in football.

About coaching opportiunities for black coaches

In 2014, when questioned whether football needs a Rooney rule, which in the NFL ensures that ethnic minority candidates are adequately represented in the interview process for head coaching positions, he said this:

When asked if he felt football was doing enough to bring in black managers and whether he felt a quota should be introduced, Mourinho said: “There is no racism in football. If you are good, you are good. If you are good, you get the job.” “If you are good, you prove that you deserve the job. Football is not stupid to close the doors to top people. If you are top, you are top.” [x]

At the moment of publication of this article, only two of 92 clubs in the top four divisions in English football had a black manager. And only four black managers have ever worked in the premier league.

His statement warranted this lengthy response from the then FIFA Vice-President Jeffrey Webb. [x] Who points to a much larger problem of lack of enthnic people in power in football in general.

About Hair

“I want to push the young players on my team to have a proper haircut, not the Rastafarian or the others they have.”

I don't have the exact source but it’s mentioned in multiple “best of José quotes articles [x] [x]

Misogyny

Dr. Carniero

The most obvious place to start talking about Mourinho and his issues with misogyny is his treatment of Dr. Eva Carneiro who was the Chelsea first team doctor from 2009 until september 2015. During the first Game of the 15/16 season against Swansea Dr. Carneiro and chief physiotherapist Jon Fearn were called into the pitch by the referee to attend to Eden Hazard who had gone down. It was towards the end of the match and Chelsea had already had Courtois sent off and were therefore down to 9 men. Under the laws of the game, the medical staff is only allowed on the pitch if the referee summons them and once they have been summoned it's their duty to attend to the player. Mourinho took an issue with both of them rushing onto the field, because it left his team temporarily with 8 outfield players and so he allegedly called Dr. Carniero “filha da puta” which translates to “daughter of a bitch/whore”. He says he didn’t use the female version, but that he said “filho da puta” and that “swearing is a part of football”. This then led to a lot of discourse about whether it was actually abusive language towards a woman or not.

The more damning thing happened later in the press conference.

“I wasn't happy with my medical staff because even if you are a medical doctor or secretary on the bench, you have to understand the game.If you go to the pitch to assist a player, then you must be sure that a player has a serious problem. I was sure that Eden didn't have a serious problem. He had a knock and was very tired.My medical department left me with eight fit outfield players in a counter attack after a set piece and we were worried we didn't have enough players left.”

“You have to understand the game”, especially when aimed at a woman already comes with enough negative and misogynistic connotations. And there was no lack of “understanding of the game” in this instance, it was their duty to attend to the player according to the rules. Maybe he should have had a word with Eden Hazard about not feigning injuries instead.

But this is not where this ends. Following this incidence, Fearn (a Man) was removed from first team matches and Dr. Carniero was removed from all first team duties such as training sessions, matches and even entering the team hotel. And as Duncan Castles, one of Josés mouthpieces in the british press then reported:

Mourinho is said to have held reservations about Carneiro’s role within the first-team squad since at least last year. While there is no question about her professional abilities, the Portuguese coach was concerned that the dressing room dynamic was affected by the presence of a female. According to a source, some players had expressed misgivings to the coaching staff about the set-up, arguing that it forced them to alter their usual behavior in a team environment. [x]

The same women that had worked with Chelsea's first team for 6 years and under 4 different managers just suddenly became a problem with Josés arrival. Maybe there were some players that complained about her, but José should have told them to get over it. Sadly, I can’t link you to the original source of these quotes because the website does not exist anymore but here are some more articles referring to the same quotes. [x] [x]

Her dismissal went to court and she and Chelsea ended up settling the case.

This whole thing ties into the larger issue of misogyny in football, this is an interesting article about how 2/3 s of the women in football face sexist discrimination. [x]

Montse Benitez

Rafael Benitez’ wife Montse Benitez made a joke, in 2015, about Rafa cleaning up Josés messes because Rafa just got the Real Madrid Job and she said “we tidy up his messes”, but afterwards added that it was understandable because there are only so many top clubs out there.

The first part of his response is very much ok:

“The lady is a bit confused, with all respect. The only club where her husband [directly] replaced me was at Inter Milan, where in six months he destroyed the best team in Europe at the time.”

The second part however wasn’t:

“And for her to think about me and to speak about me, I think she needs to occupy her time — and if she takes care of her husband’s diet, she will have less time to speak about me.”

He told her to get back into the kitchen and that is such a backwards thing to say to women. [x]

Generally Women

In 2013, whilst complaining about Arsenal players complaining to the officials he said

“ you know they like to cry” and then added “Football is for men, or for women with fantastic attitude.”

José mourinho used being a woman as an insult to emasculate Arsenal players. Which is incredibly sexist.

His post match tirade also includes some lovely xenophobia for good measure, which is a bit hypocritical coming from José. (I want to remind all Spurs fans that there was massive outrage after the United match, when similar criticism was aimed at Lamela)

"You know, they like to cry," Mourinho said. "That's tradition. But I prefer to say, and I was telling it to the fourth official, that English people – Frank Lampard, for example – would never provoke a situation like that. "Players from other countries, especially some countries, have that in their blood. So, if there is contact or an opponent is aggressive, they don't keep going. But this is English football. Foreign players are bringing lots of good things. They come here because they are talented. But I prefer English blood in football. English blood in this situation is: 'Come on, let's go.' Mikel's tackle is hard and aggressive but football is for men or for women with fantastic attitude. It's true."

[x]

Generally problematic things he has said

Him calling Wenger a voyeur is not included but he did end up actually apologising for that.

2006: "Sometimes you see beautiful people with no brains. Sometimes you have ugly people who are intelligent, like scientists," [x]

Me being a scientist probably makes me even more annoyed with this statement, but honestly can we get rid of this stupid idea.

2005: “Ricardo Carvalho seems to have problems understanding things, maybe he should have an IQ test, or go to a mental hospital or something.” [x]

Statements against him that he took to court

A journalist for spanish newspaper Marca wrote about José during his time at chelsea:

“the type of person who would flee after knocking someone down"

A letter from Mourinho's lawyers then read:

"In our eyes this phrase is... degrading and was used in a manner which was completely unnecessary in the critique."

Chelsea also took action against a former Barcelona director after he posted the following on twitter during a match against Manchester City.

"It's lamentable the psychopath celebrating goals as if he was a player."

[x]

Which is utterly ironic when taking all the things he has said about others into account.

A lot of these quotes are older, but judging from his recent choice of words, the constant emasculation of his players also shown in a documentary meant to make him look good, he might not be saying these things publicly anymore but the subtext and undertones still remain, therefore not really making it look like he has learned from his past mistakes and has become a better person in the slightest. Also, these quotes are just the tip of the iceberg of what kind of a human being José Mourinho really is. He is an incredibly manipulative individual that chooses all of his words, especially those to the press, really carefully and if these quotes are things that he chose to say deliberately, then I’m worried about what other opinions he has that he does not voice to the public. But if someone treats him like he does others he has an issue with it.

He can be an interesting individual to watch and his amount of arrogance can be fairly entertaining, but his general lack of respect for his players and staff shouldn't be overlooked especially in a world which is trying to move towards the future. And a footballing world at least saying that they are trying to remove discrimination from the game.

I don’t want him to be sacked, but I would really like to remind people of the kind of person he is and for him to acknowledge these statements and apologise for it. But because this is football and Agueros actions with the lines-woman were dismissed because he is “a good person” I doubt that that will ever happen.

