#also of course my life examples are monogamous

[freepassbound]

11: favorite pet names?

13: would you consider being with multiple people romantically?

19: which spots are your sensitive spots?

11: Favorite pet names?

Just about any kind of affectionate diminutive will have me instantly melting. 😅🙈

But really, for maximum effectiveness, I think they should develop organically within a relationship.

13: Would you consider being with multiple people romantically?

At this point in my development, I would have to say no. I don't have any issue with it, per se - it's more that I feel I should figure out how to be with one person before thinking about ramping up the difficulty level?

19: Which spots are your sensitive spots?

Other than my brain? 🤭

The real answer is that I don't know that I have enough experience to really know?

I did find, though, that I enjoyed having my nipples played with a lot more than I would have thought. 🥴🙈

Also having my head & hair scritched or stroked makes me very pliable.

[nalyra-dreaming]

I enjoy your blog and I’m not trying to be argumentative; just some friendly debate, but I notice you and Virginia both frequently reduce the entire Antoinette ordeal to Louis’ feeding habits and Lestat’s need for attention and adoration. Don’t you think Lestat had to have at least a little love for Antoinette? He had to love her on some level not to kill her right off the bat. This is apparent in the scene before Louis is playing cards before Doris tells him Jonah is there, Lestat is standing up close to the stage, completely entranced watching Antoinette perform like there is no one else in the room. Louis isn’t even present to make jealous. He slept with her and didn't kill her before Loustat was having serious problems like lack of intimacy. He stayed with her just as long as he stayed with Louis. I’m sorry, but I don’t think that man ever had any intention of being in a monogamous relationship.

Hey nonny!

(All good, you can be argumentative, as long as you're kind it's all fine, I just won't accept hate or insults anymore^^, hope that makes sense! Also, I really don't see that as argumentative^^)

I think @virginiaisforvampires and I just ... shorten the Antoinette discussion at times (by now) because it's been... a theme.

Like, the fandom latched onto the jealousy angle so massively, the asks wrt her were so numerous, the human cheating AUs on Ao3 so prevalent... the vampiric aspect seems to be often overlooked.

I think you're referring to my ask with the open relationship?

Because of course Antoinette was more.

(this is long, so the rest under the cut:)

She became more when he did not kill her as a feeding fling. (And I still stand by the fact that they must have had a lot of feeding flings, for example Louis is not really taken aback by soldiers in their bedroom - the same bedroom he gets so sharp about with Antoinette, which is another detail.)

So yes, Lestat apparently slept with her and didn't kill her. We don't get to see it, but it is insinuated.

But there is a lot more to Antoinette, and that is why some think she might show up again later. I am not sure if you're familiar with "the musician" from IWTV, "Antoine" from the later books?

Let me recap:

In IWTV we have the unnamed "musician". Louis never bothers to find out his name, even though it is clear that Lestat turns him. That unnamed musician then gets into the crossfire of Claudia's attempt on Lestat's life, and Louis... forgets about him. But he did know about him from the beginning:

"Lestat had a musician friend in the Rue Dumaine. We had seen him at a recital in the home of a Madame LeClair, who lived there also, which was at that time an extremely fashionable street; and this Madame LeClair, with whom Lestat was also occasionally amusing himself, had found the musician a room in another mansion nearby, where Lestat visited him often. I told you he played with his victims, made friends with them, seduced them into trusting and liking him, even loving him, before he killed. So he apparently played with this young boy, though it had gone on longer than any other such friendship I had ever observed." [..] "I could not tell whether he had actually become fond of a mortal in spite of himself or was simply moving towards a particularly grand betrayal and cruelty. Several times he’d indicated to Claudia and me that he was headed out to kill the boy directly, but he had not. And, of course, I never asked him what he felt because it wasn’t worth the great uproar my question would have produced. Lestat entranced with a mortal! He probably would have destroyed the parlor furniture in a rage."

(Interesting tidbit about the rage, which they picked up for the show!)

Louis even encounters Antoine, has a bit of a discussion with him after the initial attack on Lestat:

‘What is it?’ I asked him. ‘What did you need from him? I’m sure he would want me to...’ “ ‘He was my friend!’ He turned on me suddenly, his voice dropping with repressed outrage.

This last bit is important, for the later books, most importantly for "Prince Lestat", which we know Rolin takes from. Because in that book, in chapter 7, we find out what happened to "the musician", Antoine, after that fateful night, when Rue Royale burned (in the book).

Because Antoine did not burn to death (in the show, likely: Louis and Claudia did not know to scatter the ashes), and he survives, hideously burned, needing decades to heal. Lestat reunites with him before he chases after Louis and Claudia (to Europe).

When Antoine later tells of his own story, he says this:

“He was my friend, Lestat,” Antoine confessed. “He told me about his lover, Nicolas, who had been a violinist. He said he couldn’t speak his heart to his little family, to Louis or Claudia, that they would laugh at him. So he spoke his heart only to me.”

There is a LOT in that little paragraph. A lot that fits with what we know from the show, too.

Louis (in the show) tells of Lestat saying that "Antoinette fortifies him against them". Antoinette became more than a passing interest, a passing feeding fling, true, because Lestat can confide in her, can be himself with her, especially later, when things between him and Louis take on a strain. But he never leaves Louis, and I think that is often overlooked - (s)he was never a real threat to Louis, nor Claudia. Lestat left Antoine behind when he goes after them, to try to save them.

Louis on the show makes it seem as if Antoinette was that major threat. And the show (of course^^), sharpened that threat by making Antoine a woman, a white woman, whose very presence represented what Louis could not be in their relationship at the time, namely an official partner.

Louis uses the focus on Antoinette and what she represents to overshadow other things that coincide with the affair. He does the same later, when they are threatened, to shift the focus to Lestat's paranoia. It's clever, because it's built on truth, a "look at my right hand, not at my left" approach. But the real story is much more difficult than that.

And I think that goes for Antoine(tte) as well.

Since Rolin is specifically taking from "Prince Lestat" as well there is no way in hell he has somehow missed reading chapter 7, or has missed Antoine in the later books/chapters.

I for one wouldn't be surprised if she shows up at the trial - or in Dubai. Maybe she's that interior designer, who knows that Louis is missing the natural world....

I don't know. We'll see. But I doubt that the jealousy angle is all there is to it. There are too many discrepancies, even down to the make-up they used for her (which is its own meta). Lestat may have very well loved her, albeit differently than he loves Louis.

As for the monogamous relationship(s)...

Nonny, forgive me, but these are not humans. They are vampires.

They hunt, and kill humans, for food and pleasure. They play with their food, like other predators in our world do, too. They are also inherently hedonistic, looking for pleasure. (Maybe) Especially Lestat is trying to drown himself in the pleasurable things at times, for reasons that the show will still get to. Since the show explicitly added sex to the mix that desire is of course expressed in the hunt for pleasure, too.

But totally apart from "food", and sex... these vampires are a mess, relationship-wise.

When Lestat and Louis are "married" in the later books as Jacob calls it (I bet they'll make that literal in the show^^), that doesn't mean that they don't still love others. Have loved others. Will love others. They are beyond the need to narrow down their love though. And they are "official partners" then.

But it's... a knot of relationships and history.

Some of these people are truly immortal. Like, can not be killed anymore.

Imagine living with that fact (it maybe most famously sends Lestat reeling in "The tale of the Body Thief", for example).

Imagine loving with that fact. Imagine having the time.

[goodqueenaly]

Hi and I hope you are well! I don’t know if this is a weird question, but I’m always fascinated by the legends of the Reach particularly regarding the children of Garth Greenhand, and how that connects to the Faith in those areas. I think I saw a post you wrote some time ago about how for example Rowan Gold Tree’s story might have been adapted by the Faith into a parable about the Mother (apologies if I’m mistaken). I guess my question is, do you think Rowan and the others might have been actually worshipped as gods before the Faith, like Garth might have been? Also if I may ask a second question: do you have thoughts about Floris (my personal fave) how her story fits into Westeros’ patriarchal attitudes towards women? Does the fact that she founded three houses mean that she’s not vilified by the Faith for being non monogamous? Thanks and sorry again for weird questions!!

