#in my case I write a lot of queer women into my queer men stories with queer friendships because I SAID SO

[mirrorofliterature]

I personally find it really strange when people insist (often cis gay white men) that there is this big black line dividing queer men and queer women.

which is 1) binary and 2) ignores the existence of people who are queer women and men and 3) it is so weird?

queer women and men are all queer people and have much more in common. of course there are differences, but gender essentialism is bleh.

like you see this... tone that some (predominantly cis gay guys, generally white) people have that writing/creating gay men (generally gay, not bi because also frequently biphobes, in my experience) is the exclusive purview of gay men. and it's like, one that's not how the world works (although I understand the instinct) and two, they often go out of their way to malign the 'epidemic' of women daring to write stories (fanfiction) centring gay men (which is statistically likely AND comes with the added bonus of Don't Have To Think About Misogyny).

it reeks with misogyny. there is, of course, a real issue with some women fetishising gay men, but many women writing queer women tend to be queer themselves and it's like...

queerness transcends gender, my dude (gender neutral).

rant brought to you by my hatred of 1) gatekeeping/policing and 2) learning about james somerton

some people treat queer women as 'queer lite' because of the historical lack of criminalisation of queer women (in the sapphic way - trans women have been treated horrendously historically) - in a lot of the western world (because queen victoria didn't believe lesbians existed) and it infuriates me.

[bitchesgetriches]

{ MASTERPOST } Everything You Need to Know about Retirement and How to Retire

How to start saving for retirement

Dafuq Is a Retirement Plan and Why Do You Need One?

Procrastinating on Opening a Retirement Account? Here’s 3 Ways That’ll Fuck You Over.

Season 4, Episode 5: “401(k)s Aren’t Offered in My Industry. How Do I Save for Retirement if My Employer Won’t Help?”

How To Save for Retirement When You Make Less Than $30,000 a Year

Workplace Benefits and Other Cool Side Effects of Employment 

Your School or Workplace Benefits Might Include Cool Free Stuff

Do NOT Make This Disastrous Beginner Mistake With Your Retirement Funds

The Financial Order of Operations: 10 Great Money Choices for Every Stage of Life

Advanced retirement moves

How to Painlessly Run the Gauntlet of a 401k Rollover

The Resignation Checklist: 25 Sneaky Ways To Bleed Your Employer Dry Before Quitting

Ask the Bitches: “Can I Quit With Unvested Funds? Or Am I Walking Away From Too Much Money?”

You Need to Talk to Your Parents About Their Retirement Plan

Season 4, Episode 8: “I’m Queer, and Want To Find an Affordable Place To Retire. How Do I Balance Safety With Cost of Living?” 

How Dafuq Do Couples Share Their Money? 

Ask the Bitches: “Do Women Need Different Financial Advice Than Men?”

From HYSAs to CDs, Here’s How to Level Up Your Financial Savings

Season 3, Episode 7: “I’m Finished With the Basic Shit. What Are the Advanced Financial Steps That Only Rich People Know?” 

Speaking of advanced money moves, make sure you’re not funneling money to The Man through unnecessary account fees. Roll over your old retirement accounts FO’ FREE with our partner Capitalize:

Roll over your retirement fund with Capitalize

Investing for the long term

When Money in the Bank Is a Bad Thing: Understanding Inflation and Depreciation

Investing Deathmatch: Investing in the Stock Market vs. Just… Not 

Investing Deathmatch: Traditional IRA vs. Roth IRA

Investing Deathmatch: Stocks vs. Bonds 

Wait… Did I Just Lose All My Money Investing in the Stock Market? 

Financial Independence, Retire Early (FIRE)

The FIRE Movement, Explained 

Your Girl Is Officially Retiring at 35 Years Old

The Real Story of How I Paid off My Mortgage Early in 4 Years 

My First 6 Months of Early Retirement Sucked Shit: What They Don’t Tell You about FIRE

Bitchtastic Book Review: Tanja Hester on Early Retirement, Privilege, and Her Book, Work Optional

Earning Her First $100K: An Interview with Tori Dunlap 

We’ll periodically update this list with new links as we continue writing about retirement. And by “periodically,” we mean “when we remember to do it.” Maybe remind us, ok? It takes a village.

Contribute to our staff’s retirement!

Holy Justin Baldoni that’s a lot of lengthy, well-researched, thoughtful articles on the subject of retirement. It sure took a lot of time and effort to finely craft all them words over the last five years!

In case I’m not laying it on thick enough: running Bitches Get Riches is a labor of love, but it’s still labor. If our work helped you with your retirement goals, consider contributing to our Patreon to say thanks! You’ll get access to Patreon exclusives, giveaways, and monthly content polls! Join our Patreon or comment below to let us know if you would be interested in a BGR Discord server where you can chat with other Patrons and perhaps even the Bitches themselves! Our other Patrons are neat and we think you should hang out together.

Join the Bitches on Patreon

[pinkyjulien]

I really, really hate the "Female V is canon" vs "Male V is canon" debate that been popping here and here in the tags those past weeks

Cyberpunk 2077 is a Role Playing Game, there is no "canon" protagonist, that's the whole point. We all have a different playstyles, different stories and headcanons, our custom V is The Canon V of Our Own playthroughs!

After Phantom Liberty dropped, I've seen a lot of players, on Tumblr or Twitter, voicing their concerne and disappointment in how much more Female V focused the official promo, videos and even in-game credits became

I was one of them too, expressing my feelings multiple times, sometimes awkwardly, frustrated that Male V players were once again brushed to the side, because that's how it feels like, right?

Well, it might feels like it, but this isn't the case AT ALL, far from it. This is only what I would call a "Fandom Phenomenon" and I want to talk more about it a bit

I had a great conversation with a friend of mine who works in the game industry and it opened my eyes on the matter, and I've since been really interested in seeing RPGs statistics!

Because it's really, really important to make the difference between the Casual Player Base (majority of players) and the Fans / Fandom Base (minority of players)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

I always been lurking in fandoms here on Tumblr, since Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and now with Cyberpunk 2077 and Baldur's Gate 3

First I want to drop some stats- might be completly wrong, but I'm only sharing my point of view here, in an attempt to explain why some people are frustrated with Female V being the focus (and why we shouldn't be!)

I think it's not wrong to say that fandoms are mostly occupied by women and fem-identifying individuals; fandoms are a safe place for players and fans to share their passions. Women are STILL HEAVILY harassed and hated in the gaming industry as a whole, it doesn't take a lot of digging to catch a vile comment on Twitter or on Twitch for example, you cannot go far without seeing someone either attacking or sexualizing them

This is a huge problem in the industry still, every games that release with a female protagonist get trashed- just look at the bullshit surrounding GTA 6 just because players will be able to play as a woman as an option

Fandoms are also safe for non-gender conforming people, non-binaries, trans people and queer men, but I think fem individuals and women are a clear majority, at least on Tumblr (only talking about genders identity here and not about being queer or not, not talking about sexualities or attraction) (not an official stat at all and only my point of view and experience from being on Tumblr since ~2012)

Now let's talk about Cyberpunk 2077- because this is my main fandom since 2020, and what prompted me to write this post in the first place

CDPR didn't share any stats recently, but it's REALLY SAFE to assume the MAJORITY of players are playing a straight Male V romancing Panam, followed by a lesbian Female V romancing Judy, but the player pools for both options are still majoritarly cis hetero men (and they are still the focus for AAA studios to sell their games, this is sadly just how it is)

However on the fandom side, Fem V was always the focus; virtual photography, mods, ships, OCs... She was always more popular than Male V, getting more interactions and notes and why trends like "Male V monday" were created and why there is still a lack of male V focused mods (non-binaries and trans fem folks and characters are also sadly under-represented in all type of content and art)

So, being yourself as a non-fem player, playing as a Masc V, seeing CDPR officially make the switch from Male V to Female V, when the space you've been in for the past 3 years has been overwhelmingly Female V focused on all front, was a bit of a punch in the guts; like I said earlier, I was reaaally frustrated with this too!

And I'd say it's "normal"? or at least "ok" to feel this way, it makes sense considering how little attention Male V in general get in the fans community

BUT. BUT... It's REALLY important here to realize how we sound and how we look like when we voice our frustrations on the matter; we sound and look just like all the misogynistic people over on Twitter who screams about "woke games" everytime there is a female protagonist in their "non political games". We have to remember that fandoms are suuuch a small part of the game industry

Baldur's Gate 3 recently shared their stats and this interesting tweet got into my dash

▶ tweet

Astarion is nowhere to be seen in the official most romanced companions statistic, but I'm sure a lot of people will agree that he's probably the most popular one in the fandom side!

Another stat here from Mass Effect and really interesting info coming from David Gaider about how the hardcore fanbase aka fandom's choices were WILDLY different from the casual / main player pool

▶ tweet

Getting my head out of the fandom bubbles and seeing the bigger picture, how much under-represented women still are in official medias (not talking about fan content) and how insanly misoginistic the game industry still is, both on the player and devs sides, helped me handle my own frustration on the matter, accept and even celebrate Female V being the focus for the Phantom Liberty campaign

With all that said tho, we all should be able to vent about the lack of Male, Masc and Non-Binary content in the fandom side, while still being aware of the industry state, it CAN co-exist! It doesn't make anyone a bad or misogynist person!

We are all humans and can be awkward and make mistakes, especially when voicing frustration or talking while in a negative mood. Let's educate one another in good-faithed manners when we slip instead of jumping to conclusion and throw accusations

Not gonna lie I kind of lost my train of thoughts and not sure how to finish this post, but I hope this can enlight some people on why CDPR made this choice!

Repeating this as a finale note; this doesn't mean that Female V is the "main" V or "canon" V . It's simply her time to shine, and it's well deserved! The industry needs it

[dresshistorynerd]

I had the idea of writing about some historical queer figures I find interesting and drawing them for this pride month as a little project of mine. I will see how many I'll have time to do, I have in mind at least four other historical people, but knowing myself, I'm not holding my breath for all of them. Julie d'Aubigny she been one of my favorite historical figures for years so I decided to start with her.

Historical Queer Figures - Julie d'Aubigny

Julie d'Aubigny, also known as Mademoiselle Maupin and La Maupin, was a French opera singer and fencer in the late 1600s. She was infamous for having sapphic relationships, being aggressive and dramatic, having androgynous presentation by occasionally dressing in men's clothing in public and being a fencer and duelist. Trans and genderqueer readings of her are very possible, but because none of the accounts of her (at least those I've read) suggests she ever used any other than feminine first names or terms or she/her pronouns about herself, I will use she/her pronouns when talking about her.

The French court absolutely loved to gossip and people were constantly making up libel about the people they didn't like, and Julie had a lot of enemies and was very controversial figure. During the 18th and 19th centuries she was written about a lot in these highly sensationalized Encyclopedias, where the rumors from her lifetime got increasingly wilder and sensational. She was accused for example of seducing noble women in court balls, burning down a convent and murder. There's not much primary sources left or available from her actual lifetime so distinguishing truth from fiction is not an easy task in her case. Kaz Rowe did great job in their youtube video about her to try to actually find out where the stories of her life comes from. They go through some great context too about the rumor industry in the French court at the time so I highly recommend checking it out.