#jose mourinho #spurs #my dislike for this man is rooted in real life issues #just because he is nice to your fave does not mean that he is a good person #can we please just not rewrite history and forget about his problematic past when he has showed zero signs of having learnt #Yes he says some funny things #but he also says some really really bad things that shouldn't be forgotten!

26 notes · View notes

thisseethingcoast · 4 years

Text

The Invisible Lesbian in Young Adult Fiction -A culture of misogyny erases the stories of queer girls- essay by Malinda Lo

The other day on twitter I saw someone tweet about their reluctance to read f/f (female/female) romance, even though they identified as a queer woman. They admitted that reading f/f could somehow feel too close for comfort; that reading m/m (male/male) romance was sometimes easier, and allowed them to relax more. Several people responded, a bit self-consciously, that they agreed.

That wasn’t the first time I’ve encountered this. Since long before twitter, I’ve known queer women who’ve admitted that they often prefer books and films about gay men over books and films about lesbians. Sometimes they seemed a little uncomfortable admitting it, but I understood. I recognized their discomfort because I’ve felt it myself.

When I was a teen, I don’t recall knowing that lesbians existed, but I certainly knew that gay men did. I remember being captivated by Maurice, the 1987 Merchant-Ivory film of E.M. Forster’s novel, about an upper-class gay boy in Edwardian England who struggles with his homosexuality. Fortunately for Maurice, he gets a happy ending.

I was also drawn to My Beautiful Laundrette (1985), about a homosexual relationship between a young British Pakistani man and a right-wing punk named Johnny. Although the film includes brutal homophobia, the two young men are together at the end.

I remember hunting for more movies like My Beautiful Laundrette and Maurice at the video store, completely ignorant of why they affected me so deeply. Later on I found My Own Private Idaho (1991), starring Keanu Reeves and River Phoenix in a story of unrequited love. It never occurred to me to look for any such movies about lesbians, and if it had, I probably wouldn’t have watched them. It would have been too shocking—too close to what I truly desired.

It was only years after I came out to myself and my friends, after I’d had my first relationships with women, that I became comfortable watching movies about lesbians. In those early years, the only way I could watch these films was by draping myself in false cynicism—by viewing “ironically,” ready to criticize bad acting or directing without giving it a chance—or by disengaging partway, not really paying attention. It was all too intense for me.

Seeing lesbians onscreen called my whole life into question. Why had it taken me so long to figure it out? What was wrong with me for taking so long? Why wasn’t I comfortable seeing people like me? Was I a terrible person for being uncomfortable with it? Had I actually internalized homophobia so deeply? Why did it hurt in this strange way to see those women together?

This queasy, dangerous feeling; vulnerability. I can’t look.

Movies about gay men didn’t affect me that way because I was not a man. I could see myself in them without seeing myself in them. They were safe, and they fulfilled my desire to experience a same-sex relationship without actually experiencing it.

I think I had been conditioned to ignore and deny lesbians. It took me years to decondition this automatic tendency to erase people like me. I had to do it by living my life—having romantic relationships with women, being in communities of queer women, and slowly, by exposing myself to fiction about them.

Sometimes it’s easier to be a lesbian in real life than it is to read a book about them. Real life is full of distractions that can dull the sharpness of what’s going on. If you’re at a party or a bar, there’s alcohol (there’s a reason for the long history of gay bars). There are other people; there are the daily demands of living your life. And we human beings are really good at ignoring stuff that makes us uncomfortable.

Reading, I think, is one of the most intimate forms of communication there is—even more than film or TV. A book’s words are in your head. While you’re reading that book, you become that book. It makes total sense to me that if you didn’t grow up seeing people like you everywhere, reading about someone like you can be an overwhelming experience. You’ve been conditioned to not see yourself. Seeing yourself turns your world upside down, and while it can be exciting and affirming, it can also be deeply disorienting and scary.

It’s easier to not look, to not engage. To seek out that mirror in a slightly distorted way. To read books about gay boys. To breathlessly watch Maurice or My Beautiful Laundrette.

A note on language

I identify as a lesbian. For me, lesbian means a woman who is in primary sexual or romantic relationship with other women. This is separate from gender identity, and lesbians may be cisgender or transgender or nonbinary. I want to note here that my definition of lesbian includes all genders.

In the YA book community, books featuring same-sex romantic relationships between girls have been identified with an evolving series of labels, including lesbian. The term f/f arose out of fandom to indicate a story that involves a romance between two female characters.

The term Sapphic has evolved in online discourse to be more inclusive than its dictionary definition, which simply means lesbian. Within YA, Sapphic now describes a female character who is sexually or romantically attracted to other women, but this character may be bisexual, pansexual, lesbian, queer, or unspecified in her sexual orientation.

The word lesbian has always come with baggage; it is not a neutral word. It has connotations of being sexualized, ridiculed, embarrassing, exclusionary, man-hating, excessively or problematically political, or racist. And yet it’s also directly linked to the near-mythical life of one woman, a poet named Sappho who lived over 2,500 years ago on the island of Lesbos, who wrote some of the world’s most beautiful poetry about desire between women.

When I use the word lesbian, I use it knowing its complicated history and multiple connotations. I use it to claim a community that I’m part of, to draw a line through time, to underscore the fact that we have always been here.

loandbehold.substack.com/p/the-invisible-lesbian-in-young-adult

#malinda lo #essay #lesbian #media #w/w #bisexual #queer #invisibility

75 notes · View notes

1921designs · 3 years

Text

Smuggler

“Then what are you complaining about?”

“About hypocrisy. About lies. About misrepresentation. About that smuggler’s behavior to which you drive the uranist.”

—André Gide, Corydon, Fourth Dialogue

I REMEMBER MY first kiss with absolute clarity. I was reading on a black chaise longue, upholstered with shiny velour, and it was right after dinner, the hour of freedom before I was obliged to begin my homework. I was sixteen.

It must have been early autumn or late spring, because I know I was in school at the time, and the sun was still out. I was shocked and thrilled by it, and reading that passage, from a novel by Hermann Hesse, made the book feel intensely real, fusing Hesse’s imaginary world with the physical object I was holding in my hands. I looked down at it, and back at the words on the page, and then around the room, which was empty, and I felt a keen and deep sense of discovery and shame. Something new had entered my life, undetected by anyone else, delivered safely and surreptitiously to me alone. To borrow an idea from André Gide, I had become a smuggler.

It wasn’t, of course, the first kiss I had encountered in a book. But this was the first kiss between two boys, characters in Beneath the Wheel, a short, sad novel about a sensitive student who gains admission to an elite school but then fails, quickly and inexorably, after he becomes entwined in friendship with a reckless, poetic classmate. I was stunned by their encounter—which most readers, and almost certainly Hesse himself, would have assigned to that liminal stage of adolescence before boys turn definitively to heterosexual interests. For me, however, it was the first evidence that I wasn’t entirely alone in my own desires. It made my loneliness seem more present to me, more intelligible and tangible, and something that could be named. Even more shocking was the innocence with which Hesse presented it:

An adult witnessing this little scene might have derived a quiet joy from it, from the tenderly inept shyness and the earnestness of these two narrow faces, both of them handsome, promising, boyish yet marked half with childish grace and half with shy yet attractive adolescent defiance.