(I was mistaken, I think it was actually about Rowan’s story as a parable about the Maiden, like that her hair turned into a tree as a sign of being favored by the Maiden? I don’t quite remember who wrote this post.)

I have a vague memory of a post I wrote along similar lines a very long time ago too, but I couldn’t find it, so either I never did or I deleted it. Anyway, I do very much like to headcanon that the myth of Rowan Gold-Tree was co-opted by the Faith during its early establishment in the Reach as a myth about the Maiden - that Rowan, abandoned by her love for a richer rival, prayed to the Maiden in her heartbreak, and the Maiden, guardian and benefactor of virtuous maids, gave Rowan her golden tree, almost Cinderella style, perhaps as a sort of dowry to show that maidenly virtue was literally worth more than gold.

Whatever the particular relationship between the Faith and the myth of Rowan Gold-Tree, do I think that some or all of the legendary children of Garth Greenhand may have been worshiped as gods themselves? Very possibly. We know that there was at least some tradition of Garth being worshiped as or at least considered a god by Westerosi: Yandel notes that “[s]ome even say [Garth Greenhand] was a god” and that “[a] few of the very oldest tales” present Garth as a “considerably darker deity, one who demanded blood sacrifice from his worshippers to ensure a bountiful harvest” and a “green god [who] die[d] every autumn … only to be reborn with the coming of spring”. Yandel also compares Garth to fertility gods and goddesses worshiped by “[m]any of the more primitive peoples of the earth”, as Garth not only “taught men to farm” and “showed them how to plant and sow, how to raise crops and reap the harvest” but also scattered a seemingly divinely plentiful bag of various seeds and “brought the gift of fertility” to people and crops alike. Nor was this early history of Westeros an era without the worship of local deities beyond the old gods: the myth of Durran Godsgrief features a sea god and a goddess of the wind, the people of the Three Sisters worshiped the Lady of the Waved and the Lord of the Skies, and of course the ironborn believe in the eternal divine struggle between the Drowned God and the Storm God.  

So I could see where, depending on the era and the location, various individuals among Garth’s legendary children might have been worshiped as gods or semi-divine heroes themselves. If Garth Greenhand was worshiped as a god for teaching the First Men to sow, cultivate, and reap, might Gilbert of the Vines have been similarly worshiped by the people of the Arbor for teaching these people “to make sweet wine” from their island’s lush native grapes (and indeed, might there have been some local tradition that Gilbert had inherited his father’s fertility and made these grapes grow “so fat and lush across their island”)? If Garth was treated as a god for his apparently mystical and/or divine ability to bring and cultivate life from the land, might Ellyn Ever-Sweet, Rowan Gold-Tree, and/or Rose of Red Lake have been similarly worshiped by the locals of Beesbury, Goldengrove, and/or Red Lake, respectively, for their supernatural, perhaps also seemingly divine, connections to and power over the natural world? If the earliest worshipers of Garth Greenhand offered him blood sacrifices in return for bountiful harvests, might worshipers have given Bors the Breaker similar blood sacrifices in return for grants of strength and courage, since he himself had supposedly drunk the blood of bulls to gain the power of 20 men? If Garth’s divine power included the gift of specifically sexual fertility so strong that he “[made] barren women fruitful with a touch” and caused “[m]aidens [to ripen] in his presence”, “mothers [to bring] forth twins or even triplets when he blessed them”, and “young girls [to flower] at his smile”, then might Harlon and Herndon have been similarly worshiped for the seeming eternal fertility they apparently enjoyed and represented as husbands to their woods witch wife, or Foss the Archer worshiped as a similar roving fertility god casting a welcome eye on maidens as his father had done (with his arrow and apple exploits perhaps a sort of sexual euphemism)? Again, these are just a few creative examples, but the larger point is that I could very well see where Garth’s children may have been seen not only as extensions of his own legend, but gods in their own right who took over aspects of the worship of Garth Greenhand. (To say nothing of whether any of them might have been worshiped for their own persons and/or deeds - if, say, John the Oak, Owen Oakenshield, and/or Brandon of the Bloody Blade might have been viewed as a sort of proto-Warrior or god of war, or if Maris the Maid became a sort of mother goddess for Oldtown and House Hightower.) 

As far as Florys the Fox goes … eh. I think that strict monogamy was not an entirely consistent or mandated practiced among the First Men before the arrival of the Andals, including in the Reach: not only do the myths of both Florys and the twin ancestors of House Tarly feature as their protagonists participants in polygamous (and, indeed, polyandrous) marriages, but King Garland II successfully brought Oldtown into the Gardener kingdom by putting aside his wives, plural, to marry Lymond Hightower’s daughter. Nor indeed should we ignore the fact that Florys seems to have been considered clever not just for having three husbands but for keeping each a secret from the others - a suggestion, perhaps, that the expected (read: patriarchal) order of the universe, playfully subverted by the literally extraordinary Florys, was that a woman should be the submissive partner to a single man, rather than the dominant mistress keeping three men at her nuptial leisure. So I think the pre-Andal Reach may have accepted two beliefs as true at the same time - namely, a patriarchal world in which women were expected to serve and obey men and also a pro-polygamy world in which a demigod/heroine/goddess figure could be lauded for having kept multiple husbands simultaneously without being caught. 

Too, I think it’s possible that just as septons and maesters downplayed the mythology and divinity of Garth Greenhand in later accounts - with Yandel noting that legends of Garth Greenhand, “though cherished by the smallfolk, are largely discounted by both the maesters of the Citadel and the septons of the Faith, who share the view that Garth Greenhand was a man, not a god” - so these same post-Andal Invasion academics may have deemphasized the myths surrounding Florys the Fox, including her celebrated polyandry. Perhaps dynastically persnickety maesters or septons argued that Florys had not really been married to three men, but rather that the myths had conflated her marriage to the ancestor of House Ball/Peake/Florent with marriages by other women, or perhaps remarriages by Florys, to the ancestors of the other two Houses. Perhaps the myth was bowdlerized to have Florys merely be courted by the founders of each of these Houses, rather than having her marrying each, with Florys perhaps then serving as more of a spiritual or romantic ancestress rather than a literal matriarch of this bloodline. Of course, it’s also possible that septons did look down on and preach against Florys for her polygamous marriages, branding her a “wanton” - though to what extent they could or would do so, while also looking to convert these powerful aristocratic families of the Reach, is speculative at best. 

[saltwaterandstars]

I while ago I saw @doctornerdington recommend the book Body Work by Melissa Febos. I recently bought it and I'm about halfway through reading it. So far I think it's excellent and I'm finding it helpful, but it's stirring up lots of thoughts and feelings and so I've decided to write some notes about that to keep a record of how I'm responding to it. So, under the cut it a personal essay of sorts. It's not a statement about what I think anyone else is experiencing or should do, it's just a record of my own experiences, thoughts and feelings about which are being evoked as I read this book. If you do read what I've written and want to comment, I'd welcome that, but it is quite long and I'm imagining not many people will read it. If you are going to have a read though, please note the content warning tags. I wasn't sure really what it needed tagging for, so if you do read it, let me know if you think it should be tagged differently.

Body Work is a series of essays by Melissa Febos. On one level it’s a book about writing memoirs—writing about personal experience. But the book is about much more than that. She talks a lot about the scripts we have taken in from society, from the patriarchy, scripts that we unconsciously write from, but also the same scripts that we shape our selves and our lives around. I’ve just finished the essay Mind Fuck, which is ostensibly about writing sex scenes. But in exploring what goes on when go to write about sex, especially when that we includes people disenfranchised and brutalised by the patriarchy, she’s really exploring what it is to be an embodied person; what it is to understand our physical and sexual realities, to live them, to make conscious choices in relation to them, and to write about them. She talks about the importance of identifying and getting beyond the narrative threads that were previously sewn into me by sources of varying nefariousness or innocuity.

