On Discomfort and Morality
My father finds gay men uncomfortable.
He's told me before that it's like a knee-jerk for him. Something he doesn't consciously control. He sees two men behaving romantically, and his body reacts with mild discomfort.
In the 1960s, when he was in high school, most of the boys in his form thought he was gay on the simple fact that he wasn't homophobic. He wouldn't participate in insulting queer people, he didn't care if someone was gay, he wouldn't have a problem hanging out with gay people. So people thought he was gay. That's how prevalent homophobia was in his formative years.
When I was 10, my dad told me very seriously that Holmes and Watson were gay. That it was obvious from the literature and the time period that they were meant to be a gay couple. When I was 14 and I came out to my parents as bi, when my mum was upset my dad ripped into her for it. Told her that she was being stupid, that it was my life to live how I wanted to and that she needed to get over herself.
My dad formed my views on censorship: that being that it was completely ridiculous and thoroughly evil. He didn't believe in censorship of any kind. If I asked him a question about sex, he answered it honestly. When I was 12 and I asked him about homosexuality, still young and uncertain, he told me that there was nothing wrong with it. That it was just how some people were. That there was likely an evolutionary reason for it. And that for some people it was uncomfortable on an instinctual level.
He taught me that just because you're uncomfortable with something, doesn't make it wrong. He also taught me that most people don't understand this.
I see a lot of this on the internet as of the last few years. The anti shipping movement, the terf movement, the anti ace movement. It all stems from discomfort that people have crossed wires into believing means wrong. Really every -ism and -phobia out there stems from this same fundamental aspect of humanity.
The next time you see something and you automatically think it's disgusting, or wrong, or immoral, I invite you to ask yourself: is this actually wrong or does this just make me uncomfortable?
35K notes
·
View notes
There’s something so important about dungeon meshi choosing falin to be their missing party member. She’s their healer. She is, in many ways, the most important member. She’s the one who ensures they all come home in one piece at the end of the day. So from a storytelling perspective, it makes sense that it would be her. It intrinsically raises the stakes by taking away the party’s ability to quickly heal.
But from a thematic standpoint it’s even more significant. Falin is the best of them. She holds them all together. There’s a reason why the party splits up when they lose her, after all. The only reason Laois and Marcille know each other is because of Falin, so by extension she’s the only reason their party exists the way it does.
There’s something almost divine about the way she’s characterized by her friends. They talk about her kindness, think of what she’d do if she were with them. You never hear anyone speak poorly of her. Everyone else has flaws. Laois struggles to connect with others, Chilchuck can’t admit when he cares, Marcille refuses to be wrong, and Senshi is very stuck in his ways. None of these are necessarily a bad thing. It just makes them complex people. But Falin is almost more of an idealized concept than a person.
And then we see Falin on screen, a mess of bones and viscera. We see her put back together with forbidden magic, her new body soaked with blood. We see that there’s something off about her, that alongside her kindness is incredible power. And everything up until that point reframes itself. Falin has always been part monster, from her compassion for the dead to her magic school hideout in a dungeon. She dies and comes back, not just changed but amplified. She’s a healer, a ghost, a monster, all tucked beneath the same skin.
5K notes
·
View notes