#and the queer community (from my perspective) talks a lot about compulsory heterosexuality but there's not as much about compulsory romance | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

91vaults · 1 year

Text

From a Butch lesbian perspective: GC's tend to talk a lot about the "poor lesbians" but as I discovered when really interrogating gender, there is a long history of gender fluidity within the lesbian community. There were always he/him lesbians, lesbians who's only connection to the concept of womanhood was...well lesbianism (of which I count myself) lesbians who performed and experienced gender in a way different to many "biological women". Lesbians who experience gender dysphoria with the "biologically female" parts of their bodies. (I have a body type that lends itself well to androgyny, but lord knows how I might feel if it were different) . Some of them might have been trans men and were they around today and made the choice to transition that would not be a loss to lesbians. We tend to exist in the frameworks available to us at the time.

To put us all in the category of "biological women" and "biological men" limits us and denies our experience. I feel a disconnect from "womanhood" as most define it but this is not some attempt to "escape the sexism that women experience" I am not immune to sexism and will never be. Instead I pick and choose the parts that do speak to my experience. "Woman Adjacent" fits me just fine. It doesn't need to make sense to others.

The relentless pressures of compulsory heterosexuality can make us cling hard to ideas and labels. We are inundated with so much messaging that its all about men, relationships with men, that we'll "grow out of it" or bi phobic myths that girls will mess around with you for fun then go back to heterosexuality. It is natural then to define your lesbian identity more so as the absence of attraction to men rather than the presence of an attraction to women. AMAB people who identify otherwise feel like a threat to the definitions and categories we use to stand our ground in a patriarchal society. I used to feel like that, and balked at the idea of "Nonbinary lesbians" or other labels ("Demi boy??? what is this nonsense") and of course unlike me many lesbians, butch or otherwise identify strongly as women and have fought so hard to be recognized as such. And lets be real, if that's the case and you start being asked what your pronouns are all the time that's probably going to grind your gears (where and when we get asked our pronouns can be a prickly topic all across the LGBT+ spectrum but I digress)

It's also hard to deny that fear, however irrational: " what happens to us when the "lesbians" are all non binary or transmen?" we feel like a minority within a minority, our numbers ever so small and now seemingly shrinking, they'll be none of us left, will I die alone?

what's wrong withing being a lesbian?

makes sense on an emotional level if you've struggled to regain the title for yourself.

It need not be like that though. Lesbians aren't going anywhere, there are many queer woman under the umbrella regardless of how they may identify. Letting go of strict definitions does not erase yours or anyone's identity, rather it makes you more empathetic and understanding. The shifting of the framework in which we identify ourselves is not a threat. It's an opportunity for acceptance and perhaps even exploration.

and ultimately at the end of the day you do not have to date anyone you don't want to for any reason. As long as your not a jerk about it. Sex and connection is complicated and contentious and perhaps does not exist in a vacuum: but personal preference is personal preference.

When GC/TERF ideology is taken to its logical conclusion it hurts us all much more than the "bogey man" trans person in their heads ever could. They talk endlessly about the protection of women: which women? women who are gender non conforming? women who are unable to or do not wish to reproduce? intersex women? women who are subjected to invasive questioning of their gender because they are athletes and present a certain way? (that's not even getting into the ways this disproportionately affects WOC) they claim to understand the reasons and inner lives of those they call women who do not identify as such. To talk over them and insist their "dysfunction" is due to a need to escape sexism, rather than just who they are. (I don't hate or run away from womanhood..I just orbit around it with nothing more to say about it then "...huh, ok")

They are incredibly abelist against autistic people as if they have no understanding of themselves, as if their particular experience with gender is invalid.

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull calls for men with guns to guard women's restrooms. What do you suppose would happen if someone like me were to walk in? years ago in America a Masc women was accosted by a cop in a public restroom who demanded to see ID. A man in a female restroom harassing a woman....fancy that.

This is not about protecting women. This is about a hatred of a large portion of the LGBT+ community, its a repackaging of every homophobic trope they used in the past, before we collectively agreed the rights of gay people were not up for debate. It's about enforcing a strict veiw of gender based on biological essentialism, as nonsensical as it is harmful. As though they want to recreate Gilliead (given the alt right friends that's probably not far off the mark)

It might start that way for some, to express """concerns""" about women's issues, but it always seems to devolve into the same thing: obsessing over sexist and restrictive biological ideas about gender, misandry and obsessively nitpicking and mocking the physical appearance of those they hate (Feminism!!!!! :D )

Truly makes no sense.

#butch lesbian #lesbian #lgbt+#lgbt #terf #terfs #fuck terfs #gender #gender critical #trans #trans rights #transgender #queer women #amab #afab #gc #radical feminism #Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull

8 notes · View notes

hailmaryfullofgrace55675 · 3 years

Note

name specific insights lgbt people need to learn from cishets they can only get through including them in their community and could not get from other lgbt people. don’t be shy or vague, tell us specifically

insight #1: you still have to show a basic recognition of the struggles and marginalization of others even if they are not in the same supergroup of marginalized demographics as you

insight #2: i don’t know. i’m not a cishet ace or aro person, and my insights don’t come from that perspective. i don’t come across much theory from cishet aro or ace people, so i can’t claim to accurately represent their experiences or points of view. but i’m also not a particularly intellectually humble person, so i’ll theorize:

insight #3: quite a lot about how compulsory heterosexuality functions - how it demands things that people do not want to give, not just to suppress queerness, but to *impress* normative het relations on people regardless of how close or far their desires are to the norm. quite a lot about how the normative relationship model of romance, as the top of a hierarchy of relationships and the basis for the nuclear family, leaves people socially bereft - especially when they don’t have access to alternative social formations in queer community. quite a lot of things that ace and aro lgbt people may be able to talk about, but are no more qualified to talk about that ace and aro cishets, and may be less prepared to really emphasize or articulate as separable from lesbianism, gayness, biness, and transgenderism.