I’m finding reading the book personally very helpful but, of course, it’s only helpful to the extent that it’s disturbing me, that it’s leading me to bump into and acknowledge the scripts—body-related, sexual, and otherwise—that I’m still living in accordance with. It’s interesting that this process feels to me so desperately uncomfortable, terrifyingly unsettling, actually, and yet, at the same time, it also feels like such a compassionate thing to be doing for myself.

I’m a white woman in my late 50s. I come from a poor, working class background, but through education and profession I am clearly middle-class now (and class is still a big deal in the UK, even if it’s not as explicit as it used to be). I look and sound middle-class and have the privileges that come with that. I’m bisexual but have been in a monogamous relationship with a man for 25 years, so pretty much everyone who knows me or interacts with me sees me as straight. To a very large extent, for the first four decades of my life, I tried very hard to live within the straitjacket placed on me by the patriarchy, especially in relation to my body. I spent many years trying not to gain weight, trying to be conventionally, heteronormatively attractive and so on. And like many women, I was fully aware of where those scripts, those rules, were coming from and the harm they were doing me, but I was just too scared to even attempt to let go of them in any kind of meaningful way.

There were ways in which I did live beyond the patriarchy’s imposed limitations. For example, I had a successful career in a male-dominated profession. But in my 20s and 30s especially, I attempted to do that while still trying to be seen as attractive and well-behaved and unthreatening (which would be hilarious if it wasn’t so heart-breaking—I was threatening just by existing in those spaces—I couldn’t be there and be successful and not be a threat.)

I also had a sex life where, at least some of the time, I experienced myself as having agency and freedom. But I lived that part of my life pretty much secretly. I wasn’t ashamed of my sexual behaviour; I just didn’t trust that society—including many of the people in my day-to-day life—would value and respect me if I allowed myself as a sexual being to be more fully seen. So I hid myself from view—not an uncommon coping strategy for me.

In my 20s to 40s, I was frequently fearful and anxious. Whenever I did something that challenged the scripts, the rules, I was very scared. I am not a feisty, up-for-a-fight kind of person. I find breaking rules difficult, and being a ‘difficult person,’ challenging other people, even just disagreeing with other people, feels disturbing to me (this can’t possibly have its roots in my childhood—surely not?!) So when I did do political things, feminist things, when I stood up for colleagues, said no to unreasonable demands, just disagreed with people, even, I felt real, like I had acted authentically and in accordance with my values, but I also frequently felt like the world was about to end. At the very least, I was often just waiting to be punished and expelled from the pack. It’s a hard way to live.

My 50s have brought me—through the menopause and the development of a life-changing chronic illness, and the death of people I love—some dreadful challenges, but also, through the exact same experiences, a real increase in freedom. For one thing, I am no longer attractive in a stereotypical heteronormative way. I’m just not. My body just can’t be that anymore. And while I’ve had grief and fear around that, I do also have an ever-increasing sense of freedom because of these changes, too. And because I’ve been so ill and my poor body has had (and continues to have) such a difficult time, my whole way of relating to myself as an embodied person has had to change. I’ve had to cultivate great oceans of kindness and patience to be in this struggling body, and it turns out, kindness and patience with my body are also antidotes to the poison of the patriarchal rules I swallowed in when I was young. Who knew?!

And I have to say, the less invested I am in being seen as attractive and pleasant and reasonable, the more my fears around the imagined consequences of being authentically myself subside. In the last couple of years in work before I retired, for example, I was pretty much immune to the attempts by my (mostly younger male) colleagues to pressure or bulldoze or embarrass or emotionally blackmail me into doing what they wanted. I wouldn’t say I became fearless because I didn’t, but alongside the fear was a kind of gleeful, arms folded across my chest sense of oh this is going to be interesting.

The death of loved ones has been an immensely painful experience, but it has also functioned as rocket fuel to help launch me out of my state of fear-based inertia. I’m not going to go into details, but basically everyone else in my immediate family died young, so I’m a chronically ill woman approaching old age with a truly awful genetic inheritance in terms of family longevity. I hope I live till I’m 90, but maybe I won’t. Maybe if there are changes I need to make to be more alive and present and free in my life, I might want to get on with that. So the questions I’ve asked myself again and again in different forms over the last few years are: How many more years am I going to spend living by these shitty rules? How many more years am I going to waste not allowing myself to explore who I actually am? To be who I am? Oh, and when I die, do I want them to put something like She was always so well-behaved—on my headstone? Is that how I want to live the rest of my life? Et cetera, et cetera.

Over the last few years, in ways small and large, I’ve managed to shrug off bits of the straitjacket. The biggest change is that I’ve completely stepped away from a pretty successful but personally damaging career. I’ve also allowed myself to finally get to know my pagan self and to be that self more publicly. And regularly in day-to-day situations I’m managing to catch myself about to act in accordance with Febos’ narrative threads that were previously sewn into me. Sometimes I manage to step out of automatic pilot and to make a conscious choice to do something different, to be more authentically myself in that moment, even when that feels scary and exposing.

Which all sounds great—and it is! But if that was the end of the story, then reading Body Work would not be proving so unsettling for me. Turns out, the really difficult explorations and changes I’ve already made were actually the easier stuff. Could it be that I’ve managed to avoid the extremely difficult work by focussing on the really difficult work?! As I’m reading the book, it’s becoming clear that what still remains to be examined and unpicked is the tough stuff. So here I am again today, asking myself the questions:

Who is it serving to keep myself, my needs, my wants, my interests, my values, hidden from view and not enacted in the world?

And how is doing all that serving me, too?

And how many more of my precious remaining years do I intend to spend in this understandable but deeply unsatisfying holding pattern?

[kitsu-katsu]

Rant time

That one friend that made me go on a full rant at 3am once because on good omens (this post) also watches the QSMP

And she geinds my gears with shipping stuff, tbh

Like, we'll be talking about canon couples, fun dyos and dynamics, CCs we didn't expect to be so fun together, etc, and of course, being SO romance obsessed, she needs everyone to have a commited explicitly romantic relationship with at least one other person

So when, for example, the canonically platonic couples who have a kid together come around, she CANNOT accept that it's explicitly platonic and not romantic and that it's canon

We talk about Jaiden and Roier, I talked about Roier and Cellbit having their thing (this was like a month ago, there wasn't a wedding in the works yet) and Jaiden being very supportive of whatever Roier wants to do, and how great a duo they are as besties and that it's really cool that they're explicitly platonic. She immediately tried to dig into it to make up a romantic drama with Jaiden and Roier, and when I said that they're canonically aroace and gay she just went "omg, they're starving the fans of that ship though!! Sapopeta should get between that" (context, Sapopeta was Maxo's character in Karmaland and notoriously shipped luckity and did everything in his power to get them together and fine with eachother again)

Then we were talking about how Missa and Phil haven't seen eachother again yet, and we started explaining it to another friend who doesn't watch the qsmp. We talked about Forever wanting Phil, and then havung a fight with Missa over Phil, but it ticked me after that whole Jaiden and Roier thing, how she started with "they have this romance, I mean uh... What do you call it?", So I went "they're canonically a platonic pair, they raise a son together", and she immediately went again "yeah that, so like a romance, right, and in come Forever wanting to steal Phil..."

And MAN. We really need more platonic pairs of characters doing "couply" things and qprs more often so that people can start to FUCKING GET IT, 'cause my god, it's exhausting

Like could you not invalidate my whole life experience as an aroace and also go against what creators themselves have said for the sake of focusing always on a very typical amatonormative romance? If it goes against amatonormativity, EXPLORE THAT, don't erase it just for the sake of imagining a kiss, where's the fun in varied dynamics if everyone's in a monogamous amatonormative relationship

[user-needs-new-hyperfixation]

Hello, can I ask what do you mean "in canon it's impossible for Sherlock to settle down with a woman"? Like, as a fan of Holmes and always read the books since middle school, I'm kinda confuse here, I don't mean anything negative. Sorry, do you think Poirot (from Agatha Christie) is also queer?

