#never acting like a man

[pitch-locke]

There's something so visceral about The Blue Eyed Samurai that really resonated with my identity as someone non-binary, aromantic and asexual.

It feels very genuine in its expression of the experience of a purpose outside romance and love, despite how much everyone insists those are the only options.

Allowing their assigned gender to dictate their life experience is just not an option.

A moment, brief and bitter, where Mizu forces themself to play the role they was born into and trying to find their peace in it, even succeeding in those momentary joys.

But as always, those moments are tainted by dissatisfaction, knowing that that life, that future was not made for them. Or rather they were not made for it.

No room for love or romance, no craving for power or money.

In the moments where carnal instincts could take precedence they will turn their head away as many times as it takes.

They will find their peace in nature, in the sound of crashing waves and soft breezes, make physical contact only when it truly matters. Mizu will never waver. They will never look back.

My body will not dictate the life I choose to lead. It will not sway me from my purpose. I see myself in that.

[beebfreeb]

[nucleqr]

i never posted the full initial conversation that astarion and karlach had before going to the hells, so i'll do that now before i go ahead and delete all my files

"astarion. no."

[hansoeii]

I'm very much not normal about loki and mobius right now

[fluffyartbl0g]

The one piece reread only makes the hardest moments hit even harder,,,, even when you’re rereading it poorly in portugese

Or AKA, i found out today that HINATA SHOYO reads one piece and I haven’t recovered since

[createandconstruct]

Thinking about Peter's absolute cry of anguish after the final boss battle when he finds Harry unresponsive. Thinking about how all he can say is I'm sorry. Thinking about the fact that in Peter's head it was him at May's side sobbing I'm sorry. Thinking about how "with great power comes great responsibility" can never be separated from the guilt Peter feels. Thinking about how that guilt extends to May. How it extends to Ben. How it cripples Peter so much that he tells Miles that he can't do this again. Thinking about Peter's voice as he'd begged Harry to fight - pleaded with him to not make him do this. Thinking about how when consumed with the symbiote Peter had screeched out I'm the hero, I don't get saved! Thinking about how that's not just pride, how that's not just responsibility, how it's guilt. How it's always been Peter and the weight of the world, the life of his loved ones, and their blood on his hands. And now it's Harry's and Peter just breaks. Always the hero, he's done the right thing, but this time it's the last straw. His best friend. The last sacrifice Peter Parker can take...

...and it's then... that Miles saves him.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

MDZS Disco Elysium AU part 2 - Psyche Skills

Part 1 - Part 3

[milkcryptid]

they are boyfriends your honor

[bookshelfdreams]

Saw a Take earlier today like "Ed stans have only 1 argument and it's accusing everyone who likes Izzy of being problematic" or something to that effect

and it made me think "Nah babe, you're not problematic. You're just wrong."

And then I thought. Huh. Why do I think that?

It's a perfectly respectable thing to read a text in a way it wasn't intended to be read. In fact, "reading against the grain", doing critical readings, shifting perspectives when engaging with a text - all of thee are important skills! You can, and should, do feminist, antiracist, postcolonial, queer, etc readings of texts that were never intended to be read that way. Hell, all fandom (often) is, is doing queer readings! Ask the text uncomfortable questions it doesn't want to answer!

However. It's pretty difficult to do a queer reading when the text already is a queer narrative. The questions you would ask the text if you did a queer reading, or a reading focused on gender roles, or similar things - those are questions the text is already actively exploring.

If you want to do a subversive reading of a text that is already quite subversive - what do you end up with?

"What's the story like from Izzy's perspective?" is a question ofmd deliberately doesn't focus too much on because Izzy's perspective is the default and ofmd wants to challenge that. There's a reason the angry white man is the antagonist in this show, and if you ask "Okay, but could he be right though?" you're missing the point.

Or rather, you're turning everything that's interesting about ofmd back around. You're asking "Okay, but why don't we focus on a white perspective that strictly adheres to oppressive power structures?" of a narrative who already asked itself this question and gave the answer "Because that's been done enough and there are other stories worth telling."

And I think people are aware of that, which is how we end up with completely bizarre takes like "Izzy has the only queer character arc". He hasn't, but he has the only arc that a queer reading can be done on - for everyone else it's text, plain and simple. Refusing to engage with that text in favour of centering Izzy is basically doing a heteronormative reading without being willing to admit it to yourself.

And no, interpreting Izzy as a queer man doesn't change that.

