#is there a real person non-consensually involved? is a real-life person who can't consent involved? no? then sit down and mind your busines

[originalaccountname]

alright i gotta ask, and of course youre free to not answer (of COURSE) but what led to all the reblogs regarding shipping? did something happen, are you okay?

I've had to unfollow someone whose art I liked because of them spouting "anti" rhetoric and making a low-key callout post for someone who isn't even on tumblr and now I'm doing my part in counterbalancing any potential damage

[redditreceipts]

I’ve been closed to getting peaked and checking out radblr for a while but something gets me about how much a lot of radblr hates ftms idk. There’s a lot of emphasis about how even if sex is otherwise consensual, lying to get consent you wouldn’t have otherwise gotten is rape by deception, which I agree with. However, on a post talking about straight men admitting they claim to be gay just to get sex from ftms “desperate for validation” I didn’t see a single radfem calling this out as rape by deception??? Just honestly people making fun of “delusional straight women” and how them getting manipulated by straight men into believing gay men want them “makes dating life harder for real gay men” and something just irks me about it. There’s a lot of talk about how feminism needs to fight for even female people who disagree and fight against our own rights but it feels like some radfems have no sense of solidarity for ftms, and can only conceive of us as tragic self hating lesbians or manipulative homophobic straight women. And it’s just frustrating because anyone who’s been ftm/some kind of transmasculine in trans communities know how much we don’t get to say fucking anything if it might remotely offend mtfs. I think claims of solidarity for women you disagree with is bullshit if you can’t find solidarity for female people who identify as trans.

hey :) sorry for the late answer

I think that this impression comes because of three reasons:

a lot of feminists receive insane amounts of harassment from ftms. like, death threats on a regular basis. especially on tumblr, where there are a lot more of trans men than trans women, it's just statistically more likely to get harassed by a trans man. but because of this, many have this kind of reaction towards trans men when they really shouldn't. I get that it's kinda hard to fight for the right of a person when they have just sent you death threats, but at the end, you are of course right and we have to fight for every female person, no matter their opinions. also, not all trans men engage in that kind of behaviour.

a lot of people here are detransitioners or desisters (people who have identified as transgender, but now have decided to not take the medical route). I myself have been identifying as non-binary for some time, but now I know that this came from internalised misogyny. I'm sometimes scared about what would have happened if I had listened to many ftm activists and taken the medical route. it's hard to not get bitter when I see people on here telling women just like me to start testosterone and maybe make the biggest mistake of their life. and there's always the thought of "that could have been me". but well, in the end, we can't act as if all trans men did that kind of thing. it's just a portion, even though they are the most vocal ones oftentimes. (also, there probably are some people for whom medical transition is the best option. we talk a lot about how internalised misogyny influences gender dysphoria, but there might as well be cases of gender dysphoria that people are just born with, or that are so ingrained that they can't be healed. these people deserve compassion and acceptance too)

for the thing with trans men in gay male dating spaces - that's probably where we disagree the most. I have been on lesbian events where there have been "trans lesbians", and there has been an insane amount of guilt-tripping, incel behaviour, and I have been sexually harassed by a "trans lesbian" who later went on to rape a lesbian (and yes, this weren't some internet people, all of that was in person). a lot of us have been exposed to this kind of predatory behaviour, and I think that there is no excuse for a straight person to go to a gay event and expect people to date you. full stop. is it shitty to trick trans men into sex by pretending to be a gay man? yes. is it sex under false pretenses? yes. are both of the involved parties engaging in a similar behaviour (i. e. acting as something you're not to have sex with members of a marginalised demographic)? yes. should we fight for and try to protect trans men? also yes. is it hard to have sympathy for a person that went into a space trying to do conversion therapy on gay men so they can have sex with them and got tricked themselves? at least for me, it is. but should we try to get over that feeling and help these trans men as well? definetly.

but well, I actually think that you yourself can add some interesting perspectives. being a feminist is not a religion, and you can find your own opinion. you don't have to agree with everything that is said here, and we are not like certain other online groups where everyone has to be in line or they're a traitor (or at least I hope not). if there are things you think people on here are wrong about, speak about it! tell us how to better support trans men and even better if it's from your own experience :) if you think that there is a voice missing, you yourself can be that voice. :)

[nomapsupport]

Hi!! I'm SO SO SO SO sorry for breaking ur dni, but I js have a simple question! What is a nomap?

no worries anon! general questions from people on the dni are fine, i just prefer not to have those kinds of accounts interacting with me off anon as they take over my dash. anyway, i've been working on this post for a while before you sent the ask, so this'll be kinda long & will address things adjacent to what you asked about.

pedophiles, paraphiles, & paraphilic disorders

this is a general overview of paraphilias & is primarily focused on pedophiles/(no)maps. the things i say may not apply to all types of paraphiles. i will try to include links/sources for my claims. & yes, wikipedia is one of those sources because it's constantly peer-reviewed & has all its sources listed. it's generally reliable for defining concepts.