Maybe because I grew up with very religious mother and lived in anti-LGBTQ country, I'm kinda slow in picking up subtext. Like until now I'm still kinda confuse with my friend who have ships from any fandoms (but I still love to hear and read her headcanons or fics about those characters)....

I really agree with you, I've seen many Holmes' adaptations (cartoon, tv series, manga) but Yuumori is clearly the closest to Doyle's works. Do you think the mangaka also love to read Holmes' books?

Story time! (Welcome to "Hyper answers asks like an old lady going on an hour long barely-on-topic tangent at the slightest prompting.)

I totally get where you're coming from, I was raised in like...knockoff Southern Baptist churches. Growing up, homosexuality was presented to me as a sexual perversion incapable of involving real love. It's kind of silly, but it's true: a ship was a big part of changing that for me. I read Tsubasa Reservoir Chronicle as a teenager, and Kurogane and Fai had something that was inescapably romantic and beautiful but never strictly sexual (tho the potential is certainly there). Between that and an online community of LGBTQ+ adults who were incredibly patient and kind towards me even when I was suuuuper ignorant, I started to open up towards queer relationships as...well, just relationships. Relationships that can encompass sex and also encompass love and friendship and communication and partnership and all those other things I'd been taught were exclusive to monogamous straight people. And then, even as terrified as I was, I was eventually able to face the fact that I'd always had crushes on girls just as often as crushes on guys. So yeah, there's a reason Kurofai is my ship of all ships, the actual One True Pairing for me. Because it cracked open a door just enough that I could slowly lever it open the rest of the way. There seem to be quite a lot of anecdotes like this: women enjoying BL/mlm ships is often seen as fetishy (which can certainly be part of it) but for some reason I can't fully articulate it also seems to sometimes be a means for girls and women to explore their own not-straightness.

ANYWAY. SHERLOCK HOLMES. Tbh I'm not gonna go too in-depth because I would bet good money that there are a bunch of scholarly articles on Holmes' queerness. People have probably done their doctorate theses on this! Much smarter and more well-read folks than I have already covered the topic. For me, it really boils down to: he never outright expresses sexual or romantic interest in anyone (we must resist the urge to assume his respect for Irene Adler is romantic just because he is a man and she is a woman). He's almost certainly on the asexual spectrum. But when he does exhibit symptoms one might associate with romantic and/or sexual interest (particularly romantic, imo), it's always towards men (usually Watson, of course). For example, notable flirt John Watson saying that Holmes blushes at his compliments the way a girl does is...suggestive.

The whole thing is complicated by Watson being (in my opinion at least) an unreliable and sometimes downright petty narrator. He keeps going on spiels about Holmes being cold and heartless, only to turn around and describe him greeting his friends warmly and being emotionally moved by music and baby-talking puppies and charming old ladies. It makes Watson sometimes come across as one of those allo people who are so unable to conceive of a life without romantic and/or sexual desire that they start dehumanizing those who don't experience it. Alternatively and maybe more charitably, he just has a big ol' crush on Holmes, is understandably alarmed by it given the time period, and gets bitchy and defensive when he feels it might not be reciprocated.

But ultimately...do I think Arthur Conan Doyle sat down at a desk in the late 19th century/early 20th century and was like "I am going to write some ace queer representation for the tumblr girlies (gn)"? Obviously not. 😅 I do think he might have set out to create a character who very deliberately did not need to have the otherwise almost obligatory straight romantic side-plot. Holmes is never in any way set up as having a life headed towards marriage and children, in spite of how typical that was for the time. The companionship he does express a need and desire for comes in the form of another man. He's "lost without [his] Boswell." He sneakily buys Watson's practice out from under him so he'll be free to move back in and go on more adventures with him. He threatens violence when Watson is hurt. Etc etc. I think it's very fair to interpret it all through a queer lens, the quibble would be more in whether that queerness ever manifests sexually.

I definitely think the Yuumori creators have not only read ACD but also other fiction based on the stories, possibly even including some very old pastiches like this one. I love how seemingly nerdy they are about it haha! The series is full of easter eggs and callouts to other Holmesian works.

As for Poirot, I know very little about the character beyond a few episodes of the show I watched as a young'un, but that is not the mustache of a straight man (I'm joking I'm joking I have absolutely no opinion on that one! 🤣)

Thanks for the ask, and for actually reading this ramble if you got this far! 😅

[variousqueerthings]

also interesting because I just watched a video doing a rundown on the history of queerness in doctor who, which naturally had a lot dedicated to aro and/or ace reads of the doctor, which at one point discussed that ofc reading the alien character specifically as such can be alienating (not... that as an aroace person my own reads would be attempting to alienate... myself... although also here insert other discussion about how the aliens often are just the blank slate upon which non-normative behaviours are placed, so it makes sense to see the neurodivergent/disabled/queer/otherwise othered body reflected from them, while also understanding that this means the world views you as inherently alien, while also being like "sure, yeah, I always have done," while also knowing that's dehumanisation, while also...)

but, when it's consciously done, when does this alien being (whatever narrative we're looking at) resonate through the lens of xyz because we're interested in how social structures built Not on today's earth human constructs could end up in wildly interesting different spaces in which what is non-normative to us is presented as normative to them (thus making an argument of stop being such freaks against trans kids, for example), and also when do we read those characters as incongruent with their own societies (I think also here of star trek's the outcast and rejoined, which blend queerness as we recognise it in our societies with characters who break alien normative structures as expressions of an alien queerness, and then there's ofc left hand of darkness in which gender-and-sexuality is at the centre of the political narrative and it's queer on multiple in-universe and out-of-universe levels)

for example, the doctor isn't really an outsider timelord if we look at them through the lens of genderbending regeneration -- that's normalised in that society in canon, and the interesting thing there is usually how that interacts with human social constructs and politics of gender and as a scifi way of deconstructing and dissembling real life consturcts... but they are clearly an outsider in terms of many other things they do, for example seeming neurodivergent if looked at through a human lens and a timelord lens

so where do aromantic and asexual reads fit in there?

well to start with aro!doctor -- I am into the science-fiction ability to create societies with completely different expressions of "connection" that eschew simple human monogamous ideas and histories, but if we were to take that second lens as well of "what if the doctor is aromantic as an identity and not simply as an alien," the doctor continuously (with the exception of romana and the master) creates deep connections with beings that don't have a particularly long lifespan/aren't timelords, especially considering they're near-immortal. and with romana and the master there seems to be a different set of rules happening there than anything one might describe as uncomplicatedly romantic, bitter exes vibe of the doctor/the master acknowledged

the doctor interests me from the lens of "aromantic as non-normative/queer from the pov from both our and timelord society" because they seem to continuously struggle with people not accepting the connections that they're offering them. the doctor's way of having a relationship is often not "enough", isn't easy to describe/vague, and people get jealous or angry or feel betrayed for reasons that isn't the doctor's fault, because there simply seems to be a lack of language to properly describe it in easy digestible terms

that is... a very aromantic experience

and then sometimes the doctor will just have little non-romantic connections that work, like donna -- and, despite not being my favourite seasons, the bits where the doctor simply lives with/drops in on the ponds is very sweet. and the tardis of course. am a "doctor-and-the-tardis are a matching pair and one without the other is wrong, but it's not romantic" person at heart, beyond anything else

(I am interested in how this will play once my rewatch gets me back to 13 and I can watch until the end, because I know yaz confesses that she's in love with the doctor near the end, and the doctor has an interesting reaction from what I understand)