CW: very brief mentions of child sexual abuse and self-harming

The Timeline of Most Concrete Events

Let's first go through the things that have at least a bit more backing than a rumor started 100 years after her death. Julie d'Aubigny was born between 1670 and 1673. Her father was Gaston d'Aubigny, the secretary of Louis of Lorraine, count d’Armagnac, who was Master of Horses to King Loius XIV, and her mother is unknown. She was probably brought to the Versailles court in 1682, where she got a full education including academic subjects, riding and fencing, usually only thought for boys. She was married off to a Sieur de Maupin (first name unknown) probably around 1687, when she would have been 14 to 17 years old. He apparently got a position from a southern province as a tax collector. The stories about her claim she remained in Paris, but I don't think there's evidence of this, though what we do know of her adult life does suggest she was estranged from her husband and lived apart from him. Nevertheless, she did end up in Marseilles, where she first appeared on stage in Marseilles Opéra between 1687 and 1690. She didn't have education in music, but her good looks and beautiful voice landed her the role.

Her first appearances in the Paris Opéra are listed to 1690, so that is probably when she had her debut there. She became a very talked about figure and she gained both friends and enemies in the opera and the court. She performed in the Paris Opéra for probably four years, after which she went to Brussels, Bavaria, where she performed with the Opéra du Quai au Foin at least during 1697 and early 1698, after which she returned to France to perform again with the Paris Opéra.

It was the period when her career peaked and she got a lot of leading female roles. Those roles in French opera were at the time soprano roles, but Julie's natural voice range was lower, contralto. (There's a whole thing where at the time she was described as mezzo-soprano, but the music historian consensus is that her range matches contralto in modern terms as opera was sang on lower cords across the board at the time. (I understand nothing about music theory so I just hope I managed to explain this correctly)) She excelled in secondary female roles of goddesses and warrior women. For the leading roles she had to sing on higher notes than was natural to her and the naive and dainty personalities of those roles clashed with her own personality. Some later retellings of her life claim she performed male roles for female singers (which was common practice, and these roles were often those of young boys), but all known records of her roles are female roles. In 1702 on the leading composers of the Paris Opéra, André Campra, wrote her a leading lady role in Tamcréde, which is often credited to have the first leading female role for contralto. But her perhaps most famous role was as Médée in Medus, which was considered to be a very difficult role. Apparently the original leading singer had fallen ill before the debut so Julie was quickly trained in her stead, but succeeded well and got a lot of praise for the role.

In 1703 Julie started an affair with Madame la Marquise de Florensac, who was said to have been the most beautiful woman in France. This is the affair of hers of which there's most evidence. De Florensac was married and had children, but she was also rumored to have many affairs. Julie lived quietly together with her for two years. They were described by a contemporary to have lived in perfect harmony, always spending time together and only appearing in public when necessarily. Julie deputed in her last role in 1705 and ended her career after De Floransac died of sudden fever. Nothing concrete is known about the rest of her life, not even how or when she died, but she is usually speculated to have died in 1707.

Parsing History from Fantasy

Chronologically the rumor that places earliest in her life was that she had "an affair" with count d’Armagnac (age 46 at the time), before she got married in the same year so as a 14 to 17 year old. There doesn't seem to be any actual evidence of this and even if that really happened, it wouldn't have been an affair, it would have been grooming and sexual violence. Related to it is the rumor that the count arranged her marriage and sent her husband away, but kept her in the court with him. Then she "got bored" of the count and ran away with an assistant sword-master, Séranne, to southern France. They got money by performing fencing matches in fairs and taverns while they were traveling till they got to Marseilles, where she first appeared in opera.

The stories of her in this period are generally written in a super nasty tone, and she (as supposed 14 yo) is written as the seductress and the adult men are written as the victims of her fiery temper and fitfulness. All these stories seem pretty unlikely though. The rumor about the count seems (unfortunately) most possible, but accounts from 18th and 19th century about these early events in her life don't seem to be based on any information from her lifetime. I find it most likely that the writers in 18th and 19th centuries were filling out the blanks we don't know from her life and painting her as this (in their eyes) degenerate seductress from an early age. An alternative possible explanation could have been that she indeed accompanied her husband to south, perhaps near Marseilles, where she then performed with the Marseilles Opéra. Many sources claim though that she performed with her maiden name there, which would be odd if she was living with her husband. I don't know where that claim comes originally, but it could be false of course. Although the generally proposed year of her marriage could also be false, which would explain why she at first performed with her maiden name, and later in Paris and always after that with her husband's name. That would not explain how she ended up going to Marseilles though.

The next and perhaps the most infamous and coolest story of her sets somewhere shortly before 1690. In that story she fell in love with a girl in Marseilles and the girls parents sent her to a convent to avoid a scandal. Julie went to the convent with the premise of wanting to become a novice. They tried to frame the girl's death by putting a dead nun's body into the girls bed and setting it on fire and then went on the run for couple of months. While on the run Julie was sentenced to death in absentia, but after returning to Paris and rekindling her relationship with count d'Armagnac, he got the king to pardon her. As amazing as this story is, it's very likely not true. It seems quite unlikely that the 15 to 19 year old Julie would have done that, but even more unlikely that she'd just get all her charges dropped and these crimes wouldn't have hindered at all her career, which hadn't even properly begun yet. The first surviving description of this incident comes from a letter of her contemporary court lady, Madame Dunoyer, who was basically an early gossip columnist and despised her. Her story doesn't mention Julie at all, but talks about a nun, who tried to frame her own death in a similar manner to escape with her male lover (which still sounds very unlikely story). The first surviving description that attaches that story to Julie, comes year after her death from the very suspect writings of a known liar, Cardinal Debois, who did personally know and hate Julie. He claimed that Dumenil, who was an actor in Paris Opéra the same time as Julie, related him the story, while also acknowledging he probably did it because he too hated her. So very likely not a true story, but possibly something that was rumored during her lifetime already.

In the stories of her, after escaping from the convent and before going to Paris, she traveled again in male attire and met Louis Joseph d'Albert de Luynes von Grimberghen, commonly known as count d'Albert. He was an interesting character in his own right, roughly her age, and like her, his real story is a little hard to parse from the legend (though in his case, he was a nobleman so there's also a lot of actual records of his life). In the story though, he thought she was a man, they had some disagreement, a fight broke out, she won, injured him and nursed him back to health. And then they had a brief affair before d'Albert went to war again. They were lifelong friends, so this is not entirely made up. It's entirely possible they had a brief affair (and according to many stories an on and off type of affair that was re-kindled at many points in their lives) and there was rumors about it even in her lifetime, but the story of this first meeting seems to lack validity.

Next in her stories she met Gabriel-Vincent Thévenard, who was another famous singer and her contemporary, either right before or right after she arrived in Paris. They became lovers and after Thévenard auditioned and got accepted into the Paris Opéra, he helped to get Julie accepted too. It is true that as far as we know, they both debuted in 1690. They were also said to have been life long friends and again it's possible they were lovers at some point, but the details of their meeting are difficult to know.

There are many stories about her antics of both of her times in the Paris Opéra. In those stories she fought duels, assaulted Dumenil with a cane, robbed Dumenil, had fights with men after they insulted her or another women or harassed other women, tried to kill herself after her love was not reciprocated, threatened to shoot a duchess in the head, threatened to slit Cardinal Debois' throat, bit Thévenard in the ear on stage and had affairs with men and women. According to Cardinal Debois the feud between Dumenil and Julie started because Dumenil was interested in her but she rejected him. The Cardinal was a liar but it does sound pretty believable. So if it's true and he spread in retaliation a lie that she burned down a convent, her beating him up or beating him up, stealing his valuables and returning them to him by humiliating him in front of other actors, would align well with everything else told about her personality. Maybe her retaliation wasn't exactly as in the stories, but if the other things about Dumenil were true, I'm sure she retaliated in some way. Same applies to her threatening the Cardinal's life. He wrote about it, but he was a liar, but, but because he was a liar who lied about her, it sounds like something she might do. Madame Dunoyer wrote about her threatening the Duchess of Luxembourg apparently because of jealousy over count d'Albert. The duchess was d'Albert's mistress at one point and apparently he even fought a duel over her in 1700. So there is some validity to this rumor, though the circumstances were perfect to fabricate that kind of rumor. I haven't found as much backing to other rumors, but many of them sound possible or at least maybe rooted in some reality and exaggerated.

The rumored explanation for why she left the Paris Opéra around 1694 was that she went into a court ball in men's clothing, kissed a woman on the dance floor and got challenge to a duel by three noblemen. They went outside and she won, but because dueling was illegal, she had to flee to Bavaria, and later when she returned, she was supposedly pardoned by the king again. In the more sensational versions of the story she killed the noblemen. This whole story is very unlikely. Even count d'Albert was imprisoned for engaging in an illegal duel (the one in 1700). He got eventually pardoned, but he was a nobleman and basically a war hero. The first surviving accounts of this story come much after her dead and it sounds more like a very exaggerated version of the other stories of her. There's many more plausible reason why she would have left to Bavaria. If her contemporaries descriptions of her behavior were even half true, those could have been scandal enough. Or if the rumors of her burning down a convent were circling that time already, that alone could have been damaging enough to her career that she thought it best to leave for a while.

In Bavaria, she's rumored to have another scandal. She supposedly became lover of the Max Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria, but she was too dramatic and after she stabbed herself with a real knife during a performance, the Elector decided she was too much, demanded her to leave Bavaria and gave her money for it. She supposedly threw the money to the feet of the messenger and left. The first surviving account of this story comes again from Madame Dunoyer, the details of which have changed, but were always quite exaggerated and unbelievable. Still the core events might be true, it's possible she was the Elector's lover for a while and it's also possible she stabbed herself on stage for real, being very dramatic as she was.

Was she queer?

There are enough accounts of her attraction and relationships with women from people who actually knew her, that I do find it very likely that she was sapphic. Cardinal Debois even implied she was exclusive interested in women or at least heavily preferred them, though other accounts by the people who knew her did talk about her attraction to men too. Her dressing in men's clothing is also mentioned enough times by her contemporaries that I do believe it. Because gender was so heavily tied to clothing and sexuality and fashion was less about what you wanted to wear and more about what you wanted others to think about you, I think she probably had some gender feelings. Even her aggressive and assertive behavior was very much seen as crossing gender boundaries. There's no more evidence of her feelings on gender than her androgynous presentation, so it's mostly speculation.

In conclusion, she was definitely a flavor of queer.

Julie circa 1700 in opera costume.

The most notable source I used:

Julie D'Aubigny: the 17th Century Sapphic Swordfighting Opera Singer, video by Kaz Rowe - I mentioned this before but it bears repeating

Research page by Jim Burrows - This was great since there's gathered multiple sources on le Maupin, historical and more recent, some of which are hard to access fully otherwise

Julie d'Aubigny: La Maupin and Early French Opera, LAPL blog post - It repeats most of the rumors of questionable origin about her as truth, but the sections about her career, which have more backing than just rumors, are really helpful

Mademoiselle De Maupin; Biographical sketches & anecdotes, The Dublin University Magazine - One of those questionable biographies of her from 1854, really only good as a source of what the rumors were after her death

Chevalier, Louis-Joseph, prince de Grimberghen, essay by Neil Jeffares - Biography of count d'Albert, which includes a lot of unsourced rumors about both le Maupin and d'Albert, but recounts his life events in great detail, and references to each claim show which parts are sourced well

[emotionallychargedtowel]

Intense Subtext in Front of Oblivious Side Characters: "I had no wife in the year six"

There's a thing, I guess it would be considered a trope, that is one of my favorite such things in any form of media but especially any sort of romance-centered story. I don't know of an existing term for this and I'm terrible at being concise so I'm not sure how I could put it briefly. Basically, it's the thing that happens when a larger interaction is happening with a group of people but there's a subtext to it that means something very different--and generally, much more meaningful--to the central characters. You could call it something like Intense Subtext in Front of Oblivious Side Characters.