🪷 general vocab

a paraphile is someone with a paraphilia or paraphilic disorder.

a paraphilia, according to wikipedia, is "intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, places, situations, fantasies, behaviors, or individuals. it has also been defined as a sexual interest in anything other than a legally consenting human partner." that means an attraction to things that normally wouldn't be viewed sexually, such as pool toys, stuffed animals, bodily excretions, vehicles, animals, dead bodies, children, & more. paraphilias have a lot of overlap with kinks & fetishes, but the exact distinction is often debated. for example, most people refer to an attraction to feet as a foot fetish rather than a paraphilia, in this case podophilia. here's wikipedia's list of paraphilias.

a paraphilic disorder, according to merck manual, is a "recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasy, urge, or behavior that is distressing or disabling & that involves inanimate objects, children or nonconsenting adults, or suffering or humiliation of the person or a partner, with the potential to cause harm." for example, someone would be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder if their attraction causes them significant distress or causes them to abuse children. a pedophile who isn't distressed by their attraction & doesn't act on their attraction does not have a disorder.

a pedophile is a person attracted to prepubescent children. to be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder, the pedophile must be over the age of 16 & attracted to prepubescent children under the age of 13, &/or 5+ years younger than the pedophile. for example, a 16 year old pedophile would be attracted to children 11 & under, while an adult pedophile would be attracted to children 13 & under. & like previously mentioned, the pedophile must be distressed by their attraction or act on it to be diagnosed with a disorder. pedophile is NOT a synonym for child rapist. not all pedophiles are child rapists, & not all child rapists are pedophiles.

map stands for minor-attracted person. some prefer yap, which stands for youth-attracted person. not all maps are pedophiles, as pedophiles are only attracted to prepubescent children. some maps are attracted to infants/toddlers (nepiophilia), mid-pubescent children (hebephilia), or late/post-pubescent minors (ephebophilia). the term map is not a """woke""" social media phenomenon, it's a term that dates back to 1998 & is used by professional researchers.

nomap stands for non-offending minor-attracted person. although "map" doesn't carry as many negative connotations as "pedophile," people still interpret it in the least flattering way possible. that's why people have added the "no" part as a disclaimer to distance themselves from child rapists.

the big three paraphilias are pedophilia, necrophilia, & zoophilia. they're the most stigmatized & taboo paraphilias, as they can't be acted upon legally or consensually in real life. even other paraphiles assume that the big three are inherently dangerous & disordered. some people refer to the big four instead, which includes incest. while incest is also stigmatized, it's not nearly as taboo as the big three; in addition, incest can be acted on with consent from both parties, & there are countries where incest is widely accepted. nothing wrong with saying big four, but that's why most people say big three instead.

🪷 more questions?

i'll be writing more educational posts to clear up more misconceptions soon! this is just kind of an intro/prologue so people will be able to understand the terms i use in future posts. here's a masterlist of the topics i've covered so far & the topics i want to write about.

please reblog so more people can be educated about this highly misunderstood topic ♡

[quiet-admirer]

What gets me is that you don't get people making posts in response to, say, impact play, being like, "hey, intimate partner violence is abusive, don't do it." We give people into impact play the benefit of the doubt that they are doing this consensually for their and their partners'/'s enjoyment as their kink and they don't think it's okay to hit their partner outside of their agreed-upon boundaries. And at the same time, there seems to be no issue among generally sex-positive people with making this assumption as the default while simultaneously being able to recognize that there are people out there who are abusive within their BDSM dynamics or who are shitty because they don't get adequate consent before engaging in kink.

So, I don't get why we can't give people into fat- and feeding-related degradation that same courtesy of assuming they are capable of separating kink from reality, reflecting critically about their kink, and engaging in their kink respectfully and healthily with other people.

There is a difference between telling people into degradation play that they need to ask for consent first before they engage in that kind of interaction with people and making posts like "saying X degrading thing about fat people is bad", and that distinction is not being made in these recent discussions, mostly about degradation play that involves talk about 'ruining your body'.