(I guess at this point asexuality is another post)

but yeah. I think I'm not saying anything new with regards to the writing of aliens (and android and otherwise non-human characters), in that obviously one would like to imagine some interest in exploring these forms of non-normativity outside of "well that's an alien" (she's an alien and he's gay) but also there's reasons we're all so into aliens

genderbending genderfluid regenerating aliens is all well and good, but it only becomes really interesting in this case when we see trans/non-binary/genderfluid/genderbending humans (as is coming up soon! and I hope we see many more actors of the trans and gender non-conforming persuasion on this show!) similarly -- while I do think we have had more than a taste (donna my heart and soul honestly) of that non-alloromantic queerplatonic vibes doctor-companion dynamic -- I'd be fascinated in what a consciously aro (and maybe ace also) companion opposite the doctor would be like, how that would restructure their relationship with the doctor, compared to others who had expectations that the doctor couldn't ever hope to fulfill, like rose, martha (although they did let down martha in many ways that had nothing to do with romance), amy, possibly yaz, (here the confession that I never did get much of what was going on with clara but maybe this watch will clarify for me), possibly sarah-jane, possibly river song although she seems to have just kind of gone with it I guess, possibly romana... heck, possibly the master (I guess possibly that american woman from the movie, I forget her name... I cannot remember rn if other companions ever expressed an interest like that in them, but if so, then them too)

also I just want to rub moffat's face in it if I'm being honest. writing snide commentary about what was described as "asexual" doctor pre-nu!who, in a way that very much encompassed aroness (because romance-and-sex has so often been and still is put under one header), and totally misunderstanding why fans were into it or why it's interesting, and then being obsessed ever since with his weird little crusade of making doctor who "sexier" and alloromantic and imo utterly failing, despite it all

[minetteskvareninova]

You're missing the point of that post. It's not about slut shaming and it's not some weird double standard against Rhaenyra & Targaryens. Its the fact that politically, Rhaenyra could've avoided everything very easily but chose not too. Her making really poor choices bc of her entitlement that being Royal, Targaryen, and knowing the prophecy is a big part of her character. It's the fact that Targaryen Exceptionalism, Feudalism & Succession Crisises are really stupid ways of governance and only ruins those around them. This whole system is a house of cards that can be so easily broken simply over hair color. It's almost willful misreading to say it's about slut shaming.

But of course, and that uppity German Struensee would've gotten away with his reforms if only he could keep it in his pants innit Juliana

*sigh* For all of you who still didn't get it:

I used Carolina Mathilda as an example, because unlike book!Rhaenyra (jury's still out on show!Rhaenyra, I honestly get SOME of the reasons why people don't like her, even if my ultimate judgement of her is way more positive) for one reason, and one reason only: she is, both in history and in the movie, unquestionably sympathetic.

For those of you who don't know, En kongelig affaere, or A Royal Affair, is a Danish film that adapts the story of queen Carolina Mathilda of Denmark, whose affair with her mentally ill husband's doctor Johann Friedrich Struensee was used by Struensee's enemies to boosts his charges of treason. The real issue was, of course, court power politics - the king's detachment of reality was so intense he was almost completely incapable of doing his job, and Struensee used that to basically rule in his stead, which of course earned him many enemies. Even worse, his pro-enlightenment policies (although think less Robespierre and more emperor Joseph II.) sparked outrage among the nobility; Joseph II. is an apt comparison here, although he didn't have the added baggage of being a lowborn man seizing power behind the scenes and (allegedly) having an affair with the queen. Jury's still out on whether that particular charge is based on truth, but it's certainly possible, and the movie went with "yes", just because it makes for a better story. In any case, Struensee ended up being executed, while Carolina Mathilda survived, but was torn away from her children and sent into exile. The movie is relatively faithful retelling of a certain quite plausible version of the story, also it has a superb script, great costumes and cast packed to the gills with amazing actors (Mads Mikkelsen, Alicia Vikander, for those in the know also Mikkel Boe Fosgard and Tryne Dyrnholm) - basically, if you can find it, go watch it, after surviving Hot D y'all deserve some real cinema.

Now, in the movie, it's heartbreakingly easy to sympathize with Carolina Mathilda. When she is just a teenager, she is married off to her severely mentally ill cousin, who constantly mistreats her and seems to kinda hate her, plus her affair with Struensee is motivated by genuine romantic feelings. Noone in their right mind would call Carolina Mathilda "entitled" for it (I HOPE). And sure, Rhaenyra is much less miserable than her, but her emotional life is in a similarly hopeless spot, where she can only find actual romance outside of marriage. Plus, unlike Carolina Mathilda, there is no deception involved, at least with her husband - she still has to gaslight the rest of the country, but them's the breaks, what would you have her do, NOT give birth to the prince of my heart Jacaerys Targaryen?! Like, people, you are calling a woman entitled, because she is in a loving monogamous relationship with someone who isn't her (gay) husband. I don't know if it's slut-shaming, but it most certainly isn't FAIR.

What I think confuses people about this comparison is that both book and show!Rhaenyra can be called spoiled and entitled (keyword is CAN; I personally don't agree with this assessment of her either, but let's say for the sake of the argument) for a lot of other things. She has certainly done her fair share of mistakes and I get the general dislike of her - I myself dislike show!Alicent in much the same way, it really depends what actions and character flaws personally irritate you more. But again, having a loving monogamous relationship, with the consent of her husband no less, is just not the kind of mistake I can imagine anyone hating her for. Yes, yes, it is hypocritical to subscribe to a feudal order that abhors bastards while having bastards yourself, but crucially, it's the kind of hypocrisy that many noblemen parttake in with no reprecussions whatsoever, from Corlys to Bobby B. And, again, Rhaenyra's affair with Harwin actually MORE excusable, because unlike Corlys' relationship with Marilda, it doesn't get in the way of an otherwise loving marriage (unless it happened before his marriage to Rhaenys in the show - it didn't in the books, but also in the books the Hull boys might be Laenor's, it's complicated), and unlike Bobby B, she is far from a hedonist serial philanderer. We can debate whether any of that would be WRONG per se, but it certainly would be LESS UNDERSTANDABLE.

It is not entitled to want a fulfilling romantic relationship even in a situation that isn't exactly conductive to it. How is that a hard concept to grasp, I really don't know. Maybe y'all should just read or watch more things dealing with romantic relationships under these circumstances - I highly recommend starting with A Royal Affair, seriously, you guys, it is so good.

[asherlockstudy]

Have you listened to ear biscuits 400..? Just wondering if you thought anything of Link’s comment at the very start of the podcast before talking about the Brandy Carlisle concert. “I need to contextualize the concert as another data point on the narrative journey of my sexual orientation.” I haven’t seen much if any conversation about this when to me it’s the most glaring piece of evidence I’ve seen of him hinting at something. Have I lost my mind? Am i missing something? SOS

I believe Link was making a joke in reference to the fact that he was called a butch lesbian and the previous episode was all about it and now he was going to a concert where most of the attendees were lesbians, so he kinda joked it was another evidence of him being a butch lesbian, whatever that could ever mean lol

But of course it doesn't change the fact that he has been making a lot of implications about his whole #new_me, living his best life, the challenging journey of exploration he is on and all that he's been saying all year long and even more so since August. The use of such particular language - "narrative journey of my sexual orientation" - doesn't add up well with his latest insistence that he is your typical middle aged straight monogamous married man. Unless we have a case of real life queerbaiting, right? Like, he is queenbaiting on his real self?! I don't know.

In short, I mean this was a joke about going to a concert full of lesbians but is also an unintentional example of how the way he verbalizes and phrases and contextualizes his thoughts has become very specific and consistently conveying a pattern and a type of identity he otherwise denies.

[raccoon-eyed-rebel]

Fanfic Writers: Director’s Cut

Reblog this if you want readers to come into your ask box and ask for the “director’s commentary” on a particular story, section of a story, or set of lines. 

Seeing as I’ve just finished reading part 5 of Under Orders I want to ask you about it.

One thing I love about your stories is that you have what I think is a great understanding of psychology and power dynamics in sexual relationships (I’m explaining this very poorly, sorry) And you manage to communicate these things very well in your stories. I appreciate it a lot because I am totally clueless about these things.

Example is when reader understands what Sy’s place is in her little universe. It’s a couple of paragraphs and, even if it’s in the middle of a pretty amazing sex scene, it is just so RIGHT. Like, I know reader is me but I had the same epiphany as her!

So please give us any insight or info on how the addition of Sy to this little universe came to be or where it’s going?

Thank you so much for this question!!!!! I love it. Let me put this under a cut because it's a little bit of an essay...