I've been thinking for a while about possible parallels between BLs and Jane Austen novels and/or adaptations. This is my attempt at taking a small, specific example of a parallel I sometimes notice and talking about it. Austen's novels do a lot of this trope I mentioned. That's in part because of choices Austen made in what she wanted to write about. But it's also because of the social context of her time. There was a lot going on that people couldn't be explicit about, for a variety of reasons. I think one reason why I see similar things happening in some BLs--and maybe one reason for the appeal of certain types of BLs--is the fact that being queer in a homophobic society makes openness complicated in a way that doesn't come up as much for hetero relationships these days. Especially when we get into things like office romances, in which appearances have higher stakes. These complications around openness have a kind of similarity to the reasons Austen's characters had to play a lot of things close to the chest.

Fellow Old Fashion Cupcake fans will remember an example from that series that I think really fits here. Nozue and Togawa agree to attend a goukon, or "mixer" as it's sometimes translated--basically a group hangout intended to help men and women meet for the purpose of finding people to date. Nozue is hitting it off with a cute younger woman, which is bad enough. But then he mentions his "anti-aging" efforts, and because of the mysterious way he words it, the woman asks, "Does that mean you're in love?" which of course catches Togawa's attention even more. He's clearly affected when Nozue answers, "If I were, I wouldn't be here."

@jdramastuff did a great screenshot post of this scene if you want to see what this looked like.

After Nozue's comment, Togawa starts knocking back alcoholic drinks like it's going out of style, ensuring that Nozue will have to help him home instead of going home with the woman who's been flirting with him.

(You could argue that this isn't so much a case of subtext as it is the significance one person assigns to what another is saying. Subtext really requires some degree of communication between more than one person. But while Nozue doesn't fully grasp what's going on, I think he does understand in some ways what he's communicating. I don't want to go on too much of a tangent, so I'll just say that having just read the manga the series was based on, it strengthened my belief that while Nozue is repressed, insecure, even deluded at times, he has glimmers of awareness of his feelings for Togawa and even suspicions of Togawa's feelings for him, and on some level he knows what he's saying, though I don't think he knows in this moment how much these words will hurt Togawa.)

I have another favorite example of this, a scene from Persuasion. It's rendered really well in the 1995 adaptation of the novel with Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root. (The whole thing is phenomenal, by the way--I think it's the best Austen adaptation ever made, personally.)

A bit of background for anyone not familiar with the story: Anne Elliott was engaged to Captain Frederick Wentworth in 1806 but was convinced by Lady Russell, her neighbor/family friend and a kind of surrogate mother to her following her mom's death, to break off the engagement. She has regretted it ever since. Wentworth was deeply hurt and angry when she broke things off, not surprisingly.

More than eight years later, Anne is visiting her sister and her sister's in-laws, the Musgroves, when Wentworth comes to the area and starts spending a lot of time at the Musgrove place (and with the Musgroves' eligible young daughters). Wentworth acknowledges Anne, but just barely, while paying enough attention to both the Musgrove girls that everyone is gossiping about which one he's going to marry. Anne's sister Mary was away at boarding school when her previous relationship with Wentworth happened, so neither Mary nor the Musgroves are aware Anne and Wentworth were involved and think they were only acquaintances.

At a dinner party, the Musgrove girls try to look up the ship that Wentworth first commanded, the Asp, in the Navy List, a book that chronicles the various ships in the British Navy, their commanders, and so forth. Wentworth tells them not to bother--"she" is not in the current version of the List because "she" no longer exists.

Louisa and Henrietta Musgrove are suitably horrified.

Admiral Croft, Wentworth's brother-in-law and superior in the Navy, remarks that Wentworth was lucky to get a command so early in his career at all, no matter how seaworthy (or un-seaworthy) the ship was.

(Remember, 1806 was the year that Anne and Wentworth became engaged and then un-engaged.)

Gut-wrenching. And nobody else sitting at that table has any idea what just happened. I love it.

I have some more thoughts about this languishing in an excessively long post in my drafts, which I'll try to get out one of these days. I know I've talked to a few people about trying to do some BL/Austen posts and had meant to tag them but the only person I remember talking with about it was @absolutebl. If you're reading this and you want a heads up next time I write about this stuff, let me know!

[mysebacielblog]

Ciel is Trans Theory

I Need to point this out because. I have a hunch that Ciel is Trans, and fingers crossed I’m right. Honestly, I could be completely off base and this could be as close as Ancient Aliens is to History.

This might be an overreach but here is my case for it, as best as I can:

* Based on previous events and Chapters, Yana has shown that She Likes Playing on the concept of Gender from the Very First Arc. From the Very beginning we are introduced to a woman who is Jack the Ripper, challenging the male murder stereotype on its head, and her lover, a gender ambiguous (Later Confirmed Canonically!!) Trans Reaper Lady. Both unite from their desire, and hatred for the prostitutes who beg for abortions at her clinic. There are Already wombs being ripped out of women and we’ve just started.

* The Fact that Ciel is Dressed extremely effeminately not only for the period, even for EGL clothing standards might point to something as well. But when forced to wear a dress for the sake of a mission, he loses his mind. Although it could be a tween’s worst nightmare, how Madame Red laments to Ciel when dressing him as a girl that she always wanted a daughter feels like something.

* Ciel is always referred to as beautiful, which is not wrong for the period, but there are less masculine terms that people refer to him as.

* Yana herself says that she Over Masculinizes Ciel. Which is an interesting take for his effeminate nature of dress Vs masculine personality?

* Another hot take is that Yana Specifically has instructed in certain live action and anime for the voice actor to be a woman. I’ve seen a lot of talk on this particular conversation but none highlighting this as a clue on our Ciel’s Identity??? How??

* Mey Rin is also have been hidden as a boy with her previous life as a sniper, so this also shows that this is not out of the question either. The same reveal has happened with Doll.

* Ciel does not let anyone get close to his body. This is obviously because traumatic stress behaviors, however, similar flinching could allude to a different reason entirely.

* Our Lad introduces himself as the “Earl Ciel Phantomhive” Earl almost being apart of his first name. He’s already changed his name to hide his past. But Why?

* Let’s pretend that Ciel was in fact, born a boy at birth. If his brother and parents died, even if he was considered a “Spare Child”, (remember the British Phrase an Heir and a Spare). He would still be a legitimate hier due to his brother being unable to claim inheritance (because of his death) and pass on something to him. Even if another family member became a guardian and inherited a majority to raise our ciel, he would still be entitled to Something, and (might) even become Earl. This would Not be the case if Ciel was born a girl.

* Two Cultural similarities Japanese Manga and the Victorian period have in common are the troupe of “women disguising themselves as men”. I put this in quotes because, as Ciel described it, “the old him died in his cage,” pointing to metaphorical metamorphosis, and not simply a disguise for convient’s sake. Although it was common for (transgender men, queer cis women and/or Cis women) to take on a male position / pseudonym in order to establish a title, or a job position (typically in writing, this continued until the 1960’s). Now add on the popular manga/anime that were important in playing with perceptions of gender during Black Butler’s Debut (think Ouran High school host club), and there’s something there.

* The Fact that no one mourned Ciel’s Death was unfortunate, but a critical plot point of the story. Up until now, no one even acknowledged Our Ciel had ever Existed. Not a name, not “twins” nothing. Even though our Lad was an ill child, no one had even acknowledged he was there to begin with. Women and children were rarely recognized in Victorian culture, let alone a “Woman Child”. This culture was challenged somewhat through literature in the early ‘30’s with works from Jane Austen, ‘47 with Charlotte Brontë (who went by a pseudonym) and Lewis Carol’s Alice and the Looking Glass at the end of the century. (introducing a Girl Protag!! Gracious!). As sad as it may be, no one would really mourn an terminally ill girl compared to her family’s murder, unless having accomplished something amazing. It would be seen unfortunately as a lifted burden, and ultimately one less dowery or added expense. The fact that no one even bothered to notice our Ciel’s death or even the toll it might have on his twin is evident enough.

* The most Damning evidence I have for this theory is Lizzy’s reaction to figuring out “Ciel” was not the real “Ciel”. The immediate turn against Ciel. Why wouldn’t she even hear him out? What could have possibly turned her away like that, without a doubt in her mind, even if she had met with the Real Ciel? The fact that her reaction was not confusion but rather an extreme turn against him, she did not even think one minute to give Our Ciel a chance. And the only possible reason (combined with the fact that he was lying about not being his brother) is that if he was Not Cis. Not only would that mean that she was with the sick weaker sibling not heir to the Phantomhive legacy, but Ciel Could never conceive a family with Elizabeth, nor marry her like she would have wanted. And even if she married him, they would never be able to have children of their own (a really big obsession with British Aristocracy- modern day source: royals). All of her dreams would be shattered. And that shattering would bring her to turn instantly.

* The fact that everyone automatically assumed our ciel was real ciel, just based on saying so. Why?

* The fact that sick girls were often dressed like male counterparts to strengthen them during this era, as well as androgynous clothing for children being in fashion (because of less washing headaches and hand-me-downs)

* A smaller, minor detail is how Sebastian says “When lies become truth”. This is pointing towards both their façades but an interesting quote none the less on transitioning.

* I’m pointing to his teeny shoes with the high heels. It’s not that they’re effeminate women’s shoes that are iffy for the period, (which let’s be clear, they are) but. Look at him. Trying his best to be tall adult man. I’m pointing at his shoes.

* I might be missing a lot. Tell me if I am.

Reasons For Why I Am Extremely Wrong:

*Tanaka and Vincent referring to Our Ciel with he/him pronouns, (although I’m not sure on the original Japanese translation on chapter 131)

[olderthannetfic]

https://olderthannetfic.tumblr.com/post/739335177994747904/httpswwwtumblrcomolderthannetfic739061849135#notes

I'm the anon on this post. I fully get the point here in this person's reblog and your addition, and I can see how my ask came across as gatekeeping, but I think what I meant more was in response to the previous anon (that Il inked) seeming to think that a LOT of hetero men needed to enter fandom for F/F to become more popular. As I said, there is some good F/F content written by men; I encountered that even in the brony fandom. (That said, that was a fandom where I very strongly was NOT interested in smut, which is not the case with most of my other F/F fandoms, so that's probably part of what influenced my preferences there.) Like, there was a lot of garbage, but there was so much content that there happened to be a decent amount of good stuff as well even following Sturgeon's Law.

I think what I meant more was disagreeing with the idea that the "solution" to lack of F/F is to have fanfiction become a *much* dudier space. I was trying to give my experience of having been in a fandom like that to suggest that it's a very fundamentally different experience than the generally less-dudey places that fanfiction fandom is in most fandoms, and I don't know that that's necessarily better just because we get more F/F, because in effect it still ends up marginalizing lesbian and bi women F/F fans because so much of the content is not only not for us, but often even hostile to us. (In a very different way from the arguments that are made about women writing M/M, where a lot of it is just stuff that isn't what gay/bi men are looking for. I'm sure any lesbian or bi woman who has had to deal with the kind of men who have lesbian fetishes irl, on dating sites, etc. can relate, but I really hate when people compare those things because it is truly apples and oranges.)