Certainly no adult I knew would have derived anything like joy from this little scene—far from it. Where I grew up, a decaying Rust Belt city in upstate New York, there was no tradition of schoolboy romance, at least none that had made it to my public high school, where the hierarchies were rigid, the social categories inviolable, the avenues for sexual expression strictly and collectively policed by adults and youth alike. These were the early days of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, when recent gains in visibility and political legitimacy for gay rights were being vigorously countered by a newly resurgent cultural conservatism. The adults in my world, had they witnessed two lonely young boys reach out to each other in passionate friendship, would have thrashed them before committing them to the counsel of religion or psychiatry.

But the discovery of that kiss changed me. Reading, which had seemed a retreat from the world, was suddenly more vital, dangerous, and necessary. If before I had read haphazardly, bouncing from adventure to history to novels and the classics, now I read with focus and determination. For the next five years, I sought to expand and open the tiny fissure that had been created by that kiss. Suddenly, after years of feeling almost entirely disconnected from the sexual world, my reading was finally spurred both by curiosity and Eros.

From an oppressive theological academy in southern Germany, where students struggled to learn Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, to the rooftops of Paris during the final days of Adolf Hitler’s occupation, I sought in books the company of poets and scholars, hoodlums and thieves, tormented aristocrats bouncing around the spas and casinos of Europe, expat Americans slumming it in the City of Light, an introspective Roman emperor lamenting a lost boyfriend, and a middle-aged author at the height of his powers and the brink of exhaustion. These were the worlds, and the men, presented by Gide, Jean Cocteau, Oscar Wilde, Jean Genet, James Baldwin, Thomas Mann, and Robert Musil, to name only those whose writing has lingered with me. Some of these authors were linked by ties of friendship. Some of them were themselves more or less openly homosexual, others ambiguous or fluid in their desires, and others, by all evidence, bisexual or primarily heterosexual. It would be too much to say their work formed a canon of gay literature—but for those who sought such a canon, their work was about all one could find.

And yet, in retrospect, and after rereading many of those books more than thirty years later, I’m astonished by how sad, furtive, and destructive an image of sexuality they presented. Today we have an insipid idea of literature as selfdiscovery, and a reflexive conviction that young people—especially those struggling with identity or prejudice—need role models. But these books contained no role models at all, and they depicted self-discovery as a cataclysmic severance from society. The price of survival, for the self-aware homosexual, was a complete inversion of values, dislocation, wandering, and rebellion. One of the few traditions you were allowed to keep was misogyny. And most of the men represented in these books were not willing to pay the heavy price of rebellion and were, to appropriate Hesse’s phrase, ground beneath the wheel.

The value of these books wasn’t anything wholesome they contained, or any moral instruction they offered. Rather, it was the process of finding them, the thrill of reading them, the way the books themselves, like the men they depicted, detached you from the familiar moral landscape. They gave a name to the palpable, physical loneliness of sexual solitude, but they also greatly increased your intellectual and emotional solitude. Until very recently, the canon of literature for a gay kid was discovered entirely alone, by threads of connection that linked authors from intertwined demimondes. It was smuggling, but also scavenging. There was no Internet, no “customers who bought this item also bought,” no helpful librarians steeped in the discourse of tolerance and diversity, and certainly no one in the adult world who could be trusted to give advice and advance the project of limning this still mostly forbidden body of work.

The pleasure of finding new access to these worlds was almost always punctured by the bleakness of the books themselves. One of the two boys who kissed in that Hesse novel eventually came apart at the seams, lapsed into nervous exhaustion, and then one afternoon, after too much beer, he stumbled or willingly slid into a slow-moving river, where his body was found, like Ophelia’s, floating serenely and beautiful in the chilly waters. Hesse would blame poor Hans’s collapse on the severity of his education and a lamentable disconnection from nature, friendship, and congenial social structures. But surely that kiss, and that friendship with a wayward poet, had something to do with it. As Hans is broken to pieces, he remembers that kiss, a sign that at some level Hesse felt it must be punished.

Hans was relatively lucky, dispensed with chaste, poetic discretion, like the lover in a song cycle by Franz Schubert or Robert Schumann. Other boys who found themselves enmeshed in the milieu of homoerotic desire were raped, bullied, or killed, or lapsed into madness, disease, or criminality. They were disposable or interchangeable, the objects of pederastic fixation or the instrumental playthings of adult characters going through aesthetic, moral, or existential crises. Even the survivors face, at the end of these novels, the bleakest existential crises. Even the survivors face, at the end of these novels, the bleakest of futures: isolation, wandering, and a perverse form of aging in which the loss of youth is never compensated with wisdom.

One doesn’t expect novelists to give us happy endings. But looking back on many of the books I read during my age of smuggling, I’m profoundly disturbed by what I now recognize as their deeply entrenched homophobia. I wonder if it took a toll on me, if what seemed a process of self-liberation was inseparable from infection with the insecurities, evasions, and hypocrisy stamped into gay identity during the painful, formative decades of its nascence in the last century. I wonder how these books will survive, and in what form: historical documents, symptoms of an ugly era, cris de coeur of men (mostly men) who had made it only a few steps along the long road to true equality? Will we condescend to them, and treat their anguish with polite, clinical detachment? I hesitate to say that these books formed me, because that suggests too simplistic a connection between literature and character. But I can’t be the only gay man in middle age who now wonders if what seemed a gift at the time—the discovery of a literature of same-sex desire just respectable enough to circulate without suspicion—was in fact more toxic than a youth of that era could ever have anticipated.

Before the mid-1990s, when the Internet began to collapse the distinction between cities, suburbs, and everywhere else, books were the most reliable access to the larger world, and the only access to books was the bookstore or the library. The physical fact of a book was both a curse and a blessing. It made reading a potentially dangerous act if you were reading the wrong things, and of course one had to physically find and possess the book. But the mere fact of being a book, the fact that someone had published the words and they were circulating in the world, gave a book the presumption of respectability, especially if it was deemed “literature.” There were, of course, bad or dangerous books in the world—and self-appointed guardians who sought to suppress and destroy them—but decent people assumed that these were safely contained within universities.

I borrowed my copy of Hesse’s Beneath the Wheel from the library, so I can’t be sure whether it contained any of the small clues that led to other like-minded books. At least one copy I have found in a used bookstore does have an invaluable signpost on the back cover: “Along with Heinrich Mann’s The Blue Angel, Emil Strauss’s Friend Death, and Robert Musil’s Young Törless, all of which came out in the same period, it belongs to the genre of school novels.” Perhaps that’s what prompted me to read Musil’s far more complicated, beautifully written, and excruciating schoolboy saga. Hans, shy, studious, and trusting, led me to Törless, a bolder, meaner, more dangerous boy.

Other threads of connection came from the introductions, afterwords, footnotes, and the solicitations to buy other books found just inside the back cover. When I first started reading independently of classroom assignments and the usual boy’s diet of Rudyard Kipling, Jonathan Swift, Alexandre Dumas, and Jules Verne—reading without guidance and with all the odd detours and byways of an autodidact—I devised a three-part test for choosing a new volume: first, a book had to have a black or orange spine, then the colors of Penguin Classics, which someone had assured me was a reliable brand; second, I had to be able to finish the book within a few days, lest I waste the opportunity of my weekly visit to the bookstore; and third, I had to be hooked by the narrative within one or two pages. That is certainly what led me, by chance, to Cocteau’s Les Enfants Terribles, a rather slight and pretentious novel of incestuous infatuation, gender slippage, homoerotic desire, and surreal distortions of time and space. I knew nothing of Cocteau but was intrigued by one of his line drawings on the cover, which showed two androgynous teenagers, and a summary which assured it was about a boy named Paul, who worshipped a fellow student.