Partly because I get to blame @deandoesthingstome without thinking twice, because it's 2100% her fault that Sy even made an appearance in this series! She started this, it's her fault, she did it, it wasn't me, Charlie's responsible, I was powerless against her charms.

(I know damn well I didn't have to write it, like... She didn't put a gun to my head, I was free to do whatever I wanted. And apparently, after a whole ass while... This is what I wanted.)

Now, I'm not denying Sy is hot stuff, okay? I'm not even going to bother pretending that I wouldn't think twice about taking that beard for a ride if I was ever presented with the opportunity.

But he's not my go-to guy, and probably never will be, which definitely didn't help in figuring out his place in this arrangement — which is when I realized that trying to force him into it the way I was trying to do was never going to work, and that there was a strong possibility that reader would be having the same struggle when it came to that subject.

And so, Charlie is still waiting on that hot foursome, and I still have hopes that it will happen some day, but I really do need to stick to my usual approach and let my characters do the talking instead of trying to force them into something they're not ready for.

And to a degree I think the research and understanding of these dynamics make that even more difficult. Because I want to get it right. I need it to make sense.

Because I know August "Will Kill For Her" Walker loves reader and doesn't want to hold her back, so he knew he had to give her the space to explore it. He knows she loves him and he's certain this won't come between him and reader because he trusts her like he's never trusted anyone in his life.

... Except maybe Walter, who he's known for years (since college). He decided to share the woman he loves with his best friend. And he doesn't trust Sy that way.

Walter isn't exactly a quick study when it comes to trusting someone, either. So I know there's a relationship to be built there.

Like, the objective going in was "write porn" but sometimes (most of the time) that's not enough (for me. It's a perfectly valid way to write, of course!!! But I do need to know why they're fucking, and in this specific case there's the issue of how it impacts everyone else involved in this relationship.)

I'm also lucky enough to have a bunch of wonderful queer friends, and some of them tell me all the lovely tales (and the drama! So. much. drama) of their lovely non-monogamous relationships, and it's taught me a lot.

And, in a way, this fic has taught me a lot. Because it was never supposed to turn into this polycule. It was supposed to be a relationship between reader and August, and a more or less platonic arrangement between reader and Walter — until it wasn't. And with the addition of Sy, there's a whole new side of this relationship to explore. One I'm really excited about, and really eager to delve deeper into.

I know not all of their story has been told yet.

So I guess what I'm really trying to say is... Thank you, Charlie!

[topoillogical]

My theory of polyamory is that . Well if you want to have a primary partner that's fine. My relationship/polycule is non-heirarchical, but I genuinely don't have a problem with other models. The thing is, having a primary partner allows you to have a person whose priority is *always with you*. In non-heirarchical relationships, the amount of sacrifices you have to make in your relationships increases significantly. This is fine, but can be difficult as well, especially (if not mostly) because of such strong cultural expectations that someones partner should always put them above their other friends/relationships.

Like to give some examples of things that arent reasonable to expect in non-heirarchical poly:

- legal marriage

- living alone together

- being their plus one to all important events

- etc

Now, all of these CAN happen in non-heirarchical, including marriage (it's all about communication, being legally bonded =/= being the most important) but you absolutely cannot assume that you should be the one to get them. You will have to miss some aspects of a monogamous partnership .

Okay, time to jump completely to a different style of poly. Solo poly! Solo poly is like.... it's kind of like having a primary partner except that primary partner is yourself

What I mean is, solo poly people tend to live alone and see their relationships as supplements to their life that they really value, but not as the core. They make sacrifices for their partners because they care about them, but won't generally plan their lives around their partners (I.e. how someone with a secondary partner tends not to plan their lives around them, but rather around their primary), and other such things.

Okay enough preamble heres my theory. Theory: people who have primary partners are living polyamorously within the "monogamous lifestyle". There are differences between their relationship and monogamous ones of course, but for the most part they can model their relationship on the typical monogamous path, relate to their monogamous peers, etc... meanwhile solo poly people are polyamorous people who are living polyamorously within the "single lifestyle". They can consider their life through the lens that a single person might, and may appear in passing as identical to a single person through their day-to-day lifestyle and behaviour.

So basically, if you're in monogamous society, and you want to stick to the norm, you have two lifestyle options. Single or monogamously partnered. And our society has ten thousand billion expectations and cultural rules or what these lifestyles should look like. And if you're a poly person, you can basically choose one of these styles and be a weirdo (bc society is not pro poly generally) but a weirdo who fits into one of the standard relationship schema.

But if you're like, anything else, wow are you completely charting the fucking deep sea

Like I'm non hierarchical poly, and it's like.... it's like... you have to derive a lot of things for yourself! You can base things on experience and understand what is and isnt right in a monogamous relationship from what you've seen and heard, but in polyamory who fucking knows? You have to decide. But also... you GET to decide. Which is nice. It's extremely freeing and extremely alienating. It's actually like completely divorcing yourself from the expectations of society. I highly reccomend, but it can be really hard sometimes just for.... the whole novelty and uncertainty of it all

[aquadestinyswriting]

Happy Thoughts Thursday!!

What are your characters' thoughts on multi-person relationships?

Hi Imperium, I'm so sorry it's taken so long to answer this. I needed a bit of time to properly think about this question, then life happened.

I'll be answering for the Main Four characters here, as I'm the most familiar with them, and this gives me an opportunity to dive into the question properly.

Selene

Selene honestly doesn't have any trouble with mutli-person romantic and/or sexual relationships. For other people. However, for herself, she'd really prefer to be in a monogamous relationship. This is almost entirely due to her issues with abandonment and her general cultural upbringing for the short time she lived with her biological family. As someone who is aroace and extremely sex-repulsed, Selene is also very insecure about Edwin leaving her due to the pressures of societal norms.

Speaking of the a-spec community, Selene is quite happy to both see and be involved in multi-person platonic relationships, QPRS included.

Edwin

Edwin, I think, is probably someone who prefers monogamy for any relationships that he is personally involved in. Like Selene, he honestly doesn't mind that polygamy/polyamory exists and, as long as all involved consent and are happy, it's none of his business what other people get up to in their personal relationships. He's much more open to multi-person platonic relationships, having lived in Fangthane for a little over a decade and seeing what cridhe-dàime looks like in that cultural context.

Meredith and Yoruk

I'm putting these two together for what will become a fairly obvious reason (and is probably already obvious to anyone that's read my post-campaign stuff). Neither are against multi-person relationships at all. While neither are necessarily interested in polyamory or polygamy for themselves, they're not going to blink at anyone involved in those kinds of relationships.

While Meredith and Yoruk are both in a monogamous marriage, as Meredith considers Elowyn her cridhe-dàime (which is basically the dwarven in-universe equivalent of a QPR partner) both of them consider the woodling a part of their relationship as well. Neither of them are romantically or sexually attracted* to, or involved with Elowyn in that regard, and that part of the relationship is purely platonic. However, as far as most of Fangthane is concerned, the three of them are basically considered to be part of one family unit so if, for example, Meredith got hurt then the messenger will simply find whichever of Yoruk or Elowyn is closer to tell them and assume that the other will be told in due course.

*There is an argument to be made that Merri probably was attracted to Elowyn at some point, given all the unintentional flirting those two did during the early parts of their adventure. If she was, Merri neither acknowledged or acted on it.

[darlinggeorgiedear]

Hi, its me again. In regard to my question about sir Anthony Blunt being maybe an illegitimate son of George V, that possibility is mentioned in the book "War of the Windsors - A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy" published on dec 2002.

According to an article posted by Herald news in 2002 :

"George V is known to have enjoyed the favours of mistresses. It is conceivable that one of these mistresses may have been Blunt's mother

The book features photographs of Blunt, the Duke of Kent, and the Duke of Windsor - all born in the same generation. Although not conclusive of a blood relationship, the resemblances are remarkable.

Blunt was born in September 1907, the youngest of three sons. His father was Reverend Stanley Blunt, vicar of the village of Ham, and his mother Hilda Masters. They married in 1900 and in 1906, a year before Anthony was born. Blunt died in 1983.