I hope I'm being clear, but I just think there's a distinction to be made between "I do not want F/F fanfiction fandom to become a *primarily* male space, and I think there are some big downsides that people who've never been in a fandom like that haven't seen" vs. "We need to gatekeep F/F so it's exclusively queer women writing it." I'm fine with some guys doing it, of course, but I don't think the fact that fanfiction is a primarily female and queer and nonbinary space is a "problem" to be "fixed" even if it means less F/F. I think that's a big part of the draw, in fact. That's what I was trying to say, but maybe not very well.

--

I think the point of the other comment isn't so much that anyone wants fic fandom to become dude-y... It's that for f/f numbers to look like m/m numbers, you'd have to have the reverse situation.

Whether that's desirable is another question, but it puts the endless focus on stats and numbers into perspective.

I don't think we really disagree all that much. They were just putting it provocatively to get people to think about why they waste their time yelling about AO3's overall stats "looking bad" and what the so-called solution to that would be.

It's pretty much bait is what I'm saying.

--

Obviously, as a woman, I only rarely encounter women who are mega annoying about gay men and reasonably often encounter those pestilential men in bars who think "bisexual" means "porn star who wants a threesome". I certainly think they're more of an actual problem IRL... but I'm still not convinced it is entirely apples to oranges when we're discussing online fanfic spaces or... like... stories with plots more complex than "I'm here to fix your plumbing".

Ranma fandom was full of dudes writing f/f that was a little anatomically suspect but reasonably in-character and that sounded like other fanfic with the usual "I like this blorbo and want more content about them" motivations. I haven't seen many fandoms like this, but I run across one now and then. (I agree MLP is fairly distinctive even out of these.)

--

I think the basic thing here is that a lot of (hostile, loud) people do see the absolute f/f numbers as the problem to be fixed.

And you are right and they are wrong.

There is no real fix if people keep looking at it from this "Winning at AO3 numbers" perspective. The cure would be worse than the disease for many of the people complaining.

Better to focus on the usual "How do I get my specific blorbo to have more content by encouraging authors and writing it myself?" strategies and let someone else worry about the global AO3 numbers.

[denimbex1986]

'Is Tom Ripley gay? For nearly 70 years, the answer has bedeviled readers of Patricia Highsmith’s 1955 thriller The Talented Mr. Ripley, the story of a diffident but ambitious young man who slides into and then brutally ends the life of a wealthy American expatriate, as well as the four sequels she produced fitfully over the following 36 years. It has challenged the directors — French, British, German, Italian, Canadian, American — who have tried to bring Ripley to the screen, including in the latest adaptation by Steven Zaillian, now on Netflix. And it appears even to have flummoxed Ripley’s creator, a lesbian with a complicated relationship to queer sexuality. In a 1988 interview, shortly before she undertook writing the final installment of the series, Ripley Under Water, Highsmith seemed determined to dismiss the possibility. “I don’t think Ripley is gay,” she said — “adamantly,” in the characterization of her interviewer. “He appreciates good looks in other men, that’s true. But he’s married in later books. I’m not saying he’s very strong in the sex department. But he makes it in bed with his wife.”

The question isn’t a minor one. Ripley’s killing of Dickie Greenleaf — the most complicated, and because it’s so murkily motivated, the most deeply rattling of the many murders the character eventually commits — has always felt intertwined with his sexuality. Does Tom kill Dickie because he wants to be Dickie, because he wants what Dickie has, because he loves Dickie, because he knows what Dickie thinks of him, or because he can’t bear the fact that Dickie doesn’t love him? Ordinarily, I’m not a big fan of completely ignoring authorial intent, and I’m inclined to let novelists have the last word on factual information about their own creations. But Highsmith, a cantankerous alcoholic misanthrope who was long past her best days when she made that statement, may have forgotten, or wanted to disown, her own initial portrait of Tom Ripley, which is — especially considering the time in which it was written — perfumed with unmistakable implication.

Consider the case that Highsmith puts forward in The Talented Mr. Ripley. Tom, a single man, lives a hand-to-mouth existence in New York with a male roommate who is, ahem, a window dresser. Before that, he lived with an older man with some money and a controlling streak, a sugar daddy he contemptuously describes as “an old maid”; Tom still has the key to his apartment. Most of his social circle — the names he tosses around when introducing himself to Dickie — are gay men. The aunt who raised him, he bitterly recalls, once said of him, “Sissy! He’s a sissy from the ground up. Just like his father!” Tom, who compulsively rehearses his public interactions and just as compulsively relives his public humiliations, recalls a particularly stinging moment when he was shamed by a friend for a practiced line he liked to use repeatedly at parties: “I can’t make up my mind whether I like men or women, so I’m thinking of giving them both up.” It has “always been good for a laugh, the way he delivered it,” he thinks, while admitting to himself that “there was a lot of truth in it.” Fortunately, Tom has another go-to party trick. Still nurturing vague fantasies of becoming an actor, he knows how to delight a small room with a set of monologues he’s contrived. All of his signature characters are, by the way, women.

This was an extremely specific set of ornamentations for a male character in 1955, a time when homosexuality was beginning to show up with some frequency in novels but almost always as a central problem, menace, or tragedy rather than an incidental characteristic. And it culminates in a gruesome scene that Zaillian’s Ripley replicates to the last detail in the second of its eight episodes: The moment when Dickie, the louche playboy whose luxe permanent-vacation life in the Italian coastal town of Atrani with his girlfriend, Marge, has been infiltrated by Tom, discovers Tom alone in his bedroom, imitating him while dressed in his clothes. It is, in both Highsmith’s and Zaillian’s tellings, as mortifying for Tom as being caught in drag, because essentially it is drag but drag without exaggeration or wit, drag that is simply suffused with a desire either to become or to possess the object of one’s envy and adoration. It repulses Dickie, who takes it as a sexual threat and warns Tom, “I’m not queer,” then adds, lashingly, “Marge thinks you are.” In the novel, Tom reacts by going pale. He hotly denies it but not before feeling faint. “Nobody had ever said it outright to him,” Highsmith writes, “not in this way.” Not a single gay reader in the mid-1950s would have failed to recognize this as the dread of being found out, quickly disguised as the indignity of being misunderstood.

And it seemed to frighten Highsmith herself. In the second novel, Ripley Under Ground, published 15 years later, she backed away from her conception of Tom, leaping several years forward and turning him into a soigné country gentleman living a placid, idyllic life in France with an oblivious wife. None of the sequels approach the cold, challenging terror of the first novel — a challenge that has been met in different ways, each appropriate to their era, by the three filmmakers who have taken on The Talented Mr. Ripley. Zaillian’s ice-cold, diamond-hard Ripley just happens to be the first to deliver a full and uncompromising depiction of one of the most unnerving characters in American crime fiction.

The first Ripley adaptation, René Clément’s French-language drama Purple Noon, is much beloved for its sun-saturated atmosphere of endless indolence and for the tone of alienated ennui that anticipated much of the decade to come; the movie was also a showcase for its Ripley, the preposterously sexy, maddeningly aloof Alain Delon. And therein lies the problem: A Ripley who is preposterously sexy is not a Ripley who has ever had to deal with soul-deep humiliation, and a Ripley who is maddeningly aloof is not going to be able to worm his way into anyone’s life. Purple Noon is not especially willing (or able — it was released in 1960) to explore Ripley’s possible homosexuality. Though the movie itself suggests that no man or woman could fail to find him alluring, what we get with Delon is, in a way, a less complex character type, a gorgeous and magnetic smooth criminal who, as if even France had to succumb to the hoariest dictates of the Hollywood Production Code, gets the punishment due to him by the closing credits. It’s delectable daylit noir, but nothing unsettling lingers.

Anthony Minghella’s The Talented Mr. Ripley, released in 1999, is far better; it couldn’t be more different from the current Ripley, but it’s a legitimate reading that proves that Highsmith’s novel is complex and elastic enough to accommodate wildly varying interpretations. A committed Matt Damon makes a startlingly fine Tom Ripley, ingratiating and appealing but always just slightly inept or needy or wrong; Jude Law — peak Jude Law — is such an effortless golden boy that he manages the necessary task of making Damon’s Tom seem a bit dim and dull; and acting-era Gwyneth Paltrow is a spirited and touchingly vulnerable Marge.

Minghella grapples with Tom’s sexual orientation in an intelligently progressive-circa-1999 way; he assumes that Highsmith would have made Tom overtly gay if the culture of 1955 had allowed it, and he runs all the way with the idea. He gives us a Tom Ripley who is clearly, if not in love with Dickie, wildly destabilized by his attraction to him. And in a giant departure from the novel, he elevates a character Highsmith had barely developed, Peter Smith-Kingsley (played by Jack Davenport) into a major one, a man with whom we’re given to understand that Ripley, with two murders behind him and now embarking on a comfortable and well-funded European life, has fallen in love. It doesn’t end well for either of them. A heartsick Tom eventually kills Peter, too, rather than risk discovery — it’s his third murder, one more than in the novel — and we’re meant to take this as the tragedy of his life: That, having come into the one identity that could have made him truly happy (gay man), he will always have to subsume it to the identity he chose in order to get there (murderer). This is nowhere that Highsmith ever would have gone — and that’s fine, since all of these movies are not transcriptions but interpretations. It’s as if Minghella, wandering around inside the palace of the novel, decided to open doors Highsmith had left closed to see what might be behind them. The result is the most touching and sympathetic of Ripleys — and, as a result, far from the most frightening.

Zaillian is not especially interested in courting our sympathy. Working with the magnificent cinematographer Robert Elswit, who makes every black-and-white shot a stunning, tense, precise duel between light and shadow, he turns coastal Italy not into an azure utopia but into a daunting vertical maze, alternately paradise, purgatory, and inferno, in which Tom Ripley is forever struggling; no matter where he turns, he always seems to be at the bottom of yet another flight of stairs.

It’s part of the genius of this Ripley — and a measure of how deeply Zaillian has absorbed the book — that the biggest departures he makes from Highsmith somehow manage to bring his work closer to her scariest implications. There are a number of minor changes, but I want to talk about the big ones, the most striking of which is the aging of both Tom and Dickie. In the novel, they’re both clearly in their 20s — Tom is a young striver patching together an existence as a minor scam artist who steals mail and impersonates a collection agent, bilking guileless suckers out of just enough odd sums for him to get by, and Dickie is a rich man’s son whose father worries that he has extended his post-college jaunt to Europe well past its sowing-wild-oats expiration date. Those plot points all remain in place in the miniseries, but Andrew Scott, who plays Ripley, is 47, and Johnny Flynn, who plays Dickie, is 41; onscreen, they register, respectively, as about 40 and 35.

This changes everything we think we know about the characters from the first moments of episode one. As we watch Ripley in New York, dourly plying his miserable, penny-ante con from a tiny, barren shoe-box apartment that barely has room for a bed as wide as a prison cot (this is not a place to which Ripley has ever brought guests), we learn a lot: This Ripley is not a struggler but a loser. He’s been at this a very long time, and this is as far as he’s gotten. We can see, in an early scene set in a bank, that he’s wearily familiar with almost getting caught. If he ever had dreams, he probably buried them years earlier. And Dickie, as a golden boy, is pretty tarnished himself — he isn’t a wild young man but an already-past-his-prime disappointment, a dilettante living off of Daddy’s money while dabbling in painting (he’s not good at it) and stringing along a girlfriend who’s stuck on him but probably, in her heart, knows he isn’t likely to amount to much.