... having this argument on the grounds of “inclusionist vs exclusionist” is doubly pointless.

firstly, because this battle has very much already been lost. “inclusionism” is the polite default now. your local queer community center, campus pride whatever, any given etsy store’s assortment of flag themed enamel dragon pins, they all take ace inclusionism as a given. this has already happened. whether you (or i) agree with it on principle or not, The Community in 2021 includes (conceptually, even if most queer-iding aspecs are lgbt) cishet ace and aro people.

secondly, because “lgbt people should listen to and learn from the struggles of cishet aces and aros” doesnt even require inclusionism. it’s something you should do if you are exclusionist also, because of basic principles like “compassion for people suffering from social alienation” and “intellectual curiosity”!

#ace discourse #inclusionism #exclusionism

16 notes · View notes

filmmakerdreamst · 4 years

Text

‘Boy Meets World’ Re-watch (as an Adult)

‘Girl Meets World’ doesn’t count as a sequel. Not because of the writing/tonal choices but because in the original show - despite continuity issues - the characters felt like real people e.g. the way they spoke/acted/dressed was the way people behaved in the 90s where as in the spin off, they were Disney characters e.g. hyper versions of themselves especially Cory and Eric. And the transition between both shows didn’t come naturally. It’s not an objectivity badly written show but it was pretty much a re-do of the old show with the same storylines/tropes without continuing the story. (I say the same thing about ‘The Incredibles’. vs ‘Incredibles 2’.) Also there were too many cooks in the kitchen pushing one way or another. You could see Micheal Jacobs style, all the aspects were there, but he was also creating a ‘DISNEY’ show at the same time. I don’t know about you but the one message I took from the original show was ‘finding out that life cannot be packenged into a lovely little present ’ which kind of contradicts everything that the new show is. If anything GMW is an AU universe (and it really felt like that, rewatching it right after BMW e.g. it felt flipped) almost like Disney’s version of ‘what happened next?’ The primal difference between both shows is BMW is portraying what is real and GMW is based on what is real.

Going off my point, I will however be always thankful that it exists because I probably wouldn’t of found out about ‘Boy Meets World’ otherwise. Although saying that, I never thought that the original show needed a continuation of any kind (a lot of things make sense about the spin off if you acknowledge that Disney requested it - I think it would of been much better off on its original platform) ‘Boy Meets World’ was very much a product of its time i.e. when tv shows were still relevetivley new and had no rules - like there is stuff in there that not even adult shows today have. Plus there was something about it that felt very personal (such as the characters and setting) as if the creator based it on his own childhood growing up and I think that was part of its charm and why it had such a big effect on pop culture - I’m not so sure you can repeat that.

BMW is big on meta I’ll tell you that. I love how it’s so aware of itself. The amount of depth that it has never ceases to amaze me. It’s whole universe is so dense and huge. Every quote/storyline is so unique it sticks in your brain forever. (I swear the humour got more and more deranged every season). The show was also incredibly queer and progressive. It didn’t give a crap about sexuality. Much more than I remember. Proof to never use ‘but it was made in the 90s’ excuse.

I loved how the show kept reinventing itself every season as Cory grew up so you really felt you were growing up with him and all the characters. The Character Development on this show was so natural/authentic. Every single character got a chance to shine. No one changed their look in one episode and no one had an intervention every time someone had an identity crisis (GMW) My favourite development was Shawn Hunter. He went from a cool kid to a ladies man to a poetic soul. It was so satisfying to watch.

I realised that Cory Matthews is actually my favourite character (before it was Eric or Shawn) I already have a special soft spot for ‘annoying’ characters because they tend to be the most memorable/real. For example, Karma Ashcroft from ‘Faking it’ was my babe while everyone was hating on her. I really related to his anxiety/self hatred about being average and I loved that he constantly made mistakes. It was very refreshing. He’s also incredibly queer-coded. I found that alot of his mannerisms make sense if you see him with extreme compulsory heterosexuality (because identity’s such as bisexual or gay couldn’t exist normally in the 90s) There are moments in the show where he literally mimics his best friend’s behaviour around girls e.g. when the class pretty much gets brainwashed by the sex ed video in ‘Boy Meets Girl’ Shawn gets asked out by a girl, making Cory jealous - which pushes him to ask out Topanga.

It’s funny how a few years of life experience can change perspectives completely because when I was sixteen (aka the same age as Cory and Topanga) watching BMW for the first time, I was mad at Amy for ‘not understanding that they were in love’ (in ‘A Walk to Pittsburg’) but now that I’m older I’m actually agreeing with her. Yeah, what do they know about love? Because all season long they were acting quite superficially.

Cory and Topanga became somewhat of a toxic couple in seasons 5 -7. Reminded me of my parents relationship because my mum gave up her chosen university to be closer to my dad and they aren’t together any more. Topanga’s love for Cory was very conditional and Cory cheated on her multiple times/openly begged for sex (Again like my parents) And you should never be in a relationship with someone who makes you say “You make me think not so very much of myself” There are arguably much more signs of emotional abuse than love in their relationship especially from Topanga’s side. Plus their story was altered so many times to give it more basis (they retconned Shawn and Cory’s friendship to do this) I could write an essay on how Kevin and Winnie’s love story on ‘The Wonder Years’ is much more believable because it actually addresses how toxic it was and they grow apart in the end. If GMW was a realistic continuation, they would be divorced with a little girl - leave them in the 90s where they belong.