Hilda Masters knew Queen Mary before she became Queen - they used to go blackberry-picking together - and the two women remained friends for the rest of their lives. The book says, of George V, husband of Mary: ''Even this allegedly most uxorious of royal husbands was known to have mistresses - at the seaside resort of Bognor, for example.

''Like many Victorian ladies, Mary may have welcomed the reprieve from the horror of sexual intimacy, even if it meant her great friend took her place in her husband's bed.''

I think that George V being a very private person, knew how to be careful with his image in public. He criticized his sons for smoking in public, not for actually smoking.

Just because there is no evidence of George V having mistresses, does not make it a fact that he did not have mistresses. It might mean he successfully hid that.

When a man has the position, the status and the good looks like George did, will inevitably attract the opposite gender. He wasnt a catch, he was the ultimate catch. And he knew how to hide his dark side from the public image he created, very well. He was loved by his people because of how he presented himself in public. But behind doors, he wasnt so nice I have heard.

Well, thats just my opinion. I may be wrong. Please post this and let me know your opinion about it. I will read it with great curiosity and I promise that I wont bother you again. Thanks in advance

Hi! Of course, I can not prove for sure that George did not have mistresses (no one can), but my argument is that there has only been a few people to fully have access to George V/Queen Mary papers (Pope Hennessy, Jane Ridley, Kenneth Rose, and Alexandra Churchill) and each one agreed that George was monogamous. The book you mention is just a bunch of unproven royal gossip without credible sources.

George V would have had people around him at all times. He was NOT rumored to have mistresses and the likelihood of him somehow keeping that secret is unrealistic. I also wouldn't describe him having a "dark side". He had a temper, like Queen Victoria, Edward Vii, and George VI.

Those who knew George V say his character was kind and considerate (excluding David of course). His temper, which I agree, probably would have shocked the public at the time, was not a defining characteristic of who he was, even though many Royal journalists want people to believe so. Everyone does something at times that doesn't make them look good but that doesn't mean they live a double life. I'm sure even the very nice Queen Elizabeth II said/did things that she wouldn't want to be made public and would make the public see her differently. Makes her human!

[penig]

So I don’t write smut, as a lifestyle choice, and I don’t go out of my way to read smut, but I don’t go out of my way to avoid reading it, either, except insofar as I want something else to be the A plot. I’ve run across it incidentally quite a lot  since joining AO3, as you do, and most of it I skim because most of it isn’t really adding to the story. If it advances plot or characterization of course I’ll read that, but otherwise I treat it like fight scenes (which have the same problem) and the boring parts of Moby Dick. If you get the gist you don’t have to get every word to know if it matters to you or not. (For E-rated stuff that has a job to do and is eminently readable, as an example of what I don’t skim, I recommend Charlotte Madison’s GO Human AU, Or Be Nice, feuding neighbors to lovers, in which the first sex scene is part of a long conversation that goes through multiple means of communication, before and after the act.)

By and large I don’t think about the stuff I’m skimming, but in the case of M/M scenes specifically,  mostly but not entirely in fanfic, I have evolved some questions, which by their nature I’m not about to put into comments, but I can’t help running through sometimes, sometimes in terms of writing quality and technique but also in terms of societal and technological changes that have happened since my life became more domestic and monogamous. I will mix them up together here. Quite probably many of the fics I don’t read because the explicit material is the A plot would address these concerns, but that possibility is not enough to tempt me to read that widely without guidance. And I need something to distract me from worrying about my cat and the discomfort of the foot (and the head; I’m getting lots of positional vertigo, which is scary as well as nauseous when you can’t put weight on one foot.) Anyway, in no particular order, I wonder:

Do gay men not keep tubs of Crisco by their beds anymore? What is this magic lube that comes in packets and is never too cold and apparently is never nasty-tasting or grainy and never makes a mess on the sheets or leaks on the headboard or gets the container sticky and therefore dusty? We did not have this in my day. It sounds wonderful. Where can I get it? I keep forgetting to look in the family planning aisle and am not sure I’d recognize it anyway. We used to have to buy lube in the first aid aisle and in a certain kind of novelty shop, where it was called “massage oil.”

Are cock rings passe? I can see how that might happen when they became mainstream as accessories to rave wear, but the chrome things were never the only option and it’s been long enough for them to cycle back.

Where are these men’s testicles? Even most of the scenes I don’t skim seem to take place between guys who don’t have them. I get that not everybody likes to play ball but aren’t they in those cases at least in the way?

Why is the bottom never making a bathroom run as soon as their legs function again? (This applies equally to women and men but I notice it most strongly in M/M.) In the case of rear entry in particular, this BS about the top bringing a damp washrag back to bed to clean up with will not do the trick, absent a preliminary enema. I know enemas aren’t sexy but nobody seems to even own the pumps anymore and if you haven’t planned ahead and regulated your food intake, believe me, you do not want to clean up that wet spot much less wake up in it - you head to the can ASAP. This is distracting and gross, y’all, please just take advantage of the glories of indoor plumbing!

That seems to be the bulk of it.

[thepalmofyourfreezinghand]

I don't necessarily agree every relationship has problems. I have problems with my parents too doesn't mean I hate them. We work through our disagreements and problems. If in a relationship you don't have hard times it means you aren't as serious. Like life things are good,bad,tough,fun, happening etc relationships have those certain patches too. Using those songs are wrong because life is never a bag of sunshine. We learn to work through conflicts and problems in a mature way so we are better equipped to handle them in future. Idk if I make sense. Whatever happened we don't know but it is wrong to say they were not in love or struggling most of the times imo.

I didn’t say that they weren’t in love or struggling most of the time hahah. I also specifically “called out” some anons for rewriting history: I think they were SO in love and from Taylor’s own words we know she’d never loved anyone else as much.

Unfortunately I don’t agree with the first part, though. We just have different perspectives and that’s okay! I think most people would agree with you anyway hahah. I just think that I prefer to date someone who has a “similar” soul to mine, and who “gets” me on a deeper level.

For example, in over a year of dating my boyfriend we’ve never fought (literally, not even once). And it’s not like we wouldn’t find reasons to fight or we don’t face hardships. For example, our families are very different and raised us in wildly different ways (his family is very conservative and “traditional”, while mine isn’t, although thankfully he votes left, contrary to his family, or I wouldn’t date him). We have a long distance relationship and we only see each other once every three/four weeks for a couple of days, although we talk on the phone every day. Our interests don’t match, not even in the slightest (besides traveling). We grew up in VERY different social circles (I’ll just say that while my best friends are currently pursuing PhDs, his best friends dropped out of high school, but there are tons of other examples). I would like to have an open relationship and he prefers monogamy, so we’re being monogamous for the time being, because it’s fine with me right now, but it’s an added layer of difficulty. Add to all of that I’m recovering from depression hahah. We honestly could have fights every single day, but we almost never do.

There are some bad moments, of course! Sometimes it’s hard to have a LDR, sometimes we discuss over feminism or what it means to be a good parent of whatever. But we’ve never had a proper fight. And I absolutely don’t think it’s because we’re not that serious, or because we don’t talk about “real” stuff. Just a couple of weeks ago I told him that I was gonna hang out with my (recently single again) ex ALONE, and he said “that’s great! I think he’ll probably try to hit on you, but it’s okay, I trust you”. He knows every little thing about me, every single bad secret! It’s just that we get so spontaneously well along, that there’s never a reason to fight.

And I’ve had other relationships where it wasn’t this good. This time around it is. It’s just my idea, I’m not claiming to know the truth: personally, when it comes to friends and relationships, I wanna be with people I don’t have to fight with. If it becomes too hard, I give up. I just wanna be happy.

Oh my god this was so long and so personal hahahah. Sorry. I agree with you in theory, though! And I think most people would! This is just the way I personally see the world (and it has nothing to do with Taylor! But if my relationship with my boyfriend was like False God, as much as that’s my favorite song from Lover, I’d break up with him - even if we just had ONE fight like that).

[eldritchsurveys]

1208.