I still have that copy of Cocteau. In the back there was yet more treasure, a whole page devoted to advertising the novels of Gide (The Immoralist is described as “the story of man’s rebellion against social and sexual conformity”) and another to Genet (The Thief’s Journal is “a voyage of discovery beyond all moral laws; the expression of a philosophy of perverted vice, the working out of an aesthetic degradation”). These little précis were themselves a guide to the coded language—“illicit, corruption, hedonism”—that often, though not infallibly, led to other enticing books. And yet one might follow these little broken twigs and crushed leaves only to end up in the frustrating world of mere decadence, Wagnerian salons, undirected voluptuousness, the enervating eccentricities of Joris-Karl Huysmans or the chaste, coy allusions to vice in Wilde.

Finally, there were a handful of narratives that had successfully transitioned into open and public respectability, even if always slightly tainted by scandal. If the local theater company still performed Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest, who could fault a boy for reading The Picture of Dorian Gray?

Conveniently, a 1982 Bantam Classics edition contained both, and also the play Salomé. Wilde’s novel was a skein of brilliant banter stretched over a rather silly, Gothic tale, and the hiding-in-plain-sight of its homoeroticism was deeply unfulfilling. Even then, too scared to openly acknowledge my own feelings, I found Wilde’s obfuscations embarrassing. More powerful than anything in the highly contrived and overwrought games of Dorian was a passing moment in Salomé when the Page of Herodias obliquely confesses his love for the Young Syrian, who has committed suicide in disgust at Salomé’s licentious display. “He has killed himself,” the boy laments, “the man who was my friend! I gave him a little box of perfumes and earrings wrought in silver, and now he has killed himself.” It was these moments that slipped through, sudden intimations of honest feeling, which made plowing through Wilde’s self-indulgence worth the effort.

Then there was the most holy and terrifying of all the publicly respectable representations of homosexual desire, Mann’s Death in Venice, which might even be found in one’s parents’ library, the danger of its sexuality safely ossified inside the imposing façade of its reputation. A boy who read Death in Venice wasn’t slavering over a beautiful Polish adolescent in a sailor’s suit, he was climbing a mountain of sorts, proving his devotion to culture.

But a boy who read Death in Venicewas receiving a very strange moral and sentimental education. Great love was somehow linked to intellectual crisis, a symptom of mental exhaustion. It was entirely inward and unrequited, and it was likely triggered by some dislocation of the self from familiar surroundings, to travel, new sights and smells, and hot climates. It was unsettling and isolating, and drove one to humiliating vanities and abject voyeurism. Like so much of what one found in Wilde (perfumed and swaddled in cant), Gide (transplanted to the colonial realms of North Africa, where bourgeois morality was suspended), or Genet (floating freely in the postwar wreckage and flotsam of values, ideals, and norms), Death in Venice also required a young reader to locate himself somewhere on the inexorable axis of pederastic desire.

In retrospect I understand that this fixation on older men who suddenly have their worlds shattered by the brilliant beauty of a young man or adolescent was an intentional, even ironic repurposing of the classical approbation of Platonic pederasty. It allowed the “uranist”—to use the pejorative Victorian term for a homosexual—to broach, tentatively and under the cover of a venerable and respected literary tradition, the broader subject of same-sex desire. While for some, especially Gide, pederasty was the ideal, for others it may have been a gateway to discussing desire among men of relatively equal age and status, what we now think of as being gay. But as an eighteen-year-old reader, I had no interest in being on the receiving end of the attentions of older men; and as a middle-aged man, no interest in children.

The dynamics of the pederastic dyad—like so many narratives of colonialism —also meant that in most cases the boy was silent, seemingly without an intellectual or moral life. He was pure object, pure receptivity, unprotesting, perfect and perfectly silent in his beauty. When Benjamin Britten composed his last opera, based on Mann’s novella, the youth is portrayed by a dancer, voiceless in a world of singing, present only as an ideal body moving in space. In Gide’s Immoralist, the boys of Algeria (and Italy and France) are interchangeable, lost in the torrents of monologue from the narrator, Michel, who wants us to believe that they are mere instruments in his long, agonizing process of self-discovery and liberation. In Genet’s Funeral Rites, a frequently pornographic novel of sexual violence among the partisans and collaborators of Paris during the liberation, the narrator/author even attempts to make a virtue of the interchangeability of his young objects of desire: “The characters in my books all resemble each other,” he says. He’s right, and he amplifies their sameness by suppressing or eliding their personalities, dropping identifying names or pronouns as he shifts between their individual stories, often reducing them to anonymous body parts.

By reducing boys and young men to ciphers, the narrative space becomes open for untrammeled displays of solipsism, narcissism, self-pity, and of course self-justification. These books, written over a period of decades, by authors of vastly different temperaments and sexualities, are surprisingly alike in this claustrophobia of desire and subjugation of the other. Indeed, the psychological violence done to the male object of desire is often worse in authors who didn’t manifest any particular personal interest in same-sex desire. For example, in Musil’s Confusions of Young Törless, a gentle and slightly effeminate boy named Basini becomes a tool for the social, intellectual, and emotional advancement of three classmates who are all, presumably, destined to get married and lead entirely heterosexual lives. One student uses Basini to learn how to exercise power and manipulate people in preparation for a life of public accomplishment; another tortures him to test his confused spiritual theories, a stew of supposedly Eastern mysticism; and Törless turns to him, and turns on him, simply to feel something, to sense his presence and power in the world, to add to the stockroom of his mind and soul.

We are led to believe that this last form of manipulation is, in its effect on poor Basini, the cruelest. Later in the book, when Musil offers us the classic irony of the bildungsroman—the guarantee that everything that has happened was just a phase, a way station on the path of authorial evolution—he explains why Törless “never felt remorse” for what he did to Basini:

For the only real interest [that “aesthetically inclined intellectuals” like the older Törless] feel is concentrated on the growth of their own soul, or personality, or whatever one may call the thing within us that every now and then increases by the addition of some idea picked up between the lines of a book, or which speaks to us in the silent language of a painting[,] the thing that every now and then awakens when some solitary, wayward tune floats past us and away, away into the distance, whence with alien movements tugs at the thin scarlet thread of our blood —the thing that is never there when we are writing minutes, building machines, going to the circus, or following any of the hundreds of other similar occupations.

The conquest of beautiful boys, whether a hallowed tradition of all-male schools or the vestigial remnant of classical poetry, is simply another way to add to one’s fund of poetic and emotional knowledge, like going to the symphony. Today we might be blunter: to refine his aesthetic sensibility, Törless participated in the rape, torture, humiliation, and emotional abuse of a gay kid.

And he did it in a confined space. It is a recurring theme (and perhaps cliché) of many of these novels that homoerotic desire must be bounded within narrow spaces, dark rooms, private attics, as if the breach in conventional morality opened by same-sex desire demands careful, diligent, and architectural containment. The boys who beat and sodomize Basini do it in a secret space in the attic above their prep school. Throughout much of Cocteau’s Les Enfants Terribles, two siblings inhabit a darkly enchanted room, bickering and berating each other as they attempt to displace unrequited or forbidden desires onto acceptable alternatives. Cocteau helpfully gives us a sketch of this room—a few wispy lines that suggest something that Henri Matisse might have painted—with two beds, parallel to each other, as if in a hospital ward. Sickness, of course, is ever-present throughout almost all of these novels as well: the cholera that kills Aschenbach in Death in Venice, the tuberculosis which Michel overcomes and to which his hapless wife succumbs in The Immoralist, and the pallor, ennui, listlessness, and fevers of Cocteau. James Baldwin’s Giovanni’s Room, a later, more deeply ambivalent contribution to this canon of illness and enclosure, takes its name from the cramped, cluttered chambre de bonne that contains this desire, with the narrator keenly aware that if what happens there—a passionate relationship between a young American man in Paris and his Italian boyfriend— escapes that space, the world of possibilities for gay men would explode. But floods of booze, perhaps alcoholism, and an almost suicidal emotional frailty haunt this space, too.