Alan and Amy were couple goals! Cory and Topanga wish that they could have what they have. Literally the definition of ‘a healthy relationship on tv that keeps thriving and over coming obstacles without big drama’. Best TV parents ever.

I loved the Matthews family; how they all had individual arcs and developments of their own. One of my favourite arcs was in season 5, when Eric and Cory were both jealous of what they ‘didn’t have’ with their dad, so Alan made an effort to give them both that they needed. Honestly, I had never seen so much healthy communication on TV before. Alan is the best father around. His whole personal arc of giving up managing a supermarket because he wasn’t passsionate about it anymore and buying a mountain store was so inspired. I found it funny that the family had more of a relationship with Shawn than Topanga.

Shawn Hunter never caught a break. It got a bit tiring. He was never allowed to be happy for five minutes. Every time he laughed or smiled, 5 years were added onto my lifespan. Why didn’t Johnathan Turner adopt him? I loved their dynamic. Why did he let him go back to his abusive father who just dumped him anyway?

Jack and Shawn’s complicated dynamic was possibly the most unique/interesting arc of the entire show and no one talks about it. I don’t care what y’all say - despite them being very different, Jack was the only one who fully took care of Shawn without second thoughts (Turner and the Matthews family had doubts)

I liked Shawn and Angela. I thought they were much better suited than Cory and Topanga. I honestly wouldn’t of minded if they ended up together even though I always had a feeling they wouldn’t. (Like I’m glad she went with her dad in the end) And considering how important they were as a interracial couple in the 90s, GMW handled that very poorly.

Shawn and Cory should of ended up together. And before you come at me with ‘it’s important to have m/m friendships without toxic masculinity’ (which is an important arguement to have) - yeah no shit there’s an entire Industry based around that/pitting women against each other. While it is important to have those friendships between men that are close and even intimate (take Chandler and Joey, Schmidt and Nick, Isak and Jonas and Jake and Charles for example) there was also another layer to their relationship which the narrative played off sometimes as them “going out” or “in love”. I actually recently found out that a writer - who came into the show in season 3 - confirmed that she wrote gay undertones into their relationship on purpose ‘In my opinion as a writer, they thought they were “straight”, they both didn’t realise or understand their feelings for eachother’ but couldn’t deliever because the producers wanted to keep the show “kid friendly”. Kind of like Xena and Gabby. I know people prefer Jack & Eric (I love them as well) but everything got ruined for me as soon as they introduced the ‘love triangle’ and I always tend to prefer emotional tension over sexual. They were just so unconditional with each other/ their friendship was so good and healthy and now I’m so bitter that it never happened.

I never understood why Shawn and Cory had to stop being best friends after he got married. He’s not Topanga’s property. I always hated how Topanga tried to interrupt/interfere with their dynamic — although now I realise it was because the two of them purposely left her out. Looking back at it, If it really was just a intimate friendship then why would she get so easily jealous if she didn’t sense there was something else deeper going on? You should never marry someone who puts you second.

I didn’t like Topanga when she was with Cory (or vice versa) Especially after they got married. She was a great character on her own. Feminist before her time. Hermione Granger before her time. I always felt she deserved a lot better than him in a way e.g. if someone I considered a friend speard a rumour around high school that we slept together - I would never speak to that person again. SHE SHOULD OF GONE TO YALE GOD DAMN IT. And as someone pointed out the other day, if the roles were reversed some of the stuff she does or says to Cory would be considered domestic violence. ‘She’s always blaming Cory on shit that isn't even his fault or makes him feel bad or shuts down his emotions and turns it around so he's comforting her instead.’ There was even a moment in GMW (not that I consider that show a continuation) where she locks him out the house for a few days after he insulted her chicken, and his son Auggie had to bring him spaghetti. If Cory was a woman, that would not be played off as a joke - that would be considered abuse. They were however a better couple in GMW ironically.

Angela Moore is now one of my favourite characters on BMW. She was beautiful. Her friendship with Rachel (and Topanga) was the best. And I frickin’ loved her and Cory’s friendship development - when they could of easily not played into that. I hate that she got villiaized in GMW.

My favourite seasons are 4, 5 & 1. My least favourites are 3 & 2 & 7. And even then the show was still pretty darn good.

The back and fourth clash between Turner and Mr Feeny in season 2 was very entertaining.

Mr Feeny and Eric are my favourite relationship on ‘Boy Meets World’. I love how Eric was the only person that Feeny directly told that he loved him. Also, why didn’t Eric become the new Mr Feeny? He showed more traits of becoming a teacher in the show than Cory did.

Eric and Tommy was probably the most heartbreaking plot line in season 6. (That season was an emotional train wreck) I cried for a fourth time. The world doesn’t deserve him.

I loved the development of Shawn and Topanga’s friendship. Even though there was a silent competition over Cory, they eventually became good friends. I found out that the song ‘She will be loved’ was inspired by them which is awesome but it’s also proof that people ship for less if it’s an m/f dynamic - just sayin’. I however see a more convincing potiental romance with the two of them than Cory and Topanga sometimes.