It reminds me of that one conversation/post that was talking about how it sucks that the general public automatically sees feedees as victims of abuse or manipulated into being feedees because feedees are not being attributed the ability to have their own autonomy etc. People into degradation deserve to have their autonomy and ability to make informed decisions about kink respected unless that person has actually done something non-consensually, in which case, of course, prioritize your safety + the community needs to help educate this person or remove them from the community as well as we can if they repeat abusive behavior.

Yes, this kind of role play can be triggering or upsetting for many people, but if you don't want to see degradation on your dashboard, blacklist the terms you are seeing in these posts you don't want to see, and blacklist and block the usernames of blogs whose content you don't like! If you blacklist by post content/certain frequently used keywords, you don't have to wait around for people to adopt consistent tagging for degradation.

I could add more reasoning and arguments and examples and whatever to this, but at the end of the day: stop telling people their kinks are bad! Stop assuming someone's kink is their real life viewpoint! Stop conflating degradation kink with doing degradation kink nonconsensually! We don't like it when people make these assumptions about feedism in general, so don't turn around and say the same kind of stuff about kinks within feedism.

[jojotichakorn]

my thoughts and opinions on "lovely writer": criticizing the critic

tw for discussions of age gaps, rape, and sex

before i turn into the mean and constantly dissatisfied archer that we all know and hate, i just want to say that i liked this show. i think it's great, actually! gene and sib are appropriately cute, the premise is nice, and the attempt at criticizing the industry is... well, an attempt, which is better than nothing. moreover, "lovely writer" came with gifts because it gave me my new favorite character, so you can't go telling me i'm trying to completely obliterate it or something.

besides, this specific post isn't going to get into analyzing the show as a whole anyway. i won't be talking about any irrelevant plot points, cinematography, sound design, or anything like that, though i could probably write a post just as long as this one about that side of things as well. however, i am here to specifically look at the problematic things that were both criticized by the show and included in the show without any criticism. i'm going to talk about the more serious side of things here, which means i'm going to get serious. and i'm going to be harsh. very harsh.

gene and nubsib: yes's and no's

overall, the relationship between gene and sib was a fair attempt at showing something complex, yet ultimately quite healthy, which i appreciate. there were some things i was especially glad about. the fact that sib dated other people before settling on getting together with gene, for example, makes the whole situation a little less codependent. however, as much as this show prides itself on not wanting to romanticize problematic relationships, there are at least two major problems with genesib.

the age gap (and why it was not needed)

i've tried my very best to give this entire concept the benefit of the doubt. at first, i was convincing myself that they were simply close childhood friends, then i was trying my best to believe that even though sib did have a sort of crush on gene (which sometimes happens to little children), gene only saw him as his younger brother, but eventually, the show gave me no choice, but to deem the entire storyline problematic, because they did their best to romanticize that relationship - from gene's dad seeing the "early signs" to the counting and kissing the cheek turning to counting and full-on lip-locking in the last episode.

i could go into how this could all easily be mended if little sib was shown as kind of obsessed with his older friend, but gene was shown as not being anywhere near interested in the kid. but the real question is - why was the age gap needed at all?

i've researched the age of the boys during the flashbacks to the best of my ability and it seems that gene is 11 and sib is 6 or 7. if sib was the same age as gene (or maybe just one year younger, but not any more than that), not only would none of it feel weird, it would also be quite appropriate to explore that first glimpse of romantic feelings some of us experience exactly around that age. i don't think it's necessary for sib to be much younger than gene (children can be just as impressionable at 11 as they are at 7, and as for gene being surprisingly nice and helpful and the other kids not wanting to play with sib, he could have easily been - for example - bullied by his peers instead, which would have the same effect).

moving forward to the present, i don't think the lack of an age gap would affect the storyline that much either. even if they desperately needed sib to be a university student, they could have that one-year difference i've talked about before, which is not as significant. sib could be in his last year of uni, while gene could have easily written his very first novel during his university years, which would actually make more sense (since that guaranteed him employment and freedom to write after he finished uni; and i would rather believe that he had time to write his first novel in-between classes than in-between shifts at work, which he would surely need to have if he started writing after finishing university).

so that brings me back to my initial question - why was it needed? and much like the show often does, i will leave this one up for your interpretation because i do not have any sensible answers myself.