Making Tom older also allows Zaillian to mount a persuasive argument about his sexuality that hews closely to Highsmith’s vision (if not to her subsequent denial). If the Ripley of 1999 was gay, the Ripley of 2024 is something else: queer, in both the newest and the oldest senses of the word. Scott’s impeccable performance finds a thousand shades of moon-faced blankness in Ripley’s sociopathy, and Elswit’s endlessly inventive lighting of his minimal expressions, his small, ambivalent mouth and high, smooth forehead, often makes him look slightly uncanny, like a Daniel Clowes or Charles Burns drawing. Scott’s Ripley is a man who has to practice every vocal intonation, every smile or quizzical look, every interaction. If he ever had any sexual desire, he seems to have doused it long ago. “Is he queer? I don’t know,” Marge writes in a letter to Dickie (actually to Tom, now impersonating his murder victim). “I don’t think he’s normal enough to have any kind of sex life.” This, too, is from the novel, almost word for word, and Zaillian uses it as a north star. The Ripley he and Scott give us is indeed queer — he’s off, amiss, not quite right, and Marge knows it. (In the novel, she adds, “All right, he may not be queer [meaning gay]. He’s just a nothing, which is worse.”) Ripley’s possible asexuality — or more accurately, his revulsion at any kind of expressed sexuality — makes his killing of Dickie even more horrific because it robs us of lust as a possible explanation. This is the first adaptation of The Talented Mr. Ripley I’ve seen in which even Ripley may not know why he murders Dickie.

When I heard that Zaillian (who both wrote and directed all of the episodes) was working on a Ripley adaptation, I wondered if he might replace sexual identity, the great unequalizer of 1999, with economic inequity, a more of-the-moment choice. Minghella’s version played with the idea; every person and object and room and vista Damon’s Ripley encountered was so lush and beautiful and gleaming that it became, in some scenes, the story of a man driven mad by having his nose pressed up against the glass that separated him from a world of privilege (and from the people in that world who were openly contemptuous of his gaucheries). Zaillian doesn’t do that — a lucky thing, since the heavily Ripley-influenced film Saltburn played with those very tropes recently and effectively. Whether intentional or not, one side effect of his decision to shoot Ripley in black and white is that it slightly tamps down any temptation to turn Italy into an occasion for wealth porn and in turn to make Tom an eat-the-rich surrogate. This Italy looks gorgeous in its own way, but it’s also a world in which even the most beautiful treasures appear threatened by encroaching dampness or decay or rot. Zaillian gives us a Ripley who wants Dickie’s life of money and nice things and art (though what he’s thinking when he stares at all those Caravaggios is anybody’s guess). But he resists the temptation to make Dickie and Marge disdainful about Tom’s poverty, or mean to the servants, or anything that might make his killing more palatable. This Tom is not a class warrior any more than he’s a victim of the closet or anything else that would make him more explicable in contemporary terms. He’s his own thing — a universe of one.

Anyway, sexuality gives any Ripley adapter more to toy with than money does, and the way Zaillian uses it also plays effectively into another of his intuitive leaps — his decision to present Dickie’s friend and Tom’s instant nemesis Freddie Miles not as an obnoxious loudmouth pest (in Minghella’s movie, he was played superbly by a loutish Philip Seymour Hoffman) but as a frosty, sexually ambiguous, gender-fluid-before-it-was-a-term threat to Tom’s stability, excellently portrayed by Eliot Sumner (Sting’s kid), a nonbinary actor who brings perceptive to-the-manor-born disdain to Freddie’s interactions with Tom. They loathe each other on sight: Freddie instantly clocks Tom as a pathetic poser and possible closet case, and Tom, seeing in Freddie a man who seems to wear androgyny with entitlement and no self-consciousness, registers him as a danger, someone who can see too much, too clearly. This leads, of course, to murder and to a grisly flourish in the scene in which Tom, attempting to get rid of Freddie’s body, walks his upright corpse, his bloodied head hidden under a hat, along a street at night, pretending he’s holding up a drunken friend. When someone approaches, Tom, needing to make his possible alibi work, turns away, slamming his own body into Freddie’s up against a wall and kissing him passionately on the lips. That’s not in Highsmith’s novel, but I imagine it would have gotten at least a dry smile out of her; in Ripley’s eight hours, this necrophiliac interlude is Tom’s sole sexual interaction.

No adaptation of The Talented Mr. Ripley would work without a couple of macabre jokes like that, and Zaillian serves up some zesty ones, including an appearance by John Malkovich, the reigning king/queen of sexual ambiguity (and himself a past Ripley, in 2002’s Ripley’s Game), nodding to Tom’s future by playing a character who doesn’t show up until book two. He also gives us a witty final twist that suggests that Ripley may not even make it to that sequel, one that reminds us how fragile and easily upended his whole scheme has been. Because Ripley, in this conception, is no mastermind; Zaillian’s most daring and thoughtful move may have been the excision of the word “talented” from the title. In the course of the show, we see him toy with being an editor, a writer (all those letters!), a painter, an art appreciator, and a wealthy man, often convincingly — but always as an impersonation. He gives us a Tom who is fiercely determined but so drained of human affect when he’s not being watched that we come to realize that his only real skill is a knack for concentrating on one thing to the exclusion of everything else. What we watch him get away with may be the first thing in his life he’s really good at (and the last moment of the show suggests that really good may not be good enough). This is not a Tom with a brilliant plan but a Tom who just barely gets away with it, a Tom who can never relax.

Tom’s sexuality is ultimately an enigma that Zaillian chooses to leave unsolved — as it remains at the end of the novel. Highsmith’s decision to turn Tom into a roguish heterosexual with a taste for art fraud before the start of the second novel has never felt entirely persuasive, and it’s clearly a resolution in which Zaillian couldn’t be less interested. Toward the end of Ripley, Tom is asked by a detective to describe the kind of man Dickie was. He transforms Dickie’s suspicion about his queerness into a new narrative, telling the private investigator that Dickie was in love with him: “I told him I found him pathetic and that I wanted nothing more to do with him.” But it’s the crushing verdict he delivers just before that line that will stay with me, a moment in which Tom, almost in a reverie, might well be describing himself: “Everything about him was an act. He knew he was supremely untalented.” In the end, Scott and Zaillian give us a Ripley for an era in which evil is so often meted out by human automatons with even tempers and bland self-justification: He is methodical, ordinary, mild, and terrifying.'

[thenanamisimp]

Danmei and MXTX novels

Would you look at that, another post that's not about anime? WILD. It is about MXTX novels though so the hyperfixations continue. I'm actually in the process of planning a very lengthy analysis of all three of her series but this is a warning, don't expect too much. I was never good at those in school plus it's been almost 7 years since I've last written something like that but I feel so passionate about her works that I really wanna try to share what I thought about the novels. Nevertheless, this isn't actually those analysis posts since those are gonna be separate and will probably be written after I re-read each series. However, since I'm actually finally fully done reading all her series - including the extra side chapters - I wanted to quickly share some of my opinions and how I feel after finishing all 18 of the books.

This goes without saying but just in case - SPOILER WARNING for Heaven Official's Blessing, The grandmaster of demonic cultivation and The scum villain's self saving system novels.

First off, if you haven't read any of MXTX's work before, prepare for trauma and tragedy. Most of her characters are either deeply traumatised already or in the process of. I will always encourage people to read content warnings before reading her books.

Starting off with my favourite - TGCF or Tian Guan Ci Fu (aka Heaven Official's Blessing). This story means a lot to me. I got introduced to TGCF through the donghua before I even knew it was queer fiction and even with censorship, the closet is made of fucking GLASS so I had to look for the source material. Honestly it took me a while to commit to reading the whole series as I've been struggling to pick up books for years now but TGCF actually got me back into reading (I think in total it took me about 8 days to read all 8 volumes). More than just the story telling being good, I got so incredibly attached to every single character (except Jun Wu, he can eat shit - tho the fact I'm even saying this speaks volumes about how well MXTX can write characters. It takes a lot for me to hate a character this much).

Taking place in a beautiful fantasy world, we follow Xie Lian and Hua Cheng through tragic traumatic past and present and we learn of the horrible truths about the lives of immortal beings. We also see two idiots in love take their sweet ass time to confess. I love me a good slow burn full of longing and pining. I eat that shit UP every time and MXTX gave it to me with every single one of her series.

TGCF for me was a journey full of kicking my feet at fluff, second hand embarrassment (because xl I stg, what do you MEAN you were taught how to resist the advances of women but not how to resist hot men you gay lil shit the closet is made of glass) and honestly, lots of crying. The hundred stabs incident, ruoye's creation and hcg's last death made me sob and scream (no exaggeration, I was stomping around my room, crying and yelling GIVE HIM BACK RIGHT NOW).

Also, in a not so unpopular opinion (I think?), Pei Ming is my fave because 1) he's the no.1 Hualian shipper - check the whole Mt Tunglu adventure for proof and also 2) he's just a lil slut with a big heart. I could seriously talk about him forever because I went from hating him after he tried to throw the blame for the Banyue Pass incident on Xie Lian, to loving him after I realised that everything he does, he does because he is truly just a kind man who loves a good fight. He's so silly! Just a lil guy! Go Pei Ming go!

Fuck you Jun Wu. Again. (I hate him just as much as I hate Mahito. Maybe a little less. I really hate Mahito).

Moving on to my second favourite (but honestly it's such a close one), MDZS or Mo Dao Zu Shi (The grandmaster of demonic cultivation). Take a wild guess about how I got introduced to it... Fandom of course, because very few people talk about TGCF online without mentioning MDZS so I just had to give it a chance.

The great grandmaster of demonic cultivation has been dead for a while but when he gets gifted a new body through a not so well known demonic ritual, he runs into an old acquaintance. We learn about Wei Wuxian and Lan Wangji's past and current world of cultivation and hear stories about messy betrayals and conspiracies. Aaaand we find out about some more trauma and tragedy because is it really an MXTX novel without it?

And talk about a rollercoaster because (and please don't hate me for this) I found Wei Wuxian annoying initially.... But it's okay now because I kin him so go figure. Tho I actually kin only his adult self, I was a very introverted and rule abiding teenager, a lil more like Lan Wangji. In any case, wwx is the same stupid chaotic bisexual that I am and he is babygurl. Yeah and what if he murdered 3000 people? It was self defense. THEY ATTACKED FIRST. Your honour, he did nothing wrong and he does not deserve to be punished!