On Cory and Topanga again - they weren’t a bad couple overall. I liked them in s1 - 3. They had some great moments. But upon my rewatch (getting out of that 90s idealised headspace) I found them to be too similar at times - chafing as another person put it - to the point where they cancel each other out. A lot of people pointed out that Riley and Maya paralleled them and I was thinking “That’s not nesserily a good thing.”

‘Dream. Try. Do good.’ is on my mantelpiece.

202 notes · View notes

imaginebeatles · 4 years

Note

Hello, I'm a homo-romantic ace whose been having a lot of weird conversations lately about who belongs in the LGBT umbrella. I think anyone who is ace has the space if they want it because it is a little understood sexual orientation that experiences a lot of corrective reactions. But lately people have been arguing to me that only aces with non-hetero rom orientations and/or folk who are non cisgender have access to the space. I was wondering the following things:

2/2 what’s your take on asexuality belonging to the LGBT term, the LGBT community and the LGBT complex (cuz I think it’s gotten more complex as a functioning being)? Does asexuality belong in a tertiary space like BDSM which crosses over with queer (and shares similarities) but is not fully within it? Thanks for sharing about your thesis, every time it pops up on my dash I feel very excited. It’s been awhile since I engaged in queer theory and I am loving your work! No pressure to answer tho!

Okay, so…. this is a very contentious topic, but I have a lot of thoughts on this, especially since I’ve started doing research for my thesis. I’ve read some articles on asexuality and the queer community so… here we go. I’ve put it under the cut, so people can easily scroll past it if they’re not interested.

(I would also like to first say that I will be use the word “queer” here. I know some people are uncomfortable with that because its past use as a slur, however, because it is an actual academic term that is used by everyone writing about these issues, and especially within queer theory, I will be using that word too. I use the word to talk about all non-normative identities/practices related to gender and sexuality, which includes the LGBTQ+ community, but is more extensive than that, including any letters not part of that acronym. Queer is also a (political and academic) practice, not just an identity. This already possibly shows where my answer to your question is going…)

Firstly, I want to say that I understand why some people within the LGBTQ+ community might be uncomfortable about letting asexual people into that community. There is a difficult relationship between asexuality and queer identities. Some people in the field of asexuality studies have begun to write on this (I’ll list them down one or two down below). Within queer politics, historically but also now, there is a heavy focus on sex. Because queer people have struggled against oppression based on their sexual habits, not having sex is generally viewed as conservative or as a form of assimilation. For wlw this is further true because for a long time healthy sexual behaviour (aka having sex at all) was seen as impossible between two women, because both women would be sexually passive. Not having sex is not radical. This is why hetero-romantic aces are often dismissed as being “straight anyway”. Non-normative sexual practices (like cruising) are an important part of the queer community (academic work within queer studies in especially the 1990s and 2000s shows this too, wherein theoretical and political potential is mined from non-normative sex acts, including bare-backing because of its relation to the HIV crisis in the 80s).

It therefore makes sense that queer people (especially gay men and women, but also others) are uncomfortable with asexuality’s focus on not having sex, and as such asexuality is often seen as being “sex negative” instead of “sex positive” and thus bad. At least, politically.

I, however, and other academics, do think asexuality is queer, if you define queer as being non-normative in relation to hetero-normativity). Asexuality is seen as non-normative in our current hyper-sexual society and sex is seen as a vital part of heterosexuality too (you have to reproduce and women are meant to be sexually available to men at all times). Asexual people are discriminated against because they refuse sex, which society sees as natural. While the struggles of asexual people are different from those of gay people, bi and trans people (and other identities) also have their own struggles against which they fight. This does not diminish their struggles.

Acephobia is based on ableist ideas: if you don’t want sex, there must be something wrong with you either mentally or physically, because sex is naturally and everyone should want it and have it (often). Asexuality is often dismissed and not seen as “real”. There must be something that inhibits you from having sex, whether that is physiological, hormonal, or having to do with trauma, or maybe just because you are not “hot enough to get a boyfriend”, which reminds me of how for a long time lesbians were seen as being men-hating ugly women (and feminists). This view leads to asexuality being pathologized (as homosexuality used to be). There have been numerous ways in which low sexual desire or a lack of sexual fantasies has been sees as a disorder in the psychoanalytic tradition. Attempts to “fix” asexual people are made through things like therapy or hormone treatment (or stuff like viagra or other such things), but also through corrective rape, either in a medical contexts under the idea that sexuality needs to be “awakened” within the patient, or in the private sphere at the end of a partner or friend. Research has also shown that people see asexual people as less human, more machine-like. They admit feeling uncomfortable with asexual people, and that they may discriminate against them, such as refusing them rent.

Asexual people have their own political issues to work through, just as any other identity within the LGBTQ+ community. However, each of these issues and more are related to the fight against hetero-normativity. Another example is that asexual people, especially those who are also aromantic, can help critique the way society privileges heterosexual romantic couplehood, especially married heterosexual couples. Asexual and aromantic people often privilege non-romantic and non-sexual relationship, such as friendships or family, allowing us to re-evaluate these other relationships and open up new forms of queer relating, which will also be appealing to other queer people, who often form their own social group or families and whose relationship and friendships are often in some way “queer”.