the issue with sex and consent

"but archer!" - i hear you exclaim - "lovely writer is known for explicitly denouncing rape romanticization in bls, how could there possibly be any problems with consent here?" and i hear you, my dear reader. and you aren't incorrect, "lovely writer" is indeed very explicit at calling out bls for having rape scenes (and i do appreciate that). however, as i'm sure you know, there are different ways in which consent can be taken from a person, and there are different non-consensual acts that someone might perform. for example, there are many different forms of coercion, such as the person being persuaded until they feel like they have no other choice, but to say yes. touching someone or kissing someone without asking for permission are also non-consensual acts. i can go on and on, there are many examples outside of what so many people consider rape.

now, what if i tell you that though there (thank the gods) has been no rape present in "lovely writer", not all scenes with gene and sib are consensual? well, that's what i'm telling you because it's the truth. both the first kissing scene and the scene where gene and sib "try out different poses" have clear coercion in them. the entire "joke" of the scene before gene and sib's first time is literally built upon the concept of "a person is trying to run away from someone, who wants to have sex with them" and it is NOT funny. the later reveal of gene actually looking up how to have sex seems to be there on purpose, to show that everything that's happened is "ok" because gene was thinking about it. as a sensible person, i will only accept actual enthusiastic consent and not someone possibly maybe probably considering it. not to mention that right before having sex, sib asks gene one last time if he is sure, which is great, except it is immediately followed by "i'm not going to let you change your mind anymore", which - daily reminder - you are allowed to stop having sex at any point during the act if you start feeling uncomfortable with it. that's absolutely normal.

now the problem that we seem to run into here is that "lovely writer" appears to think that it's ok to push someone to the limit until they either finally agree or confidently and loudly disagree. the drama has repeatedly shown us that actually forcing someone to have sex is not ok; however, persuading and otherwise coercing someone, as well as taking an approximate guess of them wanting to have sex based on some marginally related factors, is ok. i would like to once again remind everyone that all of that is not ok.

one more issue i want to bring up in connection with sex is something i wish was common knowledge: it is NOT supposed to hurt during your first time. whether you are planning to have vaginal or anal sex for the first time, it should not hurt. and if it does, something has definitely gone wrong and you need to stop. you are not supposed to experience any pain or discomfort during sex, including your first time (outside of desired and therefore intentionally inflicted pain, but that's not what i'm talking about here). i have seen this misconception brought up many times in bls along with the other person "thanking the person who got hurt for bearing the pain to bring them pleasure" and absolutely none of that is normal. stop. please, just... stop.

criticism of the BL industry

there are certainly quite a few things i liked about the way "lovely writer" criticized the many problems that surround bls. i think they dealt especially well with the fan aspect. the breaches of privacy that are considered normal, the toxicity of social media that encourages people to comment on other people's personal life, harass and stalk them - all of that was shown in its full glory (or rather horror) and clearly condemned. it was also interesting to see how easily everyone around sib fell into the routine of having to hide genesib's relationship, just because "that's what's supposed to be done in these situations" - even tum did that without thinking twice.

however, i have not spent the past three years hating gmm for a show trying to criticize the industry not to focus on criticizing the production company and everyone professionally involved with the making of bls. don't get me wrong - they didn't completely overlook that side of things, but i found the way they approached it dissatisfying.

like yes, tum fights with his sister (aka sib's manager) and calls her out for her terrible actions, and the publisher (bua) eventually apologizes for what she did, but all of that feels a bit too... personal. i do not care about these individual stories. i care about you saying that the whole system is broken because it very much is. i wanted manner of death but with the bl industry, and instead, i got an "uwu the fans are demanding we do this, and our hands our tied" (which is a lie) and "uwu i'm just trying to make money" (which i mean... if you feel ok milking even more money than you already have by doing something unethical and immoral, then be my guest, but also go fuck yourself). besides that, i didn't see any criticism of tabloids or exploitative celebrities either (both of which we had examples of in the show), and that was kind of disappointing.

coming back to the fans for a moment, i also think that the criticism of real people shipping was entirely unsuccessful. we basically mostly got an "oh, what if this person's partner thinks they are actually dating", which... if a bunch of people on the internet who do not know your boyfriend personally and make all their judgments from screenshots and their imagination can convince you that your boyfriend is cheating, i've got some bad news for you and also a number for a therapist. partly i know why it was so complicated for them to get into it properly - the issue with real people shipping is an issue of privacy, boundaries, the perception of celebrities, acceptable interests, and many other complex topics. however, it's better to not criticize something than to criticize it badly and inaccurately (because the latter usually leads to even more encouragement of whatever you were attempting to criticize).