Do you ever get super bad buzzing in your ears? >> I don't. The other day I had a random short-lived tinnitus episode for the first time and I have learned that that is thee most annoying shit ever fucking invented. Hope that never becomes an actual condition for me. Do you know anyone who has actually been in an alcohol or drug related crash? >> I do not.

What is so wrong with cigarettes? >> The cancer risk is pretty dire. Also, they stink and they make you and your house etc stink.

Did you celebrate Fathers Day? >> Absolutely not.

Do you actually think you’re funny? >> Sure, sometimes. It takes skill to be funny on command, but being funny on occasion is something everyone's capable of doing.

Have you ever had a deep conversation with someone who was high on anything? >> Of course. It's one of my favourite things to do.

Do you ever wonder if there really is someone who can complement your personality well enough to stay together for the rest of your life? >> No, I don't wonder that. There are several implications about this statement that don't jive with my personal desires or worldview -- although it doesn't mention romance, I can tell it's referencing the monogamous romantic/domestic union ideal that I don't at all subscribe to. I am married but in my view this domestic arrangement is incomplete without a third; most of the dissatisfaction I feel in my domestic arrangement is because I have complex and varied needs that this person cannot provide for, which would be accounted for with a third person of somewhat different disposition. When I have needs conflicts with a person, my inclination is to find another source for that need, not discard the one person because they cannot be all things to me. In conclusion, no, there is no one who can "complement my personality" well enough to be the sole source of intimate relational contact for my entire life, and that's a feature, not a bug.

Do you hate how being bisexual is like a trend? >> This isn't a thing. Next.

Have you ever gotten a professional massage? >> I have not. I don't feel comfortable with a stranger having that much contact with my body.

Do you have a good relationship with your first love? .

What is something you’re currently nervous about? .

Do you have a popup blocker installed on your computer? >> I have uBlock Origin.

Do you feel like you have life figured out? >> I wasn't aware I was supposed to be "figuring out" life. And here I was just living it like some kind of noob.

Have you ever used a laptop in a coffee shop? >> Sure. What was the last worst feeling you felt? >> I did have food poisoning last month. That was a lot of worst feelings, physical and emotional. Do you ever tend to over-analyse? >> I have a penchant for rumination, yeah.

Do you know anyone that like, no matter WHAT, they’re always pissed off? >> I don't know anyone like that.

How do you react when you’re pissed off? >> It depends.

What celebrity did your most current ex resemble? . What is something creepy that has happened to you (or someone you know) recently? . If you named your car or family car, what would you call it? .

What would you do if you were faced with an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy (at your current age)? .

What does it take for someone to earn your trust? >> There are many forms of trust, and the ways to earn different forms of trust are varied, as are the ways to lose it.

Is there anything you should be worried about? >> What does this even mean? Either I am worried about something or I'm not. If I'm not worried about it, then why would I insist to myself that I should be worried about it? Make it make sense. Are you dealing with any health-related problems right now? >> I am not.

Do you think you should fight for love? >> I'm gonna need an example of this. Are you experiencing problems within a current relationship? >> Not as far as I can tell, aside from the stuff in my own mind.

When you need a temporary escape, what do you do? .

How long did your last feelings of heartbreak last? . Do you ever go shopping with your parents (not including grocery shopping)? . When the weather is chilly but humid, what kind of things do you tend to wear? >> This is the bane of my existence. I choose to dress more for the humidity than the temperature, but this isn't ideal, it's just... lesser of two evils, I guess. When you’re walking somewhere, do you bring an iPod to listen to? >> I use my phone for music, but yeah, same principle.

Have you ever had some kind of sleep-disorder before? How did it affect your daily life? >> I have not. That's the last damn thing I need. Have you ever had food poisoning before? Describe the experience: >> I've had it twice and the experience is fucking awful, I'm sure I don't need to describe it to anyone. Have you ever read anything by Chuck Palahniuk? What did you think? >> A long, long time ago. Long enough ago that at this point it's basically like I've never read him at all. How do you tend to amuse yourself on long car journeys? .

Do you find that caffeinated or alcoholic drinks make you pee more than normal? >> This is not a phenomenon I've observed. Like, yeah, when I've been out drinking I will pee more, but that's because I've ingested more liquid per hour than I usually do, not because of some magic property of alcohol that makes me pee more.

How often do you need to charge your phone and iPod (on average)? >> Every 24 to 48 hours, I guess. Do you still enjoy watching Disney movies? >> There is no "still" because I didn't see most Disney movies until I was an adult anyway (the only one I recall seeing as a child was The Lion King). I have enjoyed most of the ones I've seen.

What are some interests you have in common with your parents? .

How old were you when your parents trusted you to stay home alone all day? >> I was never allowed to do this. Ever. How long do you like to date someone before you bring them home to meet your parents? .

If you could go to one country for two weeks, all expenses paid, where would you go and why? >> I mean, any.

Do you drink more or less water than is recommended? >> I don't know or care. I'm just trying to drink as much as I can whilst also not making a big fucking deal out of it, because that won't help.

Do you like taking walks? >> I do. I would prefer a less populated area to walk in, but hey.

Do you go on vacation with your family a lot? Where was the last place you went? .

What do your parents think about piercings and tattoos? Do you agree with them? >> He was very conservative about them and I have never in my life agreed with that.

Which is the funniest name you’ve ever heard? >> This morning I was on Reddit and on the city sub there was a missing-person post for a girl named Penelope Wise. But her nickname was Penny. Penny Wise. 🎈

What are your religious beliefs? Are these the same as your parents’? >> I am a god cosplaying as a person for a while. That's my religious belief. Next question.

Do you find it difficult to get to sleep early when you have to be up for something the next day? >> Sometimes my mind gets hung up on the "having to be up early the next day" thing and anxiety is the death of a good night's sleep, so...

Do you still enjoy coloring in coloring books? >> Sure.

Do you remember the Land Before Time movies? Who was your favorite character? >> I've never seen them. What’s your favorite genre of book to read? .

Who has more influence over your taste in music - friends or family? .

When someone talks to you constantly, do you get fed up and easily irritated with them? >> If this were to happen to me, yeah, I'd definitely get irritable after a while. That's just overstimulating. Are you one of those people who texts back instantly? >> I respond to messages as soon as I see them, usually.

Do you think going to college / university is the best option after you’ve left school? >> It certainly wouldn't have been for me.

Is it easy to sleep late in your house, or are other people pretty noisy in the mornings? >> It isn't easy for me to sleep in my house, period, because I have an upstairs neighbour with an erratic schedule. Sleep at night, be woken up by him. Sleep in the day, be woken up by him. Lose/lose.

Do you prefer watching movies alone or with other people? >> I wouldn't say I have a preference. Like, if someone wanted to watch a movie with me, that's fine and acceptable. I just usually watch them alone because... that's the situation I'm in. But also it is easier to focus on more dense movies when I don't have someone else's presence constantly nagging at me.

What’s your favourite place to get pizza from? .

Do you ever do something, and then wonder how many people are currently doing the same thing as you? >> This might have been a passing thought I've had once or twice, idk. When’s the last time the power went out in your house? >> Last month sometime. Is there a laundry basket in your room? If yes, what color is it? >> I have a collapsible hamper, it's white mesh.

Do you like those different flavored Tootsie Rolls? >> I do not.

Do you keep your shoes on a shoe rack, or just throw them somewhere? >> I have five total pairs of shoes and they're just lined up against the wall by my wardrobe.

Think of the last verbal argument you were in; what caused it? . Does your refrigerator have one door or two? >> Two, one for the freezer and one for the fridge...

Do you smoosh bugs, or just let ‘em go? >> I let them go about their business. Every time I've smooshed a bug it's been by accident -- like the other day when I was walking and a gnat flew right onto my lip and got stuck there and of course brushing it off just kills it because they're fucking. impossibly tiny.

Do you know anyone who collects stamps? >> I do not.

What was the last thing you deleted off of your computer? >> A PDF I had downloaded a long time ago that I finally paged through and decided I didn't want to keep.