On top of that, it is important to realise that there is a lot of overlap between asexual people and other queer identities. However, queer asexual people constantly remark on how they do not feel safe or represented by the queer or LGBTQ+ community, even those who “welcome” queer aces, but not hetero-romantic aces. The queer and LGBTQ+ community are heavily sexualized spaced, which makes aces feel unwelcome, but also leaves many non-asexual queer people to complain about the lack of safe spaces for queer people that aren’t about clubbing, such as the lack of queer cafes or library. The queer community (and LGBTQ+ community) is itself deeply entrenched in compulsory sexuality, just like hetero-normative society, making aces feel like they don’t belong to either community.

If an asexual person if gay, or bi, or non-binary, or trans, or queer, or whatever, it is the LGBTQ+ and queer communities that should provide them a safe space and fight for them. Their asexuality informs their experience as homo-romantic or trans or anything else, and cannot be separated from that part of their identity. These are not separate issues. If we want to protect trans kids or gay kids or any other member of the queer/LGBTQ+ community, these communities need to be inclusive of asexuality and provide spaces where these kids are safe and can talk freely about their experiences and the challenges they face. These will undoubtedly also be informed by their asexual identity.

We are stronger politically when we fight together. We fight the same cause. Asexual people do not ask other LGBTQ+ or queer people to not be sexual. They only ask that they are included and that their own issues are being taken seriously.

On top of that, asexuality intersects with a lot of other queer issues. For trans folks, for example, the focus on sex in society and romantic relationships may leave them uncomfortable because of their body dysphoria and may thus run into similar issues as sex-repulsed aces. Stone butch women may find common ground with asexuality too, because of the focus on penetrative sex in society. The hypersexualisation of gay men may find that they experience similar issues as asexual people who feel they are being (hyper)sexualised despite not being sexual. There is a lot of overlap, and these issues need to be addressed. We can help each other and offer new perspectives that will help us fight for the same rights.

On top of that, on a more abstract level, can also be valuable for queer politics in the way that it undermines our current understanding of sexual identity. The way we now think about sexuality was constructed by straight people with the aim of pathologizing and thus actively discriminate against and eliminate perverted sexuality. This started with homosexuality with Freud, and quickly began to expand. If you want to know more about this, Foucault’s History of Sexuality is a good place to start. This allowed for sexual object choice to be used to group specific people together and make them into a specific type or “species”, as Foucault calls it. Our conception of sexuality, then, was constructed to uphold heterosexuality as the norm, making heterosexuality (that is the opposite sex as the sexual object choice) out to be the natural and normal and healthy form of sexuality.

Asexuality undermines this construction. Asexuality not only shows that there are different forms of attraction, which do not need to be connected to each other in a one-on-one relation, but also shows that sexual attraction is not the only or even the most important basis for attraction. Asexuality is not explainable in our current system and forces people to consider their sexual preferences. What do I like in sex? What kind of sex? What kind of sensuality? And with whom? If I like having sex with men, but only being sensual with women, what does that mean? Asexuality asks us what we prefer, putting the focus on preference rather than something biological or innate that makes us feel desire towards one gender and not the other.

This is not to say that asexuality makes sexual identity into an arbitrary choice. Rather, it shows that you cannot divide people into identity categories based on sexual object choice shows that attempting to do so is just as silly as doing so based on if you like tea or coffee. Or ketchup or mustard. On top of that, it allows for sexuality to be seen as fluid, not that it changes, but that it is not fixed. Maybe you like ketchup for a long time, and then no anymore. Or maybe you are briefly in the mood only for this specific type of mustard but not the others. Focusing on preference allows us to undermine the whole construct on which hetero-normativity is predicated. Making identities such as heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual or pansexual almost meaningless or nonsensical. If we want to do away with hetero-normativity completely, this is a crucial step to take. It allows us to focus on sexuality as a social construct, rather than something that must be biologically explained.

TL;DR: I understand why some LGBTQ+ people are uncomfortable with the idea of bringing asexual into the community. However, I think ultimately we are fightening the same cause despite our own specific issues that we face. We have a similar stake in queer politics and queer academia. Asexuality can offer the queer or LGBTQ+ community a lot, and being inclusive to asexuality is crucial if we want to protect queer kids. As such there is a lot that both communities can offer each other.

This goes for both queer aces and hetero-romantic aces. Hetero-romantic aces also benefit and often have a stake in dismantling hetero-normativity because they are asexual. Hetero-romantic aces also face discrimination under hetero-normativity. Because of this, asexuality at large ought to be included. Excluding hetero-romantic aces from the queer community or LGBTQ+ community shows a misunderstanding of asexuality and its political issues and seems not so much inclusive of asexual issues, but rather inclusive of those issues that relate ONLY to the other part of their identity. For queer aces, however, these two are not separate issues. If you want to be inclusive to queer aces, you have to be inclusive towards asexuality in general.

Asexuality, then, should be fully within the queer community, not be treated as a separate but overlapping thing like BDSM. Asexuality, when taken seriously, will affect all spaces of the queer community for the better, while still allowing for sex-positive politics.

Reading suggestions:

Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality.

Megan Milks, “Stunted Growth: Asexual Politics and the Rhetoric of Sexual Liberation.” In Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives, edited by Karli June Cerankowski and Megan Milks.

Erica Chu, “Radical Identity Politics: Asexuality and Contemporary Articulations of Identity.” In Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives, edited by Karli June Cerankowski and Megan Milks.

33 notes · View notes

that-curly-haired-lesbian · 6 years

Note

Can you do an analysis on Haunted and You’re not sorry?

Hello and welcome tothis week on Theo The Taymily Trash!Yes friends, that time has come again, apologies for it now being almost Tuesdaywhen Sunday was promised; thesis times sure are crazy, huh? #plzkillme

Anyway today’s songthat anon asked for and will of course receive is Haunted (promptlyfollowed by You’re Not Sorry whichwill go up later today.)