Often it is the author’s relation to these dark spaces that gives us our only reliable sense of how he envisioned the historical trajectory of being gay. In Cocteau’s novel, the room becomes a ship, or a portal, transporting the youth Cocteau’s novel, the room becomes a ship, or a portal, transporting the youth into the larger world of adult desires. The lines are fluid, but there is a possibility of connection between the perfervid world of contained sexuality and the larger universe of sanctioned desires. In Baldwin, the young Italian proposes the two men keep their room as a space apart, a refuge for secret assignations, even as his American lover prepares to reunite with his fiancée and return to a life of normative sexuality. They could continue their relationship privately, on the side, a quiet compromise between two sexual realms. But Musil’s attic, essentially a torture chamber, is a much more desperate space, a permanent ghetto for illicit desire.

Even those among these books that were self-consciously written to advance the cause of gay men, to make their anguish more comprehensible to a reflexively hostile straight audience, leave almost no room—no space—for many openly gay readers. The parallels with colonial discourse are troubling: the colonized “other,” the homosexual making his appeal to straight society, must in turn pass on the violence and colonize and suppress yet weaker or more marginal figures on the spectrum of sexuality. Thus in the last of Gide’s daring dialogues in defense of homosexuality, first published piecemeal, then together commercially as Corydon in 1924—a tedious book full of pseudoscience and speculative extensions of Darwinian theory—the narrator contemptuously dismisses the unmanly homosexual: “If you please, we’ll leave the inverts aside for now. The trouble is that ill-informed people confuse them with normal homosexuals. And you understand, I hope, what I mean by ‘inverts.’ After all, heterosexuality too includes certain degenerates, people who are sick and obsessed.”

Along with the effeminate, the old and the aging are also beneath contempt. The casual scorn in Mann’s novella for an older man whom Aschenbach encounters on his passage to Venice is almost as horrifying as the sexual abuse and mental torture of young Basini in Musil’s novel. Among gay men, Mann’s painted clown is one of the most unsettling figures in literature, a “young-old man” whom Mann calls a “repulsive sight.” He apes the manners and dress of youth but has false teeth and bad makeup, luridly colored clothing, and a rakish hat, and is desperately trying to run with a younger crowd of men: “He was an old man, beyond a doubt, with wrinkles and crow’s feet round eyes and mouth; the dull carmine of the cheeks was rouge, the brown hair a wig.” Mann’s writing rises to a suspiciously incandescent brilliance in his descriptions of this supposedly loathsome figure. For reasons entirely unnecessary to the plot or development of his central characters, Baldwin resurrects Mann’s grotesquerie, in a phantasmagorical scene that describes an encounter between his young

American protagonist and a nameless old “queen” who approaches him in a bar:

The face was white and thoroughly bloodless with some kind of foundation cream; it stank of powder and a gardenia-like perfume. The shirt, open coquettishly to the navel, revealed a hairless chest and a silver crucifix; the shirt was covered with paper-thin wafers, red and green and orange and yellow and blue, which stormed in the light and made one feel that the mummy might, at any moment, disappear in flame.

This is the future to which the narrator—and by extension the reader if he is a gay man—is condemned. Unless, of course, he succumbs to disease or addiction. At best there is a retreat from society, perhaps to someplace where the economic differential between the Western pederast and the colonized boy makes an endless string of anonymous liaisons economically feasible. Violent death is the worst of the escapes. Not content with merely parodying older gay men, Baldwin must also murder them. In a scene that does gratuitous violence to the basic voice and continuity of the book, the narrator imagines in intimate detail events he has not actually witnessed: the murder of a flamboyant bar owner who sexually harasses and extorts the young Giovanni (by this point betrayed, abandoned, and reduced to what is, in effect, prostitution). The murder happens behind closed doors, safely contained in a room filled with “silks, colors, perfumes.”

If I remember with absolute clarity the first same-sex kiss I encountered in literature, I don’t remember very well when my interest in specifically homoerotic narrative began to wane. But again, thanks to the physicality of the book, I have an archaeology more reliable than memory. As a young reader, I was in the habit of writing the date when I finished a book on the inside front cover, and so I know that sometime shortly before I turned twenty-one, my passion for dark tales of unrequited desire, sexual manipulation, and destructive Nietzschean paroxysms of self-transcendence peaked, then flagged. That was also the same time that I came out to friends and family, which was prompted by the complete loss of hope that a long and unrequited love for a classmate might be returned. Logic suggests that these events were related, that the collapse of romantic illusions and the subsequent initiation of an actual erotic life with real, living people dulled the allure of Wilde, Gide, Mann, and the other authors who were loosely in their various orbits.

were loosely in their various orbits.

It happened this way: For several years I had been drawn to a young man who seemed to me curiously like Hans from Hesse’s novel. Physically, at least, they were alike: “Deep-set, uneasy eyes glowed dimly in his handsome and delicate face; fine wrinkles, signs of troubled thinking, twitched on his forehead, and his thin, emaciated arms and hands hung at his side with the weary gracefulness reminiscent of a figure by Botticelli.” But in every other way my beloved was an invention. I projected onto him an elaborate but entirely imaginary psychology, which I now suspect was cobbled together from bits and pieces of the books I had been reading. He was sad, silent, and doomed, like Hans, but also cold, remote, and severe, like Törless, cruelly beautiful like all the interchangeable sailors and hoodlums in Genet, but also intellectual, suffering, and mystically connected to dark truths from which I was excluded. When I recklessly confessed my love to him—how long I had nurtured it and how complex, beautiful, and poetic it was—he responded not with anger or disgust but impatience: “You can’t put all this on me.”

He was right. It took me only a few days to realize it intellectually, a few weeks to begin accepting it emotionally, and a few years not to feel fear and shame in his presence. He had recognized in an instant that what I had felt for years, rather like Swann for Odette, had nothing to do with him. It wasn’t even love, properly speaking. I can’t claim that it was all clear to me at the time, that I was conscious of any connection between what I had read and the excruciating dead end of my own fantasy life. I make these connections in retrospect. But the realization that I would never be with him because he didn’t in fact exist—not in the way I imagined him—must have soured me on the literature of longing, torment, and convoluted desire. And the challenge and excitement of negotiating a genuine erotic life rendered so much of what I had found in these books painfully dated and irrelevant.

I want to be rigorously honest about my feelings for this literature, whether it distorted my sense of self and even, perhaps, corrupted my imagination. The safe thing to say is that I can’t possibly find an answer to that, not simply because memory is unreliable, but because we never know whether books implant things in us or merely confirm what is already there. In Young Törless, Musil proposes the idea that the great literature of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Schiller, and William Shakespeare is essentially a transitional crutch for young minds, a mental prosthesis or substitute identity during the formlessness of adolescence: “These associations originating outside, and these borrowed emotions, carry young people over the dangerously soft spiritual ground of the years in which they need to be of some significance to themselves and nevertheless are still too incomplete to have any real significance.”