On a serious note, MDZS explores so many themes that are personally important to me, my favourite being the power dynamics of the world. It’s truly moving that even with all the pain Wei Wuxian went through, how far in his cultivation and how powerful he got, he still couldn't protect those he loved (until Lan Wangji of course because Wangxian is perfect together and they always protect and defend each other. Wangxian my beloved). While it might be a stretch for some, it really reminded me of how powerless we are in the world. People aim to educate themselves and go on to do whatever they can to better the world in their own way and yet, it really feels like nothing’s improving sometimes. I could talk about this for hours but maybe I’ll leave that for another time and another analysis post since this is supposed to be a shorter one (lmao)

Last but not least, RZFZX or Ren Zha Fanpai Zijiu Xitong (honestly this one I use the english name for because I can’t pronounce the chinese as much as I try - The scum villain's self saving system or Svsss). This one I actually kinda struggled with - first of all because WHY BUGS MXTX. Not much bothers me in fiction but BUGS? Too far. Heads with spider legs? Raw flesh with maggots? Blood mites? I was out (for about half an hour and then I kept reading). Please note that it's not the raw flesh that bothered me, it was the fucking maggots. I can read about graphic murder, creepy hauntings, torture and many more but as soon as there are bugs? Nope! I’m done. People have phobias and that’s mine I guess. Enough ranting about bugs!

The story follows Shen Qingqiu, the scum villain of the hit web novel Proud Immortal Demon's Way (or PIDW for short, as it's referred to in Svsss) who is actually one of the original readers - and haters - of PIDW, who transmigrates into the book in order to fix the plot holes left by the original author. With his guide “the system” he does his best to lead the male lead of PIDW, Luo Binghe, down a better path than in the original story.

Svsss employs a comedic way of storytelling, with our protagonist being omniscient, it allows for the narration to be sarcastic and poke fun at a lot of moments that are cliche or badly written, as interpreted by sqq. Honestly, this is just a personal preference but I favour the more serious storytelling way of MDZS and TGCF (give me hurt until the very end when the main characters get together and then give me comfort).

To me, Svsss is a lot harder to analyse as a lot of its themes are unfamiliar to me, especially considering I’m the furthest from having any sort of humanitarian education (I have 2 engineering degrees). Using a story within a story, MXTX is able to deliver two main overarching themes; one about abuse and its results through Luo Binghe as well as one about the relationship of author and their readers, the feeling of being trapped by the readers' opinions and wanting your story to be liked through Shang Qinghua (to be honest, I hadn’t really picked up on this one until I saw discussion about this in the fandom).

If I'm being completely honest, I don't think I grasped this series as well as the other ones and I'm finding it hard to digest lbg and sqq's relationship. I'm unsure as to what it is that's holding me back from loving them as much as Hualian and Wangxian. I do tend to prefer tropes like theirs more than the whole "had to convince him to date me" thing which is what Bingqiu's relationship seemed like to me up until the end of volume 3. It’s also why I'm glad I actually followed through and finished the extras in volume 4 (I was really tempted to stop reading once I finished volume 3 not gonna lie). I believe those to be integral to understanding sqq's feelings towards lbh and while I understand that sqq did actually love lbh from the beginning (denial is a river in egypt and the gloset is made of glass - what the fuck is with MXTX's bottoms and the damn glass closet), I struggled to see the tipping point of where he actually understood his own feelings and what was going on in his head and that he was actually in love with lbh. Which is why I think to really understand Svsss, I would seriously need to reread it.

I also would love to eventually talk about queerness in MXTX's work because in each book, sexuality and queerness is explored and examined in so many different ways. As a queer person myself, it fascinates me as I can relate to so much of it. To be honest, I think I could write a short thesis on just this.

Honestly, while I'm very passionate about my favourite pieces of media (if you've heard me talk about any of my top 5 anime you'll understand what I mean), there hasn't been a lot of things outside JJK and MXTX's novels that have made me wanna dive deep into analysing every single detail. It genuinely makes me feel like I'm gonna implode sometimes. These 3 series have seriously reignited my love for reading. I was shown that a good book - in my opinion of course - doesn't need to avoid difficult topics. It simply needs to use them well as a means of delivering a message and a story, rather than them being included just to be included. They also reminded me that I love queer fiction and I need to read more.

I actually would really like to read Erha (or 2ha or The husky and his white cat shizun) but I've read the content warnings and I'm ~~apprehensive~~. While not a lot of things bother me, I'm not sure I want to read about that stuff (please look at the content warnings of this book, or any piece of media in that matter, especially if you have topics that easily bother or trigger you). Remember, it's our responsibility as readers/consumers to look out for ourselves first!

Please recommend any good danmei (other than MXTX) and possibly include links where they can be read! I would also highly appreciate recommendations for some good wlw fantasy fiction as I really would love to read some wlw novels - or even anime/movies/webtoons/manga. Just in desperate need of quality wlw content.

Also while I said I'd keep it short, it seems I ended up writing over 2000 words…

PS. I proofread this about 5 times and during one of them my file crashed, so if there's any mistakes or if I’m not making sense somewhere, blame my deep-fried brain, thanks

Thanks for reading my novel ramble! Enjoy reading :)

theNanamiSimp

[waitmyturtles]

hello! I hope you are having a good day :) I just read your blog piece about tharntype, thank you for writing it! I want to offer a few complicating thoughts, as a queer person myself:

-in the twittersphere, I actually know a lot of other queer people (and, specifically, queer men) who like tharntype in a kink way. as in, the parts that make it "problematic" are the parts that are hot. so this "reading" of TT (lol) sees it as erotic art intended to arouse, rather than offer "representation" or change the public's mind in some way. so from this perspective, the target audience is anyone who finds the erotic story enjoyable, rather than say, random 14 year olds who need to be convinced gay people are human.

-more on the above: gay people aren't unproblematic. like, we do engage in all the things that you said were problematic stereotypes included in tharntype. many gay men are homophobic in the exact way type is, before they admit it to themselves. that's a whole genre of gay porn, because it's such a common part of the gay experience that it enters sexual fantasy frequently! gay people call each other slurs all the time, too (not saying it's right for anyone to be spoken to like type did, I'm just saying, for a lot of us there's a lot of humor and love there when it's spoken kindly). many gay men ARE promiscuous (not all, obviously, but many) and the way in which they are is shaped by their gayness, and while straight world might think that's bad, other gay people might not see it as such. and I very much get how that's very inconvenient when one is trying to argue that gay people aren't sex perverts (so we can have rights) but sometimes what ends up happening is that people who ARE sex perverts (I mean this in a positive way) get told that their lives don't matter, or that even depicting them in fiction "makes you all look bad." it's the usual assimilation problem :/

-I really really really recommend diary of tootsies for a show by gay people for gay and straight people. it's one of my all-time favorite gay dramas, and it might elaborate more on what I'm saying above. it's a gay comedy that's actually executed well.

-it's actually not true that yaoi has only ever been dominated by cishet women! I love this website for more info on how men and nonbinary people have been involved in yaoi historically https://www.fujoshi.info/ . totally true that treating real people like dolls is gross to do in real life, but I don't think women writing yaoi have done that, on the whole, and I certainly don't think the existence of yaoi does that automatically. and I think it's a case of unfair maligning of asian women to say that it does.

-I don't think tharntype is a "good" show. nothing like, say, moonlight chicken (as an example of a show that I think is very good). it's very poorly executed in places. it's trashy. the way it's been marketed, with tharn and type as like, political gay rep, is bizarre. but it's a cheap, trashy snack, a gay bodice ripper type of story, and so I don't think that's a hate crime, or a failing of lgbt people, on the whole.

I know as an ally it is always difficult when there is disagreement in the group you are trying to be an ally to regarding what is acceptable/offensive, but I feel the best thing to do is always to come to a personal opinion oneself that aligns with one's own moral values, after hearing from differing perspectives within that group. So I've provided my own perspective here, which may be totally different than other people you've heard from or your own, and that's okay too! again, hope you have a great day and thanks for your time :)

ANONYMOUS, COME 'ERE FOR A HUG, YOU! THANK YOU for sharing your perspective.

Yes, this show and the related topics are unbelievably difficult for me to write on as an ally. I really appreciate your understanding of the gray areas all around this, and with the help of a number of Tumblr friends, I tried to dive into and balance as much of the gray areas of the topic of TT as much as possible.

I really appreciate the further history on yaoi's origins, and would like to tag some folks to take a look and offer their thoughts -- and, I do not take corrections personally AT ALL, I LOVE LOVE the learning and constructive criticism (that's a major point of the OGMMTVC!), so I WILL be happy to edit any corrections into my posts if need be (cc @nieves-de-sugui, @miscellar, @lurkingshan and anyone else who knows more about yaoi than I do).

I'm getting one or two nasty comments here and there, but by and large, the feedback today on the post has been thought-provoking and eye-opening. I love hearing and reading all of it.

[velvetvexations]

Hello! Hope your day is going well ^^

I remember reading this ask you answered (I think it was the "how come i" anon) and your response + your general attitude re: trans intracommunity discourse really resonated with me

I might be a trans man but long before that I was an artist and I specifically came back to Tumblr because I was having a hard time making my art on twitter after a certain someone took over - _ - (and of course, the rampant transphobia), only to find out that a small but vocal minority of queer folk here insist that I'm privileged for... [checking notes] having he/him pronouns and identifying as a man, despite being pre-T, and facing all sorts of transphobia, misogyny and transandrophobia (mostly from my parents, I'm lucky to go to a uni that's accepting of trans and genderqueer people)

I tried speaking up for us, but all it did was turn me into an unhealthy, paranoid mess, constantly checking my phone instead of focusing on things that mattered like my study, art, and relationships w my friends and my fiance, and I deleted that side blog after a few days.

I know you said it's fine to vent in your inbox but I still wanna keep it short - I still feel like.. I'm betraying the cause, or whatever because I don't actively make posts on transandrophobia on Tumblr, despite being 100% behind the term as another facet of transphobia - purely based off of my own lived experiences.

Anyway, I'm slowly transitioning (heh) my blog into something less "trans man with an art blog" and more "artist that happens to be a trans man", and I feel... right, despite the aforementioned guilt, because there's so many stories I want to tell, so many scenes I wanna capture with my stylus. I don't believe in vocations in the spiritual sense, but art feels like home to me, and I wonder if that's the same case for you with your writing.

And finally, I'm sure you've heard this plenty of times, but thank you for standing in our corner, despite getting so much shit from other blogs (this also goes for starryjoy and other transfems and trans women that have supported us transmascs + men! Thank you all so much <3)

Your fellow artist,

🖋️

(P.S. I was considering using a paintbrush but I like the fountain pen emoji more lol)

It's always my pleasure to help, anon. <3 You don't have an obligation to engage with discourse. Do what's best for your sanity and maybe see how you might be able to help out causes here or there that don't cause you anxiety or takes more from you than you can give. I had the same guilt not being able to engage with most issues (me even mentioning potential consequences of the election earlier should be taken as a sign of how angry I was when I made that post) but I was able to find a niche I can operate in. Even if you can't do that much or don't have money to donate, even just supporting your friends and the people around you adds a lot to the world.

I do feel that way about my writing, also. i have so many characters, so many scenes, so many themes, arcs, stories, it drives me crazy sometimes. I really hope eventually Velvet Nation will get to read them.

[zahri-melitor]

Newish Comics:

Batman #146: okay so this story is finally actually picking up from where The Gotham War left off, with the same fault lines still in place. This is good actually! I am very soft that Damian's determined to keep believing in Bruce (especially as they're also spending quality time together over in Batman & Robin). Also I'm still enjoying Vandal Savage being annoying (sorry not sorry).

Birds of Prey #8: This comic is being written for queer women who like reading about women and I for one salute the entire team for their (fan)service. Excuse me. Several of those Barda panels and Dinah screaming for Barbara are going on my iconic list immediately.