As you may haveguessed from my little alliteration game above I’m under the impression that Haunted is yet another song for Taylor’steenage love Emily Poe (here’s a refresher on that relationship for those whoneed it although I’ve talked about Taymily so much on here and linked this veryhelpful post to such a degree that I doubt there’s anyone in my audience stillconfused)

I also however believeit can be seen as a metaphor for Taylor’s wishful compulsory heterosexualityclashing with her homosexual reality. This is something that the wonderful @all-my-possessionspoints out here and if you’reinterested in that perspective please go read that post as I won’t touch toomuch on that here.

What’s written inthis analysis is built on my own theories and speculations and thus what isstated here is in no way meant to be taken as factual. I’m just trying to putan interesting queer spin on a TS song, after all that’s what I do over here.

Credit for the lyricsdisplayed here goes to AZLyrics as always.

–

You and I walk a fragile line

I have known it all this time

But I never thought I’d live to see it break

–

In the opening lines Taylor introduces us to “You” whois traditionally the conveniently gender-neutral love interest in her songs. Forthe sake of this analysis we’re going to assume that “You” in this case isEmily while “I” of course is Taylor herself.

What she’s establishing here in these first few linesis that on some level she always knew her relationship with Emily was fragile andthat it wouldn’t last forever. Working together and being in love in such aheteronormative environment (country music industry) both ladies likely knewthat outside forces (aka Team Taylor and the homophobic industry in general) werelikely to tear them apart sooner or later. As we all know by now though Taylor isn’texactly a realist when it comes to love, she’s a dreamer and a romantic and assuch she likely didn’t exactly enjoy thinking about the day her blissful relationshipwould eventually come to an end. She pretended that day was somewhere far offin a distant future and that her and her girlfriend would be able to push itforward even further with the sheer power of their love. Taylor wanted them tobe together forever so she made herself believe that they could be. (“The line”that symbolized their relationship wouldn’t break within Taylor’s lifetime becausethey’d be together forever and keep their balance on that fragile line throughany storm.)

–

It’s getting dark and it’s all too quiet

And I can’t trust anything now

And it’s coming over you like it’s all a big mistake

–

This may very well just be Taylor trying to give ussome eerie imagery for a song called Haunted,I mean it does fit with the aesthetic wouldn’t you say. Girl alone in acold and dark, quiet graveyard can’t trust what she’s seeing or hearing, she’shaunted. What this truly makes me think of though is “the rest of the world was black and white but we were in screamingcolor” in my opinion Out Of The Woodsdoes have a lot of parallels to Haunted.In OOTW the screaming-color-line as Isee it is clearly a metaphor for Pride and rainbow colors typically associatedwith the gay community. She’s saying “the rest of the world was straight andboring, but we deviated from the norm and our pride colors shone bright incontrast.” In Haunted when she says “it’sgetting dark” I almost picture all of the colors draining from a rainbow prideflag (or you know, from the world in general) leaving it grey and boring, blackand white if you will. Of course this is a bit of a reach and the line likelyjust symbolizes how the color and happiness seem to drain from the world whenyour heart is broken as you’re too sad to see any joy such as pretty colors. Whenyou’re in love the whole world shines bright and when it’s over it’s grey andmeaningless and boring. Just thought the pride/”screaming colors” thing was aninteresting reading given the community’s strong association with colorfulrainbows. 🌈🌈🌈

She then says it’s “all too quiet” maybe this refersto the “zero contact rule” Taymily was put under after Emily was fired? It’sassumed they weren’t to interact anymore on orders from Team Taylor due toEmily’s “damaging influence on Taylor’s image”

So basically Emily had disappearedfrom Taylor’s life (at least “officially”) they were no longer working togetherand Team Taylor had made sure of it, I wouldn’t blame Taylor if she felt likeshe couldn’t trust anything being told to her. After all the people who’d “gottenrid of” (god, that sounds sinister, sorry) Emily were the once who was supposedto look out for Taylor and now they’d done this, also keep in mind that Taylorwas underage at the time so she likely didn’t have much of a say either.Horrible situation, really! 😞

Then she says “it’s coming over you like it’s all abig mistake” in previous analyses I’ve done around the Taymily narrative I’vesort of tended to assume Emily was the one that insisted they could still betogether post-firing while Taylor opted to walk away in favor of her careerlike the people in charge were “advising her” but this song almost seems toimply it was the other way around.

I think the line can either refer to “it” coming for(or “over”) Emily in the sense that she got in trouble due to her relationshipwith Tay and got fired for her “mistake” (defined that way by Team Taylor.)

OR that Emily herself actually personally thought the wholething had been a mistake after being fired. Maybe losing her job made her realizebeing in a relationship with Taylor was unwise for several reasons (age gap, professionalism,the fact that no longer working together would prevent them from seeing eachother as often and thus from working out in the long-run, maybe?) and she endedit and hurt Taylor in the process causingher to question if Emily was hit with doubt of some sort (or a good old “I’mnot gay, this was a fluke”-panic) and viewed their entire relationship as “justsome big mistake.”