It’s important to divorce the question of how these books may have influenced me from the malicious accusations of corruption that have dogged gay fiction from the beginning. In the course of our reading lives, we will devour dozens, perhaps hundreds, of crude, scabrous, violent books, with no discernible impact on our moral constitution. And homosexual writers certainly didn’t invent the general connection between sexuality and illness, or the thin line between passion and violence, or sadism and masochism, or the sexual exploitation of the young or defenseless. And the mere mention of same-sex desire is still seen in too many places around the world today as inherently destructive to young minds. Gide’s Corydon decried the illogic of this a century ago: “And if, in spite of advice, invitations, provocations of all kinds, he should manifest a homosexual tendency, you immediately blame his reading or some other influence (and you argue in the same way for an entire nation, an entire people); it has to be an acquired taste, you insist; he must have been taught it; you refuse to admit that he might have invented it all by himself.”

And I want to register an important caveat about the literature of same-sex desire: it is not limited to the books I read, the authors I encountered, or the tropes that now seem to me so sad and destructive. In 1928, E. M. Forster wrote a short story called “Arthur Snatchfold” that wasn’t published until 1972, two years after the author’s death. In it, an older man, Sir Richard Conway, respectable in all ways, visits the country estate of a business acquaintance, where he has a quick, early-morning sexual encounter with a young deliveryman in a field near the house. Later, as Sir Richard chats with his host at their club in London, he learns that the liaison was seen by a policeman, the young man was arrested, and the authorities sent him to prison. To his great relief, Sir Richard also learns that he himself is safe from discovery, that the “other man” was never identified, and despite great pressure on the working-class man to incriminate his upper-class partner, he refused to do so.

“He [the deliveryman] was instantly removed from the court and as he went he shouted back at us—you’ll never credit this—that if he and the old grandfather didn’t mind it why should anyone else,” says Sir Richard’s host, fatuously indignant about the whole affair. Sir Richard, ashamed and sad but trapped in the armor of his social position, does the only thing he can: “Taking a notebook from his pocket, he wrote down the name of his lover, yes, his lover who was going to prison to save him, in order that he might not forget it.” It isn’t a great story, but it is an important moment in the evolution of an idea of loyalty and honor within the emerging category of homosexual identity. I didn’t

discover it until years after it might have done me some good.

Forster’s story is exceptional because only one man is punished, and he is given a voice—and a final, clear, unequivocal protest against the injustice. The other man escapes, but into shame, guilt, and self-recrimination. And yet it is the escapee who takes up the pen and begins to write. We might say of Sir Richard what we often say of our parents as we come to peace with them: he did the best he could. And for all the internalized homophobia of the authors I began reading more than thirty years ago, I would say the same thing. They did the best they could. They certainly did far more than privately inscribe a name in a book. I can’t honestly say that I would have had even Sir Richard’s limited courage in 1928.

But Forster’s story, which he didn’t dare publish while he was alive, is the exception, not the rule. It is painful to read the bulk of this early canon, and it will only become more and more painful, as gay subcultures dissolve and the bourgeois respectability that so many of these authors abandoned yet craved becomes the norm. In Genet, marriage between two men was the ultimate profanation, one of the strongest inversions of value the author could muster to scandalize his audience and delight his rebellious readers. The image of samesex marriage was purely explosive, a strategy for blasting apart the hypocrisy and pretentions of traditional morality. Today it is becoming commonplace.

I wonder if these books will survive like the literature of abolition, such as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin—marginal, dated, remembered as important for its earnest, sentimental ambition but also a catalogue of stereotypes. Or if they will be mostly forgotten, like the nineteenth-century literature of aesthetic perversity and decadence that many of these authors so deeply admired. Will Gide and Genet be as obscure to readers as Huysmans and the Comte de Lautréamont (Isidore-Lucien Ducasse)?

I hope not, and not least because they mattered to me, and helped forge a common language of reference among many gay men of my generation. I hope they survive for the many poignant epitaphs they contain, grave markers for the men who were used, abused, and banished from their pages. Let me write them down in my notebook, so I don’t forget their names: Hans, who loved Hermann; Basini, who loved Törless; the Page of Herodias, who loved the Young Syrian; Giovanni, who loved David; and all the rest, unnamed, often with no voice, but not forgotten.

TIM KREIDER

2 notes · View notes

firelxdykatara · 4 years

Note

Literally what? It makes perfect sense for Sozin to outlaw homosexuality. He wanted a war. He needed an army. He heralded the fire nation as the master race. That’s textbook “homosexuality is bad because we need to do whatever we can to make as many perfect fire nation babies as we can.” The fire nation as a whole, sure, doesn’t make much sense. Sozin specifically, abso-fucking-lutely he’d be the supremacist straights only because reproduction vital guy.

It only ‘makes perfect sense’ if you ascribe to the very childish system of morality that spawned it: well, he’s definitely evil. @araeph explained it quite well in this post, which I’m assuming you didn’t read, despite the fact that I linked it in the comment to which you are referring. I’ll quote the relevant bits, though:

The easiest, cheapest way to discuss morality in media is to gather all of the “evil” traits on one side of a conflict, all of the “good” traits on the other, and then assign people “good” or “evil” status while not allowing any overlap. We can give a bit of a pass to children’s cartoons (although they, too, have become more complex in recent years) because children are still in the earliest stages of learning right from wrong. But Legend of Korra is intended for an older audience than A:TLA, while being infinitely more childish in its morality.

Also below, an excerpt from a post defending Bryke’s portrayal of LGBT issues:

and there is Sozin banning same sex relationship which again doesn’t contradict the source material, and Sozin being evil isn’t anything new,

Here is the premise both these arguments are working from: that because person A believes in wrong idea B, that that person must also believe in wrong idea C, D, and E, all the way down the alphabet. Because they’re Definitely Evil. But that’s not the way it works at all, and Sozin himself is a prime example.

People with discriminatory beliefs always have a system for them, a rationale that they use to justify their worldviews and fit them into a larger belief structure. There is a method to the madness; if there weren’t, hatred would be much easier to conquer because dismantling it wouldn’t require undermining other deeply held beliefs, with which it’s often intertwined. Sozin’s madness was an extension and expansion of his idea that the Fire Nation is superior to all other nations, and that he alone is the guardian of that superiority. Every evil action he takes stems from those premises:

Colonizing the Earth Kingdom. In Sozin’s mind, the Fire Nation experiencing an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity equaled a mandate to restructure all other nations so that they would be as “great” as the Fire Nation.

Challenging Avatar Roku in the palace. In “The Avatar and the Firelord,” Sozin flatly states that Roku’s allegiance should be to Sozin first, and everyone else second. After all, if the Fire Nation is the greatest country in the world, anything that might challenge that belief—such as the equality and balance between four nations—is a threat and must be eradicated. In a similar vein:

Leaving Avatar Roku to die after helping him fight the volcano. The volcano was a threat to Sozin’s homeland, and so when Sozin and Roku battled it together, they were working as two Fire Nation citizens. However, as soon as Roku’s premature demise left an opening to begin Sozin’s conquest, the Firelord couldn’t see past his own vision of a perfect world, in which he and his country dominated everything.

Hunting the dragons. Sozin’s aggressive world conquest required that the general philosophy behind firebending be changed and all traces of the old ways be extinguished. Humans could be bought or frightened into suppressing the “fire is life” belief, but that wouldn’t work on the dragons. Thus, in his mind it became necessary to wipe out all traces of the dragons, and therefore, the true meaning of fire.