Blue Beetle #8: Roma quits, Oo’li has a crush on Jaime, Jaime finally finds out Brenda is working for Victoria, and Victoria just gets even more on-page evil. I can't believe this is the last storyline we're getting before this gets cancelled, dammit.

Shazam! #10: I had to stop to howl with laughter about every third panel of this. Do yourself a favour. Read Shazam! Darla’s flying with Hoppy on a Pegasus. Freddy just got his licence and bought the Shaz-van! Also omg the lettering for the dragons!

DC’S Spring Breakout! #1: A mixed bag.

The Harley Quinn and King Shark story certainly happened (and I've read better versions of it).

The Batman and Mr Freeze story was quite predictable but sweet. Hit all the right notes in the space awarded to it.

MegFitz had a World's Finest Teen Titans story it felt, well, very MegFitz. She was writing characters in roles rather than writing the characters. On the upside Garth actually got to be the hero, so that made me happy.

The Metal Men story I honestly couldn't judge on characterisation but it was workmanlike. I was amused by the random Atlantean surfer.

The Katana story however was GOOD and delightfully creepy and just really fun Tatsu writing. Highlight of the issue for me.

The Lex Luthor story was incredibly funny in that Lex is there complaining about the damned aliens and how "The forces against us grow in number by the day" with a picture that includes Kon. I'm pretty sure you don't remember why that's hilariously ironic at this point, Lex, but Kon was very much your own fault here. (Lex also saying to Jason 'having trouble digging yourself out of the grave? Skill issue!)

J'onn story! J'onn getting screwed over again by Batman protocols! (This isn't nice, J'onn had one of the worst protocols of the lot, and all I can think is that this far, FAR milder route of attack is Bruce realising how far the other plan was over the line). But the dual shapeshifter fight scene was quite fun. This was probably my second favourite.

The Superman and Jimmy story was...fine. Why is Manchester Black alive and annoying people? This just felt mostly like lead in to current stories (whatever is happening with Zod and Absolute Power).

The Warlord #46: this week in the Lost World of Skartaris Travis is still hunting Jennifer’s trail when he and Shakira end up in a fight with a dinosaur.

Travis gets knocked around, but Shakira is so badly injured that…Death comes to claim her!

I have never been apart from you, my Champion. I have walked where you walked — drunk the lives you have spilled. I am ever at your side.

Travis then follows Death trying to convince her to return Shakira, into a cavern in hell.

I really like this art for Death?

In any case, Travis negotiates with her to get Shakira back and trades her 10 years of his life.

And Travis and Shakira return to Skartaris. Both alive.

Meanwhile Jennifer arrives at the mysterious tower of the ‘master’ of the hunchbacked man who has been leading her.

[staliaqueen]

Hello i have a question, it’s about thé the maze runner fandom, newt from the maze runner is stated as « he believe he is gay » ten years after the last book death cure. The author never stated this on the book but in tweeter so something not truth worthy. However in 2012. People who perceive him as queer coded already asked him this question. And he responded that he didn’t written him neither as gay or straight. And when people write fanfiction with a girl they said they are homophobic… what do you think ?

Ask 2: Ps : i really don’t want to offend the LBTQ+ community, that’s why I’m asking.

Okay so I'm not in the tmr fandom anymore but I'll answer this question cause I have a lot of thoughts on it and I think it's relevant to fandom overall.

(PS: I'm basing all this on the books cause I haven't seen the movies)

First, I'm going into my thoughts on this topic in general and then more specifically about this particular character and writer.

A person's take on this is gonna depend on both how they define canon and their views on how to best handle queer characters. I've long been a believer of death of the author and that anything outside of the main body of work (a.k.a the books, the movies having their own separate canon) is not officially canon, but anyone who likes it can include it in their personal interpretation if they want. So, under this logic, the tweet in question wouldn't count. HOWEVER, this does become more complicated when it concerns queer identity. Plenty of characters are written to be queer without that being explicitly stated in the story and if the writer says they were written like that I do think it's disrespectful to ignore it. In this case, though, Newt was never written with that intention and the tweet was just an afterthought. So, in this situation, not considering it canon is totally fair game to me (though if anyone thinks he's straight I just think they're plain wrong lol).

However, this is just my opinion and I know there are other queer people who disagree with me. Within any minority group there is going to be difference in opinions like this and as an ally your job is just to listen to several different people and then make your own decision.

So, now onto my deeper thoughts on Dashner's writing.

I wanna add as a disclaimer that I do not know this man so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt, but I have read all of these books (excluding the pointless prequels) and I do believe a person's writing reflects a lot on them as a person.

I think that James Dashner is a terrible writer and an extremely un-self-aware person who probably didn't remember that queer people even exists at all while writing his terrible Hunger Games cash-in and just accidentally made Newt super queer and got a super queer fandom from it that he was not at all prepared to handle. I believe that him confirming Newt to be gay was just a lame way to make the queer fans happy (cause making your only queer character the guy who dies tragically from a disease that villainizes disabled people is not the progressive move he thought it was) and he probably didn't even remember that bisexual people existed when he said that and thought that being gay was the only way for a man to be attracted to other men. When I heard of him saying this I just ignored it because I've always interpreted Newt as the most bisexual person in the world and I know better about being queer than Dashner does anyway.

So, all in all, I do not think it's homophobic to headcanon Newt as being attracted to women. Go crazy with your fanfics!

[starry-eyed-fag]

Would unironically love to see a writeup about the anti-rpf movement and how it connects to ableism. Homophobia I can kind of see, people seem to take way more issue with m/m rpf than of f/m from what i've seen, especially in classic rock. But ableism? (Genuine curiosity btw! )

-a curious rpf lover

so i normally don't get into shipcourse, but this is something I actually feel passionate about. RPF writers and readers are attacked for a lot of reasons, some of them fair and a matter of personal opinion, a lot of them very obviously bigoted. (also I will be reblogging this on my discourse blog @political-faggotry, if you want to send me asks in response to this post send them there!)

People take way more issue with m/m and f/f RPF than m/f RPF, as you said. This is because fanfiction and other forms of "shitty literature" have always been associated with queer people. This has been the case since at least the 1960s, when queer authors were forced to write shitty tragic stories that can't really be classified as love stories in order to have their stories told at all. A lot of queer-coded media was like this too, and cishet people caught on.

My informed opinion is that modern-day RPF was created because of an intersection of neurodivergence and queerness. Basically, ND queer people who felt out of place in society came together and formed fandoms around bands, actors, celebs, etc. Due to the increasing popularity of fanfiction in the 2000s, it was only natural that this would eventually bleed into fandoms of bands.

I think that the reason that M/M RPF fic was/is so popular is because of the trans eggs in fandom that 1) liked to project onto male characters and 2) viewed women as competition. Back when I was an egg, this was definitely what drew me to RPF. I did not like reading about Pete Wentz with his actual girlfriend, or with some female OC, I liked reading about him with a man I could project onto and who didn't feel like competition.

Anti-RPF "movements" during the 2000s was very obviously homophobic, misogynistic, and transphobic. Readers & writers would regularly get called homophobic slurs, get misogynist and transandrophobic comments, and otherwise be attacked for being queer and/or perceived female.

In the late 2010s was when the rise of calling things "problematic" because cringe culture died truly happened. Instead of saying "I don't like what you write because you're a faggot", people would say "actually you're problematic for writing that". It was literally the same shit we would get told in the 2000s, replacing words like "faggot" and the r-slur with "problematic".

I'm not saying that all people who call media problematic are like this - far from it. I call some media problematic too! However, media perceived as queer was targeted with accusations of being problematic far more than media without queerness attached, and many people who were already homophobic used this as an excuse to be homophobic while still being seen as "progressive".

I have an entire other rant about how non-MLM "progressives" can be and are homophobic sometimes, but I don't really have the spoons to write all that out right now - I will do it later though!

It would be misleading of me to not also talk about how TEHMs played a big part in the homophobia and transphobia that was directed at the (queer) RPF community. For those unaware, TEHM stands for Trans Exclusionary Homosexual Male. They are basically the TERF lesbians of the MLM gay community. They believe that gay trans men, especially nonbinary trans men and autistic trans men, are straight female fetishizers trying to invade the gay community.

TEHMs often come after transmasculine fans of yaoi anime, queer fanfiction, and yes, RPF. TEHMs will claim that the fact that transmasculine people tend to be in fandoms with a lot of M/M ships somehow "proves" that we are just fetishizing. So. Fucking. Many. Of the most common anti-RPF arguments use TEHM talking points, either intentionally or unintentionally.

TEHMs make use of dogwhistles to spread their messages even to people who are often trans-inclusionary. Claims of fetishizing MLM relationships are more often than not TEHM dogwhistles. A very common claim that I see among people who are VERY anti-RPF (not as in "i do not think RPF is good, but i don't really care all that much", but more as in "if you have ever read RPF in your life you should die") is that RPF is basically sexual assault.

Why would you accuse an entire fandom of young, queer, transmasculine people of sexually assaulting people who are usually 20+ years older than them? This is TEHM rhetoric.

I also want to touch on the ableism a little. Many RPF writers are neurodivergent, as one might expect. The majority of the ones I've interacted with are. The internet loves to get mad at neurodivergent people for having "problematic" interests, and with RPF it is no different.

We are singled out and our interests are seen as inherently disordered, immoral, etc. Those who are very strongly against RPF either do not know this, or they know this and are fine with harassing neurodivergent people over what amounts to a non-issue.

Now, that's the end of my point, but I have a few things to clarify. I am not trying to say that if you personally don't like RPF that you are actually transphobic, homophobic, and/or ableist. You are allowed to dislike anything for any reason and I don't care. My problem is with the people who hate RPF so much that they believe that reading it is a moral failing, or that it is okay to harass those that like it.

It is incredibly important to have boundaries writing RPF, which means not doing it anywhere that it is likely the people you are writing about will see. It is also okay to believe that RPF is inherently breaking a boundary; I disagree, but I see where your (not at anon) opinion is coming from and I respect it. It is not at all bigoted to dislike a thing for those reasons, as they are valid reasons to dislike something.

There is also a larger discussion to be had about the commodification of humans themselves in the music industry, but that is beyond the scope of this post.

I really only have a problem with the people who believe that it is a moral failing, or literal sexual assault, to be in a mostly harmless community that has been historically associated with queerness. That is all.

Please don't bring proship/anti discourse to this post.

[lunarsilkscreen]

Tyler Durden [Reference Link]

I found that website in like... 2010's sometime. And I never fully understood what it was describing until much more recently. I did *often* wonder why a lot of people Idolized Durden even though he was the story's antagonist.

What makes Fight Club such a good movie is how it hits quite a few demographics simultaneously, and a lot of people can identify with the main character in the story quite easily.

On the surface, it's a story about a person who develops dissasociative identity disorder, only finding out about it from weeks of insomnia (or maybe it was caused by it.)

At its root, Fight Club is a Queer story, this is mostly because Chuck Palahniuk is Gay, and writes a lot of Queer literature. But it's quite a bit more than that, and the movie took it quite a bit further than the book did in terms of art. I'mma focus on the movie though because it's freshest in my mind.

The doctors are absolutely no help in trying to diagnose the source of the narrator's pain, and instead tell the narrator to suck it up and go to support groups for people who lost their testicles in an accident in order to "learn what real pain looks like."

This is the first reference to one of the story layers being transcoded.