aey: the flamboyant villain

aey certainly starts as a promisingly complex character, but the farther we go from his backstory and his family, the less complex and the more evil he gets. eventually, the trauma he goes through is no longer enough to give him a get-out-of-jail-free card, and he loses all remaining sympathy after sexually harassing gene and pretending to drug sib. and i did start this post by saying that i am not to analyze any plot points or characters from the show here; however, i'm saying all this to prove a point that aey is a clear villain in the show. this is further cemented by the fact that by the end of the show he loses the only two people who cared about him, and the very last moment with him in the show is literally just him crying for about 3 minutes. there was no redemption arc, no pity, no revenge - he was left alone and broken, clearly punished by the narrative. and i've got a bone to pick here as well.

one of the first things that we find out about aey is that he is gay, and quite openly so. he is repeatedly described as very feminine by many characters, he flirts with men, he talks about being good in bed, and his entire character is built upon being gay (half of it directly, and the other half due to the fact that his entire backstory and therefore personality is also built upon the fact that he is gay). he is - for the lack of a better term - the gayest character in the show and the only one who is loud about being gay not because he is in love but simply because it is a part of him and he doesn't want to hide it. and he is the villain. not the disgusting publisher or the terrible manager - no, this guy was specifically chosen to ruin everyone's lives. and i can't say i'm particularly happy about that. *british voice* seems a bit homophobic love

not quite queer enough

as i said, aey is openly gay. gene and sib also eventually say that they are gay, gene's father teep is queer, so are tiffy and mhok. but it just doesn't seem to come up as much as it would in real life. the only time anyone has a problem with any of the characters being queer is when we deal with the parents. but knowing actual queer thai actors in real life, we are all aware how hard it can be for them, but it has not come up even once for aey, gene or sib (with genesib only being a problem because they are a "non-shippable couple"). being queer is far from being a non-issue in the industry, and i found it incredibly weird that it was never brought up (and i would also prefer if they brought that up instead of showing the unaccepting parents plot for the millionth time).

same goes for the lack of conversation around queer people on set. i think we all have a wonderful example of how much better a bl can get simply when it involves a queer director and/or screenwriter (gods bless p'aof), gay actors, etc. i also thought it was a missed opportunity that gene being a gay man writing a bl novel was never highlighted. if anything, everyone made a big deal out of him being a man writing a bl - never mind that he is a gay man that is far more qualified to write bls than a straight woman.

in conclusion, there are simply not enough queer issues talked about here for a show that is about queer people facing difficulties while making a queer drama.

tiffy and tum: the good, the bad, and the ugly

overall, tiffy and tum are quite cool. outside of my own personal feelings, i really liked the clear reversal of gender roles they have going on: he knows lots about make-up, she knows nothing about it, he knows how to sew, she knows how to repair a car, etc.

tiffy is also a nice addition to the precious few queer girls we have in bls. however, the way her being bi is executed... it isn't great. when she first talks about dating girls to tum, she says things like "even though i look like this" (implying queer girls have a certain look?) and "maybe it seemed normal because i was at an all-girls school" (which wtf does that even mean?). i think the worst thing, though, was when she assumed tum was gay. my best guess is she thought so because she initially thought that tum and gene were a couple; however, she should be the first person to know that just because he likes men, it doesn't mean that he doesn't like women or any other gender. even though there was nothing explicitly leading me to make this conclusion, this whole thing did kind of feel like the old "flipping the switch" stereotype (meaning, she used to like women, but now she likes men, and both of them can't happen simultaneously).

make it make sense

i think i've never been more confused in my entire life than when i found out that the director of "lovely writer" also happens to be the director of "th*arnt*pe". and if at first, i was asking a lot of questions about this peculiar individual, who went from working on the worst rape-romanticizing show we have ever had to a show that explicitly states that rape is not normal. but the more i thought about it, the less i was interested in him, and the more i was interested in whoever made the decision to hire him. there are dozens of different directors that have worked specifically on bls, and even more that haven't. yet out of all those, you decided to choose this one. the dude, who before your show has only directed the show with the biggest rape-y vibes. that casts a particular kind of shade on the entire show that i simply do not like.

conclusion

at the end of the day, i think what "lovely writer" tried to do was very interesting. it succeeded in some ways and failed in others. frankly, i think this show could have easily been made better if someone queer was involved in making it. that's always true, but especially so, when we try to talk about the issues of making a queer drama. either way, it's certainly a good start to this conversation; however - as i said - i'm still waiting for my manner of death but with the bl industry. this was unfortunately not it.