There is nothing in Sozin’s worldview that suggests he would invent, from whole-cloth, without it existing before in his nation, institutionalized homophobia--not unless you subscribe to the ‘well, he’s definitely evil’ mode of thought, which LoK does, but which AtLA approached with considerably more nuance:

Toph: It’s like these people are born bad. Aang: No, that’s wrong. I don’t think that was the point of what Roku showed me at all. Sokka: Then what was the point? Aang: Roku was just as much Fire Nation as Sozin was, right? If anything, their story proves anyone’s capable of great good and great evil.

And, at the end of the day, it all comes back to my personal problem with that entire storyline (nevermind the fact that Korra had nothing to say about Sozin except a petulant ‘that guy was the worst’, as if this was new information and she didn’t already know that he had orchestrated the Air Nomad genocide): the fact that it was completely unnecessary.

This was a fantasy world, and while inspired by many real world cultures, it was not beholden to real world history the way historical fiction would be. There was no need to inject institutionalized homophobia where there was no hint of its existence before in the entire franchise. Evidently, it was too much to ask that this one fantasy world exist where people like me were never persecuted for their sexuality. And it absolutely does not sit right with me that a couple of straight men shoved that ham-fistedly into the story they were telling with their newly revealed bisexual lead.

And it doesn’t even make sense that the Fire Nation--the nation with women in the armed forces, and a distinct lack of evident misogyny, particularly when contrasted with the anvils dropping all over the place in the Northern Water Tribe--was the one with homophobic attitudes (and not just attitudes, but actively pulling people from their homes for the crime of Being Gay), and not, say, the Water Tribes:

But you know where homophobia would most likely gain traction? In the Water Tribes. Sexism and homophobia often go hand in hand, and in a culture where men reign supreme and gender roles are fixed, it would make sense for Korra and Asami’s romance to be a threat to the perceived natural order. But you see, the Water Tribe are the “good guys”, so they can’t be discriminatory, right?

#atla #atla comics critical #anyway no it absolutely does not make sense for sozin to have created institutionalized homophobia out of thin air #especially not considering his on-screen relationship with roku #thank you and good day #Anonymous #asked

34 notes · View notes

infochores · 4 years

Link

Fully aware that i dont post here much any more so i guess its a long-shot as to if this will get any traction, but in some exciting personal news me and my friend E have started a podcast. Its called “Blood and TERFs” and its basically going to be about the links between TERF politics and Fascism, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and the far right. The link to the first proper episode is above, in which we look at stuff surrounding how transphobic discourse in the UK is currently very focused along a path that threatens to undermine critical areas of human rights particularly in relation to medical treatment for under-18s and the legal concept of patient bodily autonomy. From there we spin into a discussion about how TERF and generalised transphobic conceptions of children and childhood often bear striking parallels to classical Fascist narratives about the role of children in the family We also did a pilot episode a few weeks ago where we looked at the eery yet slapstick similarity between the pseudoscience known as Lysenkoism that was dominant in the USSR during the 30s and 40s, and the bizarrely horny and deeply unethical scribbles of infamous washed up academic sex pervert Ray Blanchard, a man possibly better known to many of you for inventing the bullshit idea of “autogynephilia”. Anyway if you want to hear more about that, the rather poorly edited pilot episode in which we delve into it is here: https://bloodandterf.podbean.com/e/blood-and-terf-ep-1-blanchard-lysenko-and-pseudoscience/ And yes, better microphones are on their way. Some general content descriptions and warnings:

The show is presented by 1 cis person (myself) and 1 trans person (E, the other host on the recordings, whose foolish idea this all was), and in future if we have guests the chances of them being cis are vanishingly small for obvious reasons.

We often discuss topics that some people may find distressing such as: Cults, abuse, childhood trauma, sexual assault, various forms of surgeries, various forms of bigotries including misogyny, racism, homophobia, and most particularly transphobia, Fascism, the far right in general, religious fundamentalism, interpersonal violence, medical treatments of various kinds including surgeries.

#ray blanchard #transphobia #podcast #terfs

10 notes · View notes

incandescent-eden · 5 years

Text

STORY MASTERLIST

A (not so) comprehensive list of all the things I write about, all of which are subject to change at any given time because I do a lot of refactoring!

LOOOOONG POST INCOMING I write... a LOT, and I have... MANY projects :) Feel free to ask me about any of them! :)

With love <3 Continue reading below the cutoff if you want to know the basic rundown of my worlds and works!

ANGELVERSE:

This universe encompasses all of the angels and demons I like to focus on. Works in the angelverse will likely be about Faraday (formerly known as Efrem), a demon lieutenant, Ezekiel, a young angel, the archangel Uriel, or angel Raguel / angel Sophia (their stories are intertwined).

The main concept I have on Angelverse surrounds Faraday, who has grown into himself as a demon and made something of himself. He finds it impossible to shake who he was before. The question comes up during an important meeting between Heaven and Hell of whether he is truly Faraday or Efrem, his own self that he has shakily become, or the self he inherited from being his father’s son. There’s also brotherly angst between Faraday and Ezekiel, who refuses to let go of the past. (If you look at my old works tagged ‘ezekiel,’ you’ll see Ezekiel used to be a part of Faraday/his ‘ideal’ self, which is why new Ezekiel, separate from Faraday, reads so differently.)

The Raguel and Sophia stories are also closely linked to characters Andromeda and possibly Zachariah. Andromeda’s father runs a cult and has captured an angel in his attic. When Andromeda finds the angel (Sophia), her otherwise “normal” life is thrown into disarray as she starts unraveling threads about her father’s actions as a cult leader. If Zachariah is to be a part of it, he would be living with Andromeda’s family, having run away from his past.

Prominent characters in Angelverse include: Faraday, Uriel, Ezekiel, Stena, Michael, Ramiel, Raguel, Sophia, Zachariah, Ambriel, Ruhiel, Gabriel, Raphael, Luci, Bee, Sasha, Saoirse, and Heather. With the exception of Sophia, all names ending with “el” are angels, while the rest are demons. Also, I say prominent, but like half of these characters are from a bygone era (2018 when I first created them).

TW/CW for heavy religious (Christian) imagery, emotional abuse, violence, transphobia mentions and cult talk. Additional content warning because I tend to write angels as LGBT, but I recognize that some people are not comfortable with this affiliation with Christianity.

LUXTRURA (NOTE: LUXTRURA IS ON PERMANENT HIATUS):

Luxtrura is the name of a fictional country in ye olde European fantasy style, and I haven’t thought of a title for the WIP yet, so I mainly tag it ‘luxtrura’ or ‘luxtruran trio.’ This WIP is a fantasy / dystopian / political intrigue about an uprising in the kingdom of Luxtrura run by an inexperienced king and corrupt nobles all vying for the crown.

Luxtrura (at the current moment) follows the life of His Majesty Devron Fharren, the Eighth Fharren King, who inherited the crown by kingdom decrees at the age of 21. Unlike most kings, Devron has only had seven years of proper royal tutelage on statecraft, having only been named heir to the throne when he was 14. He soon finds he has inherited a kingdom that has been deeply wounded, that his people hate him, and that he has few allies among his own country’s nobles, his friends, and neighboring royalty. Revolution is brewing, and he has a choice to make: to claim his birthright or to help his people.

Prominent characters include: Devron Fharren, Eden Barison, Mili Starr, Plumeria Rwalke, Lilia Tao, Rassaya Tao, Andrea (a mysterious stranger who gives only her first name), Jakob Fiyre, Cordelia Fiyre, Liseline Fiyre, Sonja, and Orange and Rouse (the dragons).