Because Valerian root is used to treat PMS. The Narrator, Jack, is being treated like a woman by this doctor. Which is outside the typical interpretation, but there's scientific evidence; [NIH.GOV] [UCL Study]

Despite the Narrator being a man, he's being dismissed like a women. This is one of those things they don't tell you about being a Queer-Coded individual, sometimes people treat you like their perceptions of you, instead of neutrally.

Anecdotally, Talk Show hosts talk about how they're often treated by randos on the streets like they've had a long-term relationship, because one watched them every night. While the one being watched doesn't know who they are.

This ALSO happens as a part of stereotyping. When you see somebody, or interact with somebody for the first time, sometimes your brain will collect all the details it can and you act to that person based on how you think they act based on other people you've interacted with before.

So if your last interaction with some blue-haired they-men, was negative, you might treat another pink haired they-by as if it's the continuation of the previous conversation with the they-men.

This is what happens in racial discrimination cases. Because your brain remembers the negatives more than the positives, especially if You've not interacted with somebody like them before.

What we see next is morbid obsession with others pain as entertainment "it's cheaper than a movie and there's free coffee".

See in the days before smartbricks, people had to find things to do and places to be that they wouldn't be kicked out of for existing in. (Similar to today if you're houseless.) Usually that cost money, unless you went to a support group to watch the show.

This sparks a fascination in the narrator to seek out support groups, because it's there he can find a *real connection with other people*. And with these connections, he figure out who he *really is*.

For trans men, this is *feeling like a men* but being *treated like a women* and for trans women; it's the acceptance of self. Why? Chloe is many individuals first real introduction to the ""Queer Lifestyle"", is dying, probably has AIDs, probably got it from too many sex, has all this sexual paraphernalia at home, is obsessed with getting laid, is about to die; only cares about getting laid.

What I just typed out wasn't actually said in the movie, only implied. And so a lot of queer people are intensely afraid of being queer to begin with because that means they have to accept that stereotype which is "Chloe". They have to redefine how society sees trans people, and they have to accept that; like Chloe, they'll probably die INCELULAR.

This depiction of "Chloe" is inside many if not all queer people.

From that we spawn Jacks two Alter Ego's. Marla Singer, and Tyler Durden. One is the Feminine, the other is the Hyper Masculine. If Jack is the Ego, then Marla is the ID, and Tyler is the Super Ego.

Neither can exist *except through* Jack.

"Some times I'm fighting, and other times I'm watching Tyler Fight".

"Sometimes he speaks for me."

This is Depersonalization. Feeling like you're watching somebody else control your body. Everything happens to *that* person but you're not allowed to be involved. Not really. Kinda like Astral Projection while you're conscious. (If you believe in *that*)

"Can I be Next?" - Some guy watching another man beat himself up asking for permission to also beat himself up. (Or is it beating himself off?, is fight club an allegory for sex work?)

This is where we start to get into Disassociation territory. Because a lot of interpretations suggest nobody is real *except* for the narrator. I think, the Narrator accidentally started a group based on this morbid entertainment of watching others suffer, because they were all sick of it (because they were the ones suffering)

Children of Abuse (and later adults trapped in abusive situations) often feel like "prisoners in their own bodies". This relates to the narrator's trouble with his own father. But there's always this big [blank] ad lib as to what is actually causing the narrator's distress.

This is intentional so that audience members can fill in the blanks.

Is it Society? Is it Familial issues? Is it genetic? Am I defective? Is it the Cop? The Rich? The Poor? The concept of money and wealth itself? Is it because I pissed in that one guys soup? Or is it because some kid walked in on me in the changing room because the lock was broken?

Tyler is the Super Eggo. Everybody's inner desire to solve the issue at hand in the most extreme way. Like the Joker. And in many cases, one could argue, has solved many of the world's issues already.

But it's not a sustainable solution. At which point does Tyler become the problem, instead of just an outlet for frustration? Is it the start of Project Mayhem? Is it the end of the movie?

And what about Marla anyway? Marla just wants to enjoy a nice peaceful life. There will be interruptions, there will be pain, but we should at least enjoy the moments we can, in between the moments we can't. Just let it be man.

Some asshole posted Marla moaning on an otherwise quiet Tik Tok again.

Then they started a company turning hazardous waste into something productive. Only what do you do with all the waste product from making soap? Can't have any waste, gotta use it for something. Otherwise, that'd be wasteful. Can't have that. Waste of Space. Space of Waste. Wasting wasted space. Spacing wasted waists.

Jack knows everybody else's dreams, but he doesn't know his own. He's just doing it to do it. Producing to Produce. The opposite of what he had been doing previously: Consuming to Consume.

"Same problem; Tyler. Tyler Tyler Tyler. F* Tyler. Tyler needs to move out."

Marla made Tyler mad because she existed. Then, Tyler made Jack Jealous because Tyler wanted Marla. But now Marla is gone and Tyler is here, and Tyler is the problem.

But Tyler and Marla are both Jack, so who is really the problem?

Bob is.

Obviously.

Send him on a mission for Project Mayhem. You know he can't handle it. He hasn't wasted his waist. So we'll do it for him. Space Monkeys are Dumb, gullible, and impressionable. Now Bobs a Martyr. See that problem solved itself. That's what he gets for making me jealous of his fantastic tits.

I haven't answered the question; Why do people worship Tyler Durden?

Derealization; None of this real *obviously*. nobody "worships" Tyler Durden. No sane/rational person would. So they must all just be other identities that I created. That explains why they're even here anyway. Otherwise that means I started *some* kind of cult. And I'm going to be honest with you; I hate cults. And I'm definitely not charismatic enough to lead one. So I must just be imagining the whole thing. Yep. That is the only thing that makes sense right now.

Tyler Durden is that unexpressed rage, or dissatisfaction with life. The "Final" Solution. The drunk president with his finger on the nuclear button. If all else fails, I could always destroy *something*. But I'd rather not.

Who could you become if you had need to be?

But, if you're a successful cult leader. Then who needs Tylenol anymore anyway? My autocorrect seems to think Tyler is synonymous with Tylenol and Marla is synonymous with Motrin. Both of them are painkillers in different ways. I suppose dear autocorrect. But why can't they coexist?

I reject that theory until further evidence is given.

Ultimately, Tyler is that toxic representation of "man" that every person has inside of them. Toxic Masculinity incarnate. There is nothing wrong with Tyler as a concept. But there's no denying he is a problem. That Alpha there always trying to be better than everybody else, and never in a good way. Only ever in his smug asshole way.

And then, all that's left is Jack and Marla. Or neither if you're a Tyler. Sorry Tyler; shouldn't've been obsessed with controlling *everything* and with blowing up the world. The only thing Tyler had going for him was that he accepted everybody for what they are. If only he didn't use that to manipulate and gaslight the shit out of them.

For me; Ultimately, this movie is about accepting myself as who I am, a trans women. And everything that implies.

For others, it's accepting both of their feminine and masculine bits. For some men it's the acceptance that they're always gonna be queer coded. And not the manliest manly man ever to Gaston.

But you can keep trying to Gaston until you've Gastomaxxed. As long as you don't become a Tyler.

And still others, like those with DID, it's about the acceptance that it'll almost always be a party in your head, and having somebody to rely on that accepts that part of yous, can help keep you relating to the world. Just as long as they aren't that stupid ass dismissive doctor named Tyler.

[kokorobloom]

I'm gonna preface this by saying I have no problem with representation. I love queer stories, especially when they're organic and natural. I'm bi, and I've had fulfilling relationships with women as well as men. Honestly, I would love a spin-off on Brimsley and Reynolds. It didn't feel.....forced. the characters were new and their story grew organically. Michaela? No. I'm trying to articulate how I feel without sounding like I hate the queer community because I genuinely don't. I appreciated Benedict's story line even if it was a little jarring. He's exploring, experimenting and that's fine. It still doesn't take away from his story. But the introduction of Michaela felt like a guy punch. It felt wrong. I've never particularly like gender swapping in stories based on an original IP, because it changes a lot of dynamics. It changes a lot of story lines. And yes, it's fiction, but I'm sorry I cannot get over it, especially when it's such a blatant case of pandering. It makes me feel as if I'm wrong to question this change and I've somehow internalised homophobia. If so, then why wouldn't I hate other queer characters or be similarly uncomfortable?

Okay I think I can make my argument clear with an example. If anyone has seen the movie Love Lies Bleeding, I think they'll get it. The sexual orientation of the characters didn't matter. It felt right. And it was not important to the story. It was just an established dynamic and we could enjoy the plot easily. It wouldn't have mattered if it was a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple, the story is largely unchanged. If Michael becomes Michaela, here's the issues I see. Who inherits Kilmartin. We've already established an estate will go to the next male heir if the current owner dies. A major part of Michael's story was his guilt over his inheritance and his imposter syndrome. His story arc taking his place in parliament. It's all gone. I mean, I know the show isn't interested in the plots other than the main character pairing but this felt so wrong. If they wanted a lesbian lead, the just make another show with original characters why force this? I'm not looking forward to Francescas season at all. I'm sure a lot of people will like it and that's their prerogative but for me, personally, the only thing keeping the story moving forward is Benedict. Maybe Eloise. But I feel like the story of the show has lost its charm and has dug itself into a hole like Disney or marvel

You are not even giving it a chance though, just write it off immediately. Do you not think that the writers didn’t contemplate the same questions about the plot as you have and yet still decided to do these changes? Do you not think Julia Quinn didn’t hear about these discussions and then still said she’s excited for what’s coming?

We won’t be getting Francesca’s season for a minimum of 4 or 5 more years, that is if she’s the one after Benedict. Yet here you are, not even giving it a chance and just writing it off entirely. To me and to many others it did not feel forced at all, maybe because I understood after the changes they made from the books in s1 and s2 that this won’t be a very strict adaptation but a good show regardless.

On the internalised homophobia point, I literally do not know who you are so I’m can’t say anything to your experience but it’s kinda weird to start of by saying that Benedict’s story is jarring and only being acceptable because he will still end up in a nice heterosexual love story, saying Francesca being a lesbian lead is not acceptable in this show (maybe in others shows other characters can be, but not in this one, oh no) when nothing has been said about her orientation (she literally just married a man? at this point she’s most likely bi but we don’t know anything yet) and giving an example of an acceptable queer story being only one where their sexuality didn’t matter and not important to the story.

Lastly, and I hope if nothing else, this will stick with you: if you see a fellow queer person being upset about the rampant homophobia in a comment section, wishing that queer, especially female, characters could exist in a mainstream show without people literally stopping to watch the show and not even giving them a chance, please PLEASE do not go into their ask doubling down on what they are upset about.

You expressed your opinion, great, thanks for sharing. But now what? If you are not giving the upcoming seasons a chance because Benedict story change is jarring and Francesca will be romantically involved with a woman, that’s on you.

Don’t give it a chance for all I care. I will give them a chance because to me their meeting was cute. I think Benedict’s discovering his bisexually was super interesting because since the abandoned artist plotline from s1, not much has been happening with him. I’m interested in seeing how the writers will write the story. I’m interested in what emotions the characters will experience. I’m interesting in learning more about the world of bridgerton and how queer people can fit in. I’m interested in the love stories, regardless of gender or orientation and trust that the writers will write something if not great, at least interesting.

I hope you will find a show that you can enjoy because it doesn’t dig itself into a hole by making characters queer.