–

Oh, I’m holding my breath

Won’t lose you again

Something’s made your eyes go cold

–

What’s causing me to relate this song to Emily is the continuousreferences to breathing and breathe (y’all may be familiar with Taylor’s song Breathe largely assumed to be aboutEmily?) In Breathe Taylor says shecan’t breathe without Emily but she has to, here she seems to go back on thatstatement. She’s only holding her breath temporarily, suggesting she hasn’t yetfully lost Emily and doesn’t have to breathe without her just yet. In my BackTo December analysis (x) I speculate that Breathewas written pretty much directly after Emily was fired, I further theorize thatmaybe they hadn’t even broken up yet at the time that song was written, or atleast Taylor was holding onto hope that the breakup was temporary.

“Won’t lose you again” indicates that she’s alreadylost the girl once and I don’t think that’s referring to a breakup actually, I thinkthat’s referring to the firing. When Emily was fired her and Taylor lost animportant aspect of their relationship (after all they did spend most of theirtime together on the road) so them not working together anymore must’ve feltlike they were losing each other in a sense. Even though they weren’t professionallyseen together in any sense they could’ve still been dating post-firing thoughand Taylor didn’t want to lose Emily “again” in the sense that she didn’t wantthe romantic relationship to end. She’d already lost Emily professionally and didn’twanna do it again by going through a loss of their personal relationship aswell. However the next line seems to indicate that despite their best effortthe love (at least on Emily’s side) seems to have faltered pretty soon, perhapsdue to having more limited time together or just not being able to get over thefiring or feeling like Taylor picked her career over her girl? (I won’t pretendI know why they broke up) somehow though Emily’s eyes “went cold” she wasn’t inlove anymore and Taylor noticed in the way she was suddenly looked at by thoseeyes who used to adore her, but no longer did. This is so upsetting and I wannahug baby Tay!! 😭

–

Come on, come on, don’t leave me like this

I thought I had you figured out

Something’s gone terribly wrong

You’re all I wanted

Come on, come on, don’t leave me like this

I thought I had you figured out

Can’t breathe whenever you’re gone

Can’t turn back now, I’m haunted

–

We’re into the chorus and Taylor’s begging for hergirl to stay, to give them another shot, to no avail though it seems. She’ssaying she thought she knew Emily and that she could trust any promises offorever she might’ve been given, but now something’s gone wrong in the relationshipand Taylor’s desperately clinging to hope that it won’t end like this, it can’t.There’s another Breathe referencehere, even more obvious than the first. The last line of the chorus seems topoint to the interpretation that Taylor is the one to walk away in the enddespite all her begging she does pick the career in the end and that decision, thatlittle voice whispering “what if you’d pickeddifferently or done more to fight for her?” will always haunt the singer. Maybeespecially at the point when she wrote this song, she was a little older andhad presumably had time to reflect on how things turned out, she’d had time tounderstand the industry more and been given more of a say in PR decisionsperhaps. What if she was faced with the choice today, knowing and understandingall that she knows now, would she’d picked differently? The possibility thatshe might have will always haunt her.

–

Stood there and watched you walk away

From everything we had

But I still mean every word I said to you

–

Now it seems Emily is the one to have made that finalchoice to walk away after all and that Taylor tried to persuade her not to. Sheclaims she still meant every word she said in her attempt to get Emily to stay,but what exactly did she say?

–

He will try to take away my pain

And he just might make me smile

But the whole time I’m wishing he was you instead

–

I think this may show us what it was that Taylor said(that she meant every word of) you see I don’t think “he” is a person (or evenTaylor’s compulsory heterosexuality) at least not if we’re to stick with ourTaymily-centric narrative. I think “he” is the music, maybe the art itself ormaybe the industry. Taylor’s saying that getting to practice her art will takeaway some of the pain of picking her career over the girl she (at least at thetime) thinks the love of her life. The music will make her smile and make thepain of staying closeted worth it, but deep down she will still always wonderwhat it’d be like if she was able to be openly gay, what would it be like ifshe’d been married to the girl and not to her work? As much as Taylor lovesmusic and preforming I can’t imagine that thought not crossing her mind fromtime to time, especially in her pre-glass closeting days.

–

Oh, I’m holding my breath

Won’t see you again

Something keeps me holding on to nothing

–

Taylor’s starting to realize she won’t get to seeEmily as often if they’re not working together, but she’s still hoping they canstay together so she doesn’t have to try and breathe without Emily. Despite therelationship seemingly heading towards the end Taylor holds onto their love andhopes that is enough to keep them together even through trying times.

–

(Chorus)

–

I know, I know, I just know

You’re not gone. You can’t be gone. No.

–

This is pure agonizing denial and the way she singsthis part always makes me want to cry and breaks my heart, she doesn’t want tobelieve that Emily has broken up with her and simply won’t be in her lifeanymore. How can that be when the thought of what Taylor could’ve donedifferent will always haunt her? Emily will always haunt her so how could shebe gone? 💔💔💔💔

–

(Chorus)

–

Hope you all enjoyedreading that, You’re Not Sorry willbe up later today (it’s 1AM here now)for now I need to get some sleep 🌙 Thanks for reading and don’t hesitate to sendme requests for future analyses 😊

#gaylor swift #kaylor #taymily #songs #queer analysis #asks

31 notes · View notes

thefloatingpoem · 7 years

Note

I don't want to be disrespectful, but I don't understand your issue with sherlock and "queerbaiting." I'm all for representation in media, however, realistically not everyone is gay. John has said multiple times in the show that he isn't gay, and he was married to a woman. Two men are allowed to be close friends without having to satisfy a tumblr-worthy homoerotic fantasy. As I said, I fully support representation, but just because two characters aren't gay for each other doesn't make a show bad

There are many things I’d like to unpack in your ask, nonny.