[kicktwine]

these guys suck lol

[earlgodwin]

THE BORGIA BROTHERS + putting the family's interest above their sister's concerns

"Everything I do is for the family."

[fayevalcntine]

The whole framing of Lestat as the sole symbol of patriarchy that fandom is so desperate to put him in doesn't work unless you deliberately ignore how he was also a victim of rape and abuse before he was turned. People want him to be fit into this strict role of "father figure/violent husband/perpetrator" that is only that and not even a whole person, and in doing so they need to push aside the fact that despite being his family's provider, he was also pushed into that role when his father forbid him from joining a monastery or gaining an education that he wanted. Lestat wanted to run away with a theater group as a kid, and actually managed to do so once Gabrielle gave him her blessing and monetary support in order to go to Paris. He didn't always want to be the provider, he was forced into that role and became despondent when he thought he would never get a chance to leave his home.

His new life prior to being turned is pretty much the antithesis to the whole "Lestat is a manly man who would sooner throw up than be compared to a woman" spiel: he lived with another man in Paris while also being an actor, having left his family and "responsibility" to them. The only family member he was ever close to was his mother, all the other male members shunned or ridiculed him. Add onto that the fact that his turning firmly placed him within the role of the damsel/victim: he's kidnapped from his bed by a stranger, taken into a tower and left to rot while being fed on for a week, before then being raped and violently turned all while never even being asked if he would consent to it in any normal circumstance. But you of course have to ignore all of this if you want him to only represent the aggressor/patriarch while Louis is the helpless unhappy matriarch of the family.

My issue isn't that I think Louis isn't a victim, it's that it's not unrealistic for Lestat to be an aggressor/abuser while also displaying traits that aren't regularly assigned to stereotypical depictions of male characters. He's abusive to Claudia while also having been a victim of abuse from his own family. He's not a good maker/teacher, but he also didn't even have one when he was turned. He's the provider/attempted protector of the family and seemed to like being that, while also having run away from his own family prior to this to act in a theater in Paris. He's a rich white man while also being obviously effeminate in public spaces, even to Tom's own bigoted humor.

Like Louis' own complicated story with being his family's benefactor and provider, you can't firmly place Lestat as being one thing or another in terms of gender ideals without deliberately ignoring parts about him that don't fit this. And I don't think it's an absolute necessity, when even in Louis' own story, Lestat isn't stripped of his effeminate mannerisms or behavior while also being the abusive maker/father/lover.

[m-o-o-n-f-i-r-e]

help i’ve fallen for another ship comprised of two insane autistic queers that want each other dead despite also being willing to do literally anything for the other even at risk to themselves

[arson-09]

i HATE the term shadow daddy. If a character is referred to as “shadow daddy” by someone you know its gonna be the most uninteresting, bland and probably shitty male character to ever exist. Bro does the bare minimum and everyone falls to their feet. Shadow daddy isnt a compliment its a warning to everyone else

[galesdevoteewife]

Was looking for a pose reference so I went back to take some screenshots and got this and I think... I can't think...... Whatever you want, YES

[redysetdare]

I keep seeing posts where people are saying "Valentines doesn't effect asexuals!" "romantic relationships have nothing to do with asexuality!" And while i understand the point they are making is to stop conflating Aromanticism with Asexuality, it is still extremely annoying to find people don't understand the nuance that comes with asexualities connection to romance - because it DOES have a connection to it. It DOES have problems in relation to romance. To say it doesn't is ignoring a huge set is experiences that ace people face.

One of the most common experiences for asexuals is the struggle to be in romantic relationships because they are asexual. a lot of romantic relationships expect you to have sex. if you're someone who doesn't have sex then unfortunately that causes a lot of people to lose interest in you romantically as well.

There's also non-sam aces, and let me tell you it's so very strange to hear someone bring up non-sam aros but then ignore the existence of non-sam aces in order to prove some point of it somehow being ace peoples fault that aro and ace are viewed as the same. Some non-sam aces do not date either. they are still ace and they can still face similar problems to aromantic people because of that. they are still effected my amatonormativity.

Aces DO have connection to romance. Asexual DID have a reason to trend on valentines day along with Aro and Aroace. Asexuality is effected my romance and amatonormativity. Sop acting like it isn't. stop acting like aros and aces have absolutely nothing in common. We can work together and have similar experiences and still be seen as separate identities. there is overlap. stop treating this as black and white where one identity can only be effected by one kind of problem. It's naive at best and down right hateful at worse.