TW/CW for violence, sexual assault mentions, transphobia mentions, political talk, blatant classism, and death.

GLOWING EYES:

A “what-if” scenario where Victor Frankenstein and Dorian Gray had met and become friends and also Frankenstein wasn’t a man and was named Viola and was not a pleb weakling like Victor. Also Dorian Gray is fat because I said so.

This story reimagines the Frankenstein and Dorian Gray cast as students in their final year of the prestigious University of Ingolstadt, with Frankenstein having returned from a year off during which she was suspended for [redacted] reasons. The vibe we’re going for is dark academia, but I don’t think they ever actually do any learning?

Prominent characters include: Viola Frankenstein, Dorian Gray, Elizabeth Lavenza, Henry Clerval, Basil Hallward, Deukalion, and special shoutout to Justine Moritz and Sibyl Vane because I didn’t want to put them in, but they definitely deserved better in the source material.

TW/CW for death, violence, toxic/obsessive relationships, grave-robbing, body part mentions (eyes, limbs, etc), and mentions of the Devil. Basically, if it was a concerning part of either the Frankenstein or Dorian Gray stories, it will still be concerning.

Fun fact, there is a Glowing Eyes playlist that I am NOT too ashamed to share with the public! :D

HELEN OF LEGEND:

A retelling of the Helen of Sparta story that explores Helen’s thoughts and motivations. Who was the woman behind the face that launched a thousand ships? And did she ever even want those ships to be launched? (Spoiler alert: the answer is no.)

Helen of Legend gets pretty heavy handed because I get really mad about people lauding the Greeks as the end all be all of culture, and I’m still really mad about how people dress Millie Bobby Brown up like she’s 25-40, so make of that what you will.

On the bright side, Helen of Legend is a sapphic retelling!

Prominent characters include: Helen, Leda, Menelaus, Clytemnestra, Penelope, Theseus, Aphrodite, Paris, Cassandra, Hector, and Hecuba.

TW/CW for misogyny, implied past sexual assault, sexual assault mentions, mentions of spousal and emotional abuse, people being generally creepy about bodies, people being creepy toward children (Theseus), cities burning, subtle classism, and death.

OF DANCERS AND DREAMERS:

A musical about Anne-Marie, a non-binary Vietnamese lesbian born into a wealthy family, and Jules, a Tunisian baker’s daughter who is working her way into the Paris ballet. Anne-Marie wants to be a designer, but their mother, Mme Trinh, has other plans. The year is 1884, and it was hard for the Trinh family, as immigrants, to establish their foothold in society, and Mme Trinh will not have her child throw away the family’s hard work. One day, while at the ballet, Anne-Marie becomes smitten with Jules, a ballerina with the most dazzling smile. They find solace in sharing their passions with one another and become friends, each eventually realizing they have fallen for the other in a time that is unfriendly to both of them.

Prominent characters include: Anne-Marie, Jules, Victor, Mme Trinh, and Amandine.

TW/CW for subtle homophobia, classism, mental illness, and parental guilt tripping/emotional toxicity.

THE LYRE EFFECT:

A play about life after death, and what it means to live and love. This play follows Patroclus upon his death, desperate to return to Achilles. He meets the reluctant Eurydice, embittered by decades alone in limbo halfway between life and death. Together, they almost throw someone off a boat (is it really murder if they’re already dead?) and have a chance to tell their stories, stepping out from the shadows of their more famous lovers.

I took a lot of liberties with this, so Orpheus is a woman (wlw OrphEurydice), and I would like for both Achilles and Patroclus to be played by trans men, and for all of the characters to be played by non-white actors.

Prominent characters include: Patroclus, Eurydice, Achilles, Orpheus, Apollo, Hades, Charon

TW/CW for talk about death

SPEED ROUND (OR: THINGS I WRITE ABOUT THAT AREN’T AS AMBITIOUS JUST YET/AT THE CURRENT MOMENT):

Here Lies Forever - a story focusing around two young people, Medb Flaherty and Virgil Sutherland, growing up at an orphanage amid war, abandonment, and sickness. Medb is a blind writer who dreams of traveling the world with Virgil, her best friend since their teen years, but when the war strikes too close to home, Virgil leaves Medb and their peaceful student life behind to join the army. Unwilling to let go, and recognizing the pain Virgil is in, Medb takes it upon herself to save Virgil, the both of them haunted by the ghosts of their pasts.

On the Corner of Maple Street - short stories about the lives of Sarah and Evangeline together, two lesbian women who met when Sarah was 28 and Evangeline was 31. Sarah was a toy maker and Evangeline was an actress. They have a son named Oliver, who’s now in his forties, and they’re grandmas to all the neighborhood children. They live on the corner of Maple Street :)

Partager Un Reve - short stories, often romantic, about two circus performers, Alyona Ledbedeva (who does aerial silks) and Li Mey Ri (an acrobat). They’re cute together, there’s not really much to say here.

Claire - there’s a really old novelette floating around on my account and you can find it if you search Claire, but like it’s OLD. An 18th century French lady who contracted TB and died but was brought back by a necromancer named Cecil (Cecil is the character of my friend @sinnabon-cosplay !) and is now immortal. Fun times with Claire and Anthony usually involve lamenting the fact that they’re stuck as teenagers.

Miscellaneous - miscellaneous demon and monster characters like Alexander, Felicity (both vampires), Sparrow (succubus/Heather’s youngest sister), Zephyr (fae, husband of Spar), Lycan (she’s... a werewolf), and so on. Not really connected to a plot

Performing Possumhood - uh this was a play I wrote with my friend @holdingonmyheartlikeahandgrenade for a 24 hour play festival, it’s about a guy named Thomas who becomes herald for a kingdom and then on his first day of work, the king dies, and his son becomes king, except the new king??? is a possum???? and like no one does anything about it, so Thomas just feels like he’s going insane, poor guy (also everyone else is named Thomas except the king, whose name is His Majesty King Parthur Pencildragon of Alpacalot)

Nordic questing team - I’ve literally written nothing for these fools, but I’m tempted to make it into a dnd campaign! The characters I have are Val (short for Valnotte) (she’s a nokke), Hanne (human poison seller who wears an eyepatch just because), Fur (short for Bjorgolfur, he’s a werewolf who left his pack because he was too good at being alpha wolf but he didn’t want to be alpha, he wanted to press flowers and have a cute little cottage by a cliffside with a pretty garden damn it), and Bo (full name: Boscobel Blue, he’s a cow boy. Literally. He has cow ears and a big septum piercing and a tail. Also he’s a shepherd. His sheep are carnivorous :))) Make of that what you will)

Alice x Secret Garden - another play but where Alice Liddell and Mary Lennox are 18 years old and find themselves in Wonderland, after Mary is jaded from the end of WW1 and is frustrated at her friend Dickon’s marriage proposal, and Alice runs away, trying to retain her childhood as best she can

Retellings - I do myth and fairy tale and folk retellings! :) You can search ‘Tithonia’ for my sleeping beauty retelling, and I wrote Orpheus and Eurydice a while back. Still working my way through Icarus :’) Also ‘Mermaids Can’t See’ is a retelling of the classic mermaid story but written as a ??? field guide? journal entry? notes about mermaids?

If there’s a work you want specifically about a character, I always tag characters, and I also will tag character introductions and pictures/references of them as “beanpuff char[]”!

#writeblr #reevie rambles #masterlist #wip masterlist #beanpuff char[]

10 notes · View notes