It’s difficult to know where to begin. I’ll start by saying I’m glad you agree that queer representation is important. So let’s start there, with the textual representation of queer people in Sherlock.

The characters who are textually queer in Sherlock include:

-Moriarty (confirmed most recently in TFP when he jokes about his bodyguard having ‘more stamina, but is less caring in the afterglow’), -Irene Adler (established as gay during the Battersea scene with John, in which to his assertion that he’s not gay, she replies, “well I am. Look at us both.” More on John later. She also nonconsensually drugs and whips Sherlock, which I think is extremely out of character for a professional in the kink community) -Culverton Smith (who has an honest to god hard on when he’s suffocating Sherlock and breathes his fear of death in and says in the most rapturous voice, “lovely”), -Eurus, (who suggests that the victim of her brutal rape could have been a man or a woman and she wouldn’t have noticed)-and to some extent Magnussen (who creepily kisses Sherlock’s hands, among other weird bodily power things he does, like flicking John’s face).

Perhaps you’ve noticed that this is a list of villains, all of whom are queer coded, and most of whom to some extent have the hots for Sherlock and violate Sherlock’s bodily autonomy when he is otherwise incapacitated (other than Eurus, because equating queerness with incest would be a little much even for this show).

So for our queer representation on this show we get 6, count em, 6 queer monsters, 6 queer psychopaths.

Forgive me if I’m less than thrilled about this.

BUT I was willing to overlook this, I was willing to forgive this, because to my view, the plot was inching forward towards a realistic portrayal of queer love—a nuanced and hard won happy ending, a love narrative that would speak to the complexities of human nature and queer identity.

Let’s turn to that question for a while. Queerness does not exist in a vacuum. It exists within a highly oppressive heteronormative framework. And so when you tell me, John has said many times that he isn’t gay, I say unto you: so did I.

My only way of surviving a homophobic environment was to swallow whole the lie that I was straight, to try as hard as I could to believe I was straight. This is compulsory heterosexuality. The result of this doublethink was that I had no interest in romance or sex. But I publically feigned interest in men for many years. I worked hard to convince myself that I was straight and normative. I was trapped deep in a subconscious closet. We often talk about the closet being something that we know we’re in and we want to be out of it. But I tell you, I honest to god thought I was straight. I thought I would marry a man and have children and live in the suburbs. As it turns out, none of those things have happened, thank god. But I spent many years of my life telling people I wasn’t gay.

By the way re: John and his marriage to a woman, being married to someone of the opposite sex has virtually nothing to do with whether you’re gay or not in a world where visible gayness is met with violence, death threats (my gf has literally been chased with a knife), rape threats (this has happened at least three times that I can think of off the top of my head), judgment, discrimination, and hate. Also, many people, like a younger version of myself once did, believe that they are straight and do their best to act accordingly, including marrying someone and finding out later that they were wrong in doing so. All this being said, John could easily be bi or otherwise queer. Suggesting that his marriage to Mary should preclude any and all attraction to men or taking that as proof of straightness is frankly biphobic and erases the bi experience.

But let’s move away from the personal significancer of a John Watson coming out/discovering himself narrative, and towards addressing your other comments.

Regarding your comment, “Two men are allowed to be close friends without having to satisfy a tumblr-worthy homoerotic fantasy”: From my perspective, summing up what the Johnlock fandom does as “tumblr-worthy homoerotic fantasy” is infantilizing and doesn’t give full credit to the depth of thought and nuance that goes into these transformative works.

I can name on one hand the pieces of mainstream media that tell a story like mine. Blue is the warmest colour is one, Carol is another.

The work these fanfiction authors are doing for representation by taking mainstream stories and queeriung them is monumental. But it is still not mainstream media representation. And we deserve that.

And now we come to the queerbaiting portion of my response.

Tropes are what tell us what kinds of archetypal stories are being invoked in the telling of a new story. In TV, there are many different kinds of tropes: plot tropes, lighting tropes, musical tropes, dialogue tropes, camera angle tropes, etc. For example a long lingering gaze in television codes romance for us. It’s a romantic trope.

For more on tropes, here are some useful resources: http://thorinlock.tumblr.com/post/132779606878/romantic-shots-in-bbc-sherlock

http://ifyouhaveenoughnerve.tumblr.com/post/76422437022/the-unabridged-dictionary-of-johnlock-tropes-157

http://tvtropes.org/

As a culture, we tell a lot of straight white love stories that end happily. Most of our romantic tv tropes come from these stories.

As a culture, we don’t tell many gay stories, and usually when we do, they are tragic and someone dies (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BuryYourGays). A common trope in stories about lesbians that I hate is that one woman leaves the other for a man—and that’s supposed to be a happy ending.

The point is, the filming and story telling tropes of romance are all over this show and these characters. Close shots of them gazing into each other’s eyes, the soft looks they give each other when they think the other won’t notice, the soft lighting accompanying these scenes, the dialogue, especially in the scene in ASiP at Angelo’s. As an exercise, try imagining that scene if Sherlock were a gorgeous woman.

JOHN: So you’ve got a boyfriend then? 

SHERLOCK: No.

 JOHN: Right. Okay. You’re unattached. Like me. Fine. Good.(modified from this transcript )

And then John licks his lips.

This is where it becomes queerbaiting. When the BBC tweets “Sherlock’s in love, but with who?” in order to promote s4, in which Sherlock’s romantic life is not shown to be developing at all, that is queer baiting. And it’